The Benefits and Costs of Participating in Competitive Debate Activities: 

Differences Between Japanese and American College Students 
 
 
 
 
 

by 

Narahiko INOUE

Faculty of Languages & Cultures

Kyushu University, Japan 

& 

Mika NAKANO

Graduate Student, Graduate School of Social & Cultural Studies

Kyushu University, Japan 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Paper presented at

Wake Forest University/International Society for the Study of Argumentation

 "Venice Argumentation Conference"

June 27-30, 2004

0. Introduction

     For over decades now, debate (dibeeto in Japanese) has been the focus of much attention in Japan. This is reflected in the frequency of the word "debate" in major Japanese newspapers, which shows a clear increase for a period of about twenty years. As Table 1 and Figure 1 show, the number of articles containing the word "debate" was zero in 1987. In 2003, however, this figure had risen to 349 (Inoue, 1994; Nakano, 2004, p. 1). This shows that "debate" has rapidly gained popularity in Japanese society. One reason for this rise in popularity is that debate has been recognized as an important skill for Japanese to communicate effectively in the globalized world. Much has been discussed over the use of debate in classroom activities in such courses as sciences and social studies as well as language courses of Japanese and English from elementary school to university. 

Table 1: Articles containing "debate" in major newspapers 1985 - 2003

Figure 1: Articles containing "debate" in major newspapers 1985 - 2003 
 

     Out in the world today there are diversified styles of competitive debating in English available for students. Long time ago when debating was brought to the American continent from Britain, it was just debating. Then Britons and Americans followed different paths. British debating remained armature activities, which later became institutionalized as Parliamentary Debate spreading to the world. American educators and scholars developed their own so-called Academic Debate, or NDT. Only recently did American scholars turn to Parliamentary Debate as one of the alternative styles.

     Against this background, the current paper will discuss the benefits and costs associated with participating in competitive debate activities by analyzing the perceptions collected from Japanese college students. It will also examine the features of Parliamentary Debate (PD hereafter)¹ in contrast to more traditional NDT-style debate.² The results will also be compared with a similar survey in the U.S. There are three reasons why this paper will discuss these themes.

     Firstly, the available research, especially empirical research about PD, is scarce. In Japan, PD was first introduced in 1990 by the International Debate Institute (Kawahatsu, 1990, June 19). Because of its short history, there have been no studies on PD except for the series of work by Nakano. In the U.S. there have been a number of debate studies but most of them are concerned with the more traditional debate styles, such as NDT and CEDA. It is only recently that PD has been taken up as a research topic in the field of forensics and argumentation. Since most of the previous studies on PD were conducted in the U.S., some factors were ignored, for example, English as a second language and international comparisons. As debate becomes more diversified and globalized, research on debate should consider such factors as well.

     Secondly, PD has several unique characteristics. It is unique in its orientation toward extemporaneous and audience-focused speeches, which is different from the styles many studies have centered on up until now. Moreover, PD is widely used all over the world, and the number of people participating in PD is increasing year by year. One of the reasons for this was made clear by the research on debate Nakano conducted in Asian countries. One of its findings points to the increasing need for education in English communication skills that has arisen as a result of globalization (Nakano, 2002).

     Thirdly, an empirical approach has not been used much in debate studies in Japan. Apart from studies such as Inoue (1994), who discussed how English Speaking Societies conducted debates as an extracurricular activity in Japanese universities and Kamada (2000), who for over a decade researched the effects of debate training on business people in Japan, the number of empirical studies that examine the costs and benefits of debate participation is quite small. Mikuma (2003) warns that the hasty introduction of debate into classrooms may be dangerous without considering the historical praxis of debate in extracurricular activities, which he claims were ignored by researchers (p. 138). While debate is advocated by some as a panacea to today's education problems, the costs as well as the benefits of debate need to be examined empirically. Such an empirical approach is also effective for examining the unique characteristics of PD.

     Thus the problems of previous studies can be summarized as follows: 

1. The number of studies covering PD is limited.
2. The characteristics of PD in English should be investigated, especially the perceptions of non-native speakers of English.
3. Empirical data are needed to assess the costs and benefits of debate participation.

     This paper is intended to fill these gaps in research and will contribute to the discussion of the relative merits and demerits of different styles of debate across different cultural contexts.  In order to allow the Japanese and American comparison, this research follows the method used by Williams, McGee, & Worth (2001), who compared the participants' perceptions in different debate styles in the U.S. In the remaining of this paper, Section 1 will review previous studies about competitive debate in more detail; Section 2 will explain the method of research; Section 3 will present the results and discussion; and Section 4 will summarize the finding. 

