ILRLR2300 Midterm

Particular affirmative

"Some A are B" The subject= a= undistributed the predicate= b= undistributed

Particular negative

"Some A are not B" The subject= a= undistributed The predicated=b= distributed

negative

"only if" makes both the antecedent and the consequent ________. should be read as "if not... then not.." if need both the antecedent and the consequent ________ it affects both the antecedent and the consequent, the clause following if is always the antecedent whether ir applies first or last in the same.

debate on class three

"this house believes that the american legal system is superior to the british legal system"

A commitment to ethical advocacy

Achieving argumentation goals involved the real and rational obligations associated with advancing and responding to arguments in public settings. Rational participants. Should aim not to deceive or take advantage of our audience members. moral responsibility to advance arguments that are sound and to provide audiences with accurate up to date evidence and info. View others as capable of reasonable arguments and decision making

particular affirmative universal negative particular negative predicate

Categorical statements can contain statements other than universal affirmatives. ________ _______ statement- the claim that attributes a specified quality to only some members of a category. ______ _______ statement- the claim that denies a specific quality to each member of a category. _______ ________ statement- a claim that denies that some members of a category possess a specified quality, "some A are not C" any negative statement is making a claim about all members of its _____ category

ethos pathos

He said if you want to be persuasive, there are three things you need to do. You need to have ______- credibility and trustworthiness. The second thing that Aristotle said you need is _____- appeal to emotion If you want to persuade someone, you need to convince someone that you care about what you are talking about. You need to appeal to emotions The last thing you need is ______- the argument has to make sense, it needs to appeal to logic There was a consistent timeline in the story. The story had a beginning, a middle and an end: that is the power of a narrative. We constantly question if things make sense as a story

The Art of Woo

Wharton School of Economics- at the University of Pennsylvania- Cheeles and Moussa- wrote a book called .........

metaphors

Your brain is physically formed by these primary _________ that you have learned. Framing arguments so that they make sense to you much like you would set up a criteria and this is how you think and you can't understand anyone who would think differently

Argument

a claim advanced with a reason or reasons in support

property

a quality projected from the same to the population

dangerous precedent

basis for a series of undesirable exceptions for similar exceptional cases. to be reasonable, judicial analogies must compare similar cases present their evidence accurately and not involve an illegitimate exception to the rule of justice

presumption and burden of proof

before urging any policy change in a public setting such as a debate, it is important to establish 1. a problem exists 2. it results from the present policies 3. the problem is serious enough to require action to alleviate it

television

commercial presence can affect both the accuracy and depth of information that hosts and guests provide. television documentaries can be a source of interesting and reliable information in part because the network usually have other than purely commercial reasons for providing a documentary useful, thoroughly researched information typically reflects a political bias that is so strong as to affect that accuracy of what they report

attitudinal inherency

current attitudes of beliefs that contribute to the harms

person values

deep moral convictions that people acquire from family, cultural background, religious training and personal experiences

euphemism

less objectionable and often less accurate terms exchanged for harsh, condemning or emotionally charged terms. are a kind of argumentative definition because terms shape our perceptions, this is an effort to make perceptions of an object, person or action down a scale in severity. to reject one of these is to reverse this process.

small changes, major consequences

occasionally a version of the argument from quantity is used to argue that a relatively small change has a significance impact when its effect is multiple over a large number of cases or over a large period of time. often clearly related to pragmatic concerns

quantity and hypothesis

quantity arguments that emphasize the significance of a problem can also be used to introduce a hypothesis that explains the unusually large numbers

conclusion relationship

relationship being used in connection with the conclusion figurative analogies move from one relationship to another relationship and suggest to our audience how they should think about the subject under discussion

mode

the most frequently occurring observation or response in a sample

Universal Negative

"No A are B" The subject = a= distributed The predicate= b= distributed

POLICY DEBATE TOPIC

"Resolve, the United States should significantly reduce its military presence in one or more of the following: The Arab States of the Persian Gulf, the greater horn of Africa, Northeast Asia"

interviews

generate evidence and background information involving you more directly. phrase the questions so they allow you to obtain the information you are seeking. carefully review which statement seem most useful to you.

claim

when advanced without interpretation, some evidence may not appear to support its _____, in such cases you need to provide an interpretation that makes the connection clear

linguistic conventions

all fallacies of suggestion are achieved by means of ______ ________- recognized methods of expressing a meaning indirectly these enable an advocate to say something of expression a meaning indirectly without expressing it directly. fallacies when we use them to mislead an audience or to misrepresent claim or arguments.

inductive leap

an inferential movement beyond on argument's evidence- is part of every generalization sample itself, a finding about the sample, the population from which it was drawn and property that was transferred from the sample to the population and the extent of the generalization. the sample, sample size, finding are present in the evidence statement of a generalization from a sample.

visual argument

arguments converted through images or objects rather than words, can be highly persuasive, however they are not immediately perceived as arguments. often achieve their effect through their capacity to present a concise summation of a situation to capture the essence of an event or set of circumstances. architecture, intended to reveal essential nature of a country.

rival principle

arguments from principle are occasionally answered by advancing a ______ _______ that is is argued overrides the one being evoked. it is only through the clash of arguments, through a process of reasoning that determinations are made as to which principles will prevail in a particular controversy. despite legal decisions that place a law above personal convictions people may hold tenaciously to their principles.

testing pragmatic arguments

because pragmatic arguments develop on the basis of suggested good or bad consequences, we can ask whether the stated consequences actually will develop from the action 1. is the action in question likely to have the suggested consequences? assesses whether the predicted consequences of an action are in fact probably. 2. will the proposed action have serious undesirable consequences? rather than arguing against the specific benefits claim for an action it is possible to argue that the proposed policy actually comes with it serious undesirable consequences pragmatic arguments often conceal or ignore a principle or value that is a state if the suggested action is pursued. 3. does the proposed action violate an important principle? making pragmatic arguments can be answered with appeals to a principle that the proposed action would violate.

arguments from example

begins with a particular instance or case it is an argument that draws a conclusion about an entire class of objects or events based on a particular instance or a limited number of cases, rather than about a single member of a group. often employed when a single case or a small number of cases is considered sufficient support to a general claim. you can identify this type of argument because the example or examples will be named as a conclusion about an entire class of events, people objects are then advanced. usually assert that are presentative example or two are adequate to support a generalization to all similar instances connective in the argument from example. is that the example is typical of the category 1. is the example representative from the cases from which it is drawn? 3. is the example reported accurately? is of no use if it can be shown not to be true to fact. however, the example may be exaggerated or important details left unreported 3. is a counter example available?

appeals

common to a world of advertising of sales and political and religious discourse as well. appears are not often directed to the analytical thinking we call upon when assessing arguments. they can be part of a reasonable argumentative case. the potential for misuse is present. _______- persuasive strategy directed to the audience's emotions, sense of humor, or deeply held loyalties and commitments

structural inherency

current laws or regulatory structures or their absence that result in the harms advocates often try to establish both kinds of inherency in their efforts to build a strong case that current practices cause serious problems

significance

current policy, results in serious damage, waste of resources, or potential loss. should argue for the _______ of _______- whether the status quo is already producing serious undesirable consequences or is likely to do so in the future. when an audience believes a problem will not materialize for a long time, it is more difficult to persuade them to take action or to accept a change in policy

linguistic consistency

defining terms clearly and the same way throughout an argument

define

definitions are crucial to every area of public reasoning. terms being hotly contested include "marriage" "torture" "person" and "socialized" to "_______"- is to advance a meaning for a word or to classify an object person or act. no activity is more crucial to the outcome of an argument then doing this to key terms. whoever controls the definitions in a debate controls the debate itself.

category

definitions establish a _____ into which a person an idea or an action is placed to support a conclusion. argumentative definitions often incorporate criteria that reflects beliefs values or assumptions. the reasoning behind argumentative definitions typically involves three steps: 1. a category is defined by setting out criteria. 2. a person an object or an act is placed in the category on the basis of its having satisfied the criteria 3. the new member is classified to have other qualities of the members of that category argumentative definitions thus operate in much the same way that categorical arguments do. categorical validity is the basis of definition and reasoning. one reason is left unstated because it is assumed that the audience will understand what is implied.

positive

denying a negative statement results in a ______ assertion

civil disobedience

intentional decision to disobey a law or directive of a government authority for moral reasons. compelling reason for rejecting authority is one that so outfights the authority's ability to wield power that we are willing to ensure the consequences. it may be simply too costly in time and money to heed an authority's guidance.

reclassification

involves the strategic placement of an object, person or idea under a new heading a horizontal rather than a vertical movement of an object, a person from one category to another

sources of evidence

it is important to ask whether the source is appropriate to the topic being investigated and whether the source is reliable. other considerations can include the sources intended audience, pressures on the source that may affect treatment of a topic and the source's political perspective.

topicality

keeping the debate focused on issues relevant to the debate being had, the topic. focuses on the resolution, it is a guard against errors such as strategies of distraction, irrelevant arguments, appeal to emotions and ad hominem

rule of justice

the idea that all similar cases should be treated similarly depends on establishing the close similarity of the cases being compared, this rule demands that the cases are clearly similar in all relevant ways except the treatment they have received, so it is particularly important to ask whether a crucially dissimilarity exists between the cases being compared.

conditional statement

the if-then statement in a condition statement

consequent

the "then" clause in a conditional statement

internet

the _____ has greatly increased access to public discourse. highly accessible forums for expression opinions and advancing arguments also mean that people are writing arguments on topic of interest to them more than ever more. more important that ever to propagate standards of ethical advocacy and to discuss standards for a reasonable argument. line between assertion and argument is sometimes blurred online

subject term

the first term in a categorical statement, the subject or principal focus of the argument

POINTS OF INFORMATION

-after 1st minute and before last minute (knock), window in which the other side can make a point of information. You stand up and say "information." You then can be accepted or rejected by the speaker. You can say yes ill take your point, or you could shoo them away. only direct interaction in debate (highlander) can stand up as many times as you like (wait 30 seconds between attempts) when you make a point of information it shows dominance, it the only point in the debate when the judge gets a way to compare you immediately the second way is that it allows you to control what your opponent are saying and it usually gives you a preview of what they are going to say in the future, if they are making a big deal about something it is going to come up in the future. If you don't do it, you're scared, you cant manage your time well, or you cant follow the rules They should be statements if its an argument You can ask a question if you have a question, don't ask an argument disguised as a question. Don't ask questions disguised as arguments. Only against the opposing team Can stand up as many times as you like, wait 30 seconds between attempts Counterexamples are good points of information, this is voluntary, it is an easy way to stand up or not. You should show due diligence and make sure you are volunteering as much as possible during the debate. You should wait 30 seconds in between points of information. Be strategic not reactive. Should be pilthy, less than 15 seconds Non verbal rejection "INFORMATION" attempt 2-3 per speech, accept 2-3 per speech not a conversation, must sit down after making point should be a statement unless it s a question questions are not arguments

middle twice conclusion

1. The _____ term in a valid categorical statement must be distributed exactly once. 2. Neither end term may be distributed over one in its two appearances- if the end term is distributed in the conclusion, it must also be distributed in the premise or reason where it first appears. it also means that if the end term is not distributed in the conclusion, it must not be distributed in a premise. because categorical arguments have 2 end terms, this test must be applied twice. end terms are always the two terms in the conclusion. satisfy the rule by distributing an end term _____ or not at all. 3. the number of negative premises in the argument must equal the number of negative __________ when a categorical argument has a negative reason it must also have a negative conclusion in order to be valid. other possibility for satisfying the rule is for an argument to have negative statements at all. a valid argument never has two negative reasons, however.

evaluating the hypothesis causal agent parsimony

1. does the hypothesis account adequately for the observations? should filter out hypotheses that are clearly inadequate or insufficient because of their failure to explain some element in the observed circumstance 2. a reliable hypothesis will identify a ________ ______- a testable element in the alleged case that is capable of producing the observed effect. this represented a clear line between cause and effect and is crucial to a good hypothesis A. a hypothesis should account for all the relevant elements in the observation. B. The hypothesis should suggest a causal agent, a factor that actually could produce the observed effect. C. the hypothesis should not rely on hidden or obscure causes that cannot be tested. Have similar hypotheses been shown to be accurate in analogous cases? Some events, we should note, are genuinely unique and may thus require unique hypotheses for which no analogous ones exist. 3. Is an alternative hypothesis available that better explains observed events A. Modify a good but incomplete hypothesis B. Seek an entirely new hypothesis When hypothesis is complete, it is helpful to look for the simplest or least complex causal explanation that still accounts for observed effects. this approach is called the rule of _______

testing the person/act argument

1. has the act been interpreted accurately- any act is subject to more the more interpretation because almost any act can be part of an effort to create a false image, interpretation may require additional support, especially if the interpretation is question. 2. are observed acts consistent with other acts by this person? for an act to indicate a person's nature, the act must be consistent with a pattern of behavior.

