Common Speech & Debate Abbreviations: ● Octo-Finals – Elimination rounds

comprised of the top 16 debate teams/16

• NSDA – National Speech and Debate Association debaters
• NFL – National Forensic League (former name of ● Quarter-Finals – Elimination rounds
NSDA; still used as part of the name NSDA) comprised of the top 8 debate
• PF - Public Forum debate (2 vs. 2); the resolution teams/debaters
changes monthly ● Semi-Finals – Elimination rounds
• LD – Lincoln-Douglas debate (1 vs. 1); the consisting of the top 4 debate
resolution changes bi-monthly teams/debaters; usually the top 12
• CX – Policy debate (2 vs. 2); the same resolution is competitors in IE’s
debated the entire year ● Finals – an elimination round involving
• AFF (Pro) – the affirmative team the top 2:teams/debaters in debate; usually
• NEG (Con) – the negative team the top 6 competitors in IE’s
• V – Lincoln-Douglas value ● One clap rule – As each finalist is
• C – Lincoln-Douglas criterion announced at the awards ceremony, the
• X – Cross Examination audience claps once for 6th - 2nd place
and stands and claps for the 1st place
Terms related to competitors: winner.
● Varsity – a seasoned and experienced ●
competitor (used at tournaments) Fallacies in logic:
● Novice – a competitor in their first year of ● Ad hominem fallacy – attacking a person
competition (used at tournaments) or a rather than the argument
division in a tournament involving only first ● Ad populum fallacy – claiming that
year competitors something is true because of popular
● PF debater – student who debates with a belief
partner in Public Forum debate ●
● LD debater – student who debates in Terms related to the structure of a debate:
Lincoln-Douglas debate ● Resolution - the proposition or subject
● Policy debater – student who debates with a offered to debate
partner in Policy debate ● Spirit of the Resolution – refers to the
● IE – student who competes in one or more reasonable interpretation and limits of the
individual events resolution
● Topicality – the argument presented is
Terms related to the structure of a tournament: pertinent to the resolution in spirit or
● Open rounds – specifying that all levels of literally, it is topical
experience will be competing with each ● Status Quo – the current state of affairs,
other in a tournament, a division the present system
● Closed rounds – novices will compete ● Affirmative – arguing in favor of the
against novices; varsity will compete against resolution
varsity ● Negative – the side that opposes the
● Round(s) – a complete debate (at resolution
tournaments you have a minimum of 4 ● Value – a concept, standard, or ideal that
preliminary rounds) makes a judgment; used in LD debate
● BYE – a round in which you don't ● Criterion – standards, rules, or tests on
compete; usually because there are an which a decision or judgment is based, the
uneven number of teams/debaters. basis for establishing or evaluating policy;
● Power Matching – teams with equal used in LD debate
records debate each other in order to ● Constructive Speech – the first speech
determine which teams advance given by each debater (both sides) in a
● Cross Entered – entered in more than one round; used to build a case
event in a flight ● Contention – a debate case is organized into
● (to) Break – to advance to the next round contentions (claims made for or against the
after preliminary or subsequent rounds (as in resolution) usually stated in one
"We broke to semis!") declarative sentence
● Cross Examination – questioning period
 ● Refutation – directly attacking the Support: also called premise(s). Support is the
opposing debater/s’ arguments reason(s) for an audience to be convinced of the
● Rebuttal speech – rebuilds arguments thesis statement. You should follow the thesis with at
after attacks, refutes arguments of the least one reason or "because" statement. You may
opposing team, and summarizes the debate make much longer arguments by introducing more
● Voting Issues – the key points in a debate supporting statements for the thesis or by supporting
that are crucial to the outcome, reasons the supporting statements themselves, but at least one
why the judge should give the decision to a premise, one statement that gives the audience a
team reason to adhere to the thesis, is necessary.

THE ESSENTIALS OF ARGUMENT An unspoken premise is called an "assumption."

Argument: Argument concerns itself with neither fact Assumptions are common ground, shared
nor taste, but with that vast middle territory of preconceptions and beliefs of the arguer and
statements that are more or less probable. An audiences.
arguable statement can evoke degrees of adherence,
and its grounds of support do not depend on the The Argumentative Modes
individual who holds them. Even the side that wins Description
[an] argument has not established a truth, only a The act of capturing people, places, events, objects,
probable wisdom of a particular choice. and feelings in words so that a reader can visualize
and respond to them. The writer uses the senses
Every argument has four essential elements: (taste, touch, smell, sight, sound) to place the reader
1. A thesis statement, a claim, a proposition to be in the environment of the essay. The writing can be
supported, which deals with a matter of probability, objective (simply discussing the situation) or
not a fact or a matter of opinion. subjective (attempting to persuade the reader by the
2. An audience to be convinced of the thesis impact of the described situation).
statement. Narration
3. Exigence: the need to make an argument at a The act of telling a story, often based on the author's
certain time, in a circumstance, or for a purpose. or a key interviewee's personal experience, that
4. Grounds, reasons, or, as they are sometimes illustrates some aspect of the argument. Narration
formally called, premises that support the thesis. usually incorporates descriptive elements—senses,
metaphors, and similes--which are used to get the
Thesis Statement: Every argument, no matter how reader to identify with the writer (or whoever the
complicated, has a single, overriding thesis. That story is about) on some level, and thereby ultimately
thesis may be qualified, elaborated, complicated, or agree with the writer.
hedged all around, yet the arguer must always be able Example
to answer the "What is your point?" All arguments Example arguments provide concrete and/or specific
can be summed upon a single statement that the details to support abstract ideas or generalizations.
whole discourse is designed to support. Whether the Good examples help the writer "show" rather than
unit of argument is a paragraph or a book, that basic "tell," and strong essays use good examples as
element, the thesis statement, must be discoverable. support for the thesis to convince or persuade the
Audience: An argument needs a human audience to reader. Often writers provide multiple different
convince. The particular audience of an argument examples to prove a particular point.
influences how you argue-coolly or with passion, Definition
tentatively or with strong conviction, elliptically or in The process of explaining a word, object, or idea in
great detail. Thus, different audiences require such a way that the reader knows precisely what the
significant differences in the support, organization, writer means. A good definition focuses on the
and working of your argument. special qualities of a word or phrase in the context of
Exigence: In order for a real argument to occur there the author’s specific topic. Definitions also often give
must be some forum and occasion, like a town the reader and writer a mutual starting point.
meeting, some push in the time and circumstances Rebuttal
and some purpose for making claims and supporting Rebuttal arguments present the ideas of a specific
them. The combination of all these factors has been person or group, or commonly held ideas, and then
called the exigence. To compensate for [the often] identify the flaws or errors in those ideas. Frequently,
inherent disconnection from its audience, a written the author might begin with a rebuttal—setting up
argument must frequently create its own exigence. their own argument by explaining the flaws in the
arguments of others.
 debates, a member of the adjudication panel may
Division/Classification perform this role.
Division takes a general concept or topic and creates Definition: The proposition team (or the first
smaller subcategories. Classification takes individual proposition team, in debates with more than two
examples and groups them based on common traits. teams) should give a definition. This does not mean
Division is important because it breaks a complex you get to decide what the debate should be about.
subject into parts that are easy for a reader to grasp. Nor does it mean providing a dictionary definition of
Classification is important because it organizes a the words of the motion. The purpose of the
large amount of material for the reader. definition is to clarify ambiguous words in the
Comparison/Contrast motion, for the purpose of the debate. E.g. in ‘This
Comparison discovers likenesses between two things, house would ban gambling’, proposition should
and Contrast discovers differences between two ‘define’ gambling – are you including private bets,
things. They work hand-in-hand, allowing the reader the stock market etc.? The opposition must accept
and writer to understand one subject by putting it any reasonable government definition - challenges
next to another. can be made using ‘Points of clarification’ if the
Cause/Effect definition is unreasonable.
This mode looks for connections between different Deputy leader of the proposition/opposition: See
elements and analyzes the reasons for those ‘Speakers’ titles’
connections. In working with Causes, the writer Extension: The extension speaker, in a British
searches for any circumstances from the past that Parliamentary (BP) debate, is the third speaker on
may have caused a single event. In looking for each side (they are the first speaker for each closing
Effects, the writer seeks occurrences that took place team). Their role is to ‘give an extension’, i.e., to add
after a particular event and resulted from that event. new material to the debate. They should take care to
highlight the aspects of their arguments that differ
Use the Modes as Another Form of Note-Taking from the opening teams. Government/Gov: See
As you read, begin to identify the argumentative ‘Proposition’
modes when you see them being used in a text. For Floor: The members of the audience.
example, if an author tells a story, you can write House: The place where the debate is taking place,
“narrative” in the margin. If they define or re-define a and anyone present.
word or concept, you can write “definition” in the Knife: To knife someone in a debate is to contradict
margin. The purpose here is to get a sense of how the someone on the same side as you in the debate.
text was put together, how the different components E.g. you might ‘knife’ a member of your team.
of the text relate to one another, and what its method Leader of the Proposition/Opposition: See
of organization is. Being able to notice these ‘Speakers’ titles’
characteristics of a text will then help with reading Mechanism/Mech: The proposition team (or the first
comprehension, writing summaries, and detailed proposition team, in debates with more than two
analysis of a text. teams) should give a mechanism. This outlines how
the policy (in a policy debate) will be implemented.
Debating Glossary For example, Proposition in the debate ‘This house
Adjudicator/Judge: An observer of a debate who would ban gambling’ should indicate what sorts of
is responsible for deciding which team has won. activities do/don’t count as gambling, and how
Where there is more than one adjudicator, they sit as gamblers may be penalized. Mechanisms are
an adjudication panel. particularly important in debates where there
Barracking: Offering Points of Information too may not be an obvious policy, and the choice of
quickly to the other side. To avoid barracking, mechanism affects the substance of the debate -
teams should wait for at least 15 seconds after a POI e.g. ‘THW would support reparations’. This debate
has been declined before asking another. is very different if your mechanism involves very
Case: A set of arguments supporting one side of large sums vs small token sums. Member of
the motion. Ideally this set of arguments forms a government/opposition: See ‘Speakers’ titles’
coherent approach to the debate, common across all Model: A team’s model is their interpretation of
team members. what they must prove in the debate. For the
Chair(person): The person responsible for proposition team(s), this includes their mechanism
introducing speakers, inviting them to give their and definition.
speech, thanking them at the end of their speech, Motion: The motion is the topic under dispute in a
ensuring that the rules of the competition are debate. It is normally given as a statement that the
observed and generally keeping order. In some
teams must propose or oppose, e.g ‘This house would Speakers’ titles
abolish the monarchy’
Opposition/Opp: The opposition or ‘opp’ team is
responsible for disagreeing with the motion. They
will speak second. ‘Opp’ may also be used as a verb,
e.g. ‘we were opping the motion THW ban zoos.’
