Prima Facie
an affirmative case demonstrates the minimum argumentation requirements to prove a resolution true. At first glance the affirmative's arguments are sufficient to prove resolution to be true
Presumption
the audience presumes the status quo is fine unless completely convinced otherwise. We presume the negative is correct until the affirmative convinces the audience otherwise. (innocent until proven guilty)
Burden of Proof
the affirmative has the burden to completely convince the audience that there is sufficient reason to change the status quo. The affirmative much convince the audience that all 5 policy stock issues are true in order to win the debate.
Fiat
is the affirmative's power to suppose their plan would be implemented. While the affirmative can assume the plan would be implemented, the negative can argue should the plan be implemented.
Deductive Reasoning
reasoning from general to specific from broad generalities to specific conclusions
Syllogism
- major premise: all men are mortal (generalization of the idea)
- minor premise: Socrates is a man (specific example you wish to apply to the generalization)
- conclusion: Socrates is mortal (the specific conclusion which must be true if the major and mi
Inductive Reasoning or Reasoning by Example
- specific to general reasoning
- because the examples is true all related items are true
- "because this test is hard I assume all Bauer's tests are hard
Reasoning by Analogy
two or more items that are different but we find similar qualities in between them (both literal and figurative)
Reasoning by Cause
cause to effect or effect to cause reasoning
- I studied hard so I received an A on the test
- I received an A on the test because I studied hard
Reasoning from sign/co-existential reasoning-
reasoning that something happens without diligent thinking to come to that conclusion
- it is because it is
Hasty Generalization
reasoning from poor or insufficient examples, an overall assumption about a whole based on a sample size
- commercials
- ask: is the example "typical" or "reliable
Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc
- fallacy of causation in which one event is said to be the cause of a later event simply because it occurred earlier
Non Sequitur
- an argument in which its conclusion does not follow from its premises logically, the argument is fallacious because there is a disconnection between the premise and the conclusion
Slippery Slope
fallacy of causation in which there is a result of one thing, although unrelated to the first, leading to another result which leads to a a major result
Red Herring
the introduction of an irrelevant argument to deflect attention away from the idea being discussed
Bandwagon
because the majority believe something is true or correct then that should be true for the whole (the original "everyone else is doing it" argument)
False Dilema
reasoning that limits the choices when in fact there is at least one choice available that was not presented (both options are usually unfavorable)
Ad Hominem
attacking a charter trait or credibility of a person presenting the argument rather then the argument or idea itself
Aristotle's Golden Mean
moral virtue is appropriate location between two extremes
Kant's Categorical Imperative
act on that maxim which will become universal law
Mill's Principle of Utility
seek the greatest happiness for the greatest number
Rawl's Veil of Ignorance
justice emerges when negotiating without social differentiations
Judeo Christian Person as an End-
love thy neighbor as thy self or do unto others as you would have done to you
Tabula Rosa
blank slate, only analyze the info given
ethos
the audience determines this- credibility and goodwill between audience and speaker
pathos
the use of emotion to persuade audience
logos
the use of reasoning to persuade an audience
Debate
process of inquiry and advocacy, seeking of reasoned judgement on a proposition, used to reach a decision or persuade audience to make decision
Critical Thinking
the careful and deliberative effort to make a decision based upon thought mogul evaluation of all available information, must come to a decision
Argument #1
a piece of reasoning developed by an individual to support a claim. this is the creation and development of the argument before it is presented to an audience
Argument #2
communicative exchange of ideas between two or more people. this communication is where claims are expressed, supported, and refuted in some form of communication. must have #1 to have #2.
Resolution
a statement of judgment that identifies the issues of a controversy, must be a statement. Must have a clear statement of controversy, one central idea, phrased in unemotional terms, clear statement of decision
Function of a Resolution
1. Specifies the point of discussion
2. Specifies the type of resolution
3. Assigns speaker obligations (neg and aff)
4. Instructs audience
Types of Resolutions
1. Fact- seek to alter or re-enforce our beliefs by seeking alter our view of reality, a resolution of absolutes (something is or isn't), few things (if any thing) are absolute
2. Value- seeks to alter the beliefs of the audience by showing the relative i
flowing
slang to keep track of an argument
status quo
the current system, the way things are currently done
5 Steps to Presenting an Argument
1) state your claim- what is the conclusion we want audience to come to
2) explain and clarify if needed
3) data- orally, begin with site citation to allow audience to know you're presenting data ("no author listed")
4) restate claim
5) significance/warra
5 steps Refuting an Argument
1. State claim you're responding to
2. State claim and define if needed
3. Data
4. Restate Claim
5. Warrant/Significance
Policy Resolutions
identify a status quo (the current system) problem that needs to be solved. "should" indicated that we should solve the problem
Stock Issues
1) Significance- What is the problem and is it significant
2) Harm- How harmful is the problem
3) Inherency- something that is preventing us from solving the problem
4) Topicality- plan of action that you implement that solves the problem
5) Solvency- the
Toulmin Model Necessary Parts
1. Claim- starting point, a single declarative statement that is the goal of the argument, so when the argument is over, this statement is what you want your audience to believe, should be the conclusion the audience should reach, should be one single ide
Toulmin Model Additional Parts
o Backing- additional support to strengthen the data and/or the warrant
o Qualifier- a word or phrase that is added to the claim that changes the claim from an absolute to the probable "could be"
o Reservation (also rebuttal)- the actual circumstance in w
Difficulties in Applying the Toulmin Model
1.As the warrant is often implied or supposed that the audience knows the connection, identifying the warrant is often difficult and depends on the receiver's own interpretation
2. The data and the warrant are often confused
3.The backing is also frequent
brief
A prepared argument before a debate takes place
5 Types of Claims
1. Fact- Is it real? Is it a fact? Did it really happen? Is it true? Does it exist?
2. Definition- What is it? What is it like? How should it be classified/defined? How should we interpret it? Does the meaning shift in certain contexts?
3. Cause- How did
3 Types of Warrants ***
1. authoritative- must share respect for the same authorities
2. substantive- must share high level of confidence in reliability of evidence presented
3. motivational- both must recognize the needs and values associated with your claim
source citation
author, source, date
using evidence/data
� Must be accessible to everyone
� Never paraphrase
� Do not use ellipsis (no ...)
Perspectives on an Argument
1. Logical - when we use and evaluate argumentation in a vacuum. We take one idea, from the several, and evaluate the claim, data, and warrant
2. Dialectical- we use argument as a mechanism to find more or more significant information
3. Rhetorical - we u
3 Functions of Argument
1. Relationship- have an effect on establishing, growing, and ending. Helps us understand our own and other's view of the relationship itself. Can be a sign of comfort.
2. Inquiry - the mechanism we use to learn and to gain information (dialectical)
3. Ad
3 Reasons why people Argue
1. Conflict of Orientation - having different ways to accomplish the same task
2. Conflict of Attitude- ego involvement, or how strongly we feel about something
3. Conflict of Motive/Desire/Goal- what we want to attain
Argumentative Situation
1. Advocate - person that is wishing to influence through the use of argument
2. Audience - is whom the advocate wishes to influence
3. Topic - what it is we wish to influence the audience of
4. Situation - influences how and what we argue