testing the argument from function

1. has the function been identified correctly? the basis of establishing function and attributions based on function can be called into question 2. who is the function derived? it is always possible to challenge attributions of functioning by examining how function has been assigned. if the function has been derived from an outdated or narrow view, a different source of function, a broader, traditional view, might be affirmed

testing figurative analogies

1. is the analogy advanced as illustration or as an argument? if the figurative analogy is advanced and understood as simply an illustration, we may be willing to accept it without careful scrutiny. the actual argument is somewhere else not in the metaphor. if the figurate analogy is being advanced as an argument, it should be subjected to other tests. figurative analogies should not be used alone as arguments. their nature as arguments that compare unlike things precludes this possibility. 2. does the figurative analogy appear with other types of arguments? rarely would we be willing to accept a metaphor as the sole support for a conclusion but the line between illustration and argument is often blurred. analogies can be highly persuasive by virtue of their ability to clarify. if we understand a point, we may think it has been proved. when confronted with a persuasive metaphor, we should be sure our judgment about the point in question is based on other types of arguments and evidence as well. 3. are the relationships between the two pairs of terms in the figurative analogy comparable? if order for a figurate analogy to have any impact, we must grasp the relationship between the terms of evidence relationship and accept a similar relationship between the two terms of the conclusion relationship. in responding to a figurative analogy, we may be able to alter the analogy so as to support a different conclusion by exposing a different aspect of the compared relationship alternatively, we would extend the analogy to the point at which the conclusion it allows are absurd

testing the argument from quality

1. is the indicated quality actually present? those alleged qualities suggest a possible rebuttal. challenge the undefined terms that accompany a quality claim. 2. is the quality more clearly represented elsewhere? because the claims are about what is unique and rare, the argument from quality invites comparisons 3. do other concerns outweigh this quality?

testing the argument from principle

1. is the principle relevant to the issue under dispute? many disagreements are rooted in differences over whether a moral principle exists and if it does, how it applies in a particular case. if we do agree that the principle in question is relevant to the issue at hand, the question arises as to whether the proposal being advanced represents a violation of the principle. 2. does the proposed action in fact violate the principle at issue? in many cases, the response to an argument from principle is a pragmatic argument that affirms the principle in question is too costly, dangerous or time consuming. the respondent affirms that the pragmatic considerations actually outweigh the principle in question or that another principle is more important 3. Do other considerations outweigh the principle? Tension between pragmatic and principle considerations is common to public debates.

how can we know whether an appeal to authority should be heeded?

1. is there sufficient reason to heed this authority in this case? if authority is used as support for a position and an issue, it should be done for a compelling reason. we should be certain than we either ought to or want to heed authority in a specific case, the time find such basis for making decisions to be reasonable in this situation. may wish to acknowledge and support structures of an institution have found the authority of an individual trustworthy in the past may simply wish to avoid sanctions that the authority is in a position to give out. there are times we should challenge or resist authority. some times deviating from the dictates of authority if the more reasonable course of action. 2. is this group of individual an authority for me in this case? the power of an authority to gain compliance is based on their voluntary or coerced acceptance of the authority. one type of appeal to authority is sometimes employed in defense of controversial action. individuals may argue that they were simply following orders from a supervisor, superior officer, religious leader or spiritual identity.

guidelines for using testimony as evidence

1. quote sources accurate- if you paraphrase, always indicate clearly that you are doing so. have the original source ready, in case someone asks if you can produce it. 2. identify your sources 3. use credible sources 4. qualify the source. 5. use biased sources with caution 6. be brief

developing a hypothesis

1. suggest a testable hypothesis: the hypothesis which suggests a possible cause of the unexpected event can be subjected to meaningful testing 2. generate the consequences of the hypothesis on the assumption of its accuracy- anticipate consequences that would be true if the hypothesis were true. 3. compare actual observations to the generated consequences. 4. accept modify or reject the hypothesis- a hypothesis should always be open to further testing. however, the only reasons we hypothesize are those that are potentially falsifiable- capable of being shown false.

Goals of studying argumentation

1. to help you understand and evaluate the arguments you hear or read. 2. to equip you to compose and present your own arguments more effectively 3. to enhance your appreciation of the ethical use of arguments

worldview coherence fidelity

1. what does the protagonist believe in or strive for? motives and interest can provide a key to understanding the underlying claim of a narrative argument. some protagonists are clearly no speaking for the author. if the protagonist emerges as an admirable figure, important to ask what she or he is pursuing. many stories used as part of an argument share a close relations to the argument from example. we see what the protagonist desires and what values and virtues he represents 2. what values inform the action in the story? stories may have embedded within them an author's values and moral commitments. examine the values the admirable characters in the story advocate, choose or represent. 3. what worldview emerges from this narrative? an entire system of interconnected assumptions and beliefs- ______ a moral system within which a story's characters act and value decisions. characters working against the protagonist may be found to reject the worldview but are still bound by it. testing narrative arguments: ________- do the components in this story create a meaningful and consistent whole? going inside the story to determine whether the action in the narrative is convincing on its own terms and has a constant internal logic. a high degree of inconsistency renders a story implausible to an audience. fidelity- does this story reflect what i know to be true about life experiences and human nature? whether a narrative is true to life when story violates ____ the face of an argument it might be advancing is weakened

problem path solution

8. Narrative structure- beginning, middle, end. This is a classic narrative structure that mimics how you understand essays and stories. There is a ______, _____ and a _______. There is a problem that we have, there is the way we move to the solution, then there is the solution. You have to have an organizational model. The more organized you are, the better your public speaking style will be. The light at the end of the tunnel, audiences need to know that your speech will sometime end. Trying to explain to everyone that there is a light at the end of the tunnel. Try to avoid scripted- have a general narrative structure. In impromptu speaking, narrative structures are deep. Have some sort of macro structure in order to become more clear to the audience

multimedia presentation

A ________ ________ has been taught to ease my ability to organize my ability. it is supposed to make the speaker's job easier. But the focus should be how can you make the information easier communicated and understood by the whole audience. Something that is important- using blank slides as a way of creating organization within your presentations. Just a black slide- you now have to look at the speaker, when he is talking, the focus remains on him and he is not eclipsed as the presentation. Include this as a transition between different aspects of speech.

claim reason conclusion

A firs step toward understanding and evaluating arguments is knowing "what" Definition of an argument suggests that an argument is a composite of different kinds of statements, claims and reasons. when someone makes an argument, typically that person is, at the minimum, advancing a ______- a statement the advocate believes or is in the process of evaluating- and also providing a reason or reasons for believing or considering a claim. a _______ is a statement advanced for the purpose of evaluating and establishing a claim. a _________ is a claim that has been resolved by the process of reasoning

policy debate

A new kind of debate- policy debate. There is a structure to policy debate. 1ac- first affirmative constructive- 9 minutes long. Unlike world's debate where you get 15 minutes and then you get to prepare with your partner, in policy debate the pick the topic for the whole year for all the colleges in the United States, they come up with the exact wording and it is the exact topic all year long. It is kind of a general topic so there is room for variation and creativit This is a written speech. In policy debate, they don't care what you think. You get credibility by citing experts, You have to go out and do the research on the topic and go out and write like a legal brief, citing experts on why your approach is correct.

argumentation

All of this idea driven communication often involved use directly in ____________- the cooperative activity of developing and advancing arguments and responding to the arguments of others. any subject that people care deeply about is a subject about which they can also make arguments.

sophists

Another group, called _________, "sophisticated" used to be an insult. These were people who would hang out in the hallways on your way to court. The ancient Greeks had a rule that you could not hire a lawyer. They noticed that not always the people with the best arguments win, sometimes the people with the sneaky tricks would win- the Sophists were the people with the sneaky tricks.

deputy leader opposition

Answers the indirect and direct refutation of the deputy PM Adds to the arguments made by the LO, adding evidence, significance, explanation Will answer independent answers, then will answer the arguments you made, then will add to your arguments that were made stronger. They will respond to the deputy PM Make sure the arguments are so powerful that there are four speeches that are being addressed.

Stephen Toulmin- the "Toulmin" model. Toulmin was English. He went to Cambridge. He worked at Bell Laboratories. We need to figure out what the simplest, most direct way to get a message to someone- is what they said at the company. He said that the way to do that was through an argument.

Arguments needs to have three things: 1. A name- he called this a "_______" It is something that you are trying to prove. The first thing that you need in order to have an argument is a point. 2. The second thing that you need is a _______- this is a reason, a justification. If you have an argument without a warrant, a reason, there is no justification behind it. This usually could be "name-calling." There are no rational arguments being made, but you need a reason behind it. 3. The last thing you need is ______- this is proof. This is evidence and examples. The currency of debate is vivid examples. You need to take the thing that you know is wrong, using pure critical thinking and reasoning, to show that an argument is wrong. This is where the critical thinking part comes in the understanding argumentation and debate

leader of the opposition

Direct and indirect Creates arguments that directly refute the arguments made by the prime minster. Creates independent arguments that indirectly prove why the PM interpretation is wrong for some sort of reason, that it produces a unique harm or stops a unique benefit that is greater than what the prime minister has said are the advantages of doing something. 1-2 independent arguments, 1-2 answers to each argument that happens in the debate

Metaphors

George Lakoff- University of California at Berkeley. The brain processes arguments differently than it processes other things. This is because of a metaphors- a comparison without using like or as. Experiential learning- this is how you know how something tastes Metaphors we live by- Lakoff and Jackson- they are crucial to our very existence and they tell us a lot about our culture because different cultures use metaphors in different ways. Some cultures use violent metaphors when discussing debate and argument. In Brazil, they use metaphors related to dance, it is a cooperative process, they say "we had a great argument." You think differently when you live in a culture like that. Some cultures actually use building metaphors. "lay the foundation so that my position will be strong, and then I build my argument, and then I tighten my position." If you think about your argument in this way it is different than when you are like I must attack my opponent or defend my position. Related to how we evaluate arguments

cause

Hypotheses are advanced when an event is unusual enough to raise a question about its ______. an explanation to account for the unusual event. the explanation statement is the argument's hypothesis. functions as the argument's conclusion. causal arguments of this type often advance evidence as additional support for the hypothesis hypothesis arguments usually involve the following elements: 1. circumstances to be explained, an event or phenomenon that requires a causal explanation 2. an implied question raised by the circumstances. what causes this event to occur? 3. the hypothesis itself- a statement advancing an explanation for the event or answering the implied question 4. supporting evidence- observations or other facts that support the hypothesis.

GOVERNMENT

If you are the ________ side you are the pro side.

preview summary

If you started off by giving a ______ of what you were going to talk about, and then gave a ________ at the end, people would be impressed by you because they would think that you were structured and it would make you a better public speaker

cooperatively

In the United States, we use the terms "argument" and "fight" interchangeably. Argument is used more _________ in other countries. Argument can be used like war in the United States. What do you do when someone says something about your argument? You defend it. That is a war-like thing. Then you "attack," "destroy," etc. These are all war-like metaphors that we use. Debate should not be synonymous with bickering and fighting. You really enjoy an argument and you get a charge out of it.