1. Review of Previous Studies

     This section reviews previous debate studies in Japan and abroad. Recently in Japan teaching debate and studying debate have attracted more and more attention with dissemination of the word "debate" in Japanese society. In particular, discussions on introducing debate into education have been boosted in various school subjects such as Japanese, English, social studies, and sciences. PD, however, has rarely attracted attention until now. One of the earlier publications discussing PD, or British debating, was Milward (1983), who recommended British debate instead of American debate, which was dominant in Japan. Inoue (1984) described debate tournaments in Britain, who pointed out the absence of British debating in Japan at that time as follows: 

We can even read a transcript of the American National Debate Tournament with extensive Japanese notes. But British debating is hardly noticed in Japan currently although many American textbooks do give some accounts of it. (p. 31)³ 

Later, in 1990 when the International Debate Institute introduced PD to Japanese students, PD activities formally began in some universities. In 1995, International Christian University's Debating Society published the first version of a practical handbook of PD, Essence of Parliamentary Debate (ICU Debating Society, 1999). Yet today, Japan still lacks detailed studies on PD with the exception of Nakano (2002, 2004).

     Similarly, the number of studies about PD is relatively small in the U.S. The traditional popularity of other debate styles such as NDT and CEDA appears to have prevented PD from prevailing among students. In Britain, although PD has a long history led by Oxford Union, PD has not been much studied academically. This is probably because communication in general was not considered a subject of academic research in Britain.

     After a debate tour between the U.S. and Britain co-sponsored by the Speech Communication Association (SCA)⁴ and the English Speaking Union in 1921 (Baird, 1950, p. 311), impressions and evaluations of both styles were take up in American journals (for example; Howes, 1925, 1928; Freeth & Cradock, 1949). While some of them took a critical stance toward the British style, others suggested adopting an element of British debate in U.S. (Baird, 1923; Quimby, 1947). This fact shows that there were debates over PD in the U.S. even though it has not been well known. One question that arises here is why American educators seem to have ignored PD until recently, long after British and American debates were separated. Cox & Phillips (1992), who wrote about the later-established American Parliamentary Debate Association (APDA), suggests that the unnecessary association with cross-cultural problems can be the answer as they stated:  

The American Parliamentary Debate Association provides a good example of parliamentary debate without the cross-cultural problems plaguing discussion of British versus American debating. (p. 94) 

Overly emphasized cultural differences rather than styles and rules themselves may have delayed PD activities and studies in the U.S.

     In 1990, a PD study of Sheckels & Warfield (1990) in the Journal of American Forensic Association led to bring PD to light. They wrote, "Largely student-run, parliamentary debate has escaped the attention of speech communication scholars" (p. 86). In the same year, the faculty-run National Parliamentary Debate Association was founded, which published its own professional journal, Parliamentary Debate. At the point in time, with its more international popularity, PD was adopted in more U.S. colleges, and this in turn made PD attract more attention as a legitimate topic in speech communication studies.

     The unique aspects of PD in argumentation and research method have been pointed out in papers by Williams (1993) and Epstein (1996). After Galizio & Knapp (1998) published the first manual of PD in the U.S. in 1998 (Tindell, 1998, p.187), Meany & Schuster (2002, 2003) wrote comprehensive books of PD. A noteworthy point is that all of the PD studies mentioned communication-orientation, extemporaneous speech and variety of resolutions as its characteristics, which are different from NDT and CEDA debates. This shows that these essences of PD are recognized as its values when Americans engage in PD in English.

     As to studies of assessing the efficacy of participation in debate, a fairly large amount of research has been conducted by using various methods (McGee & Simerly, 1994; Standfield, 1993; Steinberg, 1993). Most of them were surveys of college students' perception with self-report questionnaires (e.g., Hill, 1982; Jones, 1994; Matlon & Keele, 1984; Wood & Rowland-Morin, 1989; Willimans, McGee, & Worth, 2001) with notable exceptions of Semlak & Shields (1977) and Littlefield (2001) dealing with high school students. Glenn (2000) researched debaters' motivations to choose one of the debate styles. When we turn to studies on debate in Japan, empirical studies on debate have seldom appeared in communication literature. As to the surveys of the participants, quantitative data have been rare the exception of Klopf (1978) and Nakamura (1982).

