Critique
of "The Locus of Debate Controversy Re-examined: Implications for ,Counterplan Theory"
This article was written for highly professional debate scholars. The readability is at least above 16 years of school. There is much jargon and a high level vocabulary. Some words used are not in most dictionaries. There are instances where abbreviations are given for an unexplained organization. The article is filled with references that disrupt thoughts. All of these are expected since it is, after all, a scholarly journal. The entire article was appealing to me. Everything seemed to interest me. It was very beneficial for me to have read it because I now feel like I know something that is of great importance that most people would not have a clue about. Such things include the argumentation of different counterplan perspectives. Throughout this analysis, any quotation used shall be cited from the article as is depicted on the A.P.A. sheet that preceded. Counterplan interests have been increasing year after year. There is therefore good reason for Dale and his colleagues to write about it. However, there is also an increase in the dispute resolution process relating entirely to the "proper locus of competition." There is not one solution to the counterplan theory that satisfies at least 90% of all people affected by it. Negative teams especially have been dependent upon the counterplan as a strategy for argumentation. It is predicted that the counterplan will become widespread in high school and intercollegiate debate due to this change in strategy. There has not been enough written about the plan as opposed to resolutional focus; therefore this article is beneficial, especially with the growing popularity of it. The main argument suggests that the plan focus is the most logical solution to the controversy. It is stated that the NDT policy debate has a purpose to teach studenm in debate how to apply argumentativeness to questions dealing with public policy most effectively and most influentially. One example used to describe the negative deals with the media and is quite interesting. There is an argument for the need of detail to keep the debate understandable. The example portrays a hypothetical situation of the media being denied the First Amendment's freedom of expression guarantee. More detail is needed rather than just bluntly saying "Resolved, the United States government should impose regulations on mass media coverage of terrorist activities." That is truly an original Herbeck argument in defense of the First Amendment of our Constitutional rights. Debate is described as "a method for teaching students critical decision-making skills." That is probably the sole purpose of the article. Everyone that reads it can be a student in that he or she learns from it. The final conclusion of the research indicates that case-specific research is impractical and the plan focus perspective is a more practical scholarly method of debate.