B A -> C

It is possible for a single reason to result in two or more conclusions. "A is true so B is the case and C must also be true."

logos

It is almost impossible to find someone who is all strict father or all nurturing parent because everyone has knowledge of both. But when you are talking about an important political issue you need to frame it, so if your audience is strict parent, you need to frame your argument in a way that they will understand it Strict fathers and nurturing parents cannot talk to each other constructively because they are coming from different frames of reference. Lakoff thinks that it is really hard or almost impossible for people to change their minds. Sam doesn't necessarily agree with this, he thinks he can persuade people to change their minds using logical reasoning. These things are wired into you when you are a baby according to Lakoff. Lakoff thinks that everyone is persuaded by framing. Whereas, Sam values "______."

drachma

Korax and Poseydus. They would ask for "______" in exchange for the secret to winning the case. One of the things he wrote was "he who asserts must prove." If you're the person to asset a truth like "God Exists" than you need to provide the evidence. Aristotle is saying that if you are asserting something exists, then the burden is on you.

information

Major errors people make in multimedia presentations- You have to be diligent about your multimedia presentations and not think about it in the common way that everyone already thinks about it. People put too much ________ on slides- the human mind cannot only process quickly about 6 objects or less. More than 6 objects is too much for our mind to comprehend. When you are designing the multimedia presentation- don't put 9 things. Try to avoid an overabundance of information. People will be spending so much time trying to read what is on it that they are not spending time actually listening to you. Cheap tricks do not work. Using funny cartoons to symbolize something going on can better be done by the speaker saying something entertaining. At best, these things are a mild distraction. What you want to choose are powerful images that support what you are saying.

policy debate

More of an outline, don't care about opinion. Evidence backed by research Strong information from experts to back up the opinion Garbage in, garbage out- if you put garbage in, you won't get a good result out. If you are debating and you don't have a lot of substance to add, it is not going to be a very good argument. Start off exactly like : my partner and I stand resolved, and then write down the topic Then you _____ key words in the resolution. Such as "reduced." What does significantly mean? You know who your opponent will be- Sam. You're going to have to defend the case AND the definitions. Observation 1: For every piece of evidence you put their name, the qualifications, date it was published, where it came from, and the URL Put the best date you can from when the observation was actually made. You sometimes may need to put date accessed. What is the definition of criteria? Standards by which you judge something. Whether or not something is good or bad is related to the criteria you use. The first thing you do when you establish criteria is to set a goal. The goal should be a value. What is the definition of a value- a strong moral standard that you hold that you shoot for. The first thing you need to do is have a highest value. Could love be a value? Yes. It could also be peace. Security could be a value, also.

persuasion acceptance

No argument or appeal will ever guarantee success in ______ _______- the agreement to accept the argument as present. to find it persuasive or at least lacking in any major flaw. may reinforce a view we already hold or we may be persuaded to take on a new view or modify an earlier view. we are most likely to accept an argument if it was developed by an advocate who shares our views.the commitments about which we do not ask critical questions represent our points of view/rational vulnerability. imagine a counter argument

opposition

On opposition, you have to agree with the arguments that are done by the other ______ team. There is no collaboration. There is 15 minutes of preparation time, you do that with your partner. Then, you are trying to both beat the arguments of your opponent while showing that you are the best version of your side in the debate.. you will learn how to do it properly.

prime minister

Opening speeches- ______ _______ (limits and proves true) Defines the topic and limits it to a specific interpretation, do not debate the topic. Gives 2-3 arguments supporting their interpretation Gives a plan of action if needed You need to create what that topic means The prime minister is providing a clear limit to the debate. Then, provide 1-2 arguments, this is usually extended to 2-3 supporting whatever your interpretation of the debate is. You either have these parts or you do not have an argument, you need work to be able to have a powerful argument to prove your position, how to identify, point out flaws in, and make powerful arguments, make just arguments in your speech. You need to make sure that you are choosing arguments, not time completion as your rule.

values

Our beliefs, values and assumptions play a major role in how we interpret the world we encounter each day. Much argumentation is undertaken because we are presented with choices. Choices and the arguments that accompany them, engage our _______- deeply help moral commitments acquired from family, cultural background, religious training and personal experience. _____ inform our thinking when we are faced with a choice. values drive us to make arguments that advocate one idea preferable to another. some piece of evidence may lead different people to quite different conclusions, depending on the ____ those people bring to bear on interpreting that evidence. _______ themselves are contests in the public arena and subject to change. even single individual's values can be in conflict. They often provide the pink between fact and a conclusion drawn from that fact. Many of the disagreements that mark life in pluralistic societies result from differences in ____. Resolving controversies peacefully often requires us to search from common, unifying values. Ethnic and religious rivalries can illustrate the need to discover unifying values to resolve controversies. Humility, recognizing that we have something to learn from opponents, avoiding binary thinking that recognizes no common ground, eschewing dismissive words and phrases and emphasizing commonly held _____

correct order of speakers in a worlds debate

Prime minister- leader of opposition- deputy prime minister- deputy leader opposition- member of government- member of opposition- government whip- opposition whip

hypothesis

Results are the educated and well substantiated guesses as t what causes a particular event to occur. ________- an explanation statement affirming that one or more events cause another event to occur. a causal statement that is still being tested. it is a conjecture, based on available evidence about a cause. requires careful evaluation before it can be established as accurate. advanced when the cases of an unexpected or unusual event are in question

narratives

Stories or what we call _________ in communication are a really effective way of getting people to pay attention. Why is this? There is suspense, there's a plot, it might be something that you could relate to. Human being, before they could write, the only way we could pass on knowledge from generation to generation, was through story-telling. People who were good at telling stories were often good at manipulating things to tell stories, people who told stories and listened to them also tended to live longer. People theorize that biological evolution has made story-telling able to effect our brains genetically over the years. We are still anchored in the story-telling tradition. He believes this is true- people get into a different mode when they think they are going to hear a story. People process information in stories differently.

cooperative

The __________ process of argumentation helps us force agreements between groups, embracing disparate values, facilitating the discovering of new facts, resolves misunderstandings, and moves us toward solutions to social and personal problems reviewing the process of argumentation involves effort. our efforts are educed and the accuracy of our understanding increased however if we can approach arguments systemically

CONSTRUCTIVES REBUTTALS NEGATIVE BLOCK FULL 2NR 2AR

The first four speeches are the _____ and the last four are the _______. Division of labor- leaving some arguments of 2nc between 1nr _______ ________- the 2nc and the 1nr, they occur right next to each other. The 1nr is only 6 minutes long. If you drop an argument, this means that this argument counts for ______ strength, this is like you agreed with it. If you drop an argument, it counts for full strength. You have to try to cover everything. Next: You cannot waste time when you are the 1ar. You have to get to your point, you only have 6 minutes. This is a very fast and efficient speech, no wasting time or effort. Then there is the _____- explain what the voting issues, explain why the negative should win the debate. You cannot bring up a new argument. _____- says why the voting issues do not stand and explain why, explain why the affirmative should win the debate. You cannot bring up a new argument. This form of debate is structured like the American legal system, it doesn't matter if you upset people. There is no nuance to this. World's debate is based on a parliamentary model, whereas this is based on a legal model. They do this kind of debate in the united states and they do it in japan.

PCAN- PROBLEM CAUSE ANSWER NET BENEFIT You need to describe a problem, you need to explain what the cause of the problem is, the answer then needs to be provided, you can suggest what can be done better and what needs to be changed. Then, you explain the net benefit.

The first thing that you need to do if you want to persuade someone is that you need to convince someone that there is a ______. You have to convince them there is a problem so that they are motivated to make a change. The second thing that you need to do if you want to persuade someone is you have to explain the _____ of the problem. What does it do for you to explain the cause of the problem. It gives you credibility that you actually understand the problem. Not only is there a problem but you completely understand the problem. You've gotten your ethos. The next thing you need to do is have an _______, a solution or a fix. The last thing you need to do is explain the ______ _____- additional good things that will happen besides solve the problem. The more net benefits you have, the more likely people will be to persuade you to solve the problem. They don't even necessarily need to be net benefits that are that good, but the higher the quantity of net benefits, the more likely you are to persuade

energy

The major problems of public speaking 1.The first major mistake- low ______, you need to sound like you are interested in what you are talking about, even if you are not. There need to be two independent factors- if possible you need to care about what is being covered, or 2) you care about what your role is in giving the presentation, ex. Getting a good grade, or doing well in an internship You have to choose one of these twos for every sort of public speaking engagement, if you don't, you will have low energy. There will be low eye contact, you are not loud enough, you don't have strong body language, you are closed off to your audience. There are multiple ways your body language can be closed off- cross arms, holding paper tightly in your hands. Don't put anything between you and your audience, all of that is closed body language. You are sending a "you scare me" signal. That is what that means. You want open body language. The second thing you can do that is closed body language, never move from the same position, example, same podium or desk, all of those things are blocking you and act as a shield. Avoid anything from blocking your presence.

practiced

The major problems with public speaking: 2.You haven't ________. A. Practice the introduction, you have 15 seconds to prove to your audience you are worth listening to, do not say "I am worth listening to." B. Practice public speaking. This is a mechanical exercise. A mechanical skill is one that requires practice. You have to be practicing these about an hour minimum per week to improve public speaking ability. C. Find out what is going on in the local community (ex. Ban the Greek system). Make sure that you are aware of the issues that are going on in your campus and your world, you don't have to be an expert on news. Most people that do research without a lens of argumentation. 3. You need to be able to anticipate ________ that happen.

read color advertisements chart or graph visual representation text audience call to action

The more you use text, the more you will be inclined to: 1. ______ the text (NEVER DO THIS), the human can read 7 times faster than speaking out words. The audience can get through the material you are reading out loud 7 times faster than you are speaking it. Make sure that if you are using images that they support what you say and try to get text out as much as possible. It is distracting and superfluous and benefits mostly you. The job should be about persuasion not about easy or hard. 2. ______ schemes- avoid crazy colors. 1. This is painful to look at. Avoid going radical, try different shades of blue, black, lesser shades of red. Red has been scientifically proven to produce excitement in audiences. What you need to do is think about how you are going to talk to your audience and what you are going to do to persuade them. But 10% of the population has red/green colorblindness. Avoid darker colors or images that are part of the slides. Never use red and green together, you may be alienating some of your audience 3. ________ as a way of making a powerful argument. You have to make a powerful argument about why someone should choose a particular brand, business or idea. Fear is a powerful motivating tool. Single images and ideas used in ways that audiences are not expecting to send messages to your audience. I have a story to tell, and how will images help tell that story. Any time you are making an argument or a speech you are telling a story. You use images to help create understanding. Think about what is your story, what images are going to help promote those specific ideas. Develop those and practice those and think about them. 1. What are you going to tell in your story. 2. What are the images you are going to use in your story 3. Practice with it. 4. When you present a confusing _____ or _____- you present two roads to your audience, you or the computer, who will the audience choose... usually the computer. Give out handouts that illustrate a complicated visual or piece of information if necessary. People often rely on the powerpoint too often. Powerpoint should usually have your contact information on it. They see a handout, they think about it, they contact you later. This is an easy way to professionally network. There is a disconnect between the audience and the presenter when there is something very confusing being shown on the slide. Do not let the presentation take control of you. 5. Do not place a _______ ________ on the slide that is showing what you have been saying the same time, do not repeat visually what you are saying. It should not be repetition it should be enhancement. This is the reason why the average powerpoint has 60 slides in it. You should try to lessen the number of slides in your powerpoint. Once you hit 15 slides, you are more self indulgent than you actually need to be. 6. ______ should be avoided at all costs. Focus on yourself and what you are going to say. Text gets in the way of that. Avoid these text sentences. Don't insert text, be bold. 7. Conclusion Slide- what should you do? You should have your contact information on it. Secondly, it takes about 15-18 point for people to see 10 feet away. 30 point- another 10 feet. 40 point- closer. 50 point- 50 feet. It is important to now how big your ______ is when you know how big the information text should be written in. Have there be something interactive with the audience. Questions, a call to _____, invite the audience to participate in something. These things make question and answer periods better. You should always try to include question and answer periods in professional presentations. They are important, email the organizer and ask if the question and answer period is formally included in the presentation time or should you take account of it. It is a powerful way to set up professional contacts with people. If people are prone to take an action, they are more likely to do something about it in the future. Finally, how did you prove what you set out to prove? You know this because you do this in every single essay you have ever written but too often people do a summary. A summary is not a conclusion. This is boring. Your audience will remember what you did. Short term memory does not last long, men remember things for a minute and then information starts moving to the dump pile, women have short term memory of 3-6 minutes. You need to use a context. Powerpoint kills people because it uses violent language. 8. Death by firing squad- the way PowerPoints kill people, bullet points!!! The Challenger Disaster- part of the explanation given about why information was not processed accurately accessed to see the real problem was bullet points in Powerpoint. They said the Powerpoints using bullet points oversimplified the information and made it hard for them to understand key problems going on with the challenger spaceship, which were problems going on with the o-rings. Bullet points oversimplify information. Avoid bullet points. You end up reading a laundry list of information. You are looking at the list and not listening to the information. If you are going to use bullet points, try to use less than 4. If you want to use bullet points, do not make the mistake made earlier- one idea per slide. Bullet points is a way to stuff multiple ideas together- do not push metatopics together. 9. You have to work within whatever system you are required to, but try to do the best you can to accomplish these methods using whatever system works best.

rule of reason

The most basic agreement involved in reasoning with another person is the ______ _____ _____- the agreement to engage in the cooperative process of argumentation rather than the resolve disagreement by other means. argumentation is preferred over coercion, intimidation or violence. Agreements include: 1. agreement to resolve disagreement through argumentation 2. agreements about procedures. 3. agreements about goals 4. agreements about evidence Argumentation language that infers warfare can blind us to the fact that argumentation also requires a lot of agreement and cooperation.