     Williams et al. (2001) stated the necessity of empirical studies on debate participation with two rationales (p. 198-99). Firstly, we should assess students' impressions of debate regularly since debaters' life is changing time to time as we have changes in coaching practice, method of collecting information, travel pattern and so on. The survey method also needs to be tested for validity. The past 10 years only saw two studies: Jones (1994), which is now about 10 yeas old, and Williams et al (2001). Secondly, intercollegiate debate community has changed, and various styles should be compared. Especially PD has several points which are distinguished by NDT and CEDA. It was first empirically investigated by Williams et al., but in Japan no previous study has tried to account for PD. It is necessary to examine PD for more comprehensive understanding of competitive debating in particular and Speech Communication at large.    

2. Method

2.1. Research Questions

     This paper reports part of a larger study that tries to answer 7 research questions below. Numbers 1-4 are the same questions that Williams et al. (2001) used, and Numbers 5-7 were newly added for this study. This paper discusses research questions 1-5. 

1. What benefits do students perceive from their participation in intercollegiate debate?
2. What disadvantages do students perceive from their participation in intercollegiate debate?
3. How do students' perceived benefits compare to those revealed in previous studies?
4. How do students' perceived disadvantages compare to those revealed in previous studies?
5. Do answers vary according to debate styles?
6. What motivations do students have from their participation in intercollegiate debate?
7. Are there any correlations between benefits and motivations?

 

2.2. Participants of the Survey

     Respondents are the participants of NDT and PD. NDT-style debate and PD are the two styles of debate in the English language which are dominantly popular among college students in Japan. Williams et al. (2001) included other styles such as CEDA in addition to these two styles, but this survey in Japan does not include them since they are not practiced in Japan. For uniform sampling, the participants in one of the national tournaments for each style in 2003 were surveyed by gang survey when most of the participants gathered in one place: at the announcement of the qualifiers for the elimination tournament (NDT-style) and at the end of the final round (PD). The response rates of this survey are shown in Table 2. 

Table 2: Response rates

	The number of sample	The number of effective sample	Response rate (%)
NDT-style	63	58	92.1
PD	120	109	90.8

 

Problems related to the methods used in previous studies include low response rates and problems with the validity of the mail survey technique. Williams et al (2001) used mail survey in their study. But mail survey is not suitable for uniform sampling in ages, the years of experience, attributes and so on. The validity for comparison among debate styles is also questionable. The response rate is also quite low, around 19.5%. Although the response rate of mail surveys is around 20% in general, 19.5% is not enough for reliable surveys. Unfortunately, the low rate of response often remains a problem in forensics studies in general. To overcome these problems, this research used gang survey and succeeded in ensuring a more than 90% response rate. 

2.3. Instrument (Questionnaire)

     The questionnaire consisted of 2 sections: (1) demographic data and debate experience, (2) benefits, disadvantages and motivations of debate participation. The language used in the questionnaire was English. We will address the responses to Section (2) and will discuss the findings related to benefits and disadvantages. The questions in Section (2) are as follows: 

Q1. Identify three benefits to your participation in debate.

Q2. Identify three disadvantages to your participation in debate.

Q3. Identify three motives to your participation in debate. 

     Following the method used by Williams et al (2001), the answers were content-analyzed according to similarity and divided into their categories. When an answer didn't fit in with the existing categories, we asked one of the authors of the original study (Dr. D. E. Williams) to code it, and then set a new category. The results of the surveys are given in Table 3. 

Table 3: Overview results of the surveys

	Benefits	Costs	Motivation
Japan	341/29*	220/20*	361/32*
U.S.	735/49*	582/43*	NA

* the number of answers/the number of categories 

3. Results and Discussion

     In 3.1, we will discuss the findings related to the benefits of debate. In 3.2 disadvantages of debate participation will be examined.

 

3.1 Benefits of Debate Participation

     Firstly, what benefits do the students perceive from their participation in debate? From the characteristics of the two styles, it was predicted that the highest benefits of PD would be "English & communication skills" and the highest benefits of the NDT-style would be "logic" and "research". Table 4 reports the ranking of benefits in each style and Table 5 presents the raw number of responses and percentages by country and style of debate.

