Uself Flashcards
Form of communication wherein speaker uses a reason-giving discourse in order to seek acceptance of a particular claim in opposition to a claim advanced by others
Argumentation
Formal oral controversy between two opposing teams;one attempts to persuade or convince audience while the other team reject the proposition under consideration
Debate
● Argumentation requires at least 2 persons or 2
competing messages
● That in effect, the arguer is implicitly and explicitly
saying that he is presenting a message which
can be examined and evaluated by others
Convention of Bilaterality
● The characteristic of argumentation in which the
arguer assumes certain risks brought about by his
implicit or explicit calling for a critique of his
ideas from others
Convention of Self-Risk
● The idea that argumentation ought to be as
extended and as complete as possible in order
to guarantee that all consideration be aired,
considered, and defended
● As if the arguer saying “you may use as much
time as I have (or as much time as you need) to
criticize my claims and reasons
The Fairness Doctrine
● Refers to the willingness of the arguer to proceed
logically
● The arguer is committed to giving reasons that he
thinks that will support his claims and ought to be
accepted by unsure or doubtful listeners
Commitment to Rationality
Speakers are divided into two teams
Affirmative or Negative
Presides over the discussion; and the ordinary rules of parliamentary procedure apply
Moderator or chairman
Is a process that creates different belief or disbelief through an appeal to reason
Conviction
Is a process that creates belief or disbelief through an appeal to the emotions
Persuasion
Refers to the perception other people have on the persuader; whether they perceive him as having competence, integrity, goodwill, and credibility
Personal Proof
Appeals to the attitude and motivates of the listener
Psychological Proof
Refers to the way the persuader moves from data or evidence to a conclusion
Logical Proof
Is a statement of judgement that identifies the issues in controversy. Presented in a debate as affirmative or negative
wherein each debater has to gain belief or persuade
their audience on their side of the argument by
providing evidences that supports their propositions.
Proposition
► Questions of fact pertain to events that have
happened, are happening, or will happen.
► It aims to establish the truthfulness or falsity of an
act of judgement.
► It aims at belief and answers the question: “Is this
assertion true?”
Proposition of Fact
► Affirm why something has happened, is
happening, or will happen.
► Deal with complex cause-and-effect
relationships, which by their nature are not
subject to direct verification.
The Proposition of Explanation
► Assert that some individual, institution,
program, or policy possesses or lacks a
certain desirable or undesirable
characteristic.
The Proposition of Value
► Also called as normative statements, are the most complex type of
proposition for they involve all three of the preceding types.
► Such questions assert that a new program or policy should be instituted.
► Implied evaluations of a given policy and may be paraphrased as “such-
and-such a policy is the best of available means to a certain desired
end.”
The Proposition of Policy
Three types of policy questions:
1. A new policy may be a program for something that is lacking
or nonexistent.
2. An alternative program
3. Rejection or discontinuation of the present policy
implies that there must be conflicts of opinion or a
conflict of interest before a discussion can take place. It should
represent a judgment or an inference and can be believed or
disbelieved, doubted or denied.
Debatability
A good proposition should also be expressed in an _______
Affirmative statement
is something that has at least two sides, an idea that
can be debated. Means a point disputed by
parties to a lawsuit. The starting point of debates and
argumentations.
Issue
True, valid or sufficient at first impressions
Priima Facie
It is the solemn judgment or decision of the court
Resolution
These are issues that give relevance and are applicable
to the proposition. It is normally being utilized by the
affirmative side to formulate their prima facie case as
they also act as a fundamental element towards the
proposition.
For instance, in the proposition on the abolition of lotto,
the question that may possibly arise as a potential issue
is, “will the abolition contribute to the economic growth
of the country?”
Potential issues
These are issues that the negative side
refuses or admits to exist and they can
be controverted by the opposition,
however, these can also become
future problems proven by factual
evidence on which no conflict of
opinions can contend.
In the proposition on lotto, the
negative side would do well to
acknowledge that, despite being
legal, lotto is still a form of gambling.
Admitted issues
These issues refer to the standard
questions that can be applied to any
policy proposal, such as: (a) is the
measure necessary? (b) will the measure
be beneficial? and (c) is the measure
practicable?
In the case of the lotto proposition, the
stock issues may appear like these: Is
there a necessity to abolish the lotto?,, is
the abolition beneficial to the people?
and is it practicable to abolish the lotto?