cross examination

The second speech in a policy debate is a ______ _______- stands next to the person reading the 1AC and asks them questions about the IAC and it is a lot like a legal setting. You can say that something is not a relevant question. Don't get carried away. What you are trying to do is get arguments that will help you make arguments later on. "When I asked the IAC during cross examination... they said... but....". It is a way to make things clear and nail them so they don't try to weasel out of things later. They can say this is what you mean. You try to figure out what they mean and nail them down and the second thing you do is set up your own arguments. There is an affirmative side and a negative side, everyone speaks twice so there are 8 speakers. A lot of people like to call jargon in this debat 1AC= 1st affirmative constructive . 1st negative constructive- you will eventually need to write the 1st negative constructive against the first affirmative constructive. Then, there is another cross examination on the 1st negative constructive. Then, there is the second affirmative constructive- the argument still stands, and here is why... Then there is a cross examination Then there is the second negative constructive- the 2NC will take some of the arguments that the 1st negative constructive offered, the 2NC will rebuild and strengthen and extend and defend those arguments that were put out there by the 1NC. Then, there will be another cross examination. Next speech after the 2NC is the 1NR= 1 negative rebuttal, the same person who does the 1st negative constructive. You need to make sure there are still things for the INR to talk about.

distributed x 2

The subject terms in both kinds of universal statements, universal affirmative and universal negative, are _______ The predicate terms of both kinds of negative statements (universal and particular) are _______

top half prime minister deputy prime minister leader of the opposition deputy leader opposition member of government government whip member of opposition opposition whip

There are four teams. First half is called the _____ _____- they are the first two teams, you need to know this because it will come up in resources you will use. You need to be familiar with these terms in order to be successful. First team- opening government team, consisting of _________ _____ and _____ ______ ______ Next team- _____ of _______, _______ ______ ______ Next: ________ of ________, ______ ______ Next: ________ of _______, ______ ______

weighing mechanism

This part of the affirmative has to be related to the other part of the affirmative. Your ________ ______- this is how you measure whether or not the highest measure is met- it is concrete.

attitudinal structural existential solvency

Three kinds of inherency: 1. ________ inherency- people have a bad attitude about it, this is why they are not doing your idea. Is this a wise or well founded belief? It's a barrier, but it's not necessarily grounded in fact, it is just a belief 2. _______ inherency- there is a law against it that you cannot change, build into the system, could be part of the constitution. Can also include a physical barrier, or science or reality. 3. ________ inherency- I don't know what the inherency is, don't know what the barrier is, structure or attitude, but there must be some sort of inherent barrier, because the inherency isn't solved, so therefore it must exists. You don't understand the problem if you don't understand what is stopping the problem form being solved. Next part: _______says this will solve the problem and then write your plan based on their evidence. Usually easier to write this before writing the plan. The solvency evidence has to say- this is the purpose of the solvency, the plan will work. Recommending finding the evidence saying this is what we should do and how and then write plan based on that.

Aristotle

Two thousand years ago, ________ wrote down everything he knew. He thought that he was someone who was born with all the brains, more brains than anyone who ever lived before. It was the first democracy where people got to vote, he wrote a book called the politics, and it was about how politics should go. The "physics" was a book about the physical world. Then he wrote a book about everything in the spiritual world, everything that happens to you after you die, he called it "metaphysics" which translates into "the book after physics". This word came up because Aristotle couldn't think of a good name for his book after physics. Cornell owns one of the oldest copies from the 1400's. It is a scroll that has been cut up and put into a book. His most important book was called "the rhetoric." This book was about how to persuade people using public speech, rules about arguing, things that he noticed about how to be a good persuader. Not everyone thought he was the bee's knees like he thought he was. Some people thought he was an old kook.

affirming

Valid enumeration arguments typically proceed by eliminating or denying possibilities until one or none is left. invalid enumeration arguments tend to affirm possibility in their reasons and to make a denial in their conclusions. ________ actions in an enumeration argument is invalid because this approach does not account for the possibility that other enumerated alternatives may still be active options.

justify

We develop arguments to ________ our position on issues- arguments are often advanced simply because you want to clarify or to support a view on an issue, to let others known what we are thinking and why. You explain, inform or invite a response. As you present your arguments, you clarify your position on the topic for us to know and your point of view is known to be one a reasonable person can hold.

persuade

We develop arguments when we want to ______- goal of ______ someone to agree with us. our political process also depends on this activity of _____ through arguments. in a democracy, we change people's views and achieved working agreements on the issues by making arguments. should invite a response, a counter argument this leading to an exchange of views.

inquiry

We use arguments as a means of ________- through advancing, hearing and responding to arguments, we also discover facts, develop solutions to problems, inquire to a topic and become educated about a subject argumentation depends on the prior existence of some facts but it can also be used to discover additional facts and to test ideas. as a search for agreement goes on, arguments are advanced for or against various proposals. You need to uncover info, develop thinking, refine our understanding of problems, testing the merits of various solutions. common misconception= arguments occur only when people disagree. there is actually an AGREEMENT to enter into the process of argumentation.

continuum fallacy

a false assumption that qualitative changes along a line of progression do not occur without agreement about exactly where such changes occur. when controversies can only be resolved by compromising on an issue involved a continuum, it may be necessary to establish a point of agreement between difficult parties at either end of the continuum. it is then possible to work gradually toward identifying the range of potential agreement. the presence of a continuum should be allowed to stop discussion but should prompt efforts to achieve a compromise.

A -> C B B -> A C

When two or more statements (A&B) are independent reasons for another statement C "A IS TH CASE AND b IS ALSO OBSERVED, THUS IT IS TRUE THAT C IS ALSO TRUE." Separate pieces of evidence leading to a probable conclusion (induction unit of argument. ) "A is the case because B has been observed and because C is also true"

population

the group of class to which the generalization is meant to apply, the sample should be of the same group of population to which the generalization is applied, though this is not always the case. generalization often fail to define their population adequately.

fallacy of hasty generalziations

a generalization based on a sample that is too small to support it. as a population become more varied, the size of a sample relative to a population has to increase if the sample if to be representative. researchers try to accurately represent the population with the least amount of subjects necessary

literal analogies

a direct comparison between two allegedly similar items or cases. they can clarify meaning, explain a complex process, emphasize the extent of a problem or argue for fair treatment of a person or a group. when used to clarify the meaning of an important term or concept, an analogy can help satisfy the test of linguistic consistent might compare a person to a person, a city to a city or a product to a similar product.

Pragmatic and principle arguments

arguments based on pragmatic consequences often are answered by arguments based on an appeal to principle

frames

You think in terms of structured ______, 1974- frame analysis, 1975- the linguistic work of Charles scomer, worked in an insane asylum and in a casino, serious research. Every institution is structured by a frame and it has two parts, instruments like scalpels, places like operating rooms, there are scenarios, what happens in this frame. Lots of other things happen in the frame. Breaking the frame- going outside the frame to something that cannot make sense. One of the things that a colleague has done is figure out the kind of neuro computation needed to characterize the frames. Charles Filmoore- every word in every language is defined relative to a frame. You understand it in terms of a structure like that. This is normal, frames are the most normal things in the world and they are thoroughly political. Metaphor- this is also thoroughly political. It is not just the language you actually think in terms of those metaphors. This is true in many cultures around the world. There are hundreds of such metaphors that are true around the world. How did you learn them? Quantity and verticality parts of your brain always activated. You feel two things together over and over again, two things in different parts of the frame. When they are activated, the activation spreads and the stronger it gets and then they find the shortest path between them and form a circuit. And that circuit is a metaphor. These metaphors are physical, they are part of your physical brain.

question begging

a fallacy that assumes that a debatable question can be treated as already answered. begs or avoids the question at issue.

KNIFING FRONT HALF BACK HALF EXTENSION CASE HONORABLE SPEAKER MOTION

______- when a team contradicts or attacks arguments made by a team on the same side ____ ____- the first two teams in the debate ____ _____- the last two teams in the debate ________- a new independent argument that is added into the debate to support a specific side POI- point of information ______- the sum total of independent arguments for a side This house- the room that you are in ______ ______- the judge _____- topic

contention significance inherency

________- you need to write what you are doing, PICK ONE AND FOCUS IN ON THAT AND TELL WHICH ONE IT IS IN THE TITLE OF THE CONTENTION. This part of the affirmative is called the case. Then, you describe what the problem is. You explain what the problem is that you're concerned about The B subpoint is more specific- it is the ________, answers the "so,what?" Maybe there is danger, maybe it is just not fair. This thing has to relate to whatever your highest value was. The pieces of evidence are long- needs to include a claim, a warrant, and data to back it up, and each part should include those 3 things. C subpart is the ________- explains why the problem has not been solved yet. Why does this problem still exist? It doesn't have to relate to the original value. You don't want to make the inherency too strong. Then that will be evidence that this is a bad idea. It should be somewhat weak evidence.

arguments generalizing about cause

_________ _______ an argument that affirms a causal relationship between 2 categories or classes of events involve a sample and a population, in pace of a property, these generalizations advance a cause and effect connection

evidence

_________- a reason rooted in observation, either your own or someone elses. these statements can usually be shown as true or false in some definition or demonstrable way. sometimes, the evidence can be identified because it is the most specific statement or statements in the argument.

conservatism progressive

___________- we understand the nation as a family, and the question is which kind of family. In American, there are the strict father families, the father is in control and has the highest moral authority, and needs to raise the children to have his views and be moral, but he has to have respect to be listened to, the children are punished if they do wrong, they are disciplined until they do what they are supposed to do and then they go out into the free market. The identity is through the father and the family ________- the family is nurturing, empathize with children and see what they need and communicate well and to teach them to be responsible for others, and to have social responsibility. That leads to a different view of government and the economy and so on and you will see this all the way through that this is how this works and it is based on metaphorical understanding that is built in unconsciously.

reason mutual inhibition

_______is unconscious, fits the world via frames, cultural narratives and metaphors. Emotional is an implicit part of the same circuitry used for reasoning. Based on emotions, caring and connecting the other people. This is everywhere in politics. Conservatives and liberals have different ways of reasoning. Two modes of reasoning- strict father and nurturing parent. We all learn both of them, we are in the same culture, we learn both modes of reason, you could be nurtured in every part of your life, but you could still understand the strict father view of the world. A lot of people reason on some issues like a conservative and on others like a progressive. The idea that some people are conservative about the economy or progressive about social issues, for examples. Moderate- no idealogy of the moderate, they have both modes of reasoning in different area. This happens, there is a mechanism for it called ______ ______, one part of the brain can be active and inhibit the other and this is what happens when there are two mutually exclusive ways of thinking. That is important in many many ways. There is no left to right spectrum. There are all kinds of combinations and possibilities.

antecedent

a clause following the "if" and a clause following then. the cause "if" is called the _______ in a condition statment

metaphor or figurative analogies

a comparison between things that are not of the same type that come from different realms of experience metaphors provide excellent means of describing or clarifying a situation, they help audiences see a situation or a problem the metaphor to which we are most drawn will shape our view of our depend feelings and commitments. some experts do not accept metaphoric comparison as arguments, only as means of clarifying illustrating or making writing more appealing. metaphors are often used in public discourse as a type of argument. because audiences find them convincing, the persuasive power of the figurative analogy is related to the argument's capacity to help audiences visualize a situation. figurative analogies do not compare characters between cases but rather relationships between pairs of objects.

analogies

a comparison of something which we are familiar to with something with which we are less familiar, or about which we have some question. often used a conclusion about the unfamiliar case on the basis of what we know about the more familiar case. this has built in risks.

fallacies of suggestion

a conclusion or even an entire argument can be suggested without being stated directly. when an argument is only suggested, we might accept it uncritically because we have not recognized its full content. we may accept bad reasoning or insufficient evidence on the basis of an advocate's unscrupulous and intentional use of suggestion.

sufficient conditions

a condition that will bring about another event the antecedents of positively phrased conditional statements identify sufficient conditions for the events described in their consequents

necessary conditions

a condition without which another event cannot occur. negatively phrases conditional statements identify these

conditional statement (antecedent, consequent) second reason conclusion

a conditional argument has three components. 1. 2. 3.

argumentative definition

a definition employed strategically to categorize an object or event so as to support a particular conclusion to an argument may be surprising or controversial, actions are defined in the course of controversy as well. in response, an opponent argues for a different definition. while an individual advancing an argumentative definition may sincerely believe its accurate and well supported such a definition is not merely a report of widely accepted meaning. argumentative definitions are strategic in that they are advanced to support debatable contentions.

defintion report

a definition that all parties to a debate agreement upon, or that states a generally accepted or agreed upon meaning. when there is agreement that a term carries a stated meaning, or when a term is defined simply to clarify or emphasize meaning we are encountering a definition report. definition reports do not themselves elicit controversy because all concerned parties agree to the definition advanced. definitions draw from dictionaries and other authoritative sources are typically definition reports used to clarify a term's meaning. may also be used to clarify that all parties involved in a discussion or controversy agree that a term carries a particular meaning. in other circumstances, definition reports are used to establish the meaning of technical terms for an audience unfamiliar with the terminology of a particular industry or field of study.

