Debate midterm

Argumentation

testing of theories/claims

asking questions is the testing of ideas

any time someone communicates soemthing it is a claim and once that claim is challenged its an argument

rhetoric and break down words

ability to discern in any situation the available means of persuasion

Ability (skill thats taught or natural)

discern (identify)

socratic method

philosophical method of questioning to gain truth

Persuasion

a non-violent , non cohersive attempt to change audiences attitudes, beliefs or behaviors

(attempt because it doesn't always work)-- fails sometimes

meaning of attitudes, beliefs or behaviors

attitude= opinions

beliefs= do I believe in god

behaviors : preventative medicine: modifies habits

- people die because we didn't speak perfectly in which they would understand

nonviolent persuasion meaning

hitting you and taking something is NOT persuasion

non coherisive manner of persuasion

cohersion occurs when there is an abuse of power *its irrelevant that we are all adults now teacher/student dynamics is still an abuse of power

Dialectic

way of conveying to know the world by asking and answering questions: methods in science is a form of dialectic

*engaging in conversation

true dialectic: students read smth and teachers ask questions until we come to the realization myself

Ethos

speaker credibility: transfers to changing beliefs, behaviors and attitudes due to being an expert

factors:

- honesty and truthfullness

- expertise: does the person SOUND (might not actually) like they know what they're talking about

- goodwill: does the audience THINK they are looking out for them

where does the word "con man " come from

"confidence"

you basically volunteer to give things to the person,

Pathos

persuading based on emotions, "people are not rational, they rationalize"-- decisions based on emotions

Logos

strength in logic/evidence and data provided

rebuttal

putting limitations on original claim (when claims would not hold)/ modifying the claim to where you are comfortable backing it up

ethymeme

1. Syllogism with a missing premise or a missing conclusion (argument with an unstated premise or unstated conclusion)

2. where speaker starts a thought and audience completes it

*moment where we have a meeting of the minds

ex:

i'm gonna use an umbrella

second person: its gonna rain

deductive syllogism

3 part argument

major premise: states rule or what audience believes is true

minor premise: applies rule in a specific case

conclusion: result of application

*with diff backgrounds enthymeme can be uncompleted/miscommunication

Toulin model of argumentaion

Claim (needs modal qualifier and rebuttal)

warrants (needs backing)

data (needs backing )

description of stuff in toulmin model

claim: statement

* determine which type of proposition it is: fact (is it real), value (is it good?), policy (combines the other two and takes the next step.)

modal qualifier: strength of the argument, stronger the claim higher burden of proof-- why you never wanna go first

data: tangible data

warrants: gets you from data to claim, inductive reasoning

backing: more warrants to support claim -- additional tests

rebuttal: how you modify claim, or exceptions

modal qualifier:

determines strength of claim claims require strong evidence (usually one or two words)

warrants

internal reasoning /logic that gets you from data to claim

often unstated assumptions

typical warrants/internal logic: different strucures give rise to diff reasoning: deduction, induction, causation, analogic

backing-- why does this matter

data

something tangiable, oberved items or facts

deductive reasoning

reasoning from a general rule applied in a specific case to draw a conclusion

deductive syllogism:

structure of that argument

if you go with this you will be functionally correct

*one aspect of deductive: argument by definition (definition will logically flow)

once you win definitional debate: you win the debate

Fallacies

a mistake in logic /reasoning

2 types:

- formal: mistake in structure of logic (form of circular logic like this is a dog therfore that is a dog)-- will never give this example

- Informal: structure of argument is correct: smth else is wrong with it (you find it)

*only need to prove one thing wrong here

begging the question

*most important fallacy of deductive reasoning

when major premise has a flaw, major premise is flawed or has mistaken assumption

burden of proof

person who makes claim has to prove it

civil: more likely than not

criminal: beyond resonable doubt

policy: more likely than not, enough for specific audience

How much evidence has to be placed in order to convicne the audience

appeal to ignorance

if you shift the burden of proof onto them (get them to assume burden of proof)

- something is true/false bc there is no evidence on the contrary

inductive reasoning

based on observation, improbable truth-- never get to absolute truth

examples to draw to a general conclusion : specific to general *most science is based on this

Most common fallacy with inductive reasoning

hasty generalization: occurs when all samples from same place (people from same group)

- sample size is too small: typically 1000

- is it representative of the claim

confidence levels

only way to express inductive reasoning

- how accurate the data is to the claim being made (want data to represent reality-- wnat ot get as clsoe to reality as we're comfortable)

analogical inductive reasoning types

figurative: nothing to to do with logic: "her hair is like the burning sun (metaphor, poetry, similarities, pathos is when by figurative analogies, emotional impact)

literal: comparison of like objects or like concepts: comparing 1 computer with another

* especially in policy making

- comparison on two things that happened--- question of can you rly use animals to decide if smth can be done to humans

false analogy

most common fallacy of analogies

1. think a figurative analogy is literally true: biblical literalists

2. literal analogy occurs but there are significant differences in the analogies: most important

*hawaii and MO are two states but are completley diff and cannot be treate dthe same

