Debate

Start Studying!

Terms

undefined, object

copy deck

hasty generalizations: applying one common feature to all
ad populum: bandwagon
ad hoc (ergo prompter hoc): events that occur near one another don't necessarily relate
ad homenem: personal attack
either/or: insisting that only two choices are available, or that there are only two ways to solve a problem
red herring: attempt to cloud an issue
appeal to misplaced authority: believing someone just because they are well known
non sequitor: non-response, question doesn't get answered, a response that does not follow
persuasion: communication intended to influence attitudes, actions, beliefs and values of others
propaganda: sustained, organized persuasion campaign, usually carried out by closely knit groups, using multiple media to influence mass audiences
coercion: threat or use of force
Affirmative case: Sig/harms
inherency
plan
solvency
advantages
plan planks: admin
mandates
enforcement
funding
intent
negative case - sig/harms: minimizing harms --> minimizes solvency
negative case - inherency: usually granted to set up disadvantages, but if no inherency, then no need for plan
negative case - disadvantages: link - what the aff plan calls for
brink - existing problem that will be exacerbated
impact - bad things that will happen if the plan is implemented
enthymeme: debate style that leaves conclusion to audience
neg case - topicality: definitions
violations of definitions
standards (fairness, bright line)
rules - a'priori issue, aff plan MUST be topical
counterplan: grants harms
better way to solve
generally NONtopical
competitive and mutually exclusive with aff plan
net benefits without aff disads
burden of proof: rest on aff
must establish prima fascie case
stock issues - harms, inherency, plan, solvency, ads
burden of refutation/rebuttal: rests on neg to respond to aff case
presumption: favors negative, assumes that all else being equal, staying with the status quo is less risky
Four functions of rhetoric: prevents triumph of fraud and injustice
method of public instruction
presents both sides of a case
means of defense
things to consider in phrasing the proposition: controversy is an essential prerequisite
more than one central idea can cause confusion
must be stated in unemotional terms
should represent a statement of the affirmative desires
Four Debate proposition types: propositions of fact - true or false
propositions of value - moral or immoral, good or bad
propositions of policy - should or would
quasi-policy - a value judgment about a policy
Methods of defining terms: offer an example of what the term refers to
common usage
authority, such as a dictionary
operation - explain the function of the term
negation - talk about what the term does not mean
comparison and contrast
talk about where the term derives from
combination of the above
Criteria for a satisfactory definition: officially stipulated for the resolution
grammatically correct
derived from the appropriate field
based on common usage
consistent with the policy- or value-maker's usage
meets the original understanding of the proposition's framers
provides a clear distinction between what fits the definition and what is excluded
Types of issues in a debate: potential issues - all possible answers to stock issues questions
admitted issues - issues one side concedes or does not challenge
debate issues - issues actually introduced
ultimate (voting) issue arises when there is only one issue in dispute
contentions - statements offered in support of an issue
Stock issues on propositions of value: definitive issues
what are the definitions of key terms
what are the criteria for the values
designative issues
do the facts correspond to the definitions
what are the applications of the values
Stock issues on propostions of policy: Harm
does a compelling problem exist
is the problem quantitatively and qualitatively important
Inherency
are the causes of the problem built into the status quo
is the problem likely to continue without significant policy action
Solvency
is there a workable plan of action
does the plan solve the problem
does the plan have advantages
do the advantages outweigh the disads
Locating references: who is concerned with the proposition
who is interested in adoption of the proposition
who is interested in preventing the proposition
Judicial notice of evidence: evidence must be introduced
must be well-known
may be refuted
*absence of evidence is not evidence of absence
Tests of credible evidence (6 C's, 3 R's, 2 S's, 1 U, 1 V): clear
consistent internally
consistent with other evidence
competent
cumulative
critical
recent
relevant
reliable
statistically sound
sufficient
unprejudiced
verifiable
Tests for statistically sound evidence: accurate collection
accurate classification
accurate sampling
accurately defined units
significant data
reasonable percentage base
fair visual materials
claims only reasonable precision
reasonable interpretation
unbiased questions
stats meaningful to the audience
Testing audience acceptance: consistent with audience beliefs
source of evidence acceptable
suited to audience level
consistent with audience motives
consistent with norms of audience
documented for audience
