debate final!

a burden of proof

both sides have a burden of proof; must have enough support for any major contention

the first debate between 2 major party presidential nominees

Kennedy-Nixon in 1960

the 3 burdens of proof

THE burden of proof, A burden of proof, the burden of REFUTATION

distinguishing good and bad resolutions/what does a good resolution have?

a good resolution identifies the central issue in a controversy; it establishes the issue and facilitates clash; usually main claim in the debate

prima facie case

arg on initial inspection that is strong enough to demand a resp

public sphere

argument is addressed to, and offered in behalf of, the general public

AFF and NEG strategy in regards to stock issues

attack need/harm - the harm hasn't been proven/not as bad as AFF claims attack inherency - is harm not actually inherent attack plan/solvency - will the plan not actually work; will the plan actually deliver on advantages; if it does deliver on advantages; are they enough to justify change? attack advantages - argue that the plan doesn't actually deliver on promised advantages; show plans disadvantages

typical AFF needs cases

**aff must prove all stock issues the need is significant the need is inherent plan the plan will solve the need wo causing more problems

assessing case strength using stock issues

- aff must prove all stock issues since they're trying to make a change to the SQ; wo this, neg could claim that its easier/better to stay with SQ - neg doesn't have to prove all stock issues; just as many as it takes to win enough pts and get their point across

how does flowing help debaters/why do we flow (4)

- capture major args and classify them appropriately - make appropriate consolidation and separation decisions in order to highlight clash points - make implicit claims explicit - make judgements about debate; serves as a summary

critiques of the presidential debate model

- lacks a single resolution (covers lots of topics, and on top of that, has limited response times for each one) - debate is shaped by moderators (meaning that its up to them and the quality of their questions - but they also ask gotcha! q's sometimes which is bad) - lacks many sustainable clash points other notes: answer times are short, formality has gone down, format encourages sound bite responses

what is a simple arg composed of

1 claim, support, and warrant

neg case strategies

1. challenge AFF stock issues: a. capture the AFF case (flow!) - it identifies opportunity b. plan the NEG case - AFF has to prove all stock issues; NEG can potentially win by refuting 1-2 AFF stock issues 2. defend status quo a. minor repairs - suggested changes to SQ that solve AFFs suggested problems b. are the flaws of the SQ outweighed by the benefits? c. is the AFFs plan as good as/better than the SQ? 3. offer counterplan a. offer solution not possible under AFFs plan; (neg then assumes an equal burden of proof)

argument scheme

common, defeasible, reasoning pattern

validity

deals w quality of the arg, independent of the content of the claim/evidence

assessing strength of an attack/defense

does the attacker hit a major part of the opposing case? does the attacker weaken the opposing case significantly w a solid argument? and do they do it well? does the attacker make clash clear and highlight the impact of their attack? does it further their point?

personal sphere

exchange of divergent views accompanied by reasons

claim types, definitions, and examples

fact: description of reality; past, present, or future ex. the earth revolves around the sun definition: meaning, interpretation, or classification ex. chemical addictions are diseases value: involve judgement, an appraisal, or evaluation ex. assisted suicide is a moral action policy: what should or should not be done ex. we should eliminate the DOE

types of support/evidence (and descriptions)

facts - information widely accepted as true; zarefsky lists this in "social consensus" examples - single instances statistics - quantitative statements of enumeration or measurement testimony - statement by a qualified source

categories of fallacies

fallacies of warrant fallacies of relevance fallacies of vacuity (fallacies of clarity) - not tested on

strategies for identifying arguments to attack and defend

flow the opposing case select an attack/defense type develop attack/defense perform attack/defense using 4 step refutation

undistributed middle term

for categorical syllogism; arguments middle term isn't distributed; falsely links 2 things and results in incorrect conclusion

affirming the consequent

for modus ponens; incorrectly concluding that the "if" part of an "if __, then __" statement is true just because the "then" part is true

denying the antecedent

for modus tullens; incorrectly concluding that if the "then" part of an "if __, then __" is false because the "if" part is false

argument from form/commitment and basic structure

form based warrants are used to infer the fulfillment of the form commitment evidence premise: ___ is committed to propA linkage of commitment premise: when someone is committed to propA, they are usually also committed to propB conclusion: in this case, ___ is also committed to propB

types of arg from example (and definitions)