Stock issues
According to definition, it refers to “the statement of the
main points to be taken up in the course of the discussion.”
In certain cases, the ______are the same as the
issues provided and are considered crucial in a debate.
As certain points in the ____ do not correspond to the
issues, however, they are still significant but not necessarily
a requirement.
Partition points
Partition can be presented by:
(a)
The abolition is necessary, (b) The abolition is
beneficial to the people, (c) The abolition is
practicable.
● The most important element in debating
● The means of securing belief
● Effectiveness of proof can tell whether a debate is good or bad
● Effect/result/conclusion produced by evidence
Proof
Proof = ____ +_____
reasoning + evidence = proof
● Foundation of every argument
● Basis upon which the entire proof structure is built
● Facts that supports reasoning
● Used to prove one’s contention
● Medium or means whereby facts are established
Evidence
The first test, This determines whether the rules of the court permit introduction of the
evidence in the trial; whether or not the rules set forth in the “law of evidence” have been
satisfied
Rule of legal admissibility
The second test, this determines whether the evidence is likely to be believed by men in
general and whether it is pertinent or applicable to the purpose for which it is presented.
Logical sufficiency and relevancy
● Examples/Instances
● Statistics
● Statements by Authorities
● Illustrations
Used in General Argumentation
● Direct and Indirect Evidence
● Real and Personal Evidence
● Documentary and Testimonial Evidence
● Original and Unoriginal Evidence
● Primary and Secondary Evidence
● Ordinary and Expert Evidence
● Preappointed and Casual Evidence
● Positive and Negative Evidence
Used in Courts of Law
Refer to certain facts or conclusions that may hold true at some
other time and place under certain conditions
Instances
Rules of using instances
- Several examples leading to the same general conclusion should be
used - As far as possible, use examples which are already known to the
listener - The examples should be typical
Consists of tabulated numerical figures developed from
a collection of a great number of examples presented
as a group
Only includes figures which represents tabulations of
examples or instances
Often presented in percentages (%)
Statistics
Rules of using Statistics as Evidence
- Avoid the use of too many sets of figures
- Figures usually should be presented in round number
- Be conservative in interpreting statistics; avoid the tendency to
exaggerate - Use comparisons with things known to and understood by your
listeners
Type of evidence which consists of statements by prominent authorities
related to the point at issue
- very effective when used in connection with other forms of evidence
Statements by Authorities
Statement of authorities that made usually by government departments,
authoritative research organizations, or recognized publications (e.g.
encyclopedias or year books)
- examples: examples, statistics, illustrations
Statements as to facts
Statement of authorities that statements of opinions
taken usually taken from statements of individual authorities, and sometimes
from reports of government investigating committees or of private research
organizations
Used independently as separate form of evidence
An imaginative example showing how the idea works or how would it
work in practice
Varies in different fields as long as it supports the idea
Giving a vivid picture of one man’s experience
Depends for its effectiveness on the vividness and reality of the picture it
gives the listener
Illustrations
3 rules that will aid in making the illustration clear and vivid
. To the greatest degree possible, the illustration should make use of
everyday experiences of the listener
2. Give enough details to make the picture complete
3. Use some elements in the illustration that will make the listener
remember iT
The debater must bear in mind that except for examples, the types of
evidence discussed are only appropriate when the type of debate used is
Oxford-Oregon
consists of arguments and examples used by either side
Matter
style in which matter is introduced
Manner
refers to the effectiveness, organization and structure and
presentation of each individual speech.
Method
The one that tends to show the existence of a fact in question without
the necessity of any inference, presumption, or intervention of the proof
of any other fact.
Direct Evidence
The one that tends to show the existence of a fact in question by
proving another fact or other facts from which the facts in
question may be inferred.
Indirect Evidence
● Furnished by objects placed on view or under inspection.
● It speaks for itself and is “the most trustworthy type of evidence.”
● In the courtroom, it may consist of shoes, wounds, scars, and
bullets, or weapons
Real Evidence
● Furnished by persons
● May be in the form of oral or written discourse or by voluntary signs
for communicating thought.
Personal Evidence
● Supplied by written instruments, or derived from symbols
● Main sources are documents like public records or private writings
► Example: contracts, certificates, pictures, minutes
Documentary Evidence
Derived from oral statements given in courts by witnesses or the disposition
by the one who has observed that to which he is testifying or one who,
though he has not observed the facts, is nevertheless qualified to give an
opinion relative to such facts
Testimonial Evidence
● Derived from the witness’ own knowledge, therefore has a probative force of its own.
