Parliamentary Debate: the NPDA Journal
CALL FOR PAPERS:
Parliamentary Debate: The Journal of the National Parliamentary Debate Association
Parliamentary Debate: The Journal of the National Parliamentary Debate Association is the peer-reviewed, professional journal of the National Parliamentary Debate Association. The journal provides a forum to stimulate critical thinking and dialogue and to encourage research into parliamentary debate and other areas of argumentation. The journal is seeking articles related to argumentation, debate theory and practice, issues related to parliamentary debate, competition, and argumentation pedagogy.
Submission of Articles
For article submission, please send three double-spaced copies to:
Trischa Goodnow
Editor, Parliamentary Debate
204 Shepard Hall
Oregon State University
Corvallis, OR 97331
Inquiries may be sent via email to tgoodnow@oregonstate.edu. Electronic submissions are also acceptable. Articles must conform to MLA style guidelines. Since the journal is blind, peer-reviewed, the author’s names, academic titles and affiliation, and manuscript history should appear on a separate title page. Upon acceptance of the manuscript for publication, authors should be prepared to submit a final draft of the essay, including images and figures, using a popular word processing program for the PC.
Book Reviews
Reviews of sources pertinent to parliamentary debate should be sent to:
Marty Birkholt
Associate Editor, Parliamentary Debate
Creighton University
Dept. of Communication Studies
2500 California Plaza
Omaha, NE 68178
Electronic inquiries and submissions can be sent to: mjb@creighton.edu
Editorial Board:
Sue Balter-Reitz - Montana State University, Billings
Kevin Baaske - California State University, Los Angeles
Michael Dreher - Bethel University
David Frank - University of Oregon
Joe Gantt - Texas Tech University
Kristi Gerding - Ferris State University
Jeremy Grace - Rice University
Dan Henning - Hillsdale College
Scott Jensen - Webster University
Geoff Klinger - DePauw University
Marcus Paroske - Temple University
Mark Porrovecchio - Oregon State University
Jack Rogers - Central Missouri State University
Matt Stannard - University of Wyoming
David E. Williams - Texas Tech University
David Worth - Rice University
Underlined files below are available on the website. All files vary slightly in their appearance as compared to the original as a result of optical character recognition, but all pages end at the same place as they do in the original text so that quotations will still fall on the same pages as they do in the original. Note that Acrobat Reader 4 or higher is required to open the files. All files are currently being reviewed to make sure that they are accessible; thus, some files may be pulled from time to time in order for accessibility to be completed.
Also, in certain cases, most notably references to the NPDA website, the webmaster has changed the original text to show the correct URL's. Since the Bethel webservers have changed at least three times since original publication, the webmaster wanted to make sure that links to the website would not produce "file not found" errors.
Important note: While the National Parliamentary Debate Association is making these articles freely available, the National Parliamentary Debate Association retains copyright. The articles are made available for personal and scholarly use. Reselling these articles or reposting them on another website are strictly prohibited, and will be considered copyright infringement.
These articles, along with other forensic articles, appear in Dr. Dan Cronn-Mills' Online Index of Forensics Research.
Table of Contents:
Fall 1992 (vol. 1, no. 1): |
Pages: |
|---|---|
| Apology | i |
| Editor's Word | 1 |
| Debate: A Cross-Cultural Perspective (James Wallace) | 2-24 |
| Adding Communication to Debate: A Look at Parliamentary Debate as a Compliment to Cross-Examination Debate in Intercollegiate Competition (Richard J. Bailey, Jr.) | 25-37 |
| Parliamentary Debate: A Call for Faculty Involvement (Maj. Gen. Gwendolyn Fayne) | 38-50 |
| What Parliamentary Debate Can Offer Small Programs: An Observation (Susan B. Epstein) | 51-60 |
| How to Create and Sustain an Intercollegiate Parliamentary Debate Program (Steven C. Combs) | 61-80 |
| Constitution and Bylaws of the Western States Parliamentary Debate Association (not numbered by pages in the text; also linked at the historical documents page) | 81-105 |
| Fall 1993 (vol. 2, no. 1): | Pages: |
|---|---|
| Editor's Word | 1 |
| In Defense of the "Motion for Dismissal" (Stephen L. Johnson) | 2-13 |
| Arguments Against the "Motion for Dismissal" (James J. Bonham) | 14-23 |
| Parliamentary Debate Topics for the "Highly Educated," College Student (Thomas E. Jewell and Sean C. Ford) | 24-34 |
| Richard Weaver's Hierarchy of Argument: An Instructional Model for Parliamentary Debate (David E. Williams) | 35-44 |
| Revised NPDA Constitution, Bylaws and Appendices Note: Page numbers not included in this version. |
45-57 |
| Fall 1994 (vol. 3, no. 1): | Pages: |
|---|---|
| A Veteran Director of Forensics Looks at the Future of Parliamentary Debate (James "Al" Johnson) | 1-4 |
| Does Style Negate Substance? The Use of Argument in Parliamentary Debate (Susan B. Epstein) | 5-8 |
| The Case of the Stock Case: Can or Should We Prevent the Prepared Case in Parliamentary Debate (Trischa Knapp) | 9-12 |