Table 4: Ranking of benefits (Japan)

Ranking	NDT-style (58)	PD (109)
1	Analytical/Critical skills	English skills
2	English skills	Speaking/Comm. Skills
3	Social life/Meeting people	Social life/Meeting people
4	Knowledge/Education	Knowledge/Education
5	Speaking/Comm. skills	Analytical/Critical skills

 
 

Table 5: Benefits by style and country

Benefit	Japan		U.S.
	NDT-style (58)	PD (109)	NDT (55)	PD (122)
Speaking/Comm. skills	13	46	18	66
*	22.4%	42.2%	32.7%	54%
Research	2	5	16	9
*	3.4%	4.6%	29%	7.3%
Social life/Meeting people	22	42	20	36
*	37.9%	38.5%	36%	29.5%
Analytical/Critical skills	38	41	29	43
*	65.5%	37.6%	52.7%	35.2%
Knowledge/Education	16	42	NA	NA
*	27.6%	38.5%	NA	NA
English skills	27	62	NA	NA
*	46.6%	56.9%	NA	NA

*percentage of responses in respective debating style 

     The benefits of NDT given by Japanese participants are "Analytical/Critical skills", "English skills", "Social life/Meeting people", "Knowledge/Education", and "Speaking/Comm. skills" in descending order of importance. The benefits of PD are "English skills", "Speaking/ Comm. skills", "Knowledge/Education", "Social life/Meeting people", "analytical/Critical skills", in descending order of importance. Some of the typical responses in those categories were as follows: "Analytical/Critical skills" included "critical thinking" and "deep analysis"; "English skills" included "getting used to using the English language" and "acquiring various skills in English"; "Social life/Meeting people" included "making friends" and "getting along with the family and friends" and "traveling"; "Knowledge/Education" included "gaining wide knowledge" and "beneficial to college studies"; "Speaking/Comm. skills" included "learning persuasive speech" and "public speaking".

     As we predicted from the characteristics of the NDT-style, "Analytical/Critical skills" which is the closest to the predicted "logic", occupies the highest position in the benefits of NDT. "Research", however, ranked low in Japan with only two participants giving "research" as a benefit of NDT. Since some answered "knowledge about particular topics" as a benefit, students have a tendency to report "research" not as a process, but "knowledge" as a result of "research" as benefits. On the other hand, there were answers such as "research and preparation take a lot of time", which reveals that "research" is considered more as a disadvantage than as a benefit by Japanese students. As was predicted about PD, "English skills" and "Speaking/Comm. skills" are ranked top. This result supports a claim that PD is effective for English communication. 

Table 6: English & Speaking/Comm. skills by style (Japan)

Benefit	NDT (58)	PD (109)
English & Speaking/Comm. skills	40	108
*	69.0%	99.1%

                *percentage of responses in respective styles 

     We will more closely look at "English skills" and "Speaking/Comm. skills". When we combine "English skills" & "Speaking/Comm. skills" as in Table 6, the NDT debaters' percentage is 69% while the percentage of PD debaters is 99.1%. In other words, 99.1% of PD debaters think "English skills" and/or "Speaking/Comm. skills" are derived from participating in PD. These numbers suggest that PD has the benefits of improving "English skills" and "Speaking/Comm. skills".

     In the top five ranking of benefits, the same five categories were present in NDT and PD. This leads to the conclusion that these are the benefits that debaters perceive as deriving from participation in English debate in Japan, regardless of the debate style. Comparing each ranking of NDT and PD, "English skills" ranked high in both styles, the highest in PD (56.9%) and the second highest in NDT (46.6%), as is shown in Tables 4 and 5. The result is reasonable as the debate is conducted in English, but this does confirm Japanese debaters' perception that debate participation improves their English ability.

     The ranking of "Knowledge/Education" is the same in NDT and PD, but the contents of the answers were different. Many NDT debaters replied "the depth of knowledge" as a benefit, while PD debaters frequently answered the "width" and "variety" of knowledge. This reflects each style’s unique characteristics: NDT requires carefully prepared analysis based on the focused research on one topic while PD makes more varied and wide knowledge necessary for debaters to be able to talk about various resolutions in different rounds.

     There is another implication on "Knowledge/Education". Some PD students answered "can know well about current events in the world" as a benefit, while others answered "frustration to always keep up with current events" as a disadvantage. However, one respondent's answer that "debate motivates me to study what I don't do by myself" shows that debate participation has a benefit of giving incentives to students to obtain broad knowledge.

     Lastly, "Social life/ Meeting people" uncovers an interesting feature of the Japanese. One of the answers found in both NDT and PD was: "it's impossible to debate with my friends. But in debate I can find a friend to debate with." This shows some Japanese students think it's hard to debate with friends in everyday life, but that they can find a different kind of friends in debate with whom they are able to debate or discuss various topics. If they want to enjoy intellectual discussion with friends, such friends may be hard to find in Japan but are likely to find in friends made through debating. 

