Deck 1

Question 1

Is symbolic

Answer 1

Reality

Question 2

Is sermonic

Answer 2

Language

Question 3

Is an internal, personal opinion or interpretation or feeling

Answer 3

Believing

Question 4

Is an external, public position or demonstration or reason

Answer 4

Knowing

Question 5

Is “reason giving” in communicative situations by people whose purpose is the justification of acts, beliefs, and values

Answer 5

Argumentation

Question 6

May be defined as “reasons which are psychologically compelling for a given audience”

Answer 6

Good reasons

Question 7

Is the process of inquiry and advocacy, a way of arriving at a reasoned judgment on a proposition

Answer 7

Debate

Question 8

Is referred to as the father of debate

Answer 8

Protagoras

Question 9

Is symbolic interaction composed of the basic unit of rational thought.

Answer 9

Discourse

Question 10

Sentences are neither true nor false

Answer 10

Instrumental

Question 11

Sentences are either true or false

Answer 11

Inferential

Question 12

Defined “an argument” as “a complete unit of logical proof”; an assertion plus a reason why the assertion is probably true

Answer 12

Aristotle

Question 13

Calls the assertion part of an argument the claim and divides the reason part into data and warrant

Answer 13

Toulmin

Question 14

Appear in one of three forms: past fact; present condition; future action.

Answer 14

Claims

Question 15

Is the externally generated support for a claim.

Answer 15

Data

Question 16

Evidence is any “thing” that can be “consensual lay” validated: perceived by the senses; measured objectively; documented historically.

Answer 16

Real/factual

Question 17

Evidence is made up of the statements made about “consentually” validated things

Answer 17

Created

Question 18

Are single, highly detailed accounts or illustrations of “things”.

Answer 18

Examples

Question 19

Are numerical collections, or manipulations of “things”.

Answer 19

Statistics

Question 20

Are statements made by people who are trained to make judgments in a discipline

Answer 20

Expert interpretations

Question 21

Are statements made by people who are not trained to make judgements in a discipline.

Answer 21

Lay observations

Question 22

Means the advocate must insure that the evidence is the most up to date available

Answer 22

Recency

Question 23

Means the advocate must provide enough evidence to support the claim

Answer 23

Sufficiency

Question 24

Means the advocate must determine whether the evidence corresponds with know “facts”.

Answer 24

Consistency

Question 25

Is statements made about “single” or “numerical” evidence

Answer 25

Testimony

Question 26

Means the advocate must insure that the evidence directly relates to the matter at hand.

Answer 26

Relevancy

Question 27

Means the advocate must insure that the source is actually and reliable.

Answer 27

Competency

Question 28

Is the internally generated support for a claim

Answer 28

Warrent

Question 29

Reasoning involves the process of going from generally accepted premises to a necessary

Answer 29

Deductive

Question 30

Reasoning Involves the process of going from specific instances to a probable conclusion

Answer 30

Inductive

Question 31

Are plato’s formal/mathematical forms of reasoning from general to specific

Answer 31

Syllogisms

Question 32

Are Aristotle’s informal/rhetorical forms of reasoning from general to specific

Answer 32

Enthymemes

Question 33

Is the form of reasoning from specific to general that collects positive instances.

Answer 33

Generalization

Question 34

Is the form of reasoning from specific to general that eliminates negative instances.

Answer 34

Hypothesis testing

Question 35

Is the fallacy of setting up a weak argument merely to knock it down easily.

Answer 35

Straw-man

Question 36

Is the fallacy of presenting an irrelevant argument to distract attention from other issues.

Answer 36

Red herring

Question 37

Is the fallacy of confusing time for cause

Answer 37

Post-hoc

Question 38

The “ultimate claim” in a debate; the statement around which the clash revolves.

Answer 38

Proposition

Question 39

Propositions focus upon what was or is; forensic; judicial.

Answer 39

Accept/belief/condition

Question 40

Propositions focus upon what should be; deliberative; legislative.

Answer 40

Behavior/action/change

Question 41

The assumption that the status quo, existing order, present system will be retained until such time as a “good person” can be offered to over turn it.

Answer 41

Presumption

Question 42

Propositions assume that “since change is undesirable” that status quo retains the advantage in a tie; the judge votes negative.

Answer 42

Forensic/judicial

Question 43

Propositions assume that “since change is inevitable” the advantage shifts to least risky course of action; the judge votes for the side with the greatest benefit-to-cost ratio.

Answer 43

Deliberative/legislative

Question 44

Rests upon the negative to win at least one of the four “stock issues” in order to win

Answer 44

Burden of refute

Question 45

Rests upon the affirmative to win all four “stock issues” in order to win the debate.

Answer 45

Burden of proof

Question 46

Is the “stock issue” which addresses the “ills”/problems within the present system; the extent and impact of the “harms”

Answer 46

“I’ll”/significance

Question 47

Is the “stock issue” which addresses the “causes” of the problems; the structures and attitudes that prevent the present system from solving the problems.

Answer 47

Inherency

Question 48

Is the “stock issues” which addresses the affirmative’s “cure” for the problems; who is assigned to enforce the specific mandates of the “plan”.

Answer 48

Solvency

Question 49

Is the “stock issues” which addresses the negative’s identified “costs” of the plan; what disadvantages to the plan exist which offset and benefits the affirmative might claim.

Answer 49

Disadvantages

Question 50

Is the fallacy of attacking the person’s character rather than the argument

Answer 50

Ad hominem