Point of information/POI: A point of information or
POI (pronounced pee-oh-eye) is a short (10 seconds
or less) interjection made by one speaker to any
member of the opposing side of the debate. They
are often phrased as questions rather than comments,
to force the other side to respond.
Point of clarification: A point of clarification is a
special form of point of information. It seeks to
clarify or challenge important aspects of a team’s
mechanism or definition. E.g. a point of
clarification might be, “the motion is that we should
grant reparations for slavery - can you please tell us
roughly the size of these reparations, and how you
will decide who gets them?”
Preparation/Prep Time, Long, Short: Preparation
or ‘prep’ time is the period between the motion
being announced and the debate beginning. ‘Long Squirrel: Defining a motion in a manner contrary
prep’ typically refers to periods of days or weeks to the spirit of the motion and the intended
where a team may use any resources at their disposal debate. Both a verb (they squirreled that motion) and
to prepare for a debate. ‘Short prep’ typically a noun (that definition was a squirrel). E.g. for the
comprises 15-30 minutes before a debate where motion This house would ban gambling, it would be
teams must prepare their arguments without a squirrel to say ‘driving fast cars is gambling with
assistance from the internet or any other people (e.g. your life and that of others. We would ban any car
teachers). from travelling over 40mph.’
Prime Minister: See ‘Speakers’ titles’ Summary: A summary speech is the final speech for
Proposition/Prop: The proposition or ‘prop’ team, each team. Ordinarily, they are expected to provide a
sometimes referred to as the ‘government’or ‘gov’ thematic summary of the key arguments of the
team is responsible for supporting the motion. debate.
They will speak first. ‘Prop’ may also be used as a This House…, THW, THBT: Motions conventionally
verb, e.g. ‘we propped the motion THW ban zoos.’ start ‘This house…’.
Protected time/Unprotected time: In many formats,
points of information (POIs) may only be offered at You may also see common abbreviations such as
certain points in a speech, typically from 1 minute THW - This house would
into the speech, and more than 1 minute before the THBT - This house believes that
end. THR - This house regrets
The periods during which POIs may not be
offered are called 'protected time' (typically the The ‘house’ in the debate typically refers to the
first and last minute of the speech). government of the country in which the debate is
POIs can be offered in 'unprotected time'. taking place.
Judges/chairs will often signify the start and end of For example, in the ESU Schools’ Mace the motion
unprotected time with a clap, bang of a gavel, bell, or THW ban gambling can be understood as a debate
tap on the table. about whether or not the UK government should ban
Rebuttal: Rebuttal is material that directly gambling. Sometimes, other actors are specified; e.g.
responds to someone else’s points. It is typically ‘This house, as the UN, would...’. Motions starting
given at the start of a speech, e.g. ‘Before I give my This house believes that (THBT) are commonly
main arguments, here are three points of rebuttal…’ understood to be debates about the truth or falsity of
the statement following - as such, you might consider
it unimportant who the house is.

Whip: See ‘Speakers’ titles

 either the resolution or a specific actor. It
Persuasive Language and Debate Words implies elegance or sophistication in your
When debaters are equally matched in argumentation argument.
and refutation, sometimes a speaker's style can be the 3. False Dichotomy - False Dichotomy is a
tiebreaker. Using powerful language is one of the word that means “false choice”. Your
ways to improve your style. Many debaters who are opponent’s try to paint you into a corner by
in intermediate and open, can now talk confidently giving you two choices, when there are
and smoothly without as many filler words. However, many more than two.
language is another area where those debaters can 4. Slippery Slope - Slippery slope is a term
improve their style winning them points with judges, that is used to describe analysis that is
and making it easier for them to win. unrealistic.
There are three categories of words that are key in 5. Claim - A “claim”, is debate lingo for
debate rounds: something you have said in argumentation.
1. Persuasive Words - Persuasive words are the
easiest of the three to incorporate into your style. LESSON 1
Simply expanding your vocabulary will assist you in ARGUMENTATION, or the process of forming
any round, but there are times when it is critical to and communicating claims based on the
move your judges. The goal of persuasive language is supporting information, is a fundamental aspect of
to move someone past what your argument would everyday life.
have done naturally. This is most effective, in rounds WHY STUDY ARGUMENTATION?
that are discussing individuals. When you are in those The study of argumentation has a long history, dating
rounds, there should always be a discussion about the as far as 500 BCE. In ancient Greece, Rome and
impacts to the individual. When you are impacting, China scholars of the art of rhetoric recognized that
the goal is to show accurate outcomes for that person, people can hone habits of mind and speaking through
but make them seem important. training and practice. This tradition has endured over
Read the following sentences and see which one you time, through the Roman Empire, dark ages,
find most persuasive. renaissance, industrial revolution, and into the present
1. It is important that there are special day. People in all eras understood the need for
washrooms for gender non-conforming pursuing reason and truth through
students in schools so that they do not face argumentation. But changing times provoke
discrimination. different needs, desires, and pursuits. Has our online,
2. It is critical that we have an accepting, and social media environment brought us to a
safe environment for gender post-argument culture? Is the study of argumentation
non-conforming students so that schools can still relevant in the 21st century? First, reflect on
become a secure place to learn for everyone your personal incentive. Then, we’ll explore at least
to learn. three broad reasons acquiring argumentation and
2. Loaded Words - Loaded words can be useful in debate skills should be important to you.
almost every debate, especially with experienced SKILLS ARE EMPOWERING
judges. Loaded words, is a concept used to describe 1. Learning skills in argumentation and debate is
words that have a lot of meaning associated with empowering because you cultivate the tools to find
them. These words allow people to fill in the analysis and use your voice. It’s often easier to retreat to the
for you. safety of your electronic devices than it is to comfort
Examples of loaded words and phrases: global challenging topics face-to-face.
warming, glass ceiling, and poverty cycle. SKILLS ARE PRODUCTIVE
3. Debate Words - Especially in higher levels of 2. Learning skills in argumentation and debate is
debate, debaters will use words or phrases that can be productive insofar as the skills help individuals and
confusing to those who haven’t encountered them. communities make better decisions and achieve
Here are some important debater words, and their goals. When people understand how arguments
appropriate times to use them. work, they can more quickly and successfully weigh
1. Analysis - Analysis is a word used to evidence to reach a conclusion. If you want others to
describe the ideas that prove your point. make others reasoned decision-making, then we
Analysis is a good word to use instead of ought to train ourselves in what counts as reasoned
points, or arguments. decision-making.
2. Nuance - Nuance means very detailed SKILLS ARE DEMOCRATIC
analysis. It can also be used to refer to parts 3. Learning skills in argumentation and debate is
of your analysis that are super specific to democratic by helping you meet your responsibility
to public life. Because argumentation involves
choice- of whether and what to communicate—it Examples of Formal Arguments:
necessarily engages ethics and community values. 1) Every student who made 90 percent or better in the
Training in argumentation can make you more midterms has already been assigned a grade of A.
sensitive to the interest and viewpoints of different Marjorie already has her A, for she made 94 percent
audiences, enabling you to appropriately adapt on her midterms.
your messages, consider multiple perspectives, 2) If Congressman Perez were honest, he wouldn’t
and work through competing ideas while valuing have taken bribes and lied about it; but he did take
everyone’s voice. bribes and lie about it, so he’s definitely not honest.

NATURE OF ARGUMENTATION In these examples I’m not trying to argue that

ARGUMENTATION Marjorie probably got an A in the class or that
Argumentation is the method of Philosophy, and Congressman Perez is likely dishonest. I’m
Logic is the science of argumentation. arguing that these are necessarily the case.
To make an argument is to provide reasons (the
premises) in support of a claim (the conclusion). In each argument, if the premises are true, then the
Examples: conclusion has to be true: If it’s true that “every
1) Marlon is innocent, because the killer would have student who made 90 percent or better on the
had blood all over him, and there wasn’t a drop of midterms has already been assigned a grade of A,”
blood on Marlon that night. and it’s true that Margaret “made 94 percent on her
2) Mr. Reyes, the gentleman who lives on the corner, midterms,” then it has to be true that she’s getting an
comes down this street on his morning walk every A.
day, rain or shine. Consequently, something must Examples of Informal Arguments:
have happened to him, since he has not shown up 1) Sarah studies hard, and she’s bright, so she’s
today. bound to do well in the class.
In example 1, the conclusion is “Marlon is innocent.” 2) It’s likely going to rain: the barometer is falling
The proof for this, the reasons provided, are the other and storm clouds are moving in from the west.
two propositions: “The killer would have had blood In example 1, the conclusion, “Sarah is bound to do
all over him,” and “there wasn’t a drop of blood on well in the class” is supported by the two premises,
Marlon that night.” but the premises don’t guarantee the truth of the
In example 2, the conclusion is “something must conclusion. For example, other factors might come
have happened to [Mr. Reyes].” How do we know into play that prevent her from doing well. Likewise,
this? What’s the proof? Well, the other two in example 2, the premises provide support for the
statements: “Mr. Reyes comes down this street on his conclusion, they make it probable that the
morning walk every day…” and “he has not shown conclusion is true; but the conclusion doesn’t
up today.” necessarily follow from the premises.

NOTE: Arguments are provided for IDENTIFYING ARGUMENTS

claims/statements that need to be proved or It’s important for us to be able to identify arguments,
demonstrated. Plain matters of fact, statements that to know when evidence is being given in support
are obviously true, those that can be verified through of a claim. This, for example, is not an argument:
sense experience—these do not need to be argued for. ‘Neo’ is the hacker alias of Thomas Anderson, and
“I am wearing shoes,” for example, doesn’t need to ‘Neo’ is an anagram of ‘One.’ An anagram is a word
be argued for, since it can easily be verified simply that’s produced by rearranging the letters of a
by looking at my feet. different word.
No claim is being put forward; nothing is being
TWO KINDS OF ARGUMENTS proved here. This is simply a description, and not an
There are two kinds of arguments, formal and argument.
informal arguments (and thus two branches or Fortunately, we often have indicator words to tell us
subcategories of Logic). that we’re in the presence of an argument. There are
● In a formal argument, we are trying to both premise and conclusion indicators:
establish that the conclusion is necessarily Premise Indicators
true, that it can’t possibly be false. Since
● In an informal argument, we’re trying to Because
establish that the conclusion is probably For
true. Given that
Assuming that and that truth was more powerful the injustice. These
are ideas that have been lost with time as we now live
Conclusion Indicators in a postmodern world. However, Aristotle believed
Therefore that people needed to know how to argue for truth
Thus and how to communicate it with others. Today,
So experiential knowledge, and emotions are the primary
Consequently determiners for what is right and wrong rather than
Hence cold truth.
A final purpose of debating is debating in order to
Marlon is innocent, because the killer would have defend one’s self. Debating is an intellectual way of
had blood all over him, and there wasn’t a drop of protecting someone as fighting is a physical way of
blood on Berger that night. (Premise indicator) protecting someone. There is an idiom in English that
Sarah studies hard, and she’s bright, so she’s bound to states that “the pen is mightier than the swords.”
do well in the class. (Conclusion Indicator) Often physical fighting comes after several
Every student who made 90 percent or better on the intellectual machinations by leaders who find ways to
midterms has already been assigned a grade of A. manipulate things. Skilled debater can move millions
Marjorie already has her A, for she made 94 percent whereas a strong solider can only do a limited
on her midterms. (Premise Indicator) amount of damage alone.