     As for disadvantages, replies such as "(people who are) too critical become obnoxious," "when I argue back in daily life, people say "don't debate"," imply debate is not welcomed in daily life. A female student's answer "I was told that "you are a girl... (why do you debate?)"" meaning that she was told that debating was not for girls. This shows a prejudice still present in Japanese society that females should not argue. Another answer "if I thrash an opponent logically, emotionally the relation gets worse" tells us that it is quite complicated to debate and maintain a good relationship at the same time, implying that attacking people's opinion is likely to be taken as an attack on their personality in Japanese society.

     Next, we will compare the results of the original U.S. study with the current Japanese study (See Table 5).⁵ The U.S. study did not identify "English skills" as an independent response for an obvious reason--"English" is taken for granted in speaking/communication. The percentages of "Speaking/Comm. skills" are 32.7% for NDT and 54.0% for PD, PD being higher than NDT. On the other hand, "Analytical/Critical skills" and "Research" show higher percentages for NDT than for PD. On "Analytical/Critical skills" NDT is 52.7%, while PD is 35.2%. On "Research" NDT is 29.0%, and PD is 7.3%. No clear difference is found on "Social life/Meeting people". These results explain that more PD debaters perceive "Speaking/Comm. skills" as a benefit derived from debate, while more NDT debaters perceive "Analytical/Critical skills" and "Research" as benefits in the U.S. In Japan, "Speaking/Comm. skills" shows the same tendency as in the U.S.; 42.2% for PD is higher than 22.4% for NDT. Similarly NDT shows higher percentages than PD in Japan on "Analytical/ Critical skills"; NDT is 65.5% and PD is 37.6%. In "Social life/Meeting people", there is no difference between PD and NDT in Japan.

     However, Japanese NDT debaters ranked "Research" low (3.4%), even slightly lower than PD (4.6%). This shows that not only NDT debaters in Japan, but also Japanese debaters in general don't perceive "Research" as a benefit of debating. This is a noteworthy finding since evidence is indeed very important in NDT-style debate in Japan and research is supposed to be required. This may be because students see research as a burden rather than something they learn through debate. They may find research only a problem because Japanese libraries and other information systems are not adequate or because they are not systematically taught how to conduct research. Another possible interpretation is that some Japanese NDT debaters may see original research not as important as it should be because they find they can win debates with limited amount of evidence.

     The entire ranking of the U.S. that includes other debate styles was "Speaking/Comm. skills", "Analytical/Critical skills", "Social life/Meeting people", "Research", and "Knowledge/ Education" in descending order of importance. Although "English skills" was added and "Research" excluded in the Japanese top 5 ranking, the remaining 4 benefits are common to both the U.S. and Japan. Therefore, we can conclude that "Speaking/Comm. skills", "Analytical/Critical skills", "Social life/Meeting people", and "Knowledge/Education" are perceived as benefits of debate participation regardless of countries and styles of debate being practiced. 

3.2 Costs of Debate Participation

     In this section, we look into the results associated with the costs of debate. The responses related to costs are less varied and can be categorized into a few major disadvantages. Comparing the ranking of NDT and PD, the results turned out to be the same (as shown in Tables 7 & 8). The highest percentage is occupied by "Time" (for NDT, 82.8%; and for PD, 52.3%) followed by "Health/sleep/frustration"(for NDT, 75.9%; and for PD, 38.5%), "Financial costs" (for NDT, 31.0%; and for PD, 21.1%), "Hurts academics"(extra burden academically) (NDT, 20.7%; PD, 9.2%), and "Affects social life" (NDT, 13.8%, PD, 6.4%).

   

Table 7: Disadvantages (NDT & PD, Japan)

Ranking	Disadvantage
1	Time
2	Health/sleep/frustration
3	Financial costs
4	Hurts academics
5	Affects social life

                            

     As a total, the percentages for NDT (272.4%) are higher than those for PD (163.3%), which shows that a significantly greater number of disadvantages were reported for NDT than for PD. While most NDT debaters reported the maximum of three disadvantages allowed by the spaces, PD debaters on average reported only 1.6 disadvantages; actually there were some PD debaters who did not report any disadvantage. 
 
