Educational debate as an argumentation laboratory requiring basic theories of argumentation and reasoning¶

Theory · All theories
Evidence · 1 claim (1 mixed) · 1 study (1 associational), q2 · 0 of 1 report an effect size · 1 claim rests on one study

Description¶

The paper's organizing framework is that any debate format is legitimate as education only if it applies argumentation theory and gives students a laboratory for testing advocacy. The author states that "forany debate to be a legitimate educational venture--regardless of format--itmust apply basic theories of argumentation and reasoning," and that debate is "a process wherein advocacy is tested." He cites Gass's view that debate is heuristic, a forum for students to theorize about argument, and Cirlin's claim that theory should benefit the performer. The framework underpins all eight of his reform proposals.

Design Implications¶

Context¶

Requirements¶

• Judges must provide appropriate, sound feedback, since the author argues the degree of learning in a round is commensurate with adjudicator ability

Constraints¶

• The author notes practices that encourage role-playing grow dangerous when substantive issues are de-emphasized or disregarded

Target Learners¶

• collegiate debaters

Target Learning Objectives¶

• argument development
• advocacy
• refutation
• research skills

Claims¶

• Survey Identifies Perceived Strengths Weaknesses Of Parliamentary Debate [~M]

Related Theories¶

Examples¶

• Debate as a laboratory for argumentation theory, contingent on keeping debate practices accountable to argumentation principles

Key Sources¶

• Jensen, Scott. (1996). Point of Information: Practical and Theoretical Concerns in Parliamentary Debate. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED421730