Mr. Reyes, the gentleman who lives on the corner,
comes down this street on his morning walk every Debating Today
day, rain or shine. Consequently, something must One aspect of debating that is not covered above is
have happened to him, since he has not shown up the aspect of time when it comes to debating.
today. (Conclusion Indicator, Premise Indicator) Debating is a way to develop critical thinking but it is
also a way of developing real-time critical thinking.
NOTE: Just because you find an indicator word In others words, not only do you have to prepare your
doesn’t mean that you are looking at an argument; argument and ideas before a debate you also have to
and just because you don’t find an indicator word respond and react during a debate. This requires
doesn’t mean you’re not looking at an argument. thinking on your feet in front of an audience while
still trying too persuasive and articulate. Not an easy
LESSON 2 CRITICAL THINKING task for most people.
Critical thinking within debate means presenting an Debating is often a lost art as people have turned to
unattached view supported by evidence. You must arguing instead. Arguing often involves emotional
listen to an opponent without bias or dominating the exchanges rather than rational thought. Some have
conversation. Take careful notes of their logic and stated that when debating disappears so does freedom
information. Decipher what things are facts and of speech. In many ways, as topics and ideas become
which others are pure biases. more emotionally charged there is greater and greater
restriction on what can be said so that no one is
Debating in the Past “offended”. Perhaps Aristotle was correct about his
Debating was a key tool among the ancient Greeks. views on debating and injustice.
Aristotle provides us with at least four purposes for No doubt humans have been debating since they
debating. The first purpose of debating was that developed language. And the application of debate as
debating allows people to see both sides of an an educational toll date back well over 2,000 years.
argument. As such, debating dispels bias and allows The sophist Protagoras (481 – 411 b.c.e.) of Abdera
for more carefully defined decision-making. One of is generally recognized as “the father of debate.” He
the characteristics of critical thinking is the ability to believed that debate was the best form of training for
see both sides of an argument or to think “men of the city,” citizens who would take an active
empathically rather than only sympathetically. part in governing their city-state. Unlike the
A second purpose of debating is for instructing the philosophers of ancient Greece,
public. Debates for experts to take complex ideas and Protagoras did not believe that absolute, universal
reduce to simple ones for general consumption. Off truth was knowable. Thus, he considered debate to be
course, this has been taken to extremes through sound an important means of socially constructing the best
bites and memes in the 21st century but learning how “truth” to guide decision- making in human affairs.
to communicate clearly is yet another goal of critical Aristotle (384 – 322 b.c.e.) combined the dialectic
thinking. approach of the philosophers and the argumentation
A third purpose of debating is to prevent fraud and practices of the sophists to create a comprehensive
injustice. Aristotle was assuming that there was truth theory of persuasive communication that is best
articulated in his work The Rhetoric. In doing so, 3. Identify choices, solutions, and
Aristotle laid the foundations upon which all implementations
subsequent argumentation and debate theory has been 4. Analyze consequences and values for all
built. solutions
Debate has been an important aspect of most 5. Decide and implement
educational systems in the Western world ever since. 6. Evaluate and decide on an option and
However, tournament debating as an extra-curricular process for implementation
activity in American universities did not become
prevalent until the late 1940s. Change Process
Educational debate, when truly practiced in the Introduction
tradition of Protagoras and Aristotle, is a thinking People don't think logically like lawyers, scientists, or
activity. Debaters who are actively engaged in mathematicians. They hold on to their beliefs and
analyzing topics, seeking and evaluating evidence, search for information to support them. Beliefs they
and refuting arguments will hone an array of critical deeply value and associate with their cultural
thinking skills that will serve them well in identities. They trust what people like them say and
professional and personal decision making. look to them when making decisions. Issues like
eating a vegetarian or meat diet, climate change,
The educational benefits of engaging in academic fracking, and other issues can find support for both
debate are numerous: sides of these issues.
1. Debate provides preparation for effective For people to make decisions that are healthful and
participation in a democratic society not harmful to them, it is important they understand
2. Debate offers preparation for leadership how not only to make good decisions, but what
3. Debate offers training in argumentation effects whether or not they might accept or reject
4. Debate provides for investigation and change.
analysis of significant contemporary Variables that affect change: people's beliefs,
problems leadership, culture, resources, organizational
5. Debate develops proficiency in critical structures, inertia, selfishness, focus on self, fail to
thinking understand, fail to understand the importance of
6. Debate is an integrator of knowledge diversity, reluctance to systematically solve
7. Debate develops proficiency in purposeful problems, fall back on traditions, no desire to take
inquiry risks, don't want to upset other people or ruffle
8. Debate emphasizes quality instruction feathers, lazy, believe if it is ignored it will go away.
[mentoring]
9. Debate encourages student scholarship A Process of Change
10. Debate develops the ability to make prompt, Step 1
analytical responses Understand that change is going to happen. People
11. Debate develops critical listening may accept it, deny it, or be in shock. They can be in
12. Debate develops proficiency in writing a wait and see mode, a let's get going mode and full
13. Debate encourages mature judgment speed ahead, or a you are not going to get me to
14. Debate develops courage change mode. For the change to be successful
15. Debate encourages effective speech communication is critical. It must be powerful
composition and delivery enough to convince people of the benefits that will
16. Debate develops social maturity result. Don't overwhelm, but provide enough
17. Debate develops multicultural sensitivities essential information to begin the process and
18. Debate develops computer competencies information on where and when additional
19. Debate develops essential proficiencies information and support will be available.
Step 2
Decision Making, Critical Thinking, Problem Is when people start to build apprehension, anxiety,
Solving, and Change Processes concern, denial, sadness, loss, frustration, anger,
resentment or fear. They may reject the change and
Six Step Decision Making Process and Critical seek to resist it actively or passively. If this step isn't
Thinking anticipated and dealt with proactively, chaos can
1. Identify and describe the problem or descend and stop the process. Careful planning that
opportunity anticipates possible problems and how to negotiate
2. Focus on the situation and gather reliable solutions that will address people's concerns and
information objections is critical to navigate this step. Address all
problems early and with clear communication that
supports people emotionally as well as with the
information they need to successfully achieve the
change.
Step 3
Is the point where individuals accept the change.
They will be willingly to explore and test the limits
related to the change if the environment is as risk
accepting as the situation can provide with
consideration to safety concerns. It is important to
continually recognize a need for support, assistance,
and time to become skilled with the implementation
of the changes.
Step 4
This is the goal or outcome desired. People agree
there have been beneficial results created with the
change. The change is second nature as people can
perform it well and have developed the ability to
solve associated problems and make suggestions for
improvements upon the change. It is time to celebrate
success with everyone, which will set the stage for
the next time change is desired.

Actions people use to refuse change

1. Refuse to turn ideas around and ask, what
are some reasons I might be wrong?
2. Cherry picks ideas to support a position.
3. Contradicts an authority's ideas without
researching it.
4. Reject ideas based on belief or implication
rather than logic or facts.
5. Launch a personal attack on the people or
organizations associated with the ideas.
6. Use emotional words rather than evidence or
logic.
7. Appeal to fairness by allowing both sides of
an issue legitimacy when one is clearly not CRITICAL THINKING - the ability to analyze,
legitimate. Allowing parents to opt out of criticize, and advocate ideas; to reason inductively
vaccines for young children. and deductively; and to reach factual or judgmental
8. Use a scientific community disagreement on conclusions based on sound inferences drawn from
developing detail of theory to reject the unambiguous statements of knowledge or belief.
foundational ideas that are accepted by the INDIVIDUAL DECISION - whenever an
scientific community. For example, rejecting individual controls the dimensions of a problem, he
the foundational idea of evolution based on or she can solve the problem through a personal
the idea that the science community couldn't decision. For example, if the problem is whether to
explain sudden evolutionary changes. Some go to the basketball game tonight, if tickets are not
of which have recently been explained by too expensive and if transportation is available, the
cryptic mutations. decision can be made individually. But if a friend’s
car is needed to get to the game, then that person’s
decision to furnish the transportation must be
obtained.
*Complex problems, too, are subject to individual
decision making. When we make individual decision,
we can put into effect if we control the necessary
conditions. If we need the consent or cooperation of
others to carry out our decision, we have to find a
way of obtaining the appropriate response from them persuaders and become propagandists or (2) to face
by debate-or by group discussion, persuasion, the opposition and become debaters.
propaganda, coercion, or a combination of methods. Thus, they must be familiar with the principles of
GROUP DISCUSSION - Decisions may be reached argumentation and debate. This knowledge is also a
by group discussion when the members of the group defense against the persuasion of others. If we subject
(1) agree that a problem exists, (2) have compatible their appeals to critical analysis, we increase our
standards or values, (3) have compatible purposes, likelihood of making reasoned decisions. And if
(4) are willing to accept the consensus of the group, persuaders advocate a decision we believe to be
and (5) are relatively few in number. When these unsound; we may find it necessary to become
conditions are met and when all relevant evidence debaters and advocate the conclusion we favor.
and arguments are carefully weighed, group Unintended persuasion occurs when we receive a
discussion is a reasoned means of decision making. message not intended for us—for example, we
PERSUASION - Purposeful persuasion is defined as overhear a private conversation in an elevator and are
communication intended to influence the acts, beliefs, influenced by it—or when we unknowingly
attitudes, and values of others. Clearly, one method of communicate to and influence others in an
persuasion is debate. unintended way.