● May also fall under direct, circumstantial, testimonial, or personal evidence, depending
upon its essential nature
Original Evidence
● Hearsay, derivative or transmitted, or secondhand evidence
● From the witness’ personal knowledge but from the information given to him by another
person
● To prove something seen or heard, the court usually calls a witness, a person who
actually seen or heard that thing; not anyone who says that another person saw or heart
it
● Most common exception: Ante-mortem declaration, pedigree cases
Unoriginal Evidence
Most reliable proof of its existence and its contents
► Example: a copy of deed is not the best evidence; the deed itself is better
Primary Evidence
● One that falls short of the standard of primary evidence, since by its nature
suggests that there is better evidence of the matter in question
● Inferior compared to a primary evidence
► Example: a photocopy or a xeroxed copy of a deed
Secondary Evidence
● Secondary evidence is essentially weak and is generally
inadmissible in courts of law
Best Evidence Rule
● Provided by persons without special training, knowledge, or experience in the
matter under consideration
● Limited to what they see, smell, hear, taste, or touch
Ordinary Evidence (Lay Evidence)
Witness whose special skill is required in the interpretation of the fact in dispute
● Courts insist the special competence of experts should be established before they
are allowed to offer opinion evidence
Expert Evidence
● Is one that is created for the specific purpose of recording certain information for
possible future reference.
● It is something prepared or preserved in anticipation of an assertion of defense of a
right.
Preappointed or Prearranged Evidence
● Is one that is created without any effort being made to create it and is not
designed for possible future reference.
● It is not created to enforce an obligation or to protect a right. It is totally
undesigned.
Casual Evidence
● Is one that is furnished by anything that can actually attest to the
occurrence of a fact in dispute.
Positive Evidence
● Is the absence of evidence that might reasonably be expected to
be found were the issue in question true.
Negative Evidence
It is the process of inferring conclusions from premises, and the
premises may be in the form of any of the various types of
evidence
● Thus, advocates use the premises they have previously
established or asserted, and by process of reasoning seek to
establish something new – a conclusion they wish their audience
to accept.
● If the audience perceives the premises as well grounded and the
reasoning is rhetorically sound, it will be likely to ACCEPT the
advocates’ conclusion.
Reasoning
Reasoning or argument is either cogent (good) or fallacious (bad)
To reason cogently, three criteria must be satisfied
One must start with justified or warranted premises
○ He must include all available relevant information
○ His reasoning must be correct or valid
A statement in an argument that
provides reason or supports the conclusion.
Premise
A statement in an argument that indicates
what the arguer is trying to convince the
reader/listener.
Conclusion
Whenever one
reasons from a general rule to a specific case, he is
reasoning
Deductive
Deductive reasoning is expressed in a three-step pattern called a ____. Different deductive arguments may have the same form or structure but
the most commonly used form of reasonings are ____.
Syllogism
Moving from particular or specific items of information (evidence) to a
logical conclusion (generalization.)
Inductive reasoning
Inductive reasoning often used as
Probability Argument
Syllogisms compromise of:
Major Premise, Minor Premise, Conclusion
All the propositions are listed by categories, declaring something absolutely,
admitting no condition, or limitation.
● The Major Premise is in an unqualified proposition, characterized
by quantifiers: all, every, each, or any.
Categorical syllogism
Is a syllogism in which the major premise contains
mutually exclusive alternatives.
● The separation of alternatives is usually indicated by the
conjunctions: either, or, neither, but, although
Disjunctive syllogism
Is a syllogism in which the major
premise deals with uncertain or hypothetical events that may or may not
exist or happen.
● It is usually indicated by the words if, assuming, supposing or similar
concepts either expressly stated or clearly implied
Hypothetical Syllogism
is a syllogism in which the antecedent statement of
the major premise is affirmed by the minor premise and the consequent
statement is affirmed by the conclusion
Modus ponens
Latin modus ponendo ponens
The mode of affirming by affirming
is a syllogism in which the consequent
statement of the major premise is denied by the minor premise
and the antecedent statement is denied by the conclusion
Modes Tollens
Latin modus tollento tollens
The mode of denying by denying
This fallacy arises when the minor
premise affirms the consequent
Affirming the consequent
Fallacy occurs if the minor
premise denies the antecedent of
the major premise
Denying the antecedent
Reasoning by enumeration or reasoning from random instances
● Examines specific details or examples and coming to a general
conclusion.