fact value policy

a good policy case, whether it is part of a controversy or a formal debate, has an informative as well as a persuasive function. Policy case should inform the audience of the facts relevant to the understanding of history and present state of the controversy. even presenting facts can take on a persuasive quality. policy case also advances arguments to persuade an audience to a particular view of the problem. convincing case should present the problem as serious and requiring immediate attention. should advocate a workable plan, which usually involves helping the audience to understand both the details and the benefits of the proposed. 1. establish the presence (_____) and severity (_____) of the problem 2. advance a clear and workable plan (______) for dealing with the problem 3. present the benefits of adopting the proposed policy when this allows, policy case will also seek to 4. answer counterarguments 5. suggest actions that the members of an audience can take.

control group

a group paralleling the experiment group, in which the suspected causal agent is withheld or eliminated. researchers must try to ensure that the only significant different between the groups being compared is the presence of suspected causal factor in one group. usually, the test group or experimental group. if a significant effect occurs in the experimental group, we have some basis for separating causation. control and experimental groups are assured to be analogous to one another except for one critical dissimilarity: the presence of the variable or factor being testing in the control group

mixed metaphor

a linguistic combination of images that do not belong together

a fortiori argument

a literal analogy that asserts that what is true of its evidence case is even more likely or even less likely to be true of its conclusion cases

judicial analogy

a literal analogy that insists on similar treatment for people, ideas, institutions in similar circumstances. the treatment that one person, idea or institution has already received- the evidence case- is taken as the standard of just treatment for some other allegedly similar case- the conclusion case the evidence case is not simply compared to but contrasted with the conclusion case. a rebuttal to this might claim that a legitimate exception should be made in one or a limited number of cases

term

a noun or a noun phrase that represents a category in categorical statements

testimony

a personal report of direct experience, expression, of personal opinion or judgment based on expert knowledge. value this in situations in which our own experience does not allow us direct knowledge or when our own knowledge is inadquate.

ambiguity

a problem of clear and consistent meaning arises when key term in an argument is vague or has several possible meanings. this is where there is more than one meaning of a word or phrase in a single context. ambiguity in a key term can be demonstrated by rephrasing the term or phrase it to reveal its possible multiple meanings, the ambiguous term itself should not be used in the rephrasing, otherwise the ambiguity will still persist.

lay testimony

a report of personal observation, experience or opinion on a topic not requiring special expertise. can explain motives or account for new trends. when we want to understand public opinion or personal motivation this should be not used where technical knowledge is important in solving the issue.

random sample

a sample in which every member of a ives population had an equal chance of being selected for the sample. goal is the avoid bias. stratification + randomness = representative

population variation

a sample must be large enough to reveal accurately the variations present in a diverse population but no larger than its necessary to represent the population accurately. sufficient sample size depends on many factors, two of the more important things: 1. size of the _____ 2. degree of _____ within the population

negative case

a series of arguments in support of the status quo in response to the affirmative case. the negative side enjoys presumption in favor of its case. the negative side is not required to advance a case of its own until the affirmative side has satisfied the burden of proof, raised significant reasonable questions regarding the way things currently are done.

affirmative case

a series of arguments, a case challenging the status quo

convertible statement

a statement in which the subject and the predicate terms of a statement are distributed similarly. the other convertible statement is the particular affirmative (two U's) in a universal negative statement, both terms are distributed. in a particular affirmative, neither the subject nor the predicate are distributed. thus, we can say that when the distributed of the subject and the predicate terms in a statement are the same, the statement is ________

categorical statement

a statement that establishes a relationship between two categories, classes or subjects

dilemma fallacy of false dilemma

a strategy of argument that forms a choice between limited and undesirable options. disjunctive structure often used when an audience may be reluctant to accept an opinion widely being advocated. a dilemma argument that uses artificially limited options to mislead an audience called the fallacy of ______ _______

distributed term

a term that, in a statement, refers to every member of the category it represents. UA always distribute their subject terms and never distribute their predicate terms.

metonymy

a visual approach frequently encountered in public discourse is related to the argument from example rather than one member of the group rerepsenting the entire group, this is the use of one object to represent another associated object or of a single attribute to represent a complex object. some are figurate and some are literal. often used in advertising. is closely related to arguments that rely heavily or solely on visual images

arguments from principle

affirms that we should abide by values, principles and duties and avoid actions that violate the same. may appeal to values or duties and obligations, some derive from rights. they usually affirm that a moral directive is applicable in the situation at hand. the source, content and applicability of moral obligations may themselves be the subject of controversy. public debate is frequently marked by disagreement over moral principles. it is also marked by disagreement over the application of moral principles to particular issues. the application of a law to the resolution of a dispute is a type of argument from principle. powerful because principles such as rights, values and duties are crucial to life in a democratic society

consideration

an agreement to think about the argument further, to withhold any final judgement about its quality further time being. neither acceptance or reject when an argument strikes us as potentially reasonable, when we see no flaws in its evidence, language or structure, we usually find ourselves willing to consider the argument further. nevertheless we may not yet be convinced and need more time to evaluate the argument. consideration is foten a response to new evidence or to a new idea that seems important enough to warrant our consideration

conditional argument

an argument built around an "if-then" statement or an equivalent, hypothetical syllogism

categorical argument

an argument composed of three categorical statements, two statements are its reasons or premises and one is the conclusion they are deductive. if the reasons in this argument are true and the argument is valid, the conclusion necessary follows from the reason statements in this type of argument are of four basic types

slippery slope argument

an argument from direction urging that the first step in a progression not be taken. the argument from direction suavely advances a series of linked conditions arguments. if a occurs, then bill will occur if b occurs, then c will occur c is undesirable. therefore, the avoid c we should not allow a. the argument from direction then involves a series of conditional claims each of which can be tests. each link the conditional chain must be assessed for validity. in most cases, these arguments proceed by affirming the antecedents of each conditional link. the process is valid, though we still want to ensure the events predicted are likely to occur. we must ask whether the conditional claims are true, as well as whether the argument is valid.

arguments from quantity

an argument that affirms numerical considerations as an index of significance judge events, organizations, individuals on the basis of factors such as abundance and longevity and reflect a disregard for things that do not exhibit such numerical indications of importance can also be used to affirm insignificance of small numbers many advertisements use this type of argument- suggesting that when a large number of people purchase a product or benefit from a service, this fact is evident of the product's worth or of an organization's effectiveness

arguments from quality

an argument that affirms the inherence value in the unique, the beautiful, the rare or the unusual. the persuasiveness of arguments from quality depends on a value for unusual or rare events, objects and experiences. things that are rare or unusual take on greater value. they are difficult to attain and may be irreplaceable if lost. to argue that an object, event or resource is rare, unusual, beautiful or irreplaceable can be highly persuasive.

fallacies

an argument that is invalid or otherwise so seriously flawed as to render it unreliable not always easily identifiable, can sound reasonable and often resemble reliable arguments

disjunctive argument

an argument that presented limited options: two enumerated alternatives or disjuncts often market by either/or statements. in valid disjunctive argument, the structure of the argument ensures that if the reasons are true, the conclusion follows from those reasons. the disjuncts must account for all the plausible options and the repeated disjunct must be eliminated condignly.

arguments froms ign

an argument that reasons from an effect back to a cause. relies on well established causal linkages that do not require the elaborate testing of the more rigorous hypothesis argument.

enumeration argument

an argument that sets out alternative explanations or options and then follows a process of elimination. Form: A or B or C Not A and not B Therefore C

argument from direction

an argument that strings together two or more conditional statements to predict a remote result from a first step

sign

an effect or a well known cause, one that allows us to reason back to the case with some confidence

infallible sign

an effect that virtually always and why accompanies a particular case. reasoning for sign to cause is almost automatic and highly reliable

fallible sign

an effect with more than one possible cause even though one cause is typical. when reasoning from a fallible sign, we consider probability- this sign usually means a particular cause is present but not always.

demographic analysis

an effort to create a picture of the audience that focuses on descriptive information such as age, race, gender, economic status seeks to locate audience members socially helps you advocate to develop a fundamental sense of an audience's likely interests, resources, aspirations, experiences may suggest that you need to do additional research. some questions about an audience cannot be answered through this type of analysis

ad hominem fallacy

an intentional effort to attack a person rather than an argument by damaging an opponent's character or reputation or by engaging in name calling and labeling. an argument may legitimately discuss character qualities if they are actually relevant to a case, this is a person act argument. this does not address the merits of a case or of an individual. it attempts to discredit the person arguing the case. directs attention away from the case rather than answering it. violation of ethics of advocacy which requires respect for eh opponent as a reasoning individual.

arguments for cause by analogy

analogous not only show similarities between evidence and conclusions but also focuses on differences and tries to explain the cause of the observed difference

ad populum fallacy

appealing to the audience and its sentiments rather than the merits of the argument

appeals to authority

appear that urges compliance with the directive of a person, group or document possessing power. can make reference to a document threat of sanction lurks in the background of many of these type of appeal. threat is rooted in the authority's power to impose penalties for refusal to comply or give rewards for compliance. we may find it reasonable to head authority under some circumstances and yet find it unreasonable at other times.

paradigm case

are presentative of the term or category in question, a typical member that defines an entire category.

the post hoc fallacy

arguing from succession alone- attributing case simply on the basis of one event preceding another succession alone should not be taken as proof of causation failure to identify a potential common cause of both events or suggesting a false causal relationship between two events that are only coincidentally related. when we see causation and succession occurring together with some frequency, and also see that one event always seem to precede the other, we can begin to use a case that one event causes the other.

underlining a problem

argument from quantity is frequently used to underline or emphasize the magnitude of a problem, quantity considerations can be used to make an argument from considerations of fact to value claims, thus preparing the way for a policy claim.

pragmatic arguments

argument that recommends or discourages a course of action on the basis of practical consequences common in debates over rules and regulations and laws. the most common argument we encounter when decisions are being made about which course of action to pursue. may also discourage action on the basis of bad consequences.

arguments from intent

arguments that affirm the meaning or essential nature of an object or documents is revealed in the intended meaning of its authors or designers. may be advanced regarding objects, institutions, documents or even nature itself in the intent of an object's creator is found it is essential nature and thus its meanings, uses, values and interpretations. debates over interpretation of the US constitution- nature or meaning of that document is considered to be reveled in the original intent. the argument from intent most always develops a question around interpretation. the assumption that essential nature disclosed in the intentions of authors or designers links the evidence for a particular interpretation of a document or work of art to a conclusion. crucial in controversy surrounding the interpretation of historical documents. also, show up in arguments about the design of nature, when god is posited as the "designer" of the physical work as well as in discussions of works of art.

essential nature arguments

arguments that focus on the essence of a unchanging nature of an organization, object, person, entity or work of art. consider origins, intent, unctions and in the case of people and groups, publications. the essential nature of an object becomes crucial to assigning the meaning, rendering moral judgments and identifying appropriate uses.

arguments from function

arguments that locate the essential nature of an object, event or institution in its social or natural function. because the evidence for the function of an object or institutions often found in what it has been or done in the past, the argument from function may be advanced as support for a conservative point of view. argument from function is deployed in many cases to pressure the current order of things, to maintain an established meaning rather than searching for a new one. function arguments are encountered in debates about social institutions. it may reaffirm a function for an institution that is being contested or use an already established function as the basis for drawing additional conclusions. can exploit the established function to expand the role of a social institution the argument from function can also be employed to identify a natural rather than a social function.

genetic argument

arguments that look to origins as evidence essential nature affirms the influences from origin to essential nature regardless of how much time has elapsed from the time of origin. here, the origin of a practice is said to reveal its essence or nature, even though that origin is temporarily and culturally distant. the evidence in this and similar arguments is a claim regarding origins or history. the unstated connection between the argument is that essential nature is revealed in origins. this is often used in discussions of events and institutions.

mean

arithmetical average, the sum of a set of figures divided by the number of figures in the set mean does not reveal much about the actual distribution of income in the country.

inherency

asks whether the problems are inherent, resulting directly from the status quo and not from extraneous things or accidental circumstances.

arguing from correlation

attributing cause simply on the basis of events occurring or varying simultaneously. direct- increase or decrease together indirect- increase in one factor is associated with a decrease in the other factor. correlation by itself is not proof of causation. overlooks hidden or lurking variables that cause both correlated events. correlation does not tell us which factor is the cause and which is the effect.