Persuasion is not, however, limited to seeking PROPAGANDA - Propaganda is the use of
carefully reasoned judgments, as is debate, nor does persuasion by a group (often a closely knit
persuasion require logical arguments both for and organization) in a sustained, organized campaign
against a given proposition. The “Marlboro Man” using multiple media for the purpose of influencing a
advertising campaign, for example, must have been mass audience. Historically propaganda has been
judged as highly effective persuasion by the company associated with religious, social, or political
that ran it for many years, but it did not seek the kind movements. Today the term has been expanded to
of carefully thought-out judgment that one associates include commercial advertising campaigns. The term
with debate. first came into common use in 1622 when Pope
Frequently the persuader hopes to dominate the stage Gregory XV established the Sacred Congregation for
and avoid situations in which another side of the Propagating the Faith. What, in the view of the
argument might be presented. Consider the cigarette faithful, could be more commendable than spreading
companies, which accepted the ban on TV the faith? In 1933, when Hitler appointed Dr. Joseph
advertising without the prolonged court battle that Goebbels as his minister of propaganda, the word
many expected. The reason for this may have been took on a different connotation.
that the TV stations were required to give equal time From the standpoint of non-Nazis, what could be
to public service announcements about the hazards of more evil than spreading Nazism? Even today
smoking. The tobacco companies apparently found it propaganda often is perceived as a pejorative term.
preferable to direct their advertising dollars to media Imagine an official of a women’s group saying:
that did not have an equal- time requirement. We’ve been conducting an extensive educational
President Hugo Chavez of Venezuela recently made campaign to inform the public of the necessity of
international headlines and prompted national making abortion on demand available to women on
protests when he failed to renew the license of Radio welfare. It was going very well until the churches
Caracas Television (RCTV), a popular television unleashed a bunch of propagandists to work against
network, likely because it had been critical of him, us. Thus, in everyday language, we educate or give
thus effectively eliminating local opposition to his information, while they propagandize. Another
government. example is President Chavez of Venezuela. He spoke
Persuaders select the type of persuasive appeals they to the United Nations in 2007, referring to President
believe to be best adapted to their audience. These George Bush as “the devil.” Later Chavez threatened
may include such diverse communications as a picket to deport international visitors from Venezuela who
line, a silent prayer vigil, a clever negative political were critical of him and his government. Of course,
commercial on TV, or the stately formality of a the end doesn't justify the means. Propaganda, like
debate before the Supreme Court. persuasion, may be viewed as good or bad only to the
Persuaders reach a decision on the problem before degree that it is based on true evidence and valid
they begin the process of persuasion. They continue reasoning. Examples of questionable methods may be
the process of persuasion until they solve the problem found in the Allied propaganda in the United States
by persuading others to accept their decision or until prior to America’s entry into World War I. At that
they are convinced that further efforts are pointless. time extensive use was made of distorted or false
In trying to influence others, they may find it atrocity stories.
necessary or advantageous (1) to join with other
Similarly, knowledge of argumentation and debate is that guide our decision making by providing
an important defense against the propaganda standards of behavior telling us how we ought to act.
campaigns we constantly confront. Unless we subject While ethics may be based on or reflected in laws,
propaganda to critical analysis, we will be unable to they are not the same as laws. Similarly, we learn
distinguish the good from the bad. We will lose our value systems and thus standards for ethical behavior
ability to make reasonable decisions and may fall from our communities and cultures, but that a
prey to “hidden persuaders.” behavior is a cultural standard or norm does not make
COERCION - Coercion is defined as the threat or it ethical.
use of force. Parents employ coercion when they take According to Thomas White, there are two broad
a box of matches from a baby; society employs philosophical approaches to understanding ethical
coercion when it confines criminals to prison; the choices: teleological and deontological. The
nation employs coercion when it goes to war. A teleological approach is results oriented, and would
democratic society places many restrictions on the focus on the good or bad consequences of an action
exercise of coercion. Parents may not physically or or a decision.
mentally abuse their children; criminals may be The deontological ethic is process or act oriented, and
sentenced to prison only after they have an is based on the notion that actions have moral value.
opportunity to defend themselves in court; the United Scholars at the Markkula Center for Applied Ethics at
States may declare war only after the advocates of Santa Clara University have suggested that in making
war win consent in Congress. President Bush found it ethical decisions one ought to follow a framework
prudent to obtain congressional approval for the use through the following steps:
of force in Operation Enduring Freedom in ● Recognize an ethical issue
Afghanistan and Operation Iraqi Freedom. In a ● Get the facts
democratic society coercion as a method of solving ● Evaluate alternative actions from various
problems—by private individuals or the state—is ethical perspectives
generally prohibited except in special cases in which ● Make a decision and test it
it has been found necessary after debate. A ● Act, then reflect on the decision later
totalitarian society, by contrast, is characterized by Debate offers the ideal tool for examining the ethical
sharply limited debate and by almost omnipresent implications of any decision, and critical thinking
coercion. should also be ethical thinking.
Coercion may be employed to influence a decision. We all encounter and engage in forms of debate. Any
The coercive powers of the state represent a strong time we engage in the process of inquiry and
logical appeal against a decision to commit a crime, advocacy in an attempt to reach a reasoned judgment,
and for some individuals it may be the only effective we are engaging in a form of debate.
appeal. In arguing in favor of policy propositions, Academic debate forms, occurring in debate classes
affirmative debaters often provide for coercion in the and debate tournaments, are easy to recognize.
plan of action they advocate. They may include an However, much more common but less likely to be
“enforcement plank” providing for fines, recognized as debate are the forms of applied debate.
imprisonment, or some other penalty for those who Applied debate is real. That is, the issues being
do not obey or who try to circumvent the debated have direct relevance to the participants and
requirements of the plan. Alternatively, they may the judge or audience hearing the debate has the
advocate enforcement of the plan through existing power to render a binding decision. The four forms of
legal structures. A decision to employ coercion is applied debate are:
likely to be socially acceptable and effective when Parliamentary Debate
that decision is made after full and fair debate. Baron This type of the debate is structured to the extent that
Karl von Clausewitz’s classic definition of war as the it is conducted under the rules or parliamentary
“continuation of diplomacy by other means” suggests procedure and special procedural rules of the
that war—the ultimate form of coercion—is a method organization. This type of debate is used in legislative
of problem solving to be selected after a careful sessions and business meetings as a means of
debate on the possible risks and benefits. deliberation and decision-making.
ETHICAL DECISION MAKING - In addition to The academic debate equivalents are Student
making well-reasoned decisions, it is important to Congress, Model United Nations, and Parliamentary
make decisions that are ethical. The consequences of Debate.
a failure to consider ethical constructs when making Judicial Debate
decisions range from business failures (ENRON) to Courts and other quasi-judicial bodies employ
incarceration (Scooter Libbey), to the destruction of judicial debate to provide advocacy on either side of
personal relationships. Ethics are a set of constructs a legal issue with the goal of reaching a just decision.
The debate follows a clearly defined format and The Debate Proposition
complex rules of procedure and admissibility that can
● A proposition is a statement of judgment
vary from court to court.
that identifies the central issue in
The academic debate equivalents are Moot Court
controversy.
(used primarily in law schools) and Mock Trial. The
● Those arguing in favor of the proposition
rules of procedure and admissibility are simplified
present the affirmative side.
and standardized for these academic forms.
● Those arguing against the proposition
Special Debate
present the negative side.
The format and procedural rules of a special debate
are negotiated for the specific event. Perhaps the Debate propositions have the following
best-known examples of special debate are the characteristics
televised debates that take place during a presidential
campaign. ● controversial
The nearest academic debate equivalent is ● central idea
Lincoln-Douglas Debate. While the format derives its ● unemotional word use
name from the famous series of debates between ● statement of affirmative’s wanted decision
Lincoln and Douglas in 1858, the content is quite Controversial
different from most applied special debates. The Controversy is what debating is about. A proposition
contestants are not vying for political office, but must be controversial. This is because strong
simply to get the judge to accept or reject the debate statements for people to take a position. With a slight
proposition. push to the edges students are not required to dig
Non Formal Debate deep and understand the topic.
This is the form of debate the average person is likely Example:
to encounter on a near daily basis. It can range from it Illegal immigration is a major problem that
can range from spontaneous and totally unstructured destabilizes nations all over the world.
(e.g. – a group of college students debating the - This is not controversial because it’s hard to
fairness of a test they just took) to scheduled and agree or disagree strongly. The mildness of
structured (e.g. – a public hearing on reasoning for a the statement makes it uninteresting to
new industrial park) to an on-going national dialogue debate about. Below is the same proposition
that has many participants contributing through many but written in a more controversial manner.
media (e.g. – the question about what to do with John Illegal immigration is sometimes a problem in the
Walker Lindh, the “American Taliban”). world
Ten Ethics of Debate - The revised proposition uses languages that
The following are some guidelines I believe are is less neutral yet not aggressive.
helpful to any debate in which the participants are Central Idea
seeking truth, rather than trying to defend a position A debate proposition should only address one single
for its own sake. I would call these guidelines of idea. The safest way to do this is to avoid using the
Freethought for debaters... word “and” in a proposition. However, this is not a
1. Have empathy strict rule but rather a guideline.
2. Be clear Example:
3. Stay focused Illegal immigration and pollution are major problems
4. Don't waste time in combat that destabilizes nations all over the world.
5. Keep cool - The problem with the proposition above is
6. Revenge is pointless to determine if the debate is about illegal
7. Criticize positions & actions - not people immigration or pollution. These are topics
8. Don't marry your position that are not connected or the debaters must
9. Don't use deception find ways to connect them.
10. Forget about winning Unemotional Words
Propositions should avoid emotional language. One
STATING AND ANALYZING CONTROVERSY of the foundational beliefs of debating is rational
LESSON 3 & 4 thought. Emotional terms lead to emotional thinking
Controversy is a dispute or argument in which which is not the goal of debating. Generally,
people express strong opposing views controversy emotional terms are used more in advertising and
propaganda than in debate.
Example: judicial perspective it is the affirmative side that has
Illegal immigration is an abominable problem whose the burden of proof or how must show that the benefit
deprived, lawless, existence destabilizes nations all of change outweighs the status quo.
over the world. The policy form of presumption is used when change
- The terms here are clearly strong in how is necessary to the status quo.
they sound. For supporters of illegal The Burden of Proof comes first. This means that
immigration such words as abominable, the side or person promoting the claim, the pro side,
depraved, and lawless are going to trigger a must present compelling reasons why the status quo
strong emotional response. However, what is inadequate and should be replaced by the claim
we really want is a logical, rational response being advocated. When this is done, the status quo is
and not just emotional attacks. presumed to be inadequate and in need of change.
Statement of affirmative’s wanted decision Burden of Refutation
This last idea has to do with the fact the proposition The burden of refutation is the obligation to respond
should be stated in the positive and not negative. the opposing arguments. In other words, debaters
Example: often need to explain why the other side’s arguments
1. Illegal immigration is not a major problem are weak or perhaps even wrong. Failure to do so can
that destabilizes nations all over the world. make the refuting debater’s position weaker.
- The proposition above is stated in the This leads to the point that there are no ties in
negative. This wording makes debating debating. If both sides are equally good the status quo
unnecessarily complicated wins, which is normally the negative side. This is
2. Illegal immigration is beneficial for nations because the affirmative side did not bring the burden
all over the world. of proof necessary to warrant change.
- This slight rewording helps a great deal in In every debate there are two sides, although
developing clear arguments. However, sometimes there is also a neutral or undecided
negative affirmatives can appear in slightly section. The side that argues for the proposition is
different manner as shown below. called the Affirmative (sometimes called the “Pro”);
3. Illegal immigration should be decriminalize. the side against the proposition is called the Negative
- The problem with this statement is that it (sometimes called the “Con”). Often, there is a
provides no replacement for illegal Moderator who controls the questions and makes
immigration. When debating identified sure emotions stay under control. Sometimes there is
problems must be matched with identified also a Timekeeper, but many Moderators also
solutions complete this task. The debate format can also extend
4. Illegal immigration should be decriminalize into the digital world, even including Moderators
and replaced with a system of open borders occasionally, although they may not be officially
who monitor the movement of people. appointed as such.