generalization - evidence relates to a part, claim relates to whole illustration - evidence relates to whole, claim relates to a part

policy stock issues and their subcategories

harm/need - need for change → big: quantitatively important → bad: quantitatively important inherency - need inherent to status quo → structural inherency: formal block → attitudinal inherency: informal block → gap inherency: existing solution incomplete plan - what's the plan solvency - will the plan work to solve the need advantages - does the plan have more advantages than disadvantages

fallacies of vacuity definition and types

have missing elements or don't actually advance the argument circular reasoning, begging the question, ignoring the question, non sequitur, straw man

defeasibility

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

their relationship

if youre making a change to the SQ, you've overcome presumption

fallacy analogy post hoc

incorrectly assuming that because y happened after x, that x caused y

fallacy of composition

incorrectly assuming that what's true of the part is true of the whole

fallacy of division

incorrectly assuming that what's true of the whole is true of the part

fallacies of relevance definition and types

introduce an irrelevant element, which disrupts the relationship within the arg ad hominem, ad verecundium, ad popular, as baculum, ad misericordium, ad ignorantium

technical sphere

involves arguments among experts; have to know what's going on to participate

ad hominem

irrelevant attack on character

ad verecundium

irrelevant authority

ad populum

irrelevant public opinion

ad misericordium

irrelevant sympathy

ad baculum

irrelevant threat

argument from slippery slope and basic structure

kinda a subcategory of causal arguments; not much of a distinction between it as an argument and fallacy first step premise: x will happen recursive premise: x will lead to y, which leads to z, etc bad outcome premise: z is terrible conclusion: we shouldn't even start this process because of the terrible outcome that will result

the burden of proof

lies w the AFF, because AFF is calling for a change to SQ

subcategories for conditional syllogisms

modus ponens - affirming the antecedent if rain, then puddles rain therefore, puddles modus tollens - denying the consequent if rain, then puddles no puddles therefore no rain

identify, explain, and distinguish complex arg types

multiple argument - each subsidiary claim is independent of each other; subsidiary claims individually establish the main claim (strongest form of argument) coordinative argument - subsidiary claims are independent of each other; subsidiary claims, taken together, establish the main claim (second strongest form of argument) subordinative argument - subsidiary claims are not independent of each other; subsidiary claims, taken together, establish the main claim (weakest form of argument)

what is flowing

note taking method for capturing claims, evidence, and clash

on and off case attacks

on case attack - attacking something mentioned in original case off case attack - attacking something not mentioned in original case

the 3 spheres of argument

personal sphere technical sphere public sphere

argument from testimony/position to know and basic structure

position to know premise: ___ is in a position to know whether x is true or not assertion premise: ___ asserts that x is true/false conclusion: x might plausibly be taken to be true/false

presumption

predisposition favoring a given side in the debate

argument as product, process, and procedure

product - you make an arg; logical relationship of ideas (a1) process - you have an arg; back+forth change of reasons (a2) procedure - the rules that govern an arg (a3)

straw man

responding to a deliberately weaker version of an argument (misinterprets their views and makes it easier for you to attack "their point")

rationale and benefits to the 4 step model

responds directly to existing opposing arguments, thus highlighting clash; easy to flow/follow

argument from sign and basic structure

sign schemes are used to infer the existence of the unknown from the presence of the known specific premise: x is true general premise: y is usually true when x is true conclusion: y must be true

different arguments (5 cat, 7 names)

sign, cause, slippery slope, testimony/position to know, form/commitment

resolution

statement of judgement that identifies central issue in controversy

syllogism definition, the basic structure that it follows, and the 3 types

syllogism - systematic arrangement of args major premise - generalization minor premise - specific instance related to the generalization conclusion - that must follow from the premises categorical, disjunctive, and conditional

distinguishing between technical and public sphere arguments

technical is more specialized, limited people can participate, and they more so debate to each other/debaters; in comparison, public sphere debates focus on the audience → he used a prop 8 example to show how argumentative strategies that succeed in one sphere can fail in another

circular reasoning

the claim merely repeats the grounds in slightly altered terms

disjunctive syllogism and ex

the major premise includes 2 mutually exclusive alternatives (cannot happen at same time) ex. either congress will amend this bill or the president will veto it congress will not amend this bill therefore, the president will veto it

