COMM230 QUIZ 1

Stock Issues

:refer to the parts of the 1AC used to organize and present the desirability of the Affirmative plan. Affirmative teams are required to prove that they meet all five stock Issues (inher-ency, harms, topicality, significance, and solvency) to win the round

Argument by sign

A sign, of course, is something that stands for something else. When you see a sign, you often assume that certain conditions are true based on your knowledge of what that sign usually represents. For example, when you see a "For Rent" sign on an apartment building, you might believe that you could rent an apartment in that building if you wanted to. Often we mistake signs for causes. It does not follow, for example, that the apartment is for rent because the sign is there. Correlation of events does not imply causality.

While __________ teams must win each of these stock issues, they do not always have to debate each issue. If the ___________ does not address a stock issue, the judge will assume that the _____________ has met the requirements of that issue. The ___________ has an easier job; they need only prove that the _____________ has failed to satisfactorily address one of the stock issues.

Affirmative; Negative; Affirmative; Negative; Affirmative

Red herring

An old favorite, the red herring happens when the arguer diverts attention to another issue and draws a conclusion based on that diversion. "The candidate has a weak stand on education. Just look at what she says about foreign policy."

Refutation

Arguments of refutation serve as a rejoinder to arguments already in play. Refutation is necessary in debates because it promotes direct clash between arguments.

Begging the question.

Begging the question occurs when the conclusion assumes what it tries to prove: "Of course he tried to fix the boxing match, since he was one of the people who stood to gain by fixing the boxing match."

Clash

Both speakers are advancing, but their statements are unrelated to one another.

Claim

Claim: A statement that something is so.

Toulmin 6 components of arguments (list)

Claim: A statement that something is so. Data: The backing for the claim. Warrant: The link between the claim and the grounds. Backing: Support for the warrant. Modality: The degree of certainty employed in offering the argument. Rebuttal: Exceptions to the initial claim.

_______________ ____________ is important to decisively win when arguments clash against each other in debate.

Complete refutation

Ethos

Credibility and good will of speaker

Data

Data: The backing for the claim.

Reasoning by cause

Debaters often try to establish causal relationships, either to prove their case or to negate the case of the other side.

Rebuttal

Exceptions to the initial claim.

Arguments about: (3)

Facts, values, policies

Reasoning from example often falls prey to:

Fallacy of composition and fallacy of division

Syllogistic Reasoning is effective/efficient in oral communication: T/F

False Syllogistic reasoning is also ill-suited for debate because debaters, like all public speakers, deal in probabilities, rather than certainties (as in the case of mathematics or science

Scarecrow.

Formerly called the "straw man" fallacy, this kind of argument is a diversionary tactic whereby an arguer exaggerates or mischaracterizes his or her opponent's position and then proceeds to represent this caricatured. This is a common tactic used in advertising campaigns: "Worried about your family getting critically ill? Better use our disinfectant." In some circles, this fallacy is known as the "fallacy of refutation," though nobody really uses this terminology anymore.

The Affirmative proves Topicality through the Plan text. :

If the proposed Plan addresses all elements of the resolution, it is topical

Equivocation

In this fallacy, the meaning of a critical term is changed through the course of an argument. Lewis Carroll in Alice's Adventures Through the Looking Glass: "'You couldn't have it if you did want it,' the Queen said. 'The rule is jam tomorrow and jam yesterday - but never Jam today' 'It must come sometimes to Jam today,' Alice objected. 'No, it can't,' said the Queen. 'It's jam every other day: today isn't every other day, you know.'"

Pathos

Influence feelings or emotions of audience

Show your argument is better than opposing argument because:

It's better reasoned. It's better evidenced. It's empirical. It takes theirs into account. It has a greater expressed significance. It's consistent with experience

Logos

Logical proof

Enthymeme

Logical/Rhetorical proof with unstated premise

Appeal to tradition.

Often a substitute for actual argument, the appeal to tradition happens when a speaker tries to justify her arguments by reference to aggregated habits, e.g., "We should continue to discriminate against the poor because that's what we've always done."

Common cause

Often, two things will occur together so regularly that you are tempted to assume that they are cause and effect. However, sometimes those two events are the cause of a third factor, which must be taken into consideration to make the reasoning complete. For example, noticing that there are many dead fish in a river and that the river's water is undrinkable, you might conclude that the dead fish caused the undrinkable water. However, in so doing you might miss that an industry's dumping into the water caused both pollutants.

Slippery slope.

One of the more popular logical fallacies, particularly in political circles, the slippery slope argument contends that an event will set off an uncontrollable chain reaction when there is no real reason to expect that reaction to occur. "If we start regulating carbon dioxide, the next thing you know the proposition team will be telling you what to eat for breakfast."

Appeal to the crowd.

Sometimes called the "bandwagon," or "ad populum," this fallacy occurs when the arguer contends you will be left out of the crowd if you don't agree: "All of the cool kids smoke cigarettes these days."

argument from authority, or reasoning from testimony

Sometimes when we make arguments, we rely on the opinions or statements of others to help make our point. Good way to establish credibility.

Ad hominem.

Sometimes, arguers will attack the person making the argument rather than the argument itself. This is an ad hominem (Latin for "to the man") attack, e.g., "I don't know how my opponent found the time to research this issue, since plainly he doesn't even have time to bathe."

Backing

Support for the warrant.

syllogism

The building block of formal logic is a form of reasoning: All dogs are mortal. (Major premise) Roswell is a dog. (Minor premise) Roswell is mortal. (Conclusion)

Modality

The degree of certainty employed in offering the argument.