- This proposition has a strong opinion with a Propositions in Debate
proposed solution. In general, there are three kinds of propositions for
Presumption & Burden of Proof in Debating debates:
It is important to understand the role of presumption 1. Fact
and burden of proof and how these terms affect the 2. Policy
status quo. This post will attempt to explain these 3. Value
concepts. This proposition is based on true or false criteria. The
Status Quo proposition must be based in fact, so it is provable, so
The status quo is the way things currently are or the some research is necessary to plan for this particular
way things are done. The affirmative in a debate is proposition.
generally pushing change or departure from the status Fact Proposition
quo. This proposition typically requires a lot of research
Presumption and planning because it calls for action and change.
Presumption is the tendency of favoring one side of The Affirmative must convince the audience that a
an argument over another. There are at least two change needs to occur because it will be beneficial
forms of presumption. These two forms or judicial for the majority.
presumption and policy presumption. Policy Proposition
Judicial presumption always favors the status quo This proposition typically requires less research and
or keeping things they way they are currently. Small planning because it comes from the Affirmative’s
changes can be made but the existing structure is not own beliefs (or values) about whether or not a change
going to be different. In debates that happen from the
should occur. Since it is more opinion-based, it is An example of a video game would be
often used for less formal debate formats. PlayerUnknwon’s Battleground
Value Proposition 3. Operation
A debate is focused on the validity and effectiveness An operational definition is a working
of the arguments presented. According to Will definition limited to the specific context. For
Bentinck, based on the Watson-Glaser Critical example,
Thinking Appraisal, a good argument encompasses Video games for us is any game that is
the following traits: played on an electronic device
● All claims are backed up with reasoning, 4. Authority
evidence, or both Authority is a term that is defined by an
● The conclusions follow logically from the expert.
premises According to technopedia, a video game
● The premises are true, or at least provable is…..
● There are no redundant or stuck-on 5. Negation
conclusions Negation is defining a word by what it is
Analyzing the Controversy not. For example,
The Importance of Defining Terms When we speak of video games we are not
- In short, if you define your key terms, you'll talking about educational games such as
clarify the concepts behind the terms you are Oregon Trail. Rather, we are speaking of
using in that argument, in that document you violent games such as Grand Theft Auto
wrote, or if they are added to some custom Providing a Satisfactory Definition
dictionary, in that specific field the A satisfactory definition is one that meets the
dictionary covers. expectations of those who render the decision and
Defining terms in debates is an important part of the provides reasonable guidance in interpreting the
process that can be tricky at times. In this post, we proposition.
will look at three criteria to consider when dealing In academic debate a judge may expect that a
with terms in debates. Below are the three criteria definition be reasonable or that it be the best
● When to define definition in the debate. In applied debate the
● What to define decision makers often have different expectations
● How to define about decisions in different situations.
Most propositions on matters of policy contain the
word should (or ought)—for example, “Resolved:
When to Define That such-and-such should be done.” In a debate on a
- Definitions are almost always giving at the policy proposition, should means that intelligent
beginning of the debate. This is cause it self-interest, social welfare, or the national interest
helps to set up limits about what is prompts this action and that it is both desirable and
discussed. It also makes it clear what the workable. When the affirmative claims a policy
issue and potential propositions are. “should” be adopted, it must show that the policy is
What to Define practical—but it is under no obligation to show that it
- It is not always clear what needs to be would be adopted.
defined when staring a debate. Consider the The affirmative must give enough detail to show that
following proposition of value if implemented, it would work. It may be impossible,
Resolved: That playing videos games is within the time limitations of the debate, for the
detrimental to the development of children affirmative to give all the details, but it must at least
How to Define show the outline of its policy and indicate how the
- There are several ways to define a term details could be worked out.
below are just a few examples of how to do The negative must avoid the “should-would”
this. argument, which is pointless in academic debate.The
Example: point is not would—but should—the affirmative’s
1. Common Usage proposal be adopted. The negative may, of course,
Common usage is the everyday meaning of focus on the workability of the policy and try to
the term. demonstrate that a given policy, if adopted, would not
2. Example work or would produce significant disadvantages.
Example definitions give an example of the Criteria to Prove a Satisfactory Definition
term to illustrate it as shown below. 1. Prove that your definition is officially
stipulated as the correct one for this
 resolution. This criterion is of great value in that definitions clearly distinguish between
the law courts, where many definitions are affirmative ground and negative ground.
stipulated by statute and have been upheld 8. Prove that your definition would provide
by the highest courts so often that appeal is a fair division of ground. That is, prove
pointless. that, if interpreted as you suggest, there
2. Prove that your definition is would be fairly equal ground for both
grammatically correct. Presumably the affirmatives and negatives to use for
framers of the proposition are development of their plans, counterplans,
knowledgeable in the conventions of and argumentative positions.
English grammar and syntax, each word in Issues are those critical claims inherent in the
the proposition is there for a good reason, proposition that the affirmative must establish. They
and each word further refines the meaning may also be thought of as places where groups of
of the sentence. arguments converge or points of clash subordinate to
3. Prove that your definition is derived from the proposition. Issues also suggest checklists or
the appropriate field. Many propositions categories of arguments to be addressed by the
contain specialized terms. If the subject is participants in a debate or argumentative situation.
nuclear weapons, you must prove that your In a traditional policy debate, the negative must
definition is the one used by nuclear defeat at least one “stock” issue to win (although, the
physicists. If the subject is economics, you stock issues will be measured in relation to one
must prove that your definition is the one another). Stock issues are those issues common to all
used by economists. debates on similar types of propositions, or standard
4. Prove that your definition is based on claims that are applicable to many propositions.
common usage. Many of the terms in Issues may be readily recognized, because they are
debate propositions are words in common questions with answers that directly prove or
usage. Because debate is a public activity, disprove the proposition. If the issues are established,
you must be able to prove that your then the proposition must prevail.
definition is consistent with the common ● Potential issues are all of the possible
usage of the general public. answers to the stock issue questions.
5. Prove that your definition is consistent ● Admitted issues are issues that one side
with policy makers’ or value makers’ concedes, or chooses not to challenge.
usage. Debaters are arguing that we, the ● The issues of the debate are the issues that
public, should adopt or reject a certain actually are introduced into the debate and
policy or value. You must prove that your on which the opposing advocates clash.
definition is consistent with the usage of the ● The ultimate issue or voting issue arises
makers of policy and value in the public when there is only one issue remaining in
forums; for example, you would need to dispute, or when all remaining issues rest
prove that your definition is consistent with upon that single voting issue.
the definition used in congressional debates Contentions are statements offered in support of an
on the subject. issue. (Contentions may also be referred to as
6. Prove that your definition meets the observations or even “main points.”) Pertinent
original understanding of the evidence is organized into cogent arguments to
proposition’s framers. (Cautions against support each issue.
this method are given in the section A.Discovering the Issues
“Providing a Satisfactory Definition.”) This One of the first problems confronting the advocate in
criterion may be compelling to some judges preparing to debate a proposition is discovering the
and to some legal scholars in applied debate issues. In a courtroom debate the issues are often
in the courtroom. But the original stated explicitly in the law applicable to the case
understanding of the people who framed a before the court.
proposition for academic debate or for For example, if the proposition before the court was,
applied debate outside the courtroom is in effect, “Resolved: That John Doe murdered
often elusive, and it may even be impossible Richard Roe,” in most jurisdictions the issues would
to discover. be:
7. Prove that your definition provides a 1. Richard Roe is dead.
clear distinction between what legitimately 2. John Doe killed Richard Roe.
fits within the definition and what is 3. John Doe killed Richard Roe unlawfully.
excluded by the definition. It is important
 4. John Doe killed Richard Roe following The issues must be so phrased as to provide
premeditation. maximum logical and persuasive impact on those
5. John Doe killed Richard Roe with malice. who render the decision.
In debates outside the courtroom, the issues are 1. First, each issue must be phrased to preview
seldom so explicitly stated. It is up to the advocates and then bring into focus the line of
to discover them using one of several methods. argument to be developed.
1. First, a careful definition of the terms of the 2. Second, each issue must be phrased
proposition will aid the advocate in persuasively.
discovering some of the issues of the debate. 3. Third, each issue must be phrased
As the terms are defined, important aspects concisely.
of the proposition will become apparent and 4. Fourth, taken as a whole, the issues must be
reveal at least some of the issues. phrased to provide a coherent organization
2. Second, stock issues—the standard for the case and allow a smooth transition
questions applicable to many propositions— from one issue to another.
may be used profitably in the early analysis
of the problem. As standard questions they EVIDENCE
are not sufficiently specific to the issues of a Evidence is the raw material of argumentation. It
particular proposition, but they often aid the consists of facts, opinions, and objects that are used
advocate in the formulation of the actual to generate proof. The advocate brings together the
issues. raw materials and, by the process of reasoning,
Stock Issues on Propositions of Value produces new conclusions. We cannot undertake
1. Definitive Issues critical thinking without a sound basis of evidence.
a. Definitions The use of evidence is not limited to
b. Criteria debates—although debates give us an excellent
2. Designative Issues means of learning about evidence. Even in
a. Definitions unstructured disputes in informal settings, we must
b. Criteria necessarily seek out evidence.
Stock Issues for Propositions of Policy Evidence is one of the important components of
1. Harm arguments in debate rounds. All debaters involved
2. Inherency are expected to act in an ethical manner that is in
3. Solvency accordance with the rules. All participants are
B. Introducing the Issues expected to use and interpret evidence, evidence
1. Introduction by Either Side. In both value rules, and procedures in good faith.
and policy debate the affirmative must Evidence may be classified as direct or
introduce the issues necessary to establish a presumptive.
prima facie case—one that provides good ● Direct evidence is evidence that tends to
and sufficient reason for adopting the show the existence of a fact in question
proposition. without the intervention of the proof of any
2. The Counterplan. One of the potential other fact.
issues of any policy debate is whether the ● Presumptive evidence, or indirect or
plan proposed by the affirmative is the best circumstantial evidence, is evidence that
possible way to solve the problems of the tends to show the existence of a fact in
status quo. question by proving other, related facts—
C. Discovering the Number of Issues facts from which the fact in question may be
The number of issues varies from one proposition to inferred.
another and can be discovered only by careful I. SOURCES OF EVIDENCE
analysis of the problem. In general, although there ​Evidence is introduced into an argument from various
will be many arguments in a debate, the number of sources. By understanding the uses and limitations of
issues is rather small. There are usually four to six the sources of evidence, we will be more discerning
issues in dispute in the typical intercollegiate debate. in reaching our own decisions and in developing
If advocates claim a large number of “issues,” they arguments for the decisions of others.
may be confusing supporting contentions with issues. A. Judicial Notice
It is usually to the advantage of the affirmative to try Judicial notice is the quickest, simplest, and easiest
to narrow the number of issues of the debate. way of introducing evidence into an argument.
