Public Argument.

• Author: Sobnosky, Matthew J.

In 1990, Argumentation and Advocacy dedicated a special issue to the multiplicity of debate styles practiced by contemporary collegiate debaters. The issue identifies four distinct types of collegiate debate: policy debate (usually associated with the National Debate Tournament); value debate (usually associated with the Cross Examination Debating Association); parliamentary debate (sometimes called Oxford-style debate); and audience debate. Despite the diversity of debate practices, most debate textbooks focus on either policy debate, or more recently, value debate, with other styles of debate receiving only brief mention. In Public Argument, Robert O. Weiss offers a text for those interested specifically in audience debating. This book is an excellent guide to the unique qualities and requirements of the audience-centered debate format. At the same time, in stressing the special requirements of the format, the text at times overlooks some of the common elements that unite debate as an activity, despite differences in format and style. In this review, then, I first summarize briefly the contents of the book, then outline its substantial contributions to the practice of contemporary collegiate debate, and finally point to some of its weaknesses as a debate textbook.

Public Argument address three major topics: chapters 1-5 establish Weiss's conception of public argument and how it can be incorporated into collegiate debate settings; chapters 6-11 discuss the practice of audience debate; and chapters 12 and 13 address some of the logistics of audience debates. An appendix contains an annotated bibliography of other sources available to those interested in more information on the audience format.

Weiss locates audience debate within the theoretical frame of the public sphere of argument, as it is discussed by Jurgen Habermas. Weiss references the idea of the public sphere briefly, and uses the general idea of the public sphere as a context to distinguish audience debate from other debate activities. He offers five "clusters" of values foundational to audience-centered debate: "informed public opinion, logical argument, human communication, honest conviction, and democracy" (p. 5). The realm of honest conviction, he stresses, distinguishes audience debate from more traditional modes of academic debate. Unlike other debates, "The judges in an audience debate are individuals making up their own minds about where they stand," rather than neutral...