psycho-facts: beliefs not supported by evidence but are taken as real because of constant repetition
syllogism: classical arrangement of arguments
syllogism outline: major premise - all As are Bs
minor premise - C is an A
conclusion - Therefore, C is a B
Syllogism types: conditional
categorical
disjunctive
enthymeme
categorical syllogism: must have exactly three terms
every term must be used exactly twice
terms are used only once in a premise
middle term must be used at least once in a universal sense
terms in the conclusion must have been used in the premises
at least one of the premises must be affirmative
if one premise is negative, than the conclusion must be negative
disjunctive syllogism: major premise must include all possible alternatives
alternatives must be mutually exclusive
minor premise must affirm or contradict one of the major premise alternatives
conditional syllogism: minor premise must affirm antecedent or deny the consequent, or no valid conclusion
Toulmin's elements of arguments: claims - usually the resolution
grounds - evidence and reasoning that establish the foundation for the claim
warrants - evidence and reasoning that justify the move from the evidence to the claim
backing - additional evidence and reasoning that support the warrant
modal qualification - degree of cogency attached to claim
possible rebuttals - elements that may impede movement of the argument
General tests of reasoning: are the grounds solid
does the warrant justify the claim
is backing adequate
has the rebuttal been properly evaluated
has the degree of cogency been properly determined
types of reasoning: reasoning by example
reasoning by analogy
causal reasoning
reasoning by sign
tests of example reasoning: are they relevant
are there enough
do they cover a critical time period
are they typical
are the negative examples noncritical
tests of causal reasoning: alleged cause relevant to the effect
only or distinguishing causal factor
probable that no undesired effect will result
no counteracting cause
cause capable of producing effect
cause necessary and sufficient
affects of a new cause
reasoning by analogy: making a comparison between two cases and inferring that what is true in one case will be true in another
causal reasoning: inferring that a certain factor is a force that produces something else
degree of cogency: extent to which an argument is both sound and compelling because it is founded in fact, logic or rationality
reasoning by example: inferring conclusions from specific cases
reasoning by sign: inferring relationships or correlations between two variables
tests of analogy reasoning: significant points of similarity
points of similarity critical to comparison
points of difference noncritical
reasoning cumulative
only literal analogies used for logical proof
tests of reasoning by sign: substance relevant to attribute
relationship between substance and attribute inherent
no counterfactors to disrupt relationship
sign reasoning cumulative
arguing in a circle: assuming as a premise for the argument the very conclusion one is trying to prove
post hoc: assuming a causal relationship without proof
pseudoargument: fallacy created by distortion, confusion, manipulation, or avoidance of matters at issue or by substitution of matters unimportant to issue
special pleading: urging an exception to accepted lines of reasoning
straw argument: setting up an issue for the purpose of knocking it down
verbalism: abundant use of words without conveying meaning
fallacies of evidence: evidence omitted
unsupported assertions
irrelevancy: carries an argument beyond its reasonable limits
prima facie case: provides sufficient good reason for adopting a proposition, must provide effective issue statements to answer each of the stock issue questions
What are requirements of a value case: Definition
Criterion for each value term
provide application
establish what is intrinsic to the term
significance
What are some types of inherency: structural (barrier or gap)
attitudinal
existential (because the problem exists, the sq must be incapable of solving)
Comparative advantages affirmative: identify goals of status quo
integrate plan with goals
provide direct advantages of plan
prove advantages are comparative
Effective structure for attacking topicality: Definition(s)
Violation(s)
Reasons to prefer
Impact (voting issue)
Justifications for attacking goals or criteria: Goals/Criteria incompletely identified
Other goals/criteria more important and incompatible
case turn: argument that a harm is actually a benefit
Ways to prove disadvantages: Slippery slope
Provide generic disadvantages
Link - Brink - Impact
Structure of refutation: reference to argument to be attacked
response
support
explanation
impact - how it weakens the opponents case or strengthens your own
Methods of refutation: evidence - theirs is invalid or irrelevant, or that yours is contradictory and better
reasoning
fallacies
Style Factors in speech composition: Conciseness
Clarity
Appropriate vocabulary
Simple structure
Concreteness
Imagery
Connotation
Climax
Rhetorical Factors in Speech composition: Coherence - order, transition
Unity - of purpose, of mood
Emphasis - position, time, repetition, headlining, perspective
Editing

Start Studying!

Deck Info

Number of cards 74