Journal

Parliamentary Debate

Journal of the National Parliamentary Debate Association

Call for Papers

Manuscripts are now being accepted for review and possible publication in Parliamentary Debate, the journal of the National Parliamentary Debate Association. Manuscripts can be sent to the editor at doc.williams at ttu.edu or by mail (3 copies) to:

David E. Williams
Department of Communication Studies
Texas Tech University
Lubbock, Tx. 79409-3083

All topics of interest to the membership of the NPDA will be considered. Manuscripts will be submitted for blind review by members of the editorial board. Papers can be prepared according to the most recent APA (American Psychological Association) or MLA Handbook for Writers of Research Papers guidelines. Authors should remove references in the manuscript which might disclose their identity. All research methods will be accepted for review.

Individuals who have previously submitted works to Parliamentary Debate are encouraged to re-submit the manuscript to the current editor. In such cases, authors should detail as much as possible, the status of the manuscript. Efforts will be made to continue the review of those manuscripts already in the review process.

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:

Editorial Board:

  • Kevin Baaske – California State University, Los Angeles
  • Michael Dreher – Bethel University
  • Autumn Edwards – Western Michigan University
  • Will Edwards – Western Michigan University
  • Joe Gantt – Texas Tech University
  • Scott Jensen – Webster University
  • Chris Joffrion – Western Kentucky University
  • Ali McLane (Houston, TX)
  • Jessica Nelson (Los Angeles, CA)
  • Marcus Paroske – University of Michigan-Flint
  • Jack Rogers – Central Missouri State University
  • Matt Stannard – University of Wyoming
  • Robert Trapp – Willamette University
  • Keith West (Boston, MA)
  • 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 resolutions 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 2001 (vol. 8, no. 1): Pages:
I Like Your Suit But You’re Too Confrontational (Susan Hellbusch and Jennifer Parker, Creighton University)
1-11
“On that Point, Madame Speaker!” A Critical Examination of the Use of Points of Personal Privilege and Points of Order in Parliamentary Debate (Kevin Jones, Azusa Pacific University)
12-22
The Influence the Nature of the Resolution May Have on Win/Loss Ratios in Parliamentary Debate (Renea Gernant and Kristy Waterman, Concordia University)
23-30
Women in Parliamentary Debate: An Examination of Women’s Performance at the National Parliamentary Debate Association’s National Tournament (Michelle A. Mazur, University of Hawaii-Manoa)
31-36
Notes from the President (Tom Kuster, Bethany Lutheran College)
37-38
The National Championship Tournament (results, season sweepstakes) are elsewhere on the website.
39-44
Final Round Decisions
45-52
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 resolutionspage.
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
Summer 2006 (vol. 11, no. 1): Pages:
Argumentativeness, Verbal Agressiveness, and Relational Satisfaction in the Parliamentary Debate Dyad (Crystal Lane Swift, Louisiana State University and Christina Vourvoulias, Montgomery College) 1-25
2005 Championship Round Transcript 26-45
2006 Championship Round Transcript 46-66
2006 Championship Round Judges’ Ballots 67-74
Spring 2010 (vol. 12, no. 1): Pages:
Evidentiary Ethos: Critical Inquiry and the Limitations of the ‘Universal Audience’ in Parliamentary Debate (Derek T. Buescher, University of Puget Sound) 1-22
Women of Color and the Parliamentary Debate Experience (David Worth, Rice University and Weslynn Reed) 23-43
Debate As Transformative Experience (Amanda E. Feller, Pacific Lutheran University) 45-71
The Fact of the Matter: Resolutional Analysis and Propositions of Fact (Ryan K. Clark, James E. Setith and Garrett M. Sheldon, all Black Hills State University) 73-86