All As observed so far are Bs to the conclusion that all As
whatsoever are Bs
Reasoning by Generalization
Involves making a comparison between two similar cases and
inferring that what is true in one case is true in the other
❖ Factors in one’s analogy are either a cause or sign of conclusion
presented
Reasoning by analogy
Cases compared are in the same classification
➔ Tom and Brad
Literal Analogy
cases compared are in different classification
➔ When a dirty politician is compared to a crocodile
Figurative Analogy
Causal reasoning is based on the principle that every cause has
an effect. This usually involves generalization
Reasoning by Cause and Effect
Argument revolves around how two or more objects are so related
that the presence or absence of one may be taken as an indication
of the presence or absence of the other.
➔ During _____ one may reason either from the attribute to the
substance or from the substance to the attribute.
Reasoning by sign
Certain indication of the existence of a given state
or condition
Infallible sign
Probability of likelihood than certainty
Fallible sign
is reasoning that fails to satisfy one or more of these
three criteria. It can be the result of of faulty induction or deduction, or the
acceptance of misleading argumentation
Fallacy
) is a fallacy that insists that a
claim is true simply because a valid authority says it without any other evidence
being given
Appeal to Authority Argumentum ad verecundium
is a type of fallacy wherein a
person makes an assumption that the lack of evidence of an opponent is
considered as the evidence
Appeal to ignorance ( argumentum ad ignorantiam)
means “against the man,” and this type of fallacy is sometimes called
name calling or the personal attack fallacy
Ad hominem
is a
fallacious argument that concludes that a proposition must be true because many or most
people believe it, often concisely encapsulated as: “If many believe so, it is so”
Ad populum argument or argumentum ad populum appeal to the people +
Any form of argument where the conclusion is assumed in one
of the premises
Begging the Question
is when you attempt to make an argument by beginning with an
assumption that what you are trying to prove is already true. The conclusion is
assumed as a premise either immediately in the argument or else assumed
mediately as a premise in a series of arguments.
Arguing in Circle
This fallacy arises when an advocate asks an unanswerable,
“loaded”, or ambiguous question; or a question based on a false
assumption; or so many questions that an opponent cannot
possible answer them adequately within the available time
Pseudo-question or complex question
This fallacy occurs when the advocate draws a
conclusion that does not follow from the
premises or evidence on which it is based or
when he is trying to prove something using
evidence that may appear to be relevant but
really isn’t
Irrelevant Reason
This arises when one accepts a premise when
he has no good reason to accept it (and the
argument in question doesn’t provide any
Questionable Premise
This refers to the omission from an argument
of known relevant evidence or failure to look
for evidence that is available
Suppressed Evidence
This refers to labelling something as the
cause of something on the basis of
insufficient evidence, or contrary to available
evidence
Questionable Cause
This refers to using or accepting statistics
that are questionable without further proof
or support
Questionable Statistics
This involves placing items in the same
classification class although they aren’t
relevantly similar
Questionable Classification
When only two choices are presented yet
more exist, or a spectrum of possible
choices exist between two extremes
False Dilemma
is an argument that
suggests that a certain initial action could
lead to a chain of events with a relatively
extreme result, or that if we treat one case
a certain way then we will have to treat
more extreme cases the same way too
Slippery Slope
This fallacy refers to attacking a position similar to but
significantly different from an opponent’s position
Strawman
It is a fallacy wherein a token gesture is accepted as a substitute for real action
Tokenism
The fallacy of equivocation occurs
when a key term or phrase in an
argument is used in an ambiguous
way, with one meaning in one portion
of the argument and then another
meaning in another portion of the
argument
Equivocation
is fallacious when it is based on insufficient or unfair
evidence or when it is not warranted by the facts available; the use of
relevant but insufficient evidence to reach a conclusion
Unwarranted or Hasty Generalization
Cases seem relevantly different
False or Questionable Analogy
Sees things exclusively through the eyes of one’s own group, organization,
nation, etc
Provincialism
This is using or accepting two contradicting claims and can be presented
by (1) one person at a time ; (2) one person at different times; (3) different
person from one constitution. It can also be committed by someone who
say one thing but does another.
Inconsistency
