A Judicial Paradigm for the Evaluation of Debates [microform] / Walter Ulrich.
Because legal argument shares many of the characteristics of academic debate, it can serve as a paradigm for evaluating debates. Like debate, legal argument is bilateral, the judge is external to the deliberation and excluded from raising his or her own arguments, and reasons have been developed for...
Saved in:
| Online Access: |
Request ERIC Document |
|---|---|
| Main Author: | |
| Format: | Microfilm Book |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
[S.l.] :
Distributed by ERIC Clearinghouse,
1982.
|
| Subjects: |
MARC
| LEADER | 00000nam a22000002u 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | b6304502 | ||
| 003 | CoU | ||
| 007 | he u||024|||| | ||
| 008 | 821105s1982 xx |||| b ||| | eng d | ||
| 005 | 20240722195215.7 | ||
| 035 | |a (ERIC)ed220895 | ||
| 040 | |a ericd |c ericd |d MvI | ||
| 099 | |f ERIC DOC # |a ED220895 | ||
| 100 | 1 | |a Ulrich, Walter. | |
| 245 | 1 | 2 | |a A Judicial Paradigm for the Evaluation of Debates |h [microform] / |c Walter Ulrich. |
| 260 | |a [S.l.] : |b Distributed by ERIC Clearinghouse, |c 1982. | ||
| 300 | |a 17 p. | ||
| 336 | |a text |2 rdacontent. | ||
| 337 | |a microform |2 rdamedia. | ||
| 338 | |a microfiche |2 rdacarrier. | ||
| 500 | |a ERIC Note: Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Speech Communication Association (68th, Louisville, KY, November 4-7, 1982). |5 ericd. | ||
| 500 | |a ERIC Document Number: ED220895. | ||
| 520 | |a Because legal argument shares many of the characteristics of academic debate, it can serve as a paradigm for evaluating debates. Like debate, legal argument is bilateral, the judge is external to the deliberation and excluded from raising his or her own arguments, and reasons have been developed for assigning presumption, determining the wording of a policy, and defining terms. Legal argument has also been dealt with in depth by argumentation experts and addresses many of the issues of debate. Although not perfect, this analogy can be used to develop guidelines for judging academic debate. A judge could apply the following seven implications: (1) resolution could best be viewed as a court views the title of a piece of legislation; (2) presumption could be used as a tie-breaker; (3) once advocacy begins, only one position should be allowed per advocate; (4) the implications of present decisions on future cases should be recognized; (6) judicial attitude should stress openmindedness and impartiality; and (7) ethical rules should play a stronger role. (JL) | ||
| 533 | |a Microfiche. |b [Washington D.C.]: |c ERIC Clearinghouse |e microfiches : positive. | ||
| 583 | 1 | |a committed to retain |c 20240101 |d 20490101 |5 CoU |f Alliance Shared Trust |u https://www.coalliance.org/shared-print-archiving-policies | |
| 650 | 1 | 7 | |a Competition. |2 ericd. |
| 650 | 0 | 7 | |a Court Litigation. |2 ericd. |
| 650 | 0 | 7 | |a Court Role. |2 ericd. |
| 650 | 1 | 7 | |a Debate. |2 ericd. |
| 650 | 0 | 7 | |a Decision Making. |2 ericd. |
| 650 | 1 | 7 | |a Evaluation Criteria. |2 ericd. |
| 650 | 0 | 7 | |a Higher Education. |2 ericd. |
| 650 | 1 | 7 | |a Judges. |2 ericd. |
| 650 | 1 | 7 | |a Models. |2 ericd. |
| 650 | 1 | 7 | |a Persuasive Discourse. |2 ericd. |
| 856 | 4 | 2 | |z Request ERIC Document |u https://colorado.idm.oclc.org/login?url=https://colorado.illiad.oclc.org/illiad/COD/illiad.dll?Action=10&Form=23 |
| 907 | |a .b63045023 |b 01-18-22 |c 10-13-10 | ||
| 998 | |a pas |b 10-14-10 |c f |d m |e - |f eng |g xx |h 2 |i 1 | ||
| 956 | |a ERIC | ||
| 999 | f | f | |i 17e07641-ce38-541a-a3e3-1bf8cba38ae1 |s c186c034-33b4-55c2-9fd4-48266aa7dec8 |
| 952 | f | f | |p Can circulate |a University of Colorado Boulder |b Boulder Campus |c Offsite |d PASCAL Offsite |e ED220895 |h Other scheme |i microfiche |n 1 |