A THEORY-CENTERED MODEL OF DEBATE ASSESSMENT: THE RHETORICAL JUDGING PARADIGM by KENNETH W. CORBIT SR. BETH S. BENNETT, COMMITTEE CHAIR WILLIAM (SIM) BUTLER ALEXA S. CHILCUTT ROBERT N. GAINES CORI PERDUE A DISSERTATION Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the College of Communication & Information Science in the Graduate School of The University of Alabama TUSCALOOSA, ALABAMA 2017 Copyright Kenneth W. Corbit, Sr. 2017 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED ABSTRACT This study investigated collegiate debate and the ways in which it is judged. Debate has long been considered an academic process used to advance argumentation theory and critical thinking skills in its participants. However, over the last half-century, many scholars have determined that, as it is practiced, has become exclusionary to those outside of the debate community and no longer provides educational benefit (Guerin et al., 2005). A review of scholarship on the historical background of argumentation, rhetorical theory and collegiate debate over the last century, provides a foundation for examining extant debate judging paradigms and their impact on participant behavior. Specifically, the 2014 CEDA National Championship final round was used as a case study to confirm two problems discovered within the review of literature: the impact of shifting judging paradigms on competition and the dominance of gamesmanship. The case study revealed how the judging paradigms have a direct effect on the way competitors prepare for the round. In addition, the case study illustrated how feedback reinforced technical debate, jargon, spreading, and speed. Through synthesis of traditional rhetorical concepts, a new judging model was developed, the rhetorical judging paradigm (RJP), and was discussed as a tool for use in a debate round. Once the model was created, it was used to examine the 2014 CEDA National Championship round. This was done to show how the theory could positively impact the debate community. The primary conclusion of the study is that the RJP be applied more broadly and researched in a quantitative methodology. ii DEDICATION This adventure began in great joy, and along the way was accompanied by great heartache. In many ways, it reflected my life’s journey embracing capacious highs and lows, and there were many times where I felt overwhelmed. Tragedy accompanied laughter, strength corresponding to weakness and peace found in desperation. I was reminded that “I am not a lost cause, I’m just lost.” In the middle of losing everything, I somehow found myself again and my true north. Penny, I dedicate this to you. I recognize your sacrifice, your gift, and your love. Failures and limitations be damned, you are my strength. My hope is that you celebrate this accomplishment with me, knowing that it’s as much yours as it is mine. Life offers what it does, but for better or worse I love you more today than yesterday, but not as much as I’ll love you tomorrow. Casey and Chelsea, you make my heart smile! Everything that you are makes me proud. There is joy in your laughter, kindness in your hearts and a purposeful desire to help others. I know you have sacrificed in this journey as well, and for that I apologize and give you my sincerest thanks. If I can ever become half the dad, that I want to be to you both, I will find great satisfaction and peace. Your whole lives mom would whisper in your ear, “You can be anything you want to be. You can accomplish anything you try.” She was right! I hope this is an example of what you can do. Always remember, “It’s not how you start, it’s how you finish!” iii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS To reach high usually suggests that you are standing on someone else’s shoulders. I would be remiss if I failed to acknowledge those who have elevated me in this journey. Dr. Mott, who is now retired from Eastern Arkansas Community College, you taught me that I could learn. Even though I had failed out of college 3 times and thought that I wasn’t capable, your investment made me think differently. While I doubt you’ll ever read this, I want you to know that I’ll never forget that there is “a rat” in separate and that there will always be flowers for Algernon. Michael Fisher, you pulled me away from the noise and whispered encouragement in my ear. You told me that I was good enough and that God had a purpose beyond what I could see. Even though it’s many years later, and even though I am still learning to believe and walk in it, those conversations have continued to drive me to this end. Thank you. Chris Harper, words will never express the importance you have played in this journey. You went beyond expectation of friendship and provided opportunity, support, references, relationship, and encouragement. You have always made me believe that I could reach the unreachable. Even though you’d steal the last bite of my Big Mac, you’ve always had my back. I so appreciate, you my friend! I want to make sure and express my deep appreciation for my committee chair, Dr. Beth Bennett. I never saw you waver…when I felt like I couldn’t do it, you smiled and told me I can. You promoted me for opportunity, encouraged my disbelief, and held my feet to the fire, when I failed. Your investment in my journey can’t be resolved with thank you, because it was so much iv more, but still, thank you! You continually and convincingly portrayed a joyful spirit of and expertise in research and scholarship. Without you, this dissertation would not have been possible. Each of my committee members, Dr. Sim Butler, Dr. Alexa Chilcutt, Dr. Robert Gaines and Dr. Cori Purdue have transcended academia and provide mentorship and friendship. Your insights into this study have been of great value and have allowed me the opportunity to express the years of preparation in research format. As importantly, your hands around my shoulder, your letters of reference, and your often “not so subtle” encouragements to finish will never be forgotten. Thank you for your contributions! v CONTENTS ABSTRACT....................................................................................................................................ii DEDICATION................................................................................................................................iii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS..............................................................................................................iv LIST OF FIGURES........................................................................................................................ix CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION....................................................................................................1 Overview of the Problem.................................................................................................................2 Literature Review.............................................................................................................................7 Scholarly Tradition of Rhetoric and Argumentation.......................................................................8 Modern History of Collegiate Debate............................................................................................25 Academic Benefits of Debate.........................................................................................................32 Theoretical Paradigms for Intercollegiate Debate.........................................................................36 External Paradigms.......................................................................................................................37 a. Stock Issues................................................................................................................................37 b. Detached Instructive Strategies..................................................................................................38 c. Policy Maker..............................................................................................................................38 d. Hypothesis Tester.......................................................................................................................39 Internal Paradigms.........................................................................................................................39 a. Critics of Arguments..................................................................................................................40 b. Tabula Rosa...............................................................................................................................41 Judging Theory..............................................................................................................................41 vi Rationale for the Study..................................................................................................................44 Method...........................................................................................................................................46 Rhetorical Lens..............................................................................................................................47 Plan of Study..................................................................................................................................48 CHAPER 2. CASE STUDY..........................................................................................................49 The Problem of Judging Paradigms...............................................................................................54