D. Phrasing the Issues Judicial notice is the process whereby certain
evidence may be introduced into an argument without
the necessity of substantiation; it is assumed to be so automobile sales person may invite customers to lift
well known that it does not require substantiation. In the hood and inspect the motor; a stockbroker may
almost any argument it is necessary to refer to show the financial statement of a company to a client;
various matters of common knowledge in order to lay or a senator may bring a bag of groceries into the
the foundation for other evidence to be introduced Senate chamber for use during a speech on nutrition.
later and to set the argument in its proper context.
1. The Evidence Must Be Introduced. II. TYPES OF EVIDENCE
2. The Evidence Must Be Well Known. A. Judicial or Extrajudicial Evidence
3. The Evidence May Be Refuted. ​Evidence is usually classified as judicial or
B. Public Records extrajudicial. Extrajudicial evidence
Public records are often used as a source of evidence. is also known as “extralegal” or “incompetent”
On many matters they are the most important evidence. The word incompetent has no negative
evidence because private individuals or organizations connotation when used in this sense, but merely
lack the authority or resources to assemble much of means “not admissible in court”; such evidence may
the evidence that can be found only in public records. be used outside the court. Thus extrajudicial evidence
Public records include all documents compiled or is used to satisfy persons about the facts requiring
issued by or with the approval of any governmental proof in any situation other than a legal proceeding
agency. In this category are such diverse materials as and is subject only to the usual tests of evidence.
the Government Records, birth certificates, deeds, Judicial evidence, also known as “legal” or
reports of congressional hearings, and the minutes of “competent” evidence,
a town meeting. Official records are usually highly is evidence that is admissible in court. Such evidence
regarded. The fact that they are public records, must satisfy not only the usual tests of evidence but
however, does not mean that they should be accepted also the various technical rules of legal evidence.
uncritically. B. Primary or Secondary Evidence
C. Public Writings ​Evidence is often classified as primary or secondary.
Public writings, another frequently used source of ● Primary evidence is the best evidence that
evidence, include all written material, other than the circumstances admit. It affords the
public records, made available to the public. In this greatest certainty of the matter in question,
category are such diverse materials as the and it is original or firsthand evidence.
Encyclopedia Britannica and the Weekly World ● Secondary evidence is evidence that falls
News, a college textbook and the campus magazine, short of this standard, because by its nature
the World Almanac and The Great Gatsby, and a it suggests there is better evidence of the
Brookings Institution report and an astrologer’s chart. matter in question.
Some public writings command high prestige and are Primary evidence is stronger than secondary evidence
likely to be accepted readily; others are more likely to because there is less possibility of error. Secondary
be disbelieved than believed. Obviously, the value of evidence is weaker than primary evidence because it
public writings varies tremendously. does not derive its value solely from the credibility of
D. Private Writings the witness, but rests largely on the veracity and
Caution: Private writings and testimony of witnesses, competence of others. In any argument the prudent
like the interviews and correspondence considered in advocate seeks to use primary evidence whenever
Chapter 5, will provide both leads to evidence and possible.
evidence that is admissible in the debate. As noted C. Written or Unwritten Evidence
previously, the advocate needs to know the ​Written evidence is evidence supplied by writings of
distinction. all kinds: books, newspapers,
E. Testimony of Witnesses and magazines, as well as less frequently used types
The testimony of witnesses is one of the most of writing, such as Roman numerals carved on the
common sources of evidence. Testimony in court or cornerstone of a building. Unwritten evidence
before a governmental body is usually given under includes both oral testimony and objects offered for
oath and is subject to penalties for perjury or personal inspection.
contempt. Testimony outside the courtroom or D. Real or Personal Evidence
hearing room is not subject to the same legal ​Real evidence is furnished by objects placed on view
restrictions and is usually more informal. or under inspection. In the
F. Personal Inspection courtroom real evidence may consist of fingerprints,
When personal inspection is used as a source of scars, or weapons.
evidence, something is presented for examination to E. Lay or Expert Evidence
the persons rendering the decision. For instance, the
​ vidence is usually classified as either lay or expert.
E robbery trial example, the accused did not know a
As a practical matter, however, it is often difficult to photographer was coming to the scene of the traffic
distinguish between the well-informed layperson and jam, and he did not ask to have his picture taken or
the expert. published. As the accused did nothing to create the
​Lay evidence is provided by persons without any evidence, the jury was all the more ready to believe it
special training, knowledge, or experience in the was genuine and not a prepared alibi. The weakness
matter under consideration. Such evidence is useful of casual evidence is that its value is usually not
in areas that do not require special qualifications. known at the time it is created, often no effort is
​For example, in debates on “right-to-work” laws, the made to preserve it, and later efforts to recall events
testimony of “rank-and-file” union members or may be subject to uncertainty. In this case it was
managers of small businesses was frequently sheer luck that the picture appeared in the paper
important. These people often had no special together with the accused’s name and the fact that it
knowledge of law, economics, sociology, or even was taken at the height of the morning rush hour on a
unions. But they were able to give important particular day.
evidence as to how certain union practices had G. Negative Evidence
affected them. ​Negative evidence is the absence of evidence that
​Expert evidence is evidence provided by persons with might reasonably be expected to be found were the
special training, knowledge, or experience in the issue in question true. For example, if the name of a
matter under consideration. In the courtroom expert person cannot be found in an official list of graduates
testimony is permitted only when the inference to be of your college, this is negative evidence that he or
drawn requires something more than mere everyday she did not graduate from the school.
experience. For example, an expert would be required ​Negative evidence must be introduced into the
to infer the mental state of an accused person based argument with care. Advocates should claim negative
on the accused’s behavioral characteristics. Similarly, evidence only when they are certain there is an
in argumentation outside the courtroom, expert absence of the evidence in question.
testimony should not be used unnecessarily. H. Evidence Aliunde
F. Prearranged or Casual Evidence ​Evidence aliunde, also known as “extraneous” or
​Prearranged evidence is created for the specific “adminicular” evidence, explains or clarifies other
purpose of recording certain evidence. Often the meaning or significance of
information for possible future reference. Many evidence is not apparent on the presentation of the
public records and public writings are of this type. evidence per se; therefore, that evidence must be
Political leaders often try to get their views “on the explained by the presentation of other evidence. In
record,” so that at election time they will have debates on free trade, for example, some debaters
evidence that they supported measures of interest to introduced as expert evidence the opinion of certain
their constituents. The average person has a economists that free trade would be beneficial
considerable amount of prearranged evidence: birth because it would permit the operation of the principle
certificates, driver’s licenses, marriage certificates, of comparative advantage. Unless those who
deeds to property, social security cards, insurance rendered the decision understood the principle of
policies, receipts, canceled checks, contracts, military comparative advantage, this evidence would be of
discharge papers, transcripts of college records, and little value until the debaters introduced additional
so on. Prearranged evidence is valuable because it is evidence to explain the concept.
usually created near the time that the event in I. Alternative Forms of Evidence
question took place; also, because it is intended for ​If the development of argumentation is considered
future reference, it is usually prepared with care. At outside the traditional logical
the same time, because this kind of evidence is construct, importance of emotional content and
arranged, it may be subject to the influence of those alternative viewpoints may become relevant.
arranging it. Classroom and tournament debaters derive most of
​Casual evidence is created without any effort being their evidence from published sources. These sources
made to create it and is not designed for possible represent well-educated experts from academe,
future reference. For example, when a newspaper particular content fields, government, and other
photographer snapped a human-interest picture of a privileged positions. In other words, the sources of
“Good Samaritan” helping a motorist whose car had most quoted evidence are economic and social elites
broken down and was blocking rush-hour traffic, he within their respective societies. Thus, they have
had no intention of creating evidence. access to traditional publication in academic journals,
​Casual evidence is valuable because the party periodicals, and other materials.
concerned did nothing to create the evidence. In the II. THE PROBATIVE FORCE OF EVIDENCE
We are concerned not only with the sources and types of analysis, we can apply the appropriate tests of
of evidence but also with its probative force. formal validity and of rhetoric to
Evidence may only partially substantiate an issue, or the reasoning we encounter as we explore a problem,
it may be strong enough to justify the claim to the reasoning we develop for our own case, and to
conclusively in the minds of those who render the the reasoning we meet in our opponent’s case.
decision. Baseball fans engaged in a pleasant A. Syllogisms
disputation on the questions. Solving homelessness or ​Syllogisms are deductive forms of argument,
cleaning up the inner cities, however, depends not proceeding from generalization to
only on accepted scientific and engineering facts but specific application.
also on complex political and social problems ​Syllogisms are a type of logical reasoning often used
involving conflicting values and perceptions. Thus, in philosophical arguments. Logical reasoning
the decision renderers will determine the probative involves abstract thinking: you approach a problem
force of evidence, and the task of the advocates by organizing a series of steps (called premises) into
remains that of discovering evidence that will have a particular order.
the desired impact in justifying their claim. ​Syllogisms are the most common way of arranging
A. Partial Proof premises into a good argument. A syllogism is a form
​Partial proof is used to establish a detached fact in a of deductive argument where the conclusion follows
series of facts tending to support the issue in dispute. from the truth of two (or more) premises. A deductive
B. Corroborative Proof argument moves from the general to the specific and
​Corroborative proof, also known as “cumulative” or opposes inductive arguments that move from the
“additional” proof, is strengthening or confirming specific to the general:
evidence of a different character in support of the
same fact or proposition. All mammals are animals.
C. Indispensable Proof Camels are mammals.
​Indispensable proof is evidence without which a Therefore, camels are animals.
particular issue cannot be proved. In courtroom
debates it is relatively easy to identify indispensable Three types of syllogisms:
evidence. 1. The Categorical Syllogism. In the categorical
D. Conclusive Proof syllogism, the major premise is an unqualified
​Conclusive proof is evidence that is incontrovertible, proposition. These propositions are characterized by
either because the law will not permit it to be words like all, every, each, and any, either directly
contradicted or because it is strong and convincing expressed or clearly implied.
enough to override all evidence to the contrary and to As we know, our first example about roses was a
establish the proposition beyond reasonable doubt. categorical syllogism. Categorical syllogisms follow
Evidence that may not be contradicted in legal an, "If A is part of C, then B is part of C" logic. Let's
proceedings varies from one jurisdiction to another. look at some examples of categorical syllogisms.
Outside the courtroom no evidence is safe from
refutation, and no evidence is conclusive or All cars have wheels. I drive a car. Therefore, my car
acceptable on its merits alone. has wheels.
A: Major premise: All cars have wheels.
STRUCTURE AND TYPES OF REASONING B: Minor premise: I drive a car.
STRUCTURE OF REASONING C: Conclusion: My car has wheels.