Warrant

The link between the claim and the grounds.

Fallacy of division

The opposite of the fallacy of composition, the fallacy of division occurs when the conclusion of an argument depends on the faulty attribution of a characteristic from the whole to its parts: "The average American family has 2.3 children. The Jones family is an average American family. Therefore, the Jones family has 2.3 children."

Fallacy of composition

This fallacy happens when the conclusion of an argument depends on the erroneous transference of a characteristic from the parts to the whole: "Jake likes fish. He also likes chocolate. Therefore, he would like chocolate covered fish."

False cause, or "post hoc, ergo propter hoc."

This fallacy is just what it sounds like. In the English, at least. Sometimes, speakers will draw a faulty link between premises and a conclusion such that the link depends upon a causal connection that probably does not exist: "The sun rises every time I get out of bed. Therefore, by getting out of bed, I make the sun rise." It is important to remember that correlation does not imply causality, and neither does chronology imply causality.

Appeal to emotions.

This fallacy is what it sounds like. Speakers routinely try to play on the emotions of the crowd in lieu of making real arguments. "I know this national missile defense plan has its detractors, but won't someone please think of the children?"

Hasty generalization.

This fallacy occurs when a conclusion is drawn based on a non-representative sample, e.g., "Most Americans oppose the war. Just ask these three peace demonstrators."

False dichotomy

This fallacy occurs when the premise of an argument is a disjunctive statement that presents two alternatives as if they were mutually exclusive, e.g., "It's either free school lunches or nuclear war;" "Either you let me go to the concert or my life will be ruined."

Non sequiturs

This is not so much a fallacy, per se, as a failure of reasoning. The Latin phrase non sequitur means "does not follow." Thus, reasoning that is non sequitur is composed of arguments that are irrelevant to the topic. As a debater, you should insist that your opponents' reasoning stick strictly to the topic(s) at hand.

Negative teams argue that Affirmative cases are not topical by presenting "_____________ ___________." These are pre-structured arguments consisting of analytical arguments and one defini-tion which claims that the Affirmative has violated the resolution and as such created an unfair debate

Topicality violations

Complex question

Used in questioning periods, this fallacy occurs when a single question is really two or more questions: "Do you still cheat on your tests?;" "How long have you been smoking banana leaves?"

Appeal to ignorance

When an argument has not been disproven, it does not therefore follow that it is true. Yet the appeal to ignorance works a surprisingly large amount of the time, particularly in conspiracy theories and their ilk: "No one has yet proven that aliens have not landed on Earth; therefore, our theory about ongoing colonization should be taken seriously."

Reasoning from analogy

When we argue from analogy, we are trying to show that what was true in one situation will be true in an analogous situation. An analogy is a comparison of people, places, things, events, or even abstract concepts.

Weak analogy

While argument by analogy is a very strong, common form of argumentation, the weak analogy fallacy occurs when an argument's conclusion rests on a nonexistent similarity between two examples, e.g., "Well, if it worked in a college term paper, it'll work in American foreign policy."

Appeal to authority.

While it is often appropriate and even necessary to cite credible sources to prove a point, the appeal to authority becomes fallacious when it is a substitute for reasoning or when the cited authority's credibility is dubious.

Argument from Example: Induction

a speaker reasons from specific examples to a general hypothesis

The Counterplan

accepts the Affirmative Harms but argues that policies other than the Affirmative Plan could better solve the problem.

Claim

an assertion that something is so: "The death penalty is justified." "Hyacinths are better than roses."

Argument

an attempt to influence someone else in some direction. Usually, this direction is a matter of belief, adherence, or action

Argument from Example: Deduction

begins with general theories and uses those theories to deduce the details of specific examples

A tag

concisely summarizes the claim and warrants made in the evidence.

In debate, one of the most common forms of causal reasoning is the ___________, whereby the opposition argues that the proposition's proposed policy will cause negative consequences.

disadvantage

Inherency

explains the current conditions that have led to and perpetuated the problems that the plan will attempt to solve.

Toulmin model is an extremely _________ model of argumentation. _________ arguments display all of these components. Simply speaking, all arguments have:`

formal Few, if any Claims, warrants, data

Scapegoating.

he or she attributes a current situation to a group of people who may or may not be responsible for the problem

Harms

identify problems that justify the plan.

Often, arguments are not successful because they are:

incomplete

Attitudinal inherency

indicates that the Affirmative plan has not yet been enacted because policymakers or interest groups are opposed either to solving the problem or taking the action the Affirmative propose

Good Resolutions Are

o Clear: Ambiguity can kill clash o Objective: needs to be fair for both Aff and Neg o Specific: but not too specific o Researchable: contested, but explored, territory

Argumentation is fundamentally a process of ______________

persuasion

Causal reasoning is also prone to many logical fallacies, such as the:

post hoc fallacy and the fallacy of common cause

Solvency

proves how the plan will cure the harms.

Structural inherency

proves that a law, court decision, treaty, regulation, or some other legal barrier prevents policymakers from addressing the harms

A cite

provides the author, publication name, and date of the evidence so that debaters or judges can find the original source material.

Topicality

requires that the plan address the resolution.

Significance

requires that the plan be important enough to have caught the attention of government analysts or aca-demic researchers.

A logical fallacy is:

simply a failure of logic. Arguments that are said to be fallacious have gaping holes or misleading leaps in their structure and reasoning.

All evidence must be clearly labeled with a

tag and cite.

Appeal to force.

when you tell someone that some kind of misfortune will happen to them if they don't agree with you, e.g., "If you don't believe that our utopia is ideal, then I guess we'll have to release the hounds."