Public Debate Final

Argumentation

Is the practice of justifying claims under conditions of uncertainty.

Debate

 the presentation of mutually exclusive claims by competing advocates to a decision maker for adjudication

Product

you make an argument

Process

you have an argument

Procedures

the rules that govern arguments

What is a simple argument

Induces one claim, one piece of supporting data, and a single warrant. 

Claim

An expressed opinion or conclusion that the arguer wants accepted.

Support

Your grounds for believing the claim. 

Warrant

What authorizes the reasoning (support links to the claim)

Multiple

Subsidiary claims are independent of each other, subsidiary claims individually establish the main claim

Coordinative

Subsidiary claims are independent of each other and together they establish the main claim

Subordinative

Subsidiary claims are not independent of each other and together establish the main claim.

Clash point

A root in the interaction of arguments not in the topic itself

Explain flowing and how it helps debaters

Notetaking methods for capturing claims,  evidence and clash can help debaters by telling us where time and effort was spent on a debate, who wins what points and how. Tracking others clash points helps you strategize for your next argument

What is the criteria for phrasing resolutions?

Has one central idea and is controversial and has no ambiguity, divide the ground equally and is often a statement of what the AFF wants and is unbiased.

resolution

A statement of judgement that identifies issues in a controversy. It also identifies what's relevant/irrelevant, establishes the issues, facilitates clash

Claim type fact

Descriptions of reality. Past, present or future

Claims of Definition

Meaning, interpretation or classification (how do we define a term?)

Claims of value

Involves judgement  appraisal or evaluation

Claim Policy

Claims about actions their statements about what should or should not be done they are characteristic of formal deliberative bodies such as Congress or the state legislator but they also emerging discussions among informal groups of legislature 

Presumption

predisposition to one side or the other in a given debate

How do presumptions and Status quo intertwine

Presumptions usually lie with the status quo, using the “if it ain’t broke don’t fix it” mentality

The burden of proof

The affirmative has the duty to prove the whole resolution true, because they argue for change and must overcome presumption in favor of the status quo.

A Burden of Proof

Each debater must prove their own individual claims with evidence and warrants.

Burden of Refutation

Each side must respond to the opponent’s arguments, or those arguments are treated as conceded.

Prima facie case

A case presented by the side with the burden of proof that makes it so that their opponent cannot continue to rely on the presumptions of the debate and must respond.

Structural inherency

formal block (law or policy)

Attitudinal inherency

Informal block (low awareness or opposition)

Gap Inherency

Existing solutions are incomplete

Inherency

A lack of laws and oversight have led us to this dangerous state 

What are the basic NEG case strategies?

Attack the stock issues (Harms, Inherency, Solvency, Advantages), Defend the status quo, Offer minor repairs, Present a counterplan

on and off case attacks

On case attacks attack the AFF’s original case while off-case attacks attack some other aspect of the issue

What are the 4 main policy debate stock issues?

Harms/Needs, Inherency, Plan/Solvency, and Advantages. The Affirmative (AFF) must prove all; the Negative (NEG) only needs to refute 1–2.

AFF vs NEG on Harms

AFF – harms are inherent; things won’t improve on their own.
NEG – problem may fix itself or be solved with minor repairs.

AFF vs NEG on Inherency

Explains why the problem continues and what barrier prevents it from being solved in the status quo.

AFF vs NEG on Plan/Solvency

AFF – plan solves the problem.
NEG – plan doesn’t solve the problem or creates new issues.

AFF vs NEG on Advantages

AFF: Benefits outweigh disadvantages; plan is worth doing, NEG: Plan doesn’t deliver benefits or creates disadvantages.

What is Deny/Correct as a defense?

Show the opponent’s argument is false, misleading, or based on wrong assumptions.

What is Outweigh as a defense?

Accept the opponent’s point but argue your argument is more significant.

Rationale and benefit of the 4-step model

Responds directly to opposing arguments, highlighting clash; makes debate easy to flow and follow; strengthens case structure.

What are the strategic advantages of making a concession?

Prevents opposition from dictating terms, builds credibility (ethos), and focuses debate on strongest arguments.

Facts as support

Information widely accepted as true.

examples as support

Single instances or specific cases that illustrate a point.

statistics as support

Quantitative statements of enumeration or measurement; show significance.

definitions as support

Meanings from dictionaries or cultural norms; clarify focus and characterize reality.

testimony as support

Statements by qualified sources.

Accessibility in evaluating evidence

Can others inspect the evidence?

Credibility in evaluating evidence

Is the source reliable? External sources are usually more credible.