 
 

Table 8: Disadvantages by style and country

Disadvantage	Japan		U.S.
	NDT(58)	PD(109)	NDT(55)	PD(122)
Time	48	57	31	62
*	82.8%	52.3%	56.0%	50.8%
Health/sleep/frustration	44	42	10	23
*	75.9%	38.5%	18.1%	18.8%
Financial costs	18	23	4	24
*	31.0%	21.1%	7.2%	19.6%
Hurts academics	12	10	23	40
*	20.7%	9.2%	41.8%	32.7%
Affects social life	8	7	NA	NA
*	13.8%	6.4%	NA	NA
Others	28	39	NA	NA
*	48.3%	35.8%	NA	NA
Total	158	178	NA	NA
*	272.4%	163.3%	NA	NA

*percentage of responses in respective debating styles 

     PD debaters have fewer complaints about their activities than NDT debaters. Then, what is the factor that makes NDT debaters less happy than PD debaters? The relationship between "Research", "Time", and "Health/sleep/frustration" previously mentioned, offers an explanation. PD debaters conduct research individually about various topics, as they can't be fully prepared for debate rounds because the resolution is only given right before each round. On the other hand, in many cases NDT debaters' research is group-oriented with the aim of deepening analysis of the announced resolution as well as trying to find particular evidence to support the team's prepared arguments, which gives debaters a feeling of being pressed by time intensified by the sense of group obligation. Some NDT debaters actually related "Research" with "Health/sleep/frustration", saying that they "can't sleep because of research". Taking this into consideration, the higher percentages of NDT when compared to PD on "Hurts academics" and "Affects social life" can be explained by the time-consuming aspect of "Research". In conclusion, NDT debaters perceived the features of "Research" as disadvantages associated with debate. In comparison, PD debaters are less burdened by research, and have fewer factors to regard as disadvantages of debate participation.       

    Next, we will compare these results of Japanese with those of American debaters. Table 8 reports the disadvantages by countries and styles. In the survey conducted in the U.S., the disadvantage that shows the biggest difference between NDT and PD is "Financial costs" (NDT, 7.2%; PD, 19.6%). NDT (41.8%) is slightly higher than PD (32.7%) on "Hurts academics". On the other hand, there are few differences between different styles on "Time" and "Health/sleep/frustration". In summary, a difference between debate styles can be seen only in "Financial costs" in the U.S. In comparing this result with Japanese results, the percentage for PD debaters is found higher than that for NDT debaters on "Financial costs". Williams et al. (2001) described the reason for the higher percentages associated with financial costs for NDT when compared with PD in the U.S. as follows:  

One would expect that NPDA would be a less expensive form of debate because of lower photocopying costs and other expenses incurred in evidence acquisition. This finding may suggest that NDT programs are typically better funded than programs sponsoring other types of debate. (p. 203)

 

However, in Japan the financial situation is almost the same in NDT and PD; therefore the difference in styles is not so large. This shows how well funded NDT debaters are in the U.S. Furthermore we can mention some factors that burden PD debaters apart from the cost for collecting data as in NDT. One example is traveling costs. In Japan, tournaments are often held in Tokyo and few others take place in other areas, when compared to NDT tournaments, which are more geographically diversified. In addition, it costs PD debaters a lot of money to participate in international tournaments, which are absent in NDT. Comparing the financial situations of Japan and the U.S., especially NDT, financial supports for students' debating in Japan are seriously lacking.

     Looking at the overall ranking by country, it can be said that Japanese debaters are more likely to perceive "Health/sleep/frustration" as a cost than do American debaters: as both NDT and PD are below 20% in the U.S. while NDT is 75.9% and PD is 38.5% in Japan. As previously pointed out, Japanese debaters confront some prejudice and hardship when they are committed to debating, which may account for the higher percentage of Japanese debaters who feel stressed. As some studies have previously discussed, this result can be the reflection of the less argumentative predisposition of Japanese people. On "Hurts academics" American debater percentages are higher than Japanese debaters', which is likely to result from the difference in academic systems in higher education. That is, course requirements such as attendance and assignments are more demanding in American universities than in Japanese universities in general.

     In the results for costs, the percentage for Japanese NDT is higher than that for PD, but the results for PD and NDT in the U.S. are similar. The percentages of cost items do not differ between styles in the U.S. In addition, "Time" and "Health/sleep/frustration" which were previously discussed in connection with "Research" don't show any gap between styles in America. Does this mean American NDT debaters do not perceive "Research" as a disadvantage? To look further into this question, the benefits of "Research" need to be reviewed. The percentage of NDT debaters in the U.S. who perceive "Research" as a benefit is much higher than that of PD debaters (7.3%), while PD and NDT debaters in Japan show lower percentages (4.6% and 3.4%). This shows that many American debaters think "Research" is a benefit of debate, and fewer regard the problems caused by research as disadvantages. The above discussion clarifies the differences in perceptions between Japanese and American debaters. The support systems for research that are in place in each country may account for this difference.  Libraries and other information systems are one possible factor.  Another may be the difference of faculty support; i.e., forensic directors and coaches that some American squads enjoy are not at all available in Japan.