​The formal structure of these methods of reasoning All insects frighten me. That is an insect. Therefore, I
gives us special opportunities to make astute analyses am frightened.
of lines of reasoning and to test their validity. The A: Major Premise: All insects frighten me.
methods and terminologies of both the classical and B: Minor Premise: That is an insect.
the contemporary structures are now widely used in C: Conclusion: I am frightened.
argumentation, and students should have a working
knowledge of both. 2. The Disjunctive Syllogism. The disjunctive
syllogism is a syllogism in which the major premise
I. Classical Structure contains mutually exclusive alternatives. The
Two special forms of deductive reasoning are the separation of alternatives is usually indicated by such
syllogism and the enthymeme. words as either, or, neither, nor, but, and although,
By understanding the structures of syllogism and either expressly stated or clearly implied.
enthymeme for the purpose Disjunctive syllogisms follow an, "Either A or B is
true, if A is false, then B is true" premise. They don't
state if a major or minor premise is correct. But it's An enthymeme is not one of the major types of
understood that one of them is correct. syllogism but is what's known as a rhetorical
syllogism. These are often used in persuasive
This cake is either red velvet or chocolate. Since it's speeches and arguments. Generally, the speaker will
not chocolate cake, it must be red velvet. omit a major or minor premise, assuming it's already
Either Statement: This cake is either red velvet or accepted by the audience.
chocolate.
False Premise: It's not chocolate. Obama wants to create government-run healthcare.
Conclusion: Therefore, this cake is red velvet. Obama is a socialist.
Major premise: Obama wants to create
On the TV show Outlander, Claire's husband is either government-run healthcare.
dead or alive. Since he's not alive, he must be dead. Implied Minor premise: Socialists have
Either Statement: Claire's husband is either dead or government-run healthcare.
alive. Conclusion: Therefore, Obama is a socialist.
False Premise: He's not alive.
Conclusion: Therefore, Claire's husband is dead. Cake increases sugar. Diabetics shouldn't eat it.
Major premise: Cake increases sugar.
Implied Minor premise: Diabetics shouldn't have
3. The Conditional Syllogism. The conditional sugar.
syllogism, also known as the hypothetical syllogism, Conclusion: Therefore, diabetics shouldn't eat cake.
is a syllogism in which the major premise deals with
uncertain or hypothetical events that may or may not In an enthymeme, one premise remains implied.
exist or happen. The conditional event is usually However, since one of the premises is common
indicated by if, assuming, supposing, or similar knowledge, this helps people to understand them.
terms, either expressly stated or clearly implied.
Conditional syllogisms follow an, "If A is true, then 1. Definitions of the Enthymeme. The rigorous rules
B is true" pattern of logic. They're often referred to as of the syllogism make it a valuable instrument for
hypothetical syllogisms because the arguments aren't testing arguments. But these rules also limit the
always valid. Sometimes they're merely an accepted situations in which it can be used. We rarely talk in
truth like these examples. syllogisms; we are more likely to express our
arguments in less-than-complete syllogisms. Also,
If Katie is smart, then she will get into a good there are many situations in which we must deal with
college. probabilities rather than certainties. In these
A: Major premise: Katie is smart. circumstances we make use of the enthymeme.
B: Minor premise: Because she is smart, Katie will Because there are two discrete concepts involved,
get good grades. there are two definitions of the enthymeme.
Conclusion: If Katie is smart, then she will get into a The first definition of the enthymeme—as a truncated
good college. (shortened) syllogism—is extremely important to the
advocate. As noted, people usually do not talk in
If Richard likes Germany, then he must drive an syllogisms.
Audi. 2. Chain of Enthymemes. Arguments are often
A: Major premise: Richard likes Germany. stated in the form of a chain of enthymemes. A
B: Minor premise: Richard likes all German things. speaker may state only the conclusion of an
C: Conclusion: If Richard likes Germany, then he enthymeme, use that as one premise of a second
must drive an Audi. enthymeme, state the conclusion to the second
enthymeme without indicating the other premise, and
B. The Enthymeme continue in this way to build a chain of enthymemes.
​The enthymeme is a truncated syllogism in which one The omitted portion of the enthymeme sometimes
of the premises or the will be evident and uncontestable; other times,
conclusion is not stated. however, it may not be apparent or may be subject to
​The enthymeme is a syllogism based on probabilities, refutation. Consequently, advocates should recognize
signs, and examples, whose function is rhetorical and analyze a chain of enthymemes, seek out the
persuasion. Its successful construction is omitted portions of the argument, restructure the
accomplished through the joint efforts of speaker and argument in syllogistic form, and apply the
audience, and this is its essential character. appropriate tests.
C. Formal Validity and Material Truth
I​ n the syllogisms and enthymemes considered thus sharing will reduce unemployment in the United
far, we have assumed that each premise of each States.”
syllogism is absolutely true and that each premise of B. Grounds
each enthymeme is probably true. If they are true, the Once we have made a claim, we must advance
conclusions drawn from the formally valid syllogisms grounds—evidence and reasoning to establish the
are matters of absolute certainty, and the conclusions foundation of our claim. We have to provide good
drawn from the formally valid enthymemes must be reasons to establish that our claim is solid and
accorded the degree of cogency appropriate to the reliable. The grounds represent what we have to go
probability found in the premises. If, however, any of on.
these premises is false, then its conclusion is C. Warrants
worthless regardless of the formal Once we have made a claim and indicated the
validity of the construction: grounds for that claim, we must provide a
warrant—evidence and reasoning advanced to justify
MAJOR PREMISE: Any child can make a spaceship. the move from the grounds to the claim. We need to
MINOR PREMISE: John is a child. establish that the evidence and reasoning we have
CONCLUSION: Therefore, John can make a offered as grounds apply in this particular instance.
spaceship. D. Backing
Our warrant will not be accepted merely on our
​ o establish the material truth of a premise, the
T say-so; we have to provide backing—additional
advocate must apply the tests of reasoning and the evidence and reasoning to support our warrant.
tests of evidence considered earlier. Because many Applying this element to our mass media example,
premises are, in fact, conclusions from other we expand our diagram: We see that the warrants are
syllogisms or enthymemes that may or may not have not self-validating.3 Therefore, we need to provide
been stated in the argument, the appropriate tests of additional evidence and reasoning to sustain our
formal validity should be applied to them. warrant in the form of backing.
E. Modal Qualifications
II. Elements of any arguments When we have considered the grounds, warrant, and
​Whereas formal logic provides for rigorous testing of backing offered in support
arguments based on almost mathematical rules, most of our claim, we are in a position to qualify that
human decisions, even by critical audiences, are claim—that is, to express the
made on a basis of more practical reasoning. F. Rebuttals
Therefore, in debate, more often than not, the test of Rebuttal involves introducing evidence and reasoning
an argument is not whether it is true or false, but to weaken or destroy another’s claim. In the debate
rather, is it strong or weak. on work sharing, the negative introduced rebuttal
designed to destroy the degree of cogency that the
​ hilosopher Stephen Toulmin offers a model for
P affirmative assigned to its claim.
better understanding the structure of practical With the rebuttal and it’s backing now before us, we
reasoning that occurs in any argument. He maintains will either have to drop the claim or assign to it a
that six elements can be found in any wholly explicit much lower degree of cogency (modality).
argument: (1) claims, (2) grounds, (3) warrants, (4) Depending on the evidence and reasoning the
backing, (5) modal qualifications, and (6) possible negative has used in its rebuttal.
rebuttals. We consider each in turn. Rebuttal, then, may be seen as an element of
A. Claims argument that may block or
The claim(s) element of the argument is the impede the movement of argument from grounds to
conclusion we are trying to establish by our claim and force us to reconsider and to define more
argument. Our claim might be the proposition precisely the degree of cogency we assign to our
itself—for example, “Resolved: That the federal claims.
government should significantly strengthen the
regulation of mass media communication in the III. Extending the Elements of Argument
United States” or “Resolved: That the federal ​Naturally the affirmative responded with a rebuttal of
government should significantly curtail the powers of its own, challenging the claim that the unions would
labor unions in the United States.” In practice, to certainly strike. Still more arguments were built on
establish those claims, we would first have to the strike argument as the opposing teams introduced
establish a series of other claims—for instance, evidence and reasoning to establish that the strikes
“Banning publicity will reduce terrorism” or “Work would have a devastating impact on the economy or
that the strikes wouldn’t happen at all or that they example of a syllogism is “All humans are mortal.
would have only minimal impact on the economy. Socrates is a human. Socrates is mortal.” In this case,
the conclusion, “Socrates is mortal,” is derived from
Another example, with more obvious flaws, may help the major premise, “All humans are mortal,” and the
to clarify: minor premise, “Socrates is a human.” In some cases,
the major and minor premises of a syllogism may be
Grounds taken for granted as true.
Barack Obama is a tall man. II. Inductive Reasoning
​Inductive reasoning reaches conclusions through the
Warrant citation of examples and is the most frequently used
Because tall men make great presidents, form of logical reasoning. While introductory
speakers are initially attracted to inductive reasoning
Claim because it seems easy, it can be difficult to employ
Barack Obama would be a great president. well. Inductive reasoning, unlike deductive
reasoning, doesn’t result in true or false conclusions.
Instead, since conclusions are generalized based on
observations or examples, conclusions are “more
Backing likely” or “less likely.” Despite the fact that this type
Research suggests a strong correlation between of reasoning isn’t definitive, it can still be valid and
highly rated presidents and height. persuasive.
​Reasoning by analogy is a type of inductive
This argument seems outrageous, yet presidential reasoning that argues that what is true in one set of
candidates are careful to circumstances will be true in another. Reasoning by
emphasize their height during campaigns. analogy has been criticized and questioned by
logicians, since two sets of circumstances are never
Careful evaluation of the elements of argument will exactly the same. While this is true, our goal when
allow the advocate to detect flaws in an argument and using reasoning by analogy in persuasive speaking is
thus to launch an attack on an opponent’s argument not to create absolutely certain conclusions but to cite
or to replace or repair a flawed argument intended to cases and supporting evidence that can influence an
support the advocate’s own position. audience. For example, let’s say you are trying to
persuade a university to adopt an alcohol education
OBSTACLES TO CLEAR THINKING program by citing the program’s success at other
institutions. Since two universities are never exactly
REASONING the same, the argument can’t be airtight. To better
​ easoning refers to the process of making sense of
R support this argument, you could first show that the
things around us. In order to understand our program was actually successful using various types
experiences, draw conclusions from information, and of supporting material such as statistics from campus
present new ideas, we must use reasoning. We often offices and testimony from students and staff.
reason without being aware of it, but becoming more Second, you could show how the cases relate by
aware of how we think can empower us to be better highlighting similarities in the campus setting,
producers and consumers of communicative culture, demographics, and previous mission. Since
messages. The three types of reasoning we will you can’t argue that the schools are similar in all
explore are inductive, deductive, and causal. ways, choose to highlight significant similarities.
