Midterm Review for Argumentation and Debate

These flashcards cover key terms and definitions essential for understanding argumentation and debate, useful for exam preparation.

Argumentation

The communicated process of using claims to persuade decision-makers to accept or reject an idea, often under conditions of uncertainty.

Debate

A structured process where speakers present mutually exclusive claims and argue for their acceptance to a decision-maker for adjudication.

Premise

A statement or idea used as a basis for a conclusion.

Enthymeme

An argument where one part (a premise or conclusion) is left unstated, but understood.

Claim Type

Different categories for arguments based on the nature of what's being debated: fact, definition, value, and policy.

Flowing

Taking detailed notes during a debate, often collapsing from left to right, to track arguments, their development, and to help evaluate the debate.

Burden of Proof

The responsibility to prove what you claim in a debate, primarily on the affirmative side for the overall case, but also on both sides to continually respond to arguments.

1. The Burden to Establish (The Burden): The main job of the affirmative side to prove their entire case.
2. The Burden of Going Forward (A Burden): The need to respond to an opponent's argument to keep it relevant.
3. The Burden of Refutation: The need to successfully counter an opponent's argument to cancel its effect.

Presumption

A predisposition favoring one side in a dispute, often the current situation (status quo), until the opposing side proves it needs to change. It can be organic (natural) or synthetic (assigned, like 'innocent until proven guilty').

Stock Issues

The essential questions or points that must be addressed in a policy debate, which both the affirmative (to prove) and negative (to challenge) sides typically focus on: Harm, Inherency, Solvency, and Advantages.

Claim of Fact

A statement that asserts something is true or false and can be proven with evidence, like 'Today, public school revenue exceeds 18,000 per student per year.'

Claim of Value

A statement that expresses a judgment about whether something is good or bad, right or wrong.

Claim of Definition

A statement that establishes or explains what a term or concept means, defining its boundaries or categories ('what's in and what's out').

Claim of Policy

A statement that suggests a specific action or plan should be taken, involving collective action. It usually has two parts: an agent (who should act) and a mandate (what they should do).

Toulmin Model

A way to break down arguments into three main parts: the Claim (your conclusion), the Support (your evidence or grounds for the claim), and the Warrant (the reasoning that connects the support to the claim). For example, Claim: 'Academic quarters encourage more focus.' Support: 'Students take fewer courses in a single quarter.' Warrant: 'Fewer courses allows for more focus in any one course.'

Maximal Argumentative Analysis

A detailed way to analyze complex arguments thoroughly.

Coordinative Argument

An argument where two or more reasons (premises) work together and depend on each other to support a single main point; if one reason is removed, the support for the main point is significantly weakened or lost.

Subordinative Argument

An argument where smaller claims or reasons (subsidiary claims) build on each other in a chain, where one claim supports another, which then supports the main point. (Think of it like an 'if you give a mouse a cookie' chain reaction).

Implicit Argument

An argument where some parts, like a premise or conclusion, are not clearly stated but are implied and understood by the audience.

Complex Argument

An argument with many parts, possibly using a mix of different structures.

Clash Point

A specific part of a debate where opposing arguments directly contradict each other.

Preconditions for Debate

The conditions needed for a productive debate: a genuine disagreement on a non-trivial topic, some common understanding, a willingness to listen, and the possibility for a decision to be reached.

Argument as Process

Seeing argumentation as an ongoing, interactive conversation or stream of communication between people.

Argument as Product

Seeing argumentation as the final conclusion or outcome reached from a set of reasons.

Argument as Procedure

Seeing argumentation as a structured discussion governed by specific rules, formal or informal, that define how arguments are exchanged and how the format affects the outcome.

Multiple Argument Structure

An argument where two or more reasons (premises) independently support the same conclusion. Each reason can stand alone, meaning if one fails, the others can still provide support for the conclusion.

Diagramming Complex Arguments

Drawing a numbered chart or picture to visually represent how the different claims and reasons in an argument connect and support each other, similar to chapters in a book.

Types of Clash Points

Different categories of disagreement in a debate, such as over facts, meanings, values, or proposed actions.

Using a Flow

Using detailed notes taken during a debate (a 'flow') to track arguments, identify direct disagreements (clash points), and evaluate the overall effectiveness of arguments.

Resolution (Debate)

The main statement or question that sets the topic and boundaries for a debate.

Criteria for Good Resolutions

Rules for making a good debate topic: it should be fair, clear, debatable, important, and focused on one issue.

Topoi

Common themes, general arguments, or lines of reasoning (like 'Is there a problem?' for policy) that can be used across many subjects to help discover and build a case.

Status Quo

The way things are right now; the current situation. In debate, it's often viewed as 'innocent until proven guilty' or deemed acceptable until a valid argument for change is made.

Prima Facie Case

A case that, at first glance, appears strong enough to win and demands a response from the opposition. In policy debate, it means the affirmative has sufficiently covered all necessary stock issues, preventing the negative from relying solely on presumption.

Harm (Policy Stock Issue)

The significant problem or negative situation that the affirmative side claims exists in the current system (status quo) and needs fixing. It should be shown as both quantitatively important (how many affected) and qualitatively important (how bad it is).

Inherency (Policy Stock Issue)

The reason the problem (harm) continues to exist in the current system (status quo) and won't go away on its own without new policy action. It explains why a formal block (structural), informal block (attitudinal), or incomplete solution (gap) prevents the problem from being solved.

Solvency (Policy Stock Issue)

How effectively the affirmative's proposed plan will actually work to fix or reduce the identified problem (harm).

Advantages (Policy Stock Issue)

The additional good things or benefits that will happen if the affirmative's plan is put into action, beyond just fixing the main problem, and which are weighed against any disadvantages.

Needs Case (Policy)

An affirmative case strategy that focuses on demonstrating a significant and inherent problem (need) in the status quo, which their proposed plan will specifically solve without creating worse problems.

Assessing Case Strength with Stock Issues

Evaluating a policy case's strength by checking if all stock issues (Harm, Inherency, Solvency, Advantages) are sufficiently proven. If the affirmative fails to prove even one stock issue, the entire prima facie case can fail, allowing the negative to win by targeting that single issue.

Negative Case Strategies

The various broad approaches the negative side can take, including challenging the affirmative's stock issues, defending the status quo (with or without minor repairs), offering disadvantages to the affirmative's plan, or proposing a counterplan (which implies taking on an equal burden of proof).

On-Case Attack (Debate)

Arguments made by the negative side that directly challenge the affirmative's specific claims related to any of the stock issues (Harm, Inherency, Solvency, Advantages). Examples include minimizing harm, arguing inherency isn't true, or questioning the plan's workability.

Off-Case Attack (Debate)

Arguments made by the negative side that are separate from the affirmative's main stock issues, providing independent reasons to reject the affirmative's plan. Common examples include disadvantages (DAs), counterplans (CPs), or arguments about the framework/burden of proof.

Affirmative Stock Issue Strategies

Ways the affirmative plans to prove their case by showing there's a problem (harm), why it won't fix itself (inherency), that their plan will work (solvency), and the benefits of their plan (advantages).

Negative Stock Issue Strategies

Ways the negative plans to counter the affirmative's case by attacking each of the stock issues: refuting the existence or significance of harm, denying inherency by showing the problem might fix itself or requires only minor repairs, demonstrating the plan won't achieve solvency, or arguing the plan's disadvantages outweigh its benefits.