     The entire ranking of the U.S. for disadvantages that included other debate styles was "Time", "Hurts academics", "Health/sleep/frustration", "Affects social life", and "Financial costs" in descending order of significance. These five disadvantages were also in the top five ranking in Japan. In conclusion, these factors are perceived as disadvantages of debate regardless of country and debate style used.

 

4. Conclusion

    This paper examined the benefits and costs associated with debate participation from the results of the pioneering survey conducted on college students in Japan. Through a comparison of data, the unique characteristics of PD were illustrated. This will provide important databased suggestions for applying debate as part of English education in Japan. Comparison between the U.S. and Japan clarified some differences in the perceptions of American and Japanese debaters toward debate. Although these data are dependent on the individual perceptions of debaters, it is considered valid as empirical data.

    At the same time, we pointed out some methodological problems encountered by previous studies. The present study also has a limitation; for example, there is a need to employ long-term surveys to examine the effects of debate participation in more detail.

 
 

References

Baird, A. C. (1923). Shall American universities adopt the British system of debating? Quarterly Journal of Speech, 9, 215-222.

Baird, A. C. (1950). Argumentation, discussion, and debate. NY: McGraw-Hill.

Cox, E. S., & Phillips, K. R. (1992). Impact and implications of parliamentary format on American debate. In D. A. Thomas & J. P. Hart (Eds.), Advanced debate: Readings in theory, practice & teaching (4th ed.). Lincolnwood, IL: National Textbook Company.

Epstein, S. B. (1996). What about research: How to be "well read". Parliamentary Debate, 4, 3-13.

Flynn, C. (n.d.). History of the world university debating championships. Retrieved on June 1, 2004, from http://www.debating.net/Flynn/worhist.html.

Freeth, D. K., & Cradock, P. (1949). American versus British debating: A British impression. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 35, 427-429.

Galizio, L. A., & Knapp, T. G. (1998). Elements of parliamentary debate: A guide to public argument. NY: Longman.

Glenn, K. (2000, April). Student motivations for participating in policy or parliamentary debate. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Central States Communication Association, Detroit, MI.

Hill, B. (1982). Intercollegiate debate: Why do students bother? Southern Speech Communication Journal, 48, 77-88.

Hollis, C. (1965). The Oxford Union. London: Evans.

Howes, R. F. (1925). American and English debating. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 11, 45-48.

Howes, R. F. (1928). The English debates. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 14, 112-116.

Hunt, E. L. (1935). English debating reconsidered. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 21, 98-102.

ICU Debating Society. (1999). Essence of parliamentary debate (3rd ed.). Tokyo: ICU Debating Society.

Inoue, N. (1984). British national debate tournament. Forensic Journal 6(4). 31-40.

Inoue, N. (1994). Ways of debating in Japan: Academic Debate in English Speaking Societies. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Hawaii (UMI Order Number 9519451). Dissertation Abstracts International, 56(02), 534.

Jones, K. T. (1994). Cerebral gymnastics 101: Why do debaters debate? CEDA Yearbook, 15, 65-75.

Johnson, E. A. (2003). An early history of the NPDA. Retrieved on December 31, 2003, from http://www.bethel.edu/college/dept/comm/npda/npdahistory.html.

Klopf, D. W. (1978). Forensics in America and Japan. In Klopf, D. W., & Kawashima, T (Eds.), Perspectives on Forensics (pp. 202-220). Tokyo: Gakushobo.

Littlefield, R. S. (2001). High school student perceptions of the efficacy of debate participation. Journal of the American Forensic Association, 38, 83-97.

Matlon, R. J., & Keele, L. M. (1984). A survey of participants in the National Debate Tournament. Journal of the American Forensic Association, 20, 194-205.

McGee, B. R., & Simerley, G. (1994). Intuition, common sense, and judgment. CEDA Yearbook, 15, 86-97.

Meany, J., & Schuster, K. (2002). Art, argument, and advocacy: Mastering parliamentary debate. New York: International Debate Education Association.

Meany, J., & Schuster, K. (2003). On that point: An introduction to parliamentary debate. New York: International Debate Education Association.

Nakamura, T. (1982). Academic debate: Its effects and problems in Japan. Unpublished B.A. thesis, the University of Kitakyushu, Japan.

Quimby, B. (1947). Can we learn from debating with the British? Quarterly Journal of Speech, 33, 159-161.

Scott, W. A. (1995). Reliability of content analysis: The case of nominal scale coding. Public Opinion Quarterly, 19, 321-375.