categorical syllogism and ex

the major premise is unqualified ex. all dogs are mammals toby is a dog therefore, toby is a mammal

conditional syllogism and ex

the major premise posts a hypothetical state ex. if the interest rate on treasury notes increases, then more of these notes will be purchased the interest rate on treasury notes will increase therefore, more of these notes will be purchased *its conditional: if x then y, x therefore y

status quo

the norm; existing state of affairs

the burden of refutation

the obligation to answer a charge (like the NEG refuting a prima facie arg/the burden of proof)

argumentation

the practice of justifying claims under conditions of uncertainty

debate

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

begging the question

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

ad ignorantium

treating ignorance as proof of falsity

non sequitur

two statements that seem to occupy claim and support roles, but are unrelated

what makes an arg valid/invalid

valid - if there is no logically possible situation in which the premises are true and the conclusion is false invalid - if there is at least one logically possible situation where its premises are true and the conclusion is false

arg from analogy definition and its subtypes

what is true/false of other types is true/false of the type at hand literal analogies - establish parallel cases figurative analogies - establish parallel relationships

what are the 4 steps in the 4 step refutation

what they say what i say why my argument is better why it matters

hasty generalization

when a broad conclusion is drawn from an insufficient or unrepresentative sample of evidence

factors that make a presidential debate impactful

when candidates are unknown when voters are undecided when the race is close when party allegiance is weak

fallacies of warrant definition and types

when warrant (unspoken assumption) is flawed/missing hasty generalization, fallacy of composition, fallacy of division, false analogy post hoc, affirming the consequent, denying the antecedent, undistributed middle term

give their descriptions (7 evidence tests)

accessibility - can others inspect the evidence? to be credible, it pretty much needs to be accessible credibility - is the source reliable? evidence that's external to our case (if all of your sources are from the NRA and your debate is on gun laws, of course they side w you) internal consistency - does the evidence contradict itself? external consistency - does the evidence contradict the other reliable evidence? recency - is the evidence out of date? relevance - does the evidence bear on the conclusion? adequacy - is the evidence enough to support the claim? (usually a quantitative issue - do you have enough evidence??)

name the 7 evidence tests

accessibility, credibility, internal and external consistency, recency, relevance, adequacy

ignoring the question

addressing other matters instead of the issue at hand

strategic advantages of a concession

allows you to not be thrown off important points; have finite time to argue, focus on points that allow you to strengthen your argument. good concessions build ethos

argument from cause, types, and basic structure

cause based schemes are used to assert the influence of one factor on another; causation is inferred, not observed necessary cause - cause must be present in order for effect to occur sufficient cause - can produce effect by itself, but might not be only thing producing the effect major premise: generally, when x is true, so is y minor premise: x is true conclusion: y must be true

clash point

central, fundamental area of disagreement between 2 opposing sides in a debate; opposing points on the same subtopics

define the parts of a single arg

claim - expressed opinion/assertion that the arguer want accepted support - grounds for believing the claim warrant - what authorizes the reasoning

types of argument attacks and defenses (defending)

→ deny/correct. "you say x will happen; that's not correct". "the plan causes x disadvantage" - it doesn't and here's why → refute/rebuild. "you say x; i say not x" → rebuild the claims. "you say x is bad; i say its not that bad" - actually it is that bad and here's why → outweigh. "your argument is minor in comparison to issue x" → minimize the problem → attack/rebuild evidence → framework/recontextualize/contain → concede. a strategic concession allows you to not be thrown off of an important point. you have a finite time/space, you must pick the best path to a strong argument ** if you never concede a point, the opposition dictates the terms → you are always chasing them; a good concession builds ethos

types of argument attacks and defenses (attacking)

→ refute the claims. "you say x; i say not x" → weaken the claims. "you say x is bad; i say its not THAT bad" (aka not as bad as you claim; similar to refutation but the threshold is lower) → highlight inconsistencies. "your argument x doesn't seem to fit in your case", "what you argue in your harms seems at odds with your advantages" → perform a turn. "the argument is actually good for my case more than it is for yours", "you see this as a bad thing, but its actually a good thing" → attack evidence. "your evidence is weak, out of date, from a bad source, etc" ** when attacking evidence - you haven't proven anything false, you've just weakened evidence; undermining the evidence doesn't establish that the claims false, merely that it has not been proved to be true → use a framework/recontextualize