3. coralation doesn't mean causation: don't RLY have evidence of cause

"strongly correlates"

ad hominem

personal attack

"well ur racist"

if you defend yourself you are now debbating values of a person and not the debate

red herring

distraction in the middle of debate

*form of this is the personal attack, focus on the person no the argument

But-For test

causation fallacy

you can remove things as potential cause, but if it still happens then that can't be the cause

post hoc fallacy

false assumption that because one event occurred before another event, it must have caused that event

ockham's razor

the idea with the least assumptions is usually the correct one

NOT A FALLACY

informal fallacies of relevance

just depends on if these are actually relevant

accident informal fallacy

ignoring exceptions to the rule

falacy of relevance

counterclaim is irrelavant to claim but has emotional impact, can be logical

strawperson

mistaking og claim to make it easier to defeat: even if you right about smth it doens't mean i got the whole thing wrong , doesn't defeat og argument

ad populum/band wagon

argument based on whats popular, peer pressure

just cause everyone is doing it doesn't mean its right

ad miscordeum/appeal to pity

make people feel sorry for you, even tho you did smth wrong

rally around the flag/appeal to patrioism/jingoism

if you don't support this polcyt than you're not a citizen

moving the goal post

set a new standard

"well ur foot was over th eline"-- you never said it couldnt' be

need to remind people of the rules or they will keep changing thm

ambiguity 2 words

1. vagueness:

2.ambigous: can have different meaning , grammatical errors

* equivocation: mistake an argument bc using a word in two diff contexts

amphiboly

The fallacy of ambiguous grammatical construction.

equivocation

the word has two different words in two different instances

appeal to unqualified authority

just bc someone says something doesn't mean they are qualified to do so , less they know the more confident they are

slippery slope

a seemlingly not so dangerous event leads to a large consequence

taking f internal links, disvalidate the links

false dichotomy

offering 2 limited alternatives, unfairly constrictive

*key to win is to point out multiple ways argument was presented

genetic fallacy

judged based on origin or source, "doesn't matter what trump says if its from trump"

appeal of tradition

we've never dont it that way so it must be wrong, this is how it is traditionally done

ad baculum

an illegitimate appeal to force, do something or I will beat

fallacy of supressed evidence

intentionally leaving out crucial info

tu quoque

you too falacy, turn the claim back onto toher person

Debate propositions: proposition of fact

whether or not somth is true or false: more true than false

is someone guilty

Debate propositions: proposition of value

we believe its true but we argue if its good or not

fair/unfair

just/unjust

one thing we have to do in this debate is criteria (or what are judging this on)

utilitarianism

greatest good for greatest number of people- consequentialist (slavery?)

any rights debate is deontological debate

deontological debate

emphasizes moral rules and duties regardless of consequences

Debate propositions: proposition of quasi-policy

we move in direction of policy

(us should cut its debt-- not specific to what we cut)

gov needs to ensure human rights, university health is human rights, government ensusres unrest healthcare)

positive right: provide somth

Policy proposition

involves fact and value and then propose policy and consequences: how do we implement/consequences

first thing is to look for who is the "agent of action" - subject of sentence

first step of argumentation

defining key terms

reasons to define key terms

1. mutual agreement/meeting of the minds: both parties need some idea when entering

2. Equivocation: fallacy/reasoning while terms are vague : don't know factors

3. basis of research: you have to agree what you are debating about

lexical definitions

dictionaries: simple words such as should

legal definitions

black's law dictionary, bound by the law, glossary of legal terms

time/era could be important when looking up definitions

framers intent

legislation-congressional record

code of federal regulations: what you will find arguments

constitution: originalism: look at meaning of word based on the time the law was made

case-law:judges render a decision

field context

depends on who you are talking to/who your audience is

senate/house/subcomittee headings

- law reviews

- peer reviewed

- contacting the experts themselves

websites/blogs-- dpends on the source qualifications

topicality

what we agreed to debate on

agent of action

individuals responsible for initiating change, making decisions, carrying out a specific action in given context

narrowness

definition too limited, no one can meet definitions: combat by giving examples

broadness

not defining something is too broad

underlying assumptions : textbook definitions that are outdated could erase someones idenitity

Presumption with the status quo

presumption of innocence: innocent until proven othersie

until you prov gov is doing fraud, I assume they are doing the right thing

Prima Facie case

on first look

have you met main requirements to overcome your burden of proof

before any other arguments are made, you have made enough argument to convince the audience

Minimum requirements:

topicality

inherency: why has your plan not been passed

should

ought to do something/not saying we will, things don't have to happen but if you say "it will never happen" this stops the debate and there is no point

fiat

for the purposes of this debate we are arguing that something should happen not will

3 types of inherency

1. structural: law in the books, prevents plan from being implemented

2. attitudinal inherency: refusal of gov to do their job, why aren't laws enforced, law exits but not enforced

3. existential: new problem or opportunity has arisen

burden of the rejoinder

burden of someone to respond

2 harm types

qualitative and quantative

quantitive harm

how many people will get hurt by something

utilitarian

qualitative harms

philosophical/ human rights based

solvency

whatever harm that will occur, your plan will solve

complex and trick questions

complex: asking more than one question, a question within a question

trick: no matter how you answer you are going to be put into a bad light

supermanning the argument

a technique for building the best version of an opposing argument and then engaging with it

demagogue

A person that rises to power in democracy by manipuating the masses