Semlak, W. D., & Shields, D. C. (1977). The effect of debate training on students participating in the bicentennial youth debates. Journal of the American Forensic Association, 14, 192-196.

Sheckels, Jr., T. F., & Warfield, A. C. (1990). Parliamentary debate: A description and a justification. Argumentation and Advocacy: The Journal of the American Forensic Association, 27, 86-96.

Stanfield, S. J. (1993). A response to Frank, Horn and Underberg. In D. A. Thomas & S. C. Wood (Eds.), CEDA 1991: 20th Anniversary Assessment Conference Proceedings (pp. 97-101). Dubuque, IA: Kendall Hunt.

Steinberg, D. L. (1993). Some thoughts on debate in the 90s. In D. A. Thomas & S. C. Wood (Eds.), CEDA 1991: 20th Anniversary Assessment Conference Proceedings (pp. 97-101). Dubuque, IA: Kendall Hunt.

Tindell, J. H. (1998). Argumentation and debate textbooks: And overview of content and focus. Argumentation and Advocacy: The Journal of the American Forensic Association, 35, 185-195.

Williams, D. E. (1993). Richard Weaver's hierarchy of argument: An instructional model for parliamentary debate. Parliamentary Debate, 2, 35-44.

Williams, D. E., McGee, B. R., & Worth, D. S. (2001). University student perceptions of the efficacy of debate participation: An empirical investigation. Argumentation and Advocacy: The Journal of the American Forensic Association, 37, 198-209.

Wood, S., & Rowland-Morin, P. A. (1989). Motivational tension: Winning vs. pedagogy in academic debate. National Forensic Journal, 7, 81-97.

Ziegelmueller, G. W., & Kay, J. (1997). Argumentation: Inquiry and advocacy (3rd ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon. 

[Literature in Japanese]

Kamada, H. (2000). Nihon ni okeru syakaijin dibeeto kensyuu: Nihongo dibeeto kensyuu no eikyoo [Debate training for business people in Japan: Influences of debate training in Japanese].  Unpublished M.A. thesis, Kyushu University, Japan.

Kawahatsu, M. (1990, June 19). A prospectus of International Debate Institute, Japan. (Distributed by the IDI Committee, College of International Relations, University of Tsukuba, Japan).

NAFA (The National Association of Forensics and Argumentation). (1985). Gendai dibeeto tsuuron [An introduction to contemporary debate]. Tokyo: NAFA Press.

Nakano, M. (2002, Oct). Ajia shokokuno Parliamentary Debate katsudoo no jittaichoosa [A survey of parliamentary debate activities in Asian countries]. Paper presented at the 9th meeting of the Communication Association of Japan, Kyushu Chapter, Oita, Japan.

Nakano, M. (2004). Kyooiku dibeeto ni okeru paaramentarii dibeeto no ichizuke: Ibunkakan kyooiku toshite no igi [The locus of Parliamentary Debate in academic debate: Its value for intercultural education].  Unpublished M.A. thesis, Kyushu University, Japan.

Matsumoto, M. (Ed.) (1981). Korega dibeeto da: Chijoo saikyoo no eigo [This is the debate: The strongest English on earth]. Tokyo: Aruku.

Mikuma, Y. (2003). Eigo supiikingu gakusyuron: E.S.S. supiichi jissen no rekishiteki koosatsu [Learning theory of speaking English: Historical analysis of praxis in public speaking in E.S.Ss.]. Tokyo: Sanshusha.

Milward, P. (1983). Anata no Eigo o yuuben ni suru dibeeto no susume [Invitation to debate which makes your English eloquent]. Tokyo: Eiyusha.

¹ There are several varieties of Parliamentary Debate used in students' competitions in the world. Since we do not get into differences among them, we simply use "Parliamentary Debate" in a generic sense.

² What is being practiced in Japan is not exactly the same as the NDT debate in the U.S. but it has been directly or indirectly modeled after the NDT (Inoue, 1994). It is a style of debating with heavy emphasis on analysis and evidence using one policy resolution throughout the season. We call it NDT or NDT-style debate in this paper.

³ The 1981 NDT final was videotaped and the videotapes together with the transcript with Japanese notes and translation appeared in a special edition of a magazine for English learners with a title "The Strongest English on Earth" (Matsumoto, 1981).

⁴ The SCA was later renamed as the National Communication Association (NCA).

⁵ The original study (Williams et al., 2001) compared the difference of styles on "Speaking/Comm. skills", "Research", "Social life/Meeting people", "Analytical/Critical skills".