| Who is Helen Lefkowitz Horowitz, and What Does She Have to Do with Intercollegiate Forensics? (Theodore F. Sheckels, Jr.) | 13-21 |
Summer 1996 (vol. 4, no. 1) |
Pages: |
|---|---|
| A Brief History of NPDA (Al Johnson, Colorado College) Webmaster's Note: Portions of this article are included in an updated version written by Prof. Al Johnson and Prof. Steve Johnson, Univ. of Alaska-Anchorage. The updated version is in the history section of the website. |
1-2 |
| What About Research: How to be "Well Read" (Susan B. Epstein, Univ. of Southern Colorado) | 3-13 |
| Sexual Harrassment: Policy or not, it is a value question (Renea S. Gernant, Concordia Univ.) | 14-22 |
| Speaker of the House, the Opposition Will Argue: Preparing for the Opposition Case (Trischa Knapp, Oregon State Univ.) | 23-35 |
| An Examination of the Counter Case in NPDA Debate (Bonnie Stapleton and Marcus Paroske, Regis University) | 36-46 |
| Critique of the 1995 NPDA Final Round (Shawnalee A. Whitney, Univ. of Alaska-Anchorage) | 47-50 |
| Summer 1999 (vol. 6, no. 1) | Pages: |
|---|---|
| Specific Information: Marginalization and Detriment to Public Argument (Jesse Gnehm, Willamette University) | 1-9 |
| Clash, Points and Motions: Bringing Parliamentary Procedure to Parliamentary Debate (Michael Eaves and Carl Cates, Valdosta State University) | 10-18 |
| Judging as an Assessment of Symbolic Touch (Jim Hanson and Matthew Johnson, Whitman College) | 19-25 |
| Parliamentary Debate: Where are we Headed? (Skip Rutledge, Pt. Loma Nazarene University) | 26-30 |
| Reclaiming a Heritage: A Proposal for Rhetorically Grounded Academic Debate (Michael Bartanen, Pacific Lutheran Univ. and David Frank, Univ. of Oregon) (126k) | 31-54 |
| The National Championship Tournament (NOTE: These sections are included in the 1999 Nationals results section on the website and thus aren't scanned here.) |
55-58 |
| Final Round Transcript | 59-83 |
| Final Round Decisions | 84-94 |
| Summer 2000 (vol. 7, no. 1): | Pages: |
|---|---|
| "This Old House": Reform of Traditional Elements in National Parliamentary Debate Association Resolutions (Scott Stroud, University of Pacific) | 1-8 |
| The State-of-the-Art Case Construction in Parliamentary Debate (Susan Hellbusch and Jennifer Parker, Creighton University) (108k) | 9-23 |
| Government's Defense of the Status Quo: Advocating a Shift in Applying Presumption Theory in Intercollegiate Parliamentary Debate (Skip Rutledge, Point Loma Nazarene University) (118k) | 24-45 |
| Truth Objections and Parliamentary Debate: Assessing the Truism and the Tautology (Ryan K. Clark and Brian R. McGee, Texas Tech University) (102k) | 46-65 |
| Points of Information from the President's Podium (Skip Rutledge, Point Loma Nazarene University) | 66-70 |
| Are We Having Fun Yet? A Debater's Guide to Happiness (Gary Gillespie, Northwest College) | 71-79 |
| The National Championship Tournament Results and topics are available elsewhere on the website. |
80-85 |
| Final Round Decisions | 86-96 |
| Correction: The National Championship Tournament (Summer 1999) Note: This has already been incorporated elsewhere on the website. |
97 |
| Summer 2002 (vol. 7, no. 1): | Pages: |
|---|---|
| Analysis of Macroscopic and Microscopic Elements of Lying in Parliamentary Debate (Skip Rutledge, Pt. Loma Nazarene University) | 1-23 |
| Resolutions of Fact: A Critique of Traditional Typology in Parliamentary Debate (Geoffrey W. Brodak and Matthew Taylor, California State University-Long Beach) | 24-34 |
| Debate - A Way of Training for Success (Simona Mazilu, Mihai Viteazul High School, Ploiesti, Romania) | 35-41 |
| Taking Steps from Denver 2001: A Report from the President (Tom Kuster, Bethany Lutheran College) | 43-44 |
| The 2002 National Championship Tournament: Note: This information can be found at the 2002 Nationals results page, as well as the 2002 Topics page |
45 |
| The Final Round Decisions | 46-52 |
| Summer 2003 (vol. 8, no. 1): | Pages: |
|---|---|
| Realizing the Treasured Values of NPDA Parliamentary Debate (Tom Kuster, Bethany Lutheran College) | 55-66 |
| Innovation and Assessment in Forensics: Format Diversity for Sustainability (Shawn Batt, University of the Pacific) | 67-80 |
| From Jurisdiction to Narration: Standards for Topicality in Parliamentary Debate (Matthew Taylor and Joseph Anderson, California State University-Long Beach) | 81-91 |
| The Evolution of Parliamentary Debate: A Content Analysis of NPDA Judging Philosophies 1999-2002 (Brian S. Amsden, Truman State University) | 92-100 |
| No-Topic Debating in Parliamentary Debate: Student and Critic Reactions (C. Thomas Preston, University of Missouri-St. Louis) (266k PDF) | 101-126 |
| Summer 2004 (vol. 10, no. 1): | Pages: |
|---|---|
| Title Page/Editorial Board Information | |
| "Espoused Values versus Evaluative Preference: Shaping the Future of the NPDA One Traditional Judge at a Time" (Audra R. Diers, University of Texas-Austin and Marty J. Birkholt, Creighton University) (215k) | 1-23 |
| "Presumption and Defending the Status Quo in Intercollegiate Debate: An Exploratory Survey of Judge Perceptions in Parliamentary and CEDA/NDT Debate Formats." (Skip Rutledge and G.L. Forward, Pt. Loma Nazarene University) (172k) | 24-48 |
| "Report from the President" (Sharon Porter, Northern Arizona University) | 49-50 |
| "The 2003 Final Round Transcript" (Univ. of Wyoming vs. Pacific Lutheran Univ.) (109k) | 51-67 |
| Judges Decisions | 68-74 |