Also, it’s better to acknowledge significant
I. Deductive Reasoning limitations of the analogy and provide additional
​ eductive reasoning derives specifics from what is
D supporting material to address them than it is to
already known. It was the preferred form of ignore or hide such limitations.
reasoning used by ancient rhetoricians like Aristotle III. Causal Reasoning
to make logical arguments. A syllogism is an ​Causal reasoning argues to establish a relationship
example of deductive reasoning that is commonly between a cause and an effect. When speakers
used when teaching logic. A syllogism is an example attempt to argue for a particular course of action
of deductive reasoning in which a conclusion is based on potential positive or negative consequences
supported by major and minor premises. The that may result, they are using causal reasoning. Such
conclusion of a valid argument can be deduced from reasoning is evident in the following example: Eating
the major and minor premises. A commonly used more local foods will boost the local economy and
make you healthier. The “if/then” relationship that is
set up in causal reasoning can be persuasive, but the speaking that affects personal, political, and
reasoning isn’t always sound. Rather than professional aspects of our lives.
establishing a true cause-effect relationship, speakers Hasty Generalization
more often set up a correlation, which means there is ​A hasty generalization is a fallacy in which a
a relationship between two things but there are other conclusion is not logically justified by sufficient or
contextual influences. unbiased evidence.
To use causal reasoning effectively and ethically, ​It's also called an insufficient sample, a converse
speakers should avoid claiming a direct relationship accident, a faulty generalization, a biased
between a cause and an effect when such a generalization, jumping to a conclusion, secundum
connection cannot be proven. Instead of arguing that quid, and a neglect of
“x caused y,” it is more accurate for a speaker to say qualifications.
“x influenced y.” Causal thinking is often used when ​The hasty generalization fallacy relates to inductive
looking to blame something or someone, as can be reasoning and is the result of too few examples being
seen in the following example: It’s the president’s cited to warrant the generalization. Jumping to
fault that the economy hasn’t recovered more. While conclusions is tempting, especially when pressed for
such a statement may garner a speaker some political time, but making well-researched and supported
capital, it is not based on solid reasoning. Economic arguments is key to being an effective and ethical
and political processes are too complex to distill to speaker. Making a claim that train travel is not safe
such a simple cause-effect relationship. A speaker and citing two recent derailments that resulted in
would need to use more solid reasoning, perhaps injury doesn’t produce a strong warrant when viewed
inductive reasoning through examples, to build up in relation to the number of train passengers who
enough evidence to support that a correlation exists travel safely every day.
and a causal relationship is likely. When using causal False Analogy
reasoning, present evidence that shows the following: ​The false analogy fallacy also relates to inductive
(1) the cause occurred before the effect, (2) the cause reasoning and results when the situations or
led to the effect, and (3) it is unlikely that other circumstances being compared are not similar
causes produced the effect. enough. A common false analogy that people make is
comparing something to putting a person on the
Review of Types of Reasoning moon: “If we can put a person on the moon, why
• Inductive. Arguing from examples to support can’t we figure out a way to make the tax code easier
a conclusion; includes reasoning by to understand?” This question doesn’t acknowledge
analogy. Examples should be sufficient, the different skill sets and motivations involved in the
typical, and representative to warrant a two examples being compared.
strong argument. False Cause
• Deductive. Deriving specifics from what is ​The false cause fallacy relates to causal reasoning and
already known; includes syllogisms. occurs when a speaker argues, with insufficient
Premises that lead to a conclusion must be evidence, that one thing caused or causes another.
true, relevant, and related for the argument When I was in high school, teachers used to say that
to be valid. wearing baseball caps would make us go bald when
• Causal. Argues to establish a relationship we got older. In an attempt to persuade us to not wear
between a cause and an effect. Usually hats in the classroom, they were arguing, fallaciously,
involves a correlation rather than a true that wearing baseball caps is what causes baldness.
causal relationship. When a false cause argument is made after the
“effect,” it is referred to in Latin as post hoc ergo
Fallacies of Reasoning propter hoc, which means “after this, therefore
​Fallacies are flaws within the logic or reasoning of an because of this.” Blaming bad fortune on
argument. It’s important to note that the presence of a superstitions is a good example of faulty reasoning
fallacy in an argument doesn’t mean that it can’t be that tries to argue for a connection between an
persuasive. In fact, many people are persuaded by “effect” that has already occurred and its preceding
fallacious arguments because they do not identify the “cause.” My bad luck is more likely attributable to
fallacy within the argument. Fallacies are often the poor decisions I have made or random interference
last effort of uninformed or ill-prepared speakers who than the mirror I broke while moving two years ago.
find that they have nothing better to say. Being aware False Authority
of the forms of reasoning and fallacies makes us ​The false authority fallacy results when the person
more critical consumers of persuasive messages, making an argument doesn’t actually have the
which is a substantial benefit of studying persuasive qualifications to be credible but is perceived as
credible because they are respected or admired. (​ Attacking the person): This fallacy occurs when,
Despite the fact that this form of argument is instead of addressing someone's argument or
fallacious, it is obviously quite effective. Advertisers position, you irrelevantly attack the person or some
spend millions of dollars to get celebrities and aspect of the person who is making the argument.
athletes to sell us their products because of the The fallacious attack can also be direct to
persuasive potential these stars carry in their persona, membership in a group or institution.
not in their ability to argue a point. Voters might be ​Ad hominem means “to the person” in Latin and
persuaded to support a candidate because of a famous refers to a common fallacy of attacking a person
musician’s endorsement without questioning the rather than an argument. Elementary school
political beliefs of either the musician or the playgrounds and middle school hallways are often
politician to see if they match up with their own. sites of ad hominem attacks. When one person runs
Bandwagon out of good reasons to support their argument and
​The bandwagon fallacy is also sometimes called the retorts to the other, “Well you’re ugly!” they have
appeal to common belief or appeal to the masses resorted to a fallacious ad hominem argument. You
because it’s all about getting people to do or think probably aren’t surprised to know that politicians
something because “everyone else is doing it” or frequently rely on personal attacks, especially when
“everything else thinks this.” they are sponsored by political action committees
​Parents and other sources of guidance in our lives (PACs). The proliferation of these organizations
have tried to keep us from falling for the bandwagon resulted in an increase in “attack ads” during the
fallacy. When your mom responds to your argument 2012 presidential race. While all fallacious arguments
that you should get to go to the party because detract from the quality of public communication, ad
everyone else is by asking, “If everyone else jumped hominem arguments in particular diminish the civility
off a bridge, would you?” she is rightfully pointing of our society.
out the fallacy in your argument. In a Slippery Slope
public-speaking-related example, I have had students ​In a slippery slope argument, a course of action is
try to persuade their audience to buy and eat more rejected because, with little or no evidence, one
organic foods based on their increasing popularity. In insists that it will lead to a chain reaction resulting in
short, popular appeal and frequency of use are not an undesirable end or ends. The slippery slope
strong warrants to support an argument. Just because involves an acceptance of a succession of events
something is popular, doesn’t mean it’s good. without direct evidence that this course of events will
False Dilemma happen.
​The false dilemma fallacy occurs when a speaker ​The slippery slope fallacy occurs when a person
rhetorically backs his or her audience into a corner, argues that one action will inevitably lead to a series
presenting them with only two options and arguing of other actions. If we take one step down an icy hill
that they must choose either one or the other. This is it becomes difficult to get back up and you slide all
also known as the “either/or” fallacy. Critical thinkers the way down even though you only wanted to take
know that the world can’t be simplified to black and one step. A slippery slope fallacy in a speech about
white, good and bad, or right and wrong. Yet many US foreign policy might take the form of the
people rely on such oversimplifications when making following argument: If the United States goes to help
arguments. A speaker who argues that immigrants to this country in need, then we will be expected to
the United States should learn English or go back to intervene any time there’s a conflict in the world.
their own country doesn’t acknowledge that there are Red Herring
many successful immigrants who have successful ​This fallacy consists in diverting attention from the
lives and contribute to society without speaking real issue by focusing instead on an issue having only
English fluently. The speaker also ignores the fact a surface relevance to the first.​
that many immigrants do not have access to English ​The red herring fallacy is my favorite because it has
language instruction or the time to take such classes an interesting origin—and it was used in Scooby
because they are busy with their own jobs and Doo! A speaker who uses the red herring fallacy
families. Granted, such a rhetorical strategy does makes an argument that distracts from the discussion
make it easier to discuss complex issues and try to at hand. Bringing up socialism during an argument
force people into a decision, but it also removes gray about nationalized health care is an example of a red
area in the form of context that can be really herring fallacy.
important for making a decision. Be critical of Appeal to Tradition
speakers and messages that claim there are only two ​Appeal to tradition is a common logical fallacy based
options from which to choose. on the assumption that a traditional practice must be
Ad Hominem good, or better than its newer alternative.
I​ t is often characterized by phrases such as “we have 1. Inductive reasoning refers to arguments that
always done it this way”, and occurs especially persuade by citing examples that build to a
frequently in discussions about political and religious conclusion. Examples should be sufficient,
issues. typical, and representative to warrant a
​The appeal to tradition fallacy argues that something strong argument. Reasoning by analogy
should continue because “it’s the way things have argues that what is true in one set of
been done before.” Someone may use this type of circumstances will be true in another, and is
argument when they feel threatened by a potential an example of inductive reasoning.
change. People who oppose marriage rights for gay 2. Deductive reasoning refers to arguments
and lesbian people often argue that the definition of that derive specifics from what is already
marriage shouldn’t change because of its traditional known and includes syllogisms. Premises
meaning of a “union between one man and one that lead to the conclusion must be true and
woman.” Such appeals often overstate the history and relevant for the argument to be valid.
prevalence of the “tradition.” 3. Causal reasoning refers to arguments that
Review of Fallacies establish a relationship between a cause and
• Hasty generalization. Inductive reasoning an effect and usually involves a correlation
fallacy that occurs when too few examples rather than a true causal relationship.
are cited to warrant a conclusion.
• False analogy. Inductive reasoning fallacy * Fallacies refer to flaws within the logic or
that occurs when situations or reasoning of an argument. Ten fallacies of reasoning
circumstances being compared are not discussed in this chapter are hasty generalization,
similar enough. false analogy, false cause, false authority, false
• False cause. Causal reasoning fallacy that dilemma, ad hominem, slippery slope, red herring,
occurs when a speaker argues with and appeal to tradition.
insufficient evidence that one thing
caused/causes another.
• False authority. Fallacy that occurs when a
person making an argument doesn’t have
the knowledge or qualifications to be
credible but is perceived as credible
because they are respected or admired.
• Bandwagon. Fallacy that relies on arguing
for a course of action or belief because it is
commonly done or held.
• False dilemma. Fallacy that occurs when a
speaker presents an audience only two
options and argues they must choose one or
the other.
• Ad hominem. Fallacy that occurs when a
speaker attacks another person rather than
his or her argument.
• Slippery slope. Fallacy that occurs when a
person argues that one action will
inevitably lead to a series of other actions.
• Red herring. Fallacy that occurs when a
speaker poses an argument that is meant to
distract from the argument at hand.
• Appeal to tradition. Fallacy that results when
a speaker argues that something should
continue because “it’s the way things have
been done before.”
KEY TAKEAWAYS
* We use reasoning to make sense of the world
around us and draw conclusions. Three types of
reasoning are inductive, deductive, and causal.