Internal consistency in evaluating evidence

Does the evidence contradict itself?

External consistency in evaluating evidence

Does the evidence contradict other reliable evidence?

Recency in evaluating evidence

Is the evidence up-to-date and current?

Relevance in evaluating evidence

Does the evidence bear directly on the conclusion?

Adequacy in evaluating evidence

Is the evidence enough to support the claim?

Accuracy in evaluating evidence

Does the evidence do what you say it does?

Context in evaluating evidence

Is the evidence misrepresented or taken out of context?

Appropriateness to the purpose in evaluating evidence

Does the evidence match the type of claim being made?

Validity

An argument is valid if and only if there is no possible situation in which its premises are all true and its conclusion is false, meaning validity concerns the quality of the argument independent of the content of the evidence or claim.

Syllogism

a structured argument with a general major premise, a specific minor premise that relates to generalization, and a conclusion that logically follows without exceeding the premises.

Categorical syllogism

Only three terms, every term can only be used twice, and a term can only be used once in each premise. A term may be distributed in the conclusion if and only if it has been distributed in the major and minor premises.

Disjunctive syllogism

The major premise includes mutually exclusive alternatives. The major premise must include all possible alternatives, which are mutually exclusive.

Conditional syllogism

The major premise posits a hypothetical state. Either the antecedent (the if ) can be affirmed, leading to a modus ponens argument which leads to the consequent being affirmed, or the consequent (the then_) can be denied, leading to a modus tollens argument which leads to the antecedent being denied.

Argument scheme

A common, defeasible, reasoning pattern that is both descriptive and evaluative.

Defeasibility

if the respondent accepts the premises, then that gives them a good reason also to accept the conclusion

Argument from example

Uses specific examples or samples to support a broader claim.

Argument from analogy

Used to show that what is true/false of other types is true/false of the type at hand

Argument from sign

Infers the unknown from the known; multiple signs strengthen the conclusion.

Argument from cause

Infers a causal relationship; distinguishes necessary and sufficient causes.

Argument from slippery slope

Claims a first step will lead to a chain of events ending in a bad outcome.

Argument from testimony

Claims a statement is believable because of the authority of the source.

Argument from position to know

Relies on someone being in a position to know that a claim is true.

Argument from form

Uses patterns or structure (narrative or quasi-mathematical) to support a conclusion.

Argument from commitment

Infers a person’s commitment to one claim implies commitment to a related claim.

Hasty generalization

Drawing a broad conclusion from too few or unrepresentative examples.

Fallacy of composition

Assuming what’s true of a part is true of the whole.

Fallacy of division

Assuming what’s true of the whole is true of each part.

False analogy

Making a comparison that isn’t strong enough to support the conclusion.

Post hoc

Assuming that because one event follows another, it was caused by it.

Fallacies of relevance

Introduce an irrelevant element that disrupts the logical relationship within the argument.

Ad verecundiam

appeal to irrelevant authority

Ad populum

irrelevant public opinion

Ad misericordium

irrelevant sympathy

Ad baculum

irrelevant threat

Ad ignorantium

appeal to ignorance, treating ignorance of proof of falsity

Ad hominem

Attacking the person instead of the argument.

Fallacies of vacuity

Have missing elements or don’t actually advance

Circular Reasoning

The claim and support are the same things, the claim is repeating the grounds in altered terms

Begging the question

treating a claim as a settled matter rather than something that needs to be proven

Ignoring the question

Addressing another matter instead of the issue at hand

Non sequitur

Two statements that seem to occupy claim and support roles but that are actually unrelated

Straw man

Responding to a weaker version of your opponent’s argument

Technical sphere

An arguments among experts, where members have knowledge and training in the subject (entry costs) - not just science/complex stuff

Personal sphere

The exchange of divergent views accompanied by reasons, the difference between argumentativeness and aggressiveness is attacking position vs. identity

Public sphere

Argumentation is addressed to and offered in behalf of the general public because the outcome of the argument may affect the community

What is the difference between technical and public sphere arguments?

Technical arguments rely on specialized knowledge, data, or expertise, while public sphere arguments appeal to general audiences, values, and public reasoning.

Context collapse

How social media platforms flatten multiple audiences into a single context

First debate between two major party Presidential nominees

The 1960 Kennedy-Nixon debate.

Which debates followed the first Kennedy-Nixon debate?

Carter-Ford debate

What is a major critique of the Presidential debate format regarding issue coverage?

Debates don’t have a single resolution, so they cover a lot of topics without depth, preventing sustained clash points.