dispositional analysis

audience analysts aimed at discovering audience attitudes toward own topic and perhaps toward you as an advocate. 1. attitudes toward the topic- is the audience likely to be hostile or friendly toward your position on a topic? you will have some idea about your audience's attitude toward your topic on the basis of indicators such as news coverage, public reaction to the topic and your demographic and values analysis 2. level of interest- is the audience likely to be interested in this topic? some topics are of interest to virtually any audience. can your topic be directly connected to a universal concern? perhaps you can forge a link between the audience's beliefs or values and your topic. 3. need for information- does the audience need to know more about your topic? 4. need for decisions- must the audience members make a choice on the topic? when people must make a decision, you may devote less time to developing their interest in the topic and more time to urging them to particular action in some cases, audience members may not realize that they face a decision 5. attitudes towards the advocate- what are the audience members dispositions toward you as a speaker or a writer? advantage to approach an audience with whom you enjoy credibility. you may be able to win over an audience that is neutral toward you as an an advocate, if you can affirm similarities between yourself and the audience unfriendly audience: 1. candor is often effective approach when facing a hostile situation. being by admitting that you recognize a difference of opinion exists between you are your audience. 2. tell your audience that you take its concerns seriously. your tone and your willingness to answer questions can indicate your openness to audience concerns. 3. audience members hostility may be reduced if you can connect your topic to their values or interest

equivocation

changing meaning or a key term in the course of an argument. when a key term is equivocal in an argument, the argument cannot satisfy the criteria of linguistic consistency. when we expect that equivocation is a problem it is helpful to point out that multiple meanings of a term are at work in an argument. the method of identifying and resolving equivocation is similar to that used with ambiguity. by finding a synonymous word or phrase for the equivocal term in each of its appearances, we can show that the synonyms are different and are not interchangeable in the argument this can also be intentionally be exploited to create confusion about meanings

labeling

characterizing a person, group or idea or institution by introducing a suggestive name of term. this is often used in place of an actual argument. this substitutes terms are employed to characterize the motives and agenda of political interest groups. this is a definitional strategy that should be challenged when it is used to obscure actual issues and circumvents this can also create a new category by inventing a name for an action, group or policy

current need function

claims about social function may be based on current need. as social needs change, institutional functions may change also knowing the source of a claim about function can assist in understanding or responding to an argument if we know the claim is based on common understandings we can point out either that common understanding may be too limited or that other ways of assigning function, such as current need are perhaps more appropriate.

generalization from a sample

claims that taken s their evidence a sample, drawn from a population and advance a conclusion about members of the entire population

poisoning the well

dismissing an individual as unqualified to speak on a topic based on some accident of circumstance

bad habits of public speaking

don't fidget, don't speak too quietly, have some energy, don't use verbalized pausing, eye contact, apologize, don't answer the so what question, no narrative structure (intro conclusion)

the idea of independence

each argument should independently prove your interpretation of a particular topic. You have no idea how a judge or an audience is evaluating what you are saying- if you create independent arguments, it gives you wiggle room. There needs to be independence, they should not be all linked together and then the opponent will play a game of jenga with you. You make this easy for the opponent to find these jenga pieces, this is what a smart debater would do, they find commonalities, that is wrong, everything else falls down, jenga. If you have weird interpretations, it prevents you from beating the Aztecs. The prime minister and his team decide the interpretation, they don't tell the opposition team the interpretation beforehand. You need to justify the interpretation

testing the arguments from quantity

easy to understand, affirms that things exist/exhibit quantity are desirable and those that do not are not. 1. is the quantity claim accurate? when we doubt the numbers a quantity argument, we should seek form confirmation of the report. the most obvious approach in refuting a quantity argument is to show the numbers are inaccurate. OR re-interpret the numbers to show they are not as significant as they might at first appear. if we accept a numerical claim as accurate, we still have possible means for testing or answering the argument 2. are other considerations more important than quantity? we might object that a principle is a stake in the recommendation. the argument from quantity can itself be used as a rebuttal to certain other arguments, such as arguments from principle.

emotional appeals

engaging the audience's emotions for the purpose of persuading fear anger and pity are three emotions that arguments appeals to. these appeals are often persuasive. fear appeals often derive from three common concerns among people: 1. death or physical harm, either to self or to loved one. 2. loss of health, wealth or security, as in loss of occupation 3. deprivation of rights or freedom. person intent on persuading an audience might try to show that what we fear is likely to happen unless we take certain action. OR if we fail to take an action. anger appeals are often rooted in the suggestion that someone is doing or will do to us what we fear or that injustices are being done to us or someone we care about. pity appeals usually involve suggesting or stating that someone or something helpless is being harmed. these appeals are intensified if someone is perpetuating the harm carelessly or intentionally. frequently dismissed as unreasonable as showing no place in rational argumentation. often, however, an emotional appeal is the basis for a decision to take action on a manner. emotional appeals suggest that it is reasonable to express emotion in certain circumstances. they only event ry ti imply that not to be guided by emotion would be unreasonable many objections to emotional appeals are based on the power the appeals to draw attention away from reasons and arguments. might be used conveniently in absence of other arguments or as a substitute for arguments. in most cases, it is reasonable to balance emotional appeals with other arguments that clearly display their evidence and conclusions. 1. does the emotional appeal appear in the absence of other arguments and evidence? to make a decision strictly on emotional appeal probably is not reasonable. such appeals however tend to be embedded in and accompanied by other arguments and evidence 2. is the appeal so powerful that the audience will have difficulty exercising reason? rightly object to an emotional appeal so powerful that is subverts reason 3. does the appeal place the audience in the proper frame of mind for making a reasonable decision. whether a certain emotion is appropriate to consider in deciding an issue.

arguments for cause by enumeration

enumeration arguments must: 1. set out all possible options 2. eliminate options convincingly, if an alternative was treated as eliminated and is still viable, the argument's conclusion is questionable

arguing from ignorance

fallacy from faulty assumption, false assumption that a conclusion can be reached on the basis of absence of evidence. because an assertion has not been disproved, it has been proved assuming that failure to prove an idea means the idea has been disproved. both examples argue from what we do not know, from an absence of evidence or knowledge. absence of evidence is not proof of a claim. in order to establish a claim, we need solid evidence in its support. answering the argument from ignorance is usually as simple as pointing out this fact.

underdescription

fallacy of creating a false sense of meaning by failing to fully describe a proposal or a crucial component in an opponent's case. as a critic or as an advocate, you are responsible for identifying and connecting any efforts at misrepresentation of your case, as well as for not advancing or responding to a weak construction of an opponent's case.

majoring on minors

fallacy that focuses attention on a minor or inconsequential points to draw attention away from important ones. weaknesses in a proposed plan may be hidden when drawing attention away from central issues to a side issue. when this happens, a respondent should bring the focus back to the important issues.

tu quoque fallacy

falsely reasoning that someone who is guilty of an offense has no right to instruct others not to do something similar. assumes advice of a hypocritical nature cannot be good advice. being guilty of a specific offense does not automatically render the guilty persons advice on the topic bad.

advocacy

free societies encourage ______- the activity of promoting or opposing an idea in public settings. if we feel an idea is a good one, we may develop arguments to advocate the idea. if, on the other hand, we think certain ideas are inject, or dangerous, we feel obliged to express the reasons that led us to these conclusions. _______ depends on the presentation of arguments. successful _____ depends on the skilled presentation of arguments. setting out views and supporting views with reasons and evidence. differentiating between good and bad ideas is often a matter of differentiating between good and bad arguments in the public arena.

biased testimony

from individuals who stand to gain if what they say is accepted. viewed with some suspicion, and accepted only after careful efforts at verification

prescription function

function is sometimes prescribed, spelled out in an official or authoritative manner. this prescription of function may be referred to developing an argument from function

form function

function may also be attributed in the basis of this, the ____ of a natural object can also be used to argue for a particular function

person/act arguments

genetic, intent and function arguments are usually advanced about objects, documents, institutions. occasionally they can also be made about people. this is an argument that looks at a person's or groups acts to find the nature or character of that individual or group. assumes that a reliable way to value an individual or a group's character is to look at what that individual or group has done. all human acts require interpretation, can be deceptive or misleading. people frequently mask their true natures with behaviors that are not in keeping with them. also we are inconsistent in our actions at times. can be used to condemn or commend.

thesis

in a policy case to a public forum, there is seldom a formally worded resolution to which advocates must respond _________ statement- a sentence encapsulating the specific policy proposal being advanced simple, makes reference to a specific policy. deals with a single issue and does not raise additional considerations

misusing a common expression

in most cases, correcting this problem is as simple as checking to see whether an expression sounds right or makes sense

harms

problems or liabilities resulting directly from status quo. affirmative case has the obligation to demonstrate this.

energy x 2 apologizing so what?

major problems of public speaking: 5. Don't act in a way that seems like my _____ is based on your ______. You become a totalitarian individual or you completely deflated your own power in the speech. Don't get ruled by what people say. Don't try to be too enthusiastic, it seems corny. 6. _________- this is not necessary. These will not get you anything with an audience. What usually happens is you are insulting the audience because you are telling them you are not ready. But, they still need to sit there and listen to you. It doesn't bring people to your side, it isolates people. This also happens if you make a mistake in your presentation, do not apologize. Just continue to do the normal things you are doing. You as a speaker have a unique view that no one else has. You will see things that other people won't. if you apologize, people start looking around the room and they wonder who you are apologizing to. Just keep doing the thing you were doing. 7. Not answering the "____-, _____?" question. If you answer this question, it is persuasion. Getting someone to think differently when they were hostile to a different way of thinking about it. If you don't answer this question you will only get people to agree when they already agreed with you. How much they are affected by a particular issue. (Severity). What will actually occur and how it will be measured, this is the most fundamental way to persuade people.

common understanding function

many claims about functions are based on a commonly understood function of a person, object or institution. often is linked closely to tradition- function of an object is known from what it has done in the past.

fallacies of faulty assumption

may result from inserting a faulty assumption in an argument

arguments from quantity and quality

often found in opposition to one another. one of these arguments reflects a preference for practice considerations while the other reflects a moral commitment

clarify

one of the most common functions for definitions is to ____ the meaning of an important term.

Arguing comparative advantages

one way to respond to a pragmatic argument is by arguing that an alternative course of action carriers greater advantages than the proposed plan does. this strategy is referred to as _____ ______ _______ using an enumerative strategy, this approach considers each alternative on a pragmatic basis- recommending one option as clearly preference to the other.

selection fallacy

promoting a false interpretation by presenting only some of the relevant evidence in a case, while intentionally excluding other evidence that would contradict the suggested interpretation involves intentional deception by excluding relevant facts, it is related to under description which provides a picture of a situation that may be adequate by is inadequate.

british parliamentary debate

people can win in variation, form alliances with political parties of different groups, might agree on one group while disagreeing on others, there is not always a clear loser a clear winner, there is a scale of 1,2,3,4. It is going to be rated a little bit differently than other debate formats. There is an unbelievable wealth of info about parliamentary debate.

beliefs

personal convictions about a range of practical issues that reflect an individual's life experiences

political principles

personal convictions rooted in legal or political ideas

policy

propositions of act report, describe, predict or make causal claims. propositions of value advance judgements about morality, beauty, merit and wisdom. policy statements. policy statements urge that an action be taken or discontinued in discussion of policy issues propositions of fact are typically discussed or established following by proposition of value that establish the important of the facts or the severity of the problem. propositions of policy are introduced only after the facts clearly established that a problem exists and is serious enough- an evaluation- to warrant action. once issues of fact and value have been adequately addressed, an advocate may propose that a particular change in _____ is the best way to solve the problem.

evaluating visual arguments from essential nature

questions about the aesthetics of the image or objection in question. consider the artist's point of view and what he or she has chosen to be included or excluded in the visual field. in a visual argument, the image itself stands in place of both evidence and conclusion in a verbal agreement, we see rather than read or hear the evidence. then finger the conclusion. the artist communicating an argument by means of an image or object, thus, is taking something of a risk, for the audience may not immediately perceive the intent of the visual presentation 1. do the images or objects clearly sum up the essence of the subject so as to convey the advocate's intended conclusion? 2. is the intended audience likely to embrace the voice or principle that leads from the image to its implied conclusion? possible to force a counterargument or fail to be persuaded by the argument. 3. is the visual argument weakened by widely known facts that contradict the central claim?

reductio ad absurdum

reduction to absurdity is an appeal that asks an audience to recognize an idea as either self contradictory or as so unreasonable as to be absurd. 1. self assuming the idea is true and observing where that assumption leads 2. setting up a parallel argument to the one advanced, in which the parallel is clearly unreasonable, is best used when other approaches to rebuttal might fail to reveal a rational flaw in the original claim. when used carelessly to discredit ideas that decrease consideration, it can, like other appeals, be both misleading and powerful

variation

relevant difference among members in a population, the degree to which members of a population vary in ways that may be relevant to the quality being testing in a generalization

religious affiliations

remains an important source of values of the majority of people

decision rule

requires no evidence, statement that says, if the affirmative plan can do whatever b is and that leads to a, which is the highest value, then an affirmative ballot is in order. This is a syllogism.

