Debate exam 2

impromptu

(adj., adv.) without preparation, offhand, suddenly or hastily done; (n.) an extemporaneous composition or remark; a minimal piece suggestive of improvisation

Understand what goes into a proposition of VALUE.

-Attempt to alter belief that deal with our subjective reactions to things and our opinion of them -Assert the worth (or lack of) of something. Takes a more evaluative position. -Good/Bad, right/wrong, just/unjust, ethical/non-ethical, etc. -Examples: It is wrong to avoid jury duty. The US is the greatest country in the world. All war is immoral. Harrison Ford is the greatest actor.

What are the different types of evidence?

-Examples and Illustrations -Statistics -Scientific Evidence -Testimony (Peer, Expert)

Understand what goes into a proposition of POLICY.

-Seek a change in behavior -Assert that a course of action or behavior should be taken -Imply there is a critical decision to DO something -Should/Should Not -Examples: The federal government should legalize medicinal marijuana. You should vote for ____. The death penalty should be abolished. You should go vegan.

How do you evaluate examples/illustrations?

-Was the report made by a qualified source? -Was the information reported accurately? -Are the instances representative? -isolate incident? -Who made the observation? -Did this come from a relatively unbiased source?

Counterargument

A challenge to a position; an opposing argument

Criterion

A criterion is a weighing mechanism for the round. If the value is the most important ideological concern for the round, then the criterion is the lens through which a case must be filtered to determine if it upholds the value. In cases where no value is needed, the criterion still functions as a weighing mechanism. Though the lens of the criteria, the case is filtered to determine effectiveness and to prove the satisfaction of its intended goal.

Value

A value is the most important concern that must be respected regardless of the stance taken on the resolution.

False Dichotomy

Consists of a consideration of only the two extremes when there are one or more intermediate possibilities

memorized

Giving a speech word for word from memory without using notes

Equivocation Fallacy

When the meaning of a key term changes at some point in an argument

Rate

____ should be neither too fast or too slow

Appearance

_____ should conform to what the audience expects

Eye contact

______ should be established before you say anything and sustained throughout your presentation

Pitch

______ should be varied to sustain audience interest

Facial expression

_______ should be alert, friendly, and appropriate

Articulation

_______ should be clear and distinct

Movements

_______ should be purposeful

Posture

________ Should feel natural and be appropriate to your topic, audience and occasion

Volume

__________ should be loud enough to be heard and varied

Gestures

___________ should be relaxed, definite, varied, and appropriate. the distance between you and your audience, and sight lines between you and your audience cultural and contextual factors

extemporaneous speech

a carefully prepared and rehearsed speech that is presented from a brief set of notes. Memorized without having the exact wording

slippery slope fallacy

a logical fallacy that assumes once an action begins it will lead, undeterred, to an eventual and inevitable conclusion EX: legalizing prostitution is undesirable because it would cause more marriages to break up, which would in turn cause the breakdown of the family, which would finally result in the destruction of civilization.

manuscript speech

a speech that is written out word for word and read to the audience

straw man fallacy

a statement that refutes a claim that was never made EX: John: I think we should hire someone to redesign our website. Lola: You're saying we should throw our money away on external resources instead of building up our in-house design team? That's going to hurt our company in the long run.

hasty generalization fallacy

argument in which a speaker draws a conclusion based on too few or inadequate examples EX: Two members of my team have become more engaged employees after taking public speaking classes. That proves we should have mandatory public speaking classes for the whole company to improve employee engagement.

false dilemma fallacy

argument in which a speaker reduces available choices to only two even though other alternatives exist; also called the either-or fallacy EX: We can either agree with Barbara's plan, or just let the project fail. There is no other option.

appeal to authority fallacy

error of accepting a claim merely because an authority figure endorses it EX: Despite the fact that our Q4 numbers are much lower than usual, we should push forward using the same strategy because our CEO Barbara says this is the best approach.

weak analogy fallacy

fallacy in reasoning; compares two dissimilar things and making an inaccurate comparison EX: "Guns are like hammers—they're both tools with metal parts that could be used to kill someone. And yet it would be ridiculous to restrict the purchase of hammers—so restrictions on purchasing guns are equally ridiculous."

post hoc fallacy

false assumption that because one event occurred before another event, it must have caused that event EX: "Every time that rooster crows, the sun comes up. That rooster must be very powerful and important!"

What is an argument?

o Opinion + Evidence = Argument; Argument/Claim o An argument states a claim and supports it with reasons and evidence from sources.

How do you determine if your evidence is strong?

o Recency o Clarity o Accuracy oRepresentativeness o Relevancy o External & Internal Consisteny

How do you evaluate a testimony to determine if it is credible?

o Statements by experts regarding factual information. To test opinion evidence you need to consider... o Source Expertise o Source Bias o Factual Basis of the Opinion

Refutation

the act of revealing weaknesses in arguments, or of proving an argument to be false or erroneous.

red herring fallacy

when a speaker introduces an irrelevant issue or piece of evidence to divert attention from the subject of the speech EX: Son: "Wow, Dad, it's really hard to make a living on my salary." Father: "Consider yourself lucky, son. Why, when I was your age, I only made $40 a week."

begging the question fallacy

when a speaker presumes certain things are facts when they have not yet been proven to be truthful

ad hominem fallacy

when speakers attack the person making the argument and not the argument itself EX: "How can you argue your case for vegetarianism when you are enjoying that steak?"

ad populum fallacy

when we attempt to persuade people by arguing our position is reasonable because so many other people are doing it or agree with it EX: The majority of people believe advertisers should spend more money on billboards, so billboards are objectively the best form of advertisement.

Vocal delivery

ØBreathing ØNasality

Elements of physical delivery

ØEstablish Eye Contact with Your Entire Audience ØMatch Your Facial Expressions with Your Message ØUse Movement to Guide Your Audience's Attention ØAdapt Your Gestures to Your Words and Speaking Situation

Elements of vocal delivery

ØSpeech Rate and Pauses ØVolume ØInflection, Pitch, and Tone ØQuality of Voice ØPronunciation, Enunciation, and Articulation

Counterargument Tactics

•Argument is unclear •Argument is insignificant •Argument is irrelevant •Argument is inconsistent •Argument claims too much •Advantage not inherent •Claim does not follow •Evidence is unqualified, out of date, or inaccurate •Values are inappropriate •Low credibility of authority or opponent

Communicating Your Refutation

•State their point •State the retort •Explain and support your retort •Show the impact on the entire case ("SO WHAT?")

Strategic steps in Refutation

•Step One: Signal - Identify the claim you are answering. •Step Two: State - Make your (counter) claim. •Step Three: Support - Reference evidence or explain the justification. •Step Four: Summarize - Explain the importance of your argument.

How do you evaluate statistics

♣ Were the statistics collected by a reliable source? ♣ Were the statistics collected from a sufficiently large sample/or a sufficiently long period of time? ♣ Are comparable units used in statistical comparisons? Are you comparing apples to apples?