Quizz 2 Flashcards
Common argument types
- argument from Examples
- argument from analogy
-causal reasoning
-arguments based on testimony
-argument by sign
Argument from example
-using examples to reason, they may be factual examples drawn from research or personal experience or a hypothetical examples.
- need to be carful not to use FAULTY examples.
- reasoning from example often falls prey to the logical fallacies known as the fallacy of composition and the fallacy of division.
(Inductive reasoning / deductive reasoning)
Argument for analogy
What is true in one situation will be true in analogous situations.
Beware of the fallacy of the false analogy, keep your analogies precise and sparing to make your arg more effective
Causal reasoning
It can either be from cause to effect or from effect to cause.
Causal reasoning is also prone to many logical fallacies, such as the post hoc fallacy and the fallacy of common cause.
Rule 1 : Causal Arg start with a correlations
Rule 2 : Correlation may have alternative explanations
Argument from testimony or from authority (arg from sources)
Sometimes when we make arg, we rely on the opinions or statements of others to help make our point.
Audiences are more likely to believe speakers who appear to have credible, relevant facts and testimony to support their conclusions than those who appear to use localized examples or hearsay.
Argument by sign
Another type of reasoning. A sign is something that stands for something else. When you see a sign, you after assume that certain conditions are true based on your knowledge of chat that sign usually represents. Often we mistake signs fir causes. Correlation if events does not imply causality. Just because the sun.
Debating impacts
- especially important for rebuttal speeches
-clearly explain advantages and disadvantages
-compare them using various criteria :
*Number of people affected
*Degree of harm
*Probability of harm
*Systematic vs. one time
*Dependent vs. independent
*Most grievous harm consideration
*Try-or-die consideration
*prior consideration
Number of people affected
You should mention at some point that your plan will save a lot of lives
Degree of Harm inflected
You also need to assess the degree of harm inflicted on the potentially hapless victims of the present system and the disadvantages
Probability/ risk (probability of harm)
Probability must figure into any even remotely sophisticated impact calculus. Risk os a very important concept in assessing impact debates.
Systemic vs one time
Systematic impacts, occur continuously either through time or space or some combination of both. Compared to the one time
Prior consideration
In some debate, impact comparaison and assessment will involve a debate about competing ethical or moral framework. On team may argue that their impact must be considered before evaluating the opposing team’s impact
Independent VS dependent
Some impacts are said to be dependent on others to achieve their full force.
Most grievous error ( most grievous harm consideration)
Some impacts are said to be so unbelievably catastrophic (usually nuclear war or global climate change) that even a negligible risk warrants action to prevent them. If you look again at the risk equation above, you’ll see how this works. If the impact is infinite, then any non-zero probability multiplied by infinity still adds up to be an infinite risk. However this needs to be debated through arguments and not math formulas.
Try or die
A cousin to the “most grievous error” argument. Here’s how this argument works: the proposition team tries to show that there is a gigantic problem in the status quo. This is the “die” part of the equation. The proposition team is trying to establish that we’re all going to die (not literally all of us, nor will it necessarily involve our deaths). The “try” part of the equation is the part where the judge decides to endorse the plan, even if she is unsure whether it can actually solve the harm. The proposition team tries to convince the judge that they might as well try the plan since the consequences of not solving the problem would be so unbelievably huge. This rebuttal technique, while startlingly effective, is generally recognized to be the last resort of proposition teams with poor solvency arguments and dubious plans.
Matter
Introduction, body, conclusion
Every speech! (future / present / past)
Argument development and analysis
What exactly are the arguments? How many? By whom?
Opp. team line: pro-freedom (libertarian), effective solution? (pragmatic)
Interpretation of motions / describing the status quo
Ban cigarettes…Where? Why? Reducing costs? Protecting public health (stopping smokers before they start)?
Manner
- Speak too slowly, too many pauses, too long
- Reading while speaking
- Looking at opponents (even talking to them)
- Not looking at all members of the audience
- Fumbling with papers
Method : Dynamics and rules
- POIs
Must give and take (and stay in the debate) - Handling POIs
Quickly, efficiently, strategically - Timing
Don’t finish too early - Avoid lame introductions
“Hi! I’m here to give the reply speech for the Proposition.” - Role fulfillment
Argument rebuttal
Research and evidence
-research topics and core issues (liberty, rights, duties, utility, fairness)
- read a least one newspaper a day
- divide the workload among debaters
- make files. Build libraries
-note taking
Debate ethics
Tell the truth
Completely unacceptable to make up information in debates.
When in doubt:
Ask for clarification
Challenge evidence
Preparing cases
- Identify a public policy issue from the news.
- Brainstorm the issue, analyze pros and cons, and decide if it’s a suitable case.
- Conduct advanced research on the chosen issue and create an argument outline.
- Anticipate opposing arguments and prepare responses.
- Develop an introduction and conclusion for the presentation.
- Create a comprehensive fact-argument background brief for the case