randomized studies

research studies intentionally designed from the outset to answer a single causal question. less likely to result in erroneous claims than the observational studies. size, randomness, stratification

fallacies directed to the person

second group of fallacies diverts attention from legitimate argumentative issues by focusing attention on an individuals person character or circumstances. because argumentative issues should be settled by reference to relevant issues and evidence, these approaches are typically treated as fallacies.

fallacies of case presentation

seek to respond to a strong interpretation of an opponent's argument rather than to a weak or misleading one

does the cause consistently precede the effect? test of succession

seeks assurance that the suspected cause consistently comes before the alleged effect. on the assumption that effects cannot precede their causes.

choosing the wrong word

sometimes a writer or speaker may choose the wrong form of the right word or the wrong word entirely. sometimes the problem is linked to similar spellings or the words that have different meanings selecting the wrong word creates a humorous contradiction that undermines the speaker's point and credibility.

valid

standardize the argument and mark the distribution of the terms, decide where we are dealing with two reasons or a reason it a conclusion. identify the two terms that must be used again in the argument and to decide how they would have been distributed. if it is not possible to find a workable missing statement that completes the argument, we must conclude the argument is not ________

universal affirmative (UA)

statement that makes a positive claim about every member of a particular category All A are B Subject= A= distributed Predicate= B= undistributed The subject term is distributed and the predicate term is undistributed.

unbiased testimony

testimony from individuals who will neither gain nor lose as a result of their testimony being true. independent if it is from a single source.

reluctant testimony

testimony from sources who will lose something as result of their testimony

sampling

statistically selecting and observing members of a group or population who are taken to be representative of the rest of the group. when it is not possible to count or examine every individual instance of an event or attitude. reflect what some members of the population think. generalize the opinions of this sample of the group to the opinions of the entire group.

narrative arguments

stories can be used to present arguments and influence arguments stores are highly persuasive. many speeches follow the form of a story

narrative argument: pros and cons emotional appeal

stories help listeners see how a set of ideas might work themselves out in the world of everyday life. they can be highly persuasive. they have the capacity to render an idea plausible by putting it directly into the audience's stream of experience. the listener or viewer encounters a story as an account of the lives of other people, making judgments about characters and events. also, listeners project themselves into the story, identifying with characters and predicaments. stories are among personal and emotional method for presenting an argument. narrative involves the audience more directly that does simply setting out reasons and conclusions. capacity to affect us emotional. the impact of a story means that ______ _______ engaging the audiences emotion for the purpose of persuasion, is a central concern of narratives. disadvantages-relative difficulty of presenting evidence in support of claims. the evidence in a narrative comes in the form of the audience's capacity to believe that the story is authentic, that its predicaments, solutions and characters are credible. stories convince by a combination of visualizing a situation and forgoing an emotion connection with an audience. but some important info about an actual problem or proposal can seem awkward within the context of a story. audiences will reject stories they find preachy or overly instructive. loss of precision, comprehensive coverage in the presentation of case because the elements of the story itself request the author's primary attention, a story may lack the details, nuances and intricacies of a public controversy. narrations portray a difficult situation, either as the stroke of events in a plot of simply as obstacles facing a protagonist. they do not usefully portray the precise nature of an important public crisis, historical development, new evidence that has come to light or the arguments arranged for and against, various solutions

observational studies

studies based on the examination of existing data sets in an effort to discern correlations

audience analysis

successful case presentation requires ________ ________- seeking an accurate sense of nature of the audience so you can adapt your arguments to that audience the most compelling arguments are those that have been skillfully adapted to their particular audiences goals of clarity, propriety, persuasiveness dictate that we adapt our argumentations to an audience

evidence case conclusion case evidence connective conclusion

such an argument moves from an ________ ____- a family or widely established instance that is used as the basis for argument- to claims about a _______ _______- an instance in the argument about which a claim is being advanced. simple literal analogies- comparison with no special or unusual qualities reflect the following structure: _________- the evidence case is similar to the conclusion case in at least on important respect ________- the presence of some similarities between any two cases suggests the likelihood of other similarities thus _______- also likely to be similar to the evidence case in other important respect when we are willing to accept that some similarities may suggest other similarities between the two cases being compared we are judging the analogy to be sound. because the evidence and the conclusion in analogies are never actually identical, we should be cautious about employing an analogy as the sole support for a conclusion. analogies re best used in combination with other kinds of arguments and evidence

charging inconsistency

suggest dishonesty or instability. a sign of character flaw, such as indecisiveness, deceitfullness or weakness of will. some actions and statements are inconsistent in a way that should be pointed out to an audience. when someone alleges inconsistency, every effort should be made to establish that the inconsistency is actual and not contrived apparent or the result of an intentional misinterpretation. force an opponent to take a stand on an issue to avoid appearing indecisive force an opponent to admit to one of the two inconsistent actions or statements. inconsistency charger can be aimed at organizations as well as individuals.

presumption

tendency for an accepted idea or practice to be assumed to be true or adequate and thus not requiring proof- until sufficiently challenged. considered true until enough evidence has been advanced to raise a reasonable doubt above its usefulness, accuracy or truth.

concurrent testimony

testimony that is consistent with other available sources of testimony on the topic.

assessing enumeration arguments

the advocate establishes how many options the audience facts. second, the advocate determines which of these options is acceptable. because these arguments potentially grant the advocate a measure of control over an audiences decision making, you need to ask two questions 1. have all of the plausible options been identified? possible rebuttal, we can always identify a previously unidentified plausible option 2. have all of the rejected options been condignly eliminated? if an option that an advocate treats as eliminated is actually still viable, the conclusion of an enumeration argument is suspect.

testing the argument from intent

the argument from intent assumes that an author's or designer's intent governs present meanings. this assumption is not always justified and can be called into question. 1. does the author's intent govern interpretation in this case? though intent may be important to interpret an artifact, or document accurately, it is not inviolable. can argue that intent is irrelevant to current needs. the original intent of a designer or author could have been wrongly understood. to know someone's intent in creating an artifact or document is difficult at best. 2. has the intent been represented accurately? 3. do other considerations outweigh intent?

arguing relative significance from quantity

the big numbers equal significance and the small numbers equal insignificance aspects of the argument from quantity are often combined to argue for the relative significance of two ideas or event

special pleading

the claim that an exception should be made to the rule or principle that would otherwise apply. because of the potential for abuse inherent in special pleading, it is often referred to as the fallacy of special pleading.

stock issues

the criteria governing the soundness of an affirmative case. consequence as a means of challenging the thoroughness of the case

values analysis

the effort to ascertain an audience's beliefs, values and other moral commitments, can assist you greatly in adapting arguments to the specific audience you are addressing may reveal more about an audience's actual commitments

arrangement fallacy

the fallacy that creates a false impression by ordering, associating or grouping items in a misleading way. we assume that points placed next to each other have equal status or that the order of items in a list reflects their relative merit. we may also assume that people who have been associated in some way even if their names appear together on a list, share similar qualities. can be employed to falsely suggest admirable qualities.

evidence relationship

the familiar relationship pair that is used as support for the conclusion

median

the figure that exactly divides the top half from the bottom half in a range of figures. predictions often involve the assumption that what is true of a population now is also true in the future. but attitudes can also change over time. statistically based predictions are more easily justified when they convert phenomena that do not change over time or when changes are regular or incremental. statistics benefit from interpretation for clarity or to reveal their significance. use a comparison.

modus ponens modus tollens

the first rule for valid conditional arguments: 1. affirming the antecedent creates a valid conditional argument _______ ______ 2. denying the consequent created a valid conditional argument ________ _____ remember that these rules are applied to the second reason in the argument and not the conclusion. denying the antecedent results in a faulty conditional argument. affirming the consequent which will not result in a sound connection between the reasons and the conclusion.

prima facie case

the initial standard of proof, required of a policy case, a case that prior to being challenged appears to provide sound evidence for an assertion. advancing this type of case does not mean you have developed a conclusive or irrefutable case against the status quo, only one strong enough for some important questions regarding the truth of efficacy of the status quo. that is, this case raises significant and reasonable questions about whether the status quo reflects a sound and reasonable policy

false balance

the journalistic tendency to treat opposed claims as equally legitimate many public controversies pose serious moral dilemmas and underline the difficult or knowing was counts as a fact.

expert testimony

the judge of opinion of a qualified specialist in a discipline about matters relevant to that discipline. must be used to support conclusions on topics within the specialists area of training. can also be useful way to sum up the significance of a problem. helpful when you are proposing a solution to a problem.

ruled by

the major problems of public speaking: 4. know your audience but not be _____ ____ your audience. You need to know who you are speaking to and then follow along. You have to be aware of your audience, but don't be ruled by your audience. Do not care about the glow. Even if you know that there are people in the audience not paying attention, don't let it bother you. A lot of professors are critical of this. Who cares? If they are not going to pay attention, why are you ruled by them? Some people require laptops because of learning access, some people need a translator, some people are actually not paying attention. Some people feel there is something wrong if they do not get 100% attention from the audience. Part of the multimedia presentation is influenced by Edward Tuftee- only Yale professor to have a professorship in 3 different departments, talks about multimedia presentations. Try to not be ruled by people don't paying attention as it generally has nothing to do with you

common usage

the meaning of a term in everyday language appropriate when we want to know what a work means to someone who read it in a newspaper or heard it in a speech or conversation

original content

the meaning of a word or phrase in its original context or what the initial definer of a term meant by it. particularly important in some cases in which a document or law is being interpreted.

sample

the members of a group actually observed or consulted during the sampling process

cross examination

the negative side in a formal debate will often also argue the disadvantages of the affirmatives, proposals, the unintended negative consequences of the proposed plan that outweigh any claimed advantages. ___________ _________- respondents raiding questions about the kinds of considerations implied in the stock issues. afford an opportunity for raising counterarguments in a debate setting. a successful policy case will often devote some time to answering well known counterarguments that might occur to the audience.

sample size

the number of members in the sample

burden of proof

the obligation to provide sufficient evidence in support of an assertion is a responsibility of those seeking change, of advocate wishing to promote new policies or ideas. those deafening current systems have no such burden of proof given to them this is considered to have been satisfied or met when certain standard of proof is satisfied.

rule of charity

the obligation to restate an opponent's argument so as to give it a stronger interpretation one failure to observe this rule is called the _______ _______, advocates often intentionally misrepresent their opponents arguments in order to make them easier to refute.

etymology

the origin of a word (appropriate to some controversies) doesn't always help in defending some definitions though

political affiliation

the parties or organizations to which an audience member belongs are good indicators of basic political beliefs and commitments political affiliations and political principles are closely affiliations are closely related because argumentation is rooted in political religious and cultural values, an effective advocate makes some effort to ascertain true beliefs and commitments that shape an audience's thinking. key to value analysis is to be actively involved in reading, listening and thinking about a range of current issues

probable benefit significant benefit novel benefit

the persuasive appeal of a policy case is enhance by clearly showing the benefits that would come from implementing the proposed plan. the benefits of a plan often are what sell it or make it persuasive. if the audience members are persuaded that their condition is improved by adopting a course of action they are more likely to accept your plans, and even to take action to see it implemented ________ ________- benefit that is likely to result from implementing the proposed plan _______ _________- benefit that represents an important improvement in conditions for the individual or for society. _______ ________ - unanticipated implementation in the audiences conditions as a result of implementing the plan

extent of the generalization

the portion of the population that is said to exhibit the property. the portion of the sample in which the property is observed and the extent of the generalizations should correspond closely.

conversion

the process of switching a statement's subject and its predicate terms in order to create an equivalent statement

premises

the reasons in a condition argument, as well as in the enumerative and categorical arguments.

linguistic consistency

the requirement that all key terms in an argument maintain the same clear, unchanging definition throughout the argument.

predicate term

the second term in a categorical statement, the term that attributes or denies a quality to the members of the category represented in the subject term

paralepsis

the strategy of making a claim about an issue by stating that you will not bring up the issue or that the matter is insignificant

middle term

the term that appears in both reasons and not in the conclusion this is supposed to connect two reasons to each other in a categorical argument. it can only do this when it is properly distributed.

end term

the two terms that appear once in a reason and once in a conclusion of a categorical argument. the role is to connect the reasons to the conclusion in a categorical argument

representative

the underlying assumption that allows an inference, from the observation of a sample to a generalization about an entire population, is that the sample is _____, accurately reflects the presence of the quality in the entire population. this assumption is the connective that links the evidence of the sample to the conclusion that expresses the generalization. the assumption usually is unstated but its present in all generalizations.

status quo

the way things are now, the policy presently in place. said to enjoy presumption over new ideas that would alter it in any substantial way

consistent

the wording must remain ______ throughout a conditional argument or a false conclusion might be drawn from what appears to be a valid argument. deciding that an argument is valid does not tell us anything about whether the arguments reasons are true.

deputy prime minister

they are going to answer all of the oppositions arguments, the answers they gave to the prime ministers arguments, they need to answer those, they also need to answer the indirect arguments. You need to be building the arguments and making them stronger, adds to the arguments made by the PM, adding evidence, significance, explanation, explain why this argument matters more, you want to add to those arguments as well as defeat your opponents arguments. If you want to know the specific organization, answer independent arguments, then answer the answers to your arguments, then you add to the arguments that are in the debate

Correlated

they occur together with regularity significant means that the correlation cannot be explained on the basis of simple coincidence.

testing the genetic argument

this argument relies on the assumption that origin reveals or perhaps determines essence. that assumption is open to question. 1. does origin reveal essence? some experts question the basic assumption underlying the genetic argument. this is why it is sometimes referred to as the "genetic fallacy" whenever a historical claim is made, there is a possibility that the claim is inaccurate. 2. is the origin account accurate? could require some historic research 3. are present meanings or uses more important than origin? meanings can change over time.

stratification

to be diverse, sample must elect the diverse elements within a population when the population has a high degree of variation. _________ sample- a sample that adequately fleets the various groups that introduce variation within the population when this is done accurately in a way that reacts relevant differences in the population, the process assists researchers in finding the smallest sample necessary to account for the significant variation present in the population.

affirm deny

to make a conditional statement part of a complete argument, it must be accompanied by another reason that tells something about its antecedent or consequent. if this second reason claims that part of the statement is or will be true, the reason is said to ______ that clause. if the second reason claims that one clause of the conditional statement is or will be false, it is said to ____ that clause. we can add a second reason that denies one part of the same conditional argument.

enthymemes

truncated or abbreviated categorical arguments missing one or more of the basic components such as a reason or a conclusion. can boost the listener's involvement in producing the meaning of the argument. setting out an enthymeme or abbreviated categorical argument in complete form is one step toward evaluating strength of the argument.

exclusive disjuncts

two alternatives that cannot both be true at the same time

inclusive disjuncts

two alternatives that might both be true at the same time

redundancy

unnecessary repetition of an idea or term unintended is a common error in composition repetition can be helpful in securing or clarifying a point, but unintentionally repetitive language can distract an audience

authority

various authorities might be consulted for definitions. individuals with expert knowledge might qualify them to advance definitions of terms within their specific fields of expertise. dictionaries, lexicons, and concordances might also be conducted for an authoritative definition.

circular distinction without a difference

we should not employ or accept a definition without knowing which type it is. a definition report report typically will not be the source of controversy. it will be widely acknowledged as accurate and will not tend to give an advantage to one side of the controversy. by contrast, an argumentative definition of terms, objects or acts is usually controversial and does not tend to assist the case of one side in a debate. if we encounter an argumentative definition, we should determine whether it involves euphemism, reclassification or labeling. 1. is the definition _______?- which may be either or a mistake or a deceptive tactic, is a definition of a term by reference only to factors inherence in the strongly implied by the definition itself. back back to initial term, phrase or criteria. not providing you with a more or less apparent synonym, but taking you outside the term to criteria that help us understand the term itself. unproductive process- starting with an undefined term and a definition is suggested that is either strongly implied in the original term or that simply provides us with an unhelpful synonym that leaves us with the same definition or question we started with does the definition make a distinction without making a difference? all definitions seek to differentiate. one category of objects or ideas is differentiated from another. definitions must identify differences _______ ________ a _______- a definition that suggests that a category exists without adequately explain how objects in the category differ from objects in similar categories, such a definition is inadequate not a definition at all but an effort to create a false sense that a new category has been identified did the definition originate in an appropriate source? what counts as the best source of a definition depends on context. good definitions fit the argumentative context as well as the issue being resolved.

finding

what was discovered about the members of the sample the generalization statement itself will usually express a population, a property and an extent of the generalization

Criteria

what you use to determine whether or not something is good or bad, Criteria is important in making arguments in general.

antecedent

whatever follows the work "unless" in a conditional statement must be treated as the ________, even though it may seem like it is the second part of the conditional statement. the word unless affects only the antecedent of the conditional statement

semantic ambiguity

when a word or phase carries more than one meaning in a particular context

testing literal analogies

when some arguments from evident similarities are possible options for rebuttal is to point to differences between the evidence and the conclusion cases. 1. are the cases being compared dissimilar in come critical respect? a critical dissimilarity is one that is relevant to the argument's conclusion, looking for differences between the evidence and the conclusion cases is the first and most obvious means of testing a literal analogy. 2. are the two cases presented accurately? if either the evidence or conclusion case is presented inaccurately, the argument is weakened substantially. an analogy is reasonable only to the extent that it is presented accurately and persuasive only to the extent that the audience accepted it as accurate. 3. is a better analogy available? advance a different comparison that strikes the audience as more appropriate. affiancing a new analogy of our own that is subject to each of the tests we have discussed

clarity

when the evidence is highly technical, interpretation for ______ can be essential convert to visual form (in the form of graph or chart)

syntactic ambiguity

when the structure or grammar of a sentence renders the meaning of a word or phrase uncertain. the meaning of the ambiguous term or phrase does not change but its grammatical function or specific application is uncertain

qualifications

when we evaluate expert testimony, the greatest concern is the expert's ______ to testify. expertise might beed to be established before the audience will accept the expert testimony as credible. testimony should be limited to questions germain to the expert's field of expertise.

does the case involve an agent that could act to bring about the effect?

whether a specific factor in the alleged case could serve as an agent could act to bring about the effect.

practicality

whether the plan addresses the problem expediently and is capable of overcoming financial and other obstacles to its implementation

solvency

whether the plan advanced represents an effective and practical solution to the problems created by the status quo. this creates a link by demonstrating that the new plan will address root causes of the present problem and associated harms. plan that doesn't address root causes and only deals with symptoms or superficial consequences is inadequate

opposition whip

• Chooses 2-3 arguments from the government side (at least 1 argument from opening team and 1 argument from the closing team) and explains how their side has won those arguments. • Goes through each argument and explains why that argument is greater than all the other arguments of the opposition combined. FOCUSES AND EXPLAINS WHY WON

government whip

• Chooses 2-3 arguments from the government side, at least 1 argument from opening team and 1 argument from closing team) and explains how their side has won those arguments. • Goes through each argument and explains why that argument is greater than all the arguments of the opponent combined (big box> small box) • Deputy LO (Defends and expands) • Answers the indirect and direct refutation of the LO • Adds to the arguments made by the PM (adding evidence, significance, explanation) FOCUSES AND EXPLAINS WHY WON

member of government

• Defend the opening government team (major issues or themes) • Adds a new argument that shows a different viewpoint or different direction of the plan (new way of looking at the topic) • Attacks the opening opposition team (major issues or themes) • Take a theme within the arguments, this is the beginning of the second half of the debate • Then you will try to defend that theme • You will pick a major theme of the opening opposition, prove why something they have been talking about is wrong • The closing government has to support the opening government, they do that by answering and supporting arguments in the debate, • Avoid "sequels". Make sure that you are supporting what has already been said • Then, you come to the extension- this is what they mean- the member of government gives an entirely new argument that is a different way of looking at the topic. You need to take a radically different approach then what has already been done, cannot add something new. Just say, we "have a new independent argument, a new way of looking at the topic, to show this different viewpoint." This should be a fully developed idea. You are doing to support the team on your side. In preparation time, if you're in the second half of the debate, you are closing government, you are closing opposition, you need to have many different arguments to support whatever your side is. • Make sure you create options for yourself in preparation time, 4-5 independent arguments to support whatever your side is and whatever the topic is and that should be more than sufficient to prepare you to talk about whatever happens in the debate • The debates are designed to be uncomfortable, if you have trouble in the first debate making arguments, will help you develop those skills so for the second debate you will be in a better position.

member of the opposition

• Defend the opening opposition team (major issues or themes) • This is usually for people who are new to this event, these are the more difficult speeches, limits last debates, things you've seen in other speeches, tend to get harder in this half of the debate. • Adds a new argument that shows a different viewpoint or different direction of the plan, new way of looking at the topic. • Attacks the opening proposition team (major issues or themes) • Attacks the closing proposition team (attack their argument) • If you are not really engaging and expanding on the debate and are still stuck in the past, you are ignoring what is already happening and you are stuck in the past. You need to prove that you should be listened to. Builds the authority of entertainment. Powerful factor figure, hear a factor figure, and immediately, you want to agree with what is said. • Make sure that it is not background, background does not prove authority and it is not persuasive. • Powerful statement, the example that is good is the I have a dream speech. You should always list your organization. Also, it organizes yourself, give a brief organization on what you are doing, do the steps that you are required to do with your role, support what has been said by your side already, then attack what has already been said then bring a new argument. • Conclusion, how you proved your thesis in your speech, it is not a summary. Do not let the end of the five minute speech be a reminder of what the five minute speech was about- have a final thought- most people that listen to the speeches, will only remember the end of the speech if you are lucky and the end of the speech will be the defining aspect that will go on into the future. • Prepare introductions and conclusions during preparation time. • Sides and positions are not permanent. • Sides will be assigned, you don't get to pick the side, but you can pick the position.

ascertaining a source's political perspective

1. what assumptions seem to be at work? can be helpful to ask what an author takes for granted. what conclusions or evidence treated as worthy of acceptance w/o examination? what evidence and conclusions are taken as worthy repudiation or rejection without consideration 2. imagine the event in question being reported in a different way. checking the reporting of an event in more than one publication, foreign vs. US, can lower biases in reporting 2. consider the sources' reputation and purposes- some periodicals have well known editorial bias 4. how are groups described or treated? 5. what style and language are used? a source's language and style can indicate political perspective. a writer's attempts to discredit a group by labeling is often a clue to that writer's political orientation.

democracy power x 3 public discourse

Advocacy, Power, Free Society: ______ functions- citizens present their arguments in public settings to the best of their ability and other citizens are given the opportunity to respond. In a democracy, argumentation is the means of winning a hearing and convincing others of our perspective. ________- the capacity to wield influence, to shape important decisions that affect the lives of others. wealth brings political influence or ____, fame. The more members of an audience know about what goes into a good argument, the more resistant they become to efforts to employ _____ to persuade. the greater skill at argument that advocates possess, the more resistant they become to efforts to employ _____ to persuade. the better prepared they will be to answer unsubstantial claims regardless of their sources. ________ ________- open discussion of those issues that potentially effect everyone power need not have the last word. the capacity to argue effective is itself a kind of power in democracy. the power to improve public discourse and move toward a more just and rational society. when citizens lack training and skill in argumentation, the likelihood of bad ideas prevailing in public discourse increases, as does the probability that good ideas will be ignored. absence of skill renders you more vulnerable to people who do possess it.

procedures

Argumentation often involves agreements about _______- the rules or guidelines according to which argumentation will take place. argumentation may also involve agreements about the goals of exchange of argumentation. Agreements about evidence-although there may be some disagreements about its quality or interpretation. any productive process or argumentation occurs within a framework of agreement.

reasons listen search

If argumentation is to actually achieve beneficial working agreements, all advocates must commit themselves to engaging in the argumentation process in a reasonable manner. 1. reasonable people are willing to provide other people will their _______ that is to communicate about how they think. a willingness to communicate one's reasons indicates a propensity to think things through. it also signals a willingness to engaged in the cooperative activity of reasoning with others. reasoning out loud shows a propensity for open discussion of ideas and issues as the best way of improving communication, enhancing social life, and discovering solutions to different social problems 2. reasonable person are willing to ____ carefully to consider what others have to say- expressing respect for the reasoning of other people involves listening to their arguments and evaluating those arguments thoughtfully 3. reasonable people are willing to _____ for the best reasons and conclusions available through the interactive process of argumentation. open to new ideas and evidence even when they come from an opponent or might require altering a cherished belief. committed to the mutual interactive search for facts and truth that will lead to better judgments and decisions. willing to engage in debate within the constraints of their core beliefs and a basic regard for other people as givers and hearers of reasons.

political perspectives human nature perspectives dialogic perspectives situational perspectives

Richard Johanneson has identified several perspectives from which an ethic of human communication may be developed: ___________ _____- perspectives that rely on the essential values of a political system for their criteria of ethical assessment. These deserve ethics or principles from the values embodied in a political view such as a democracy or in constitution. __________ _______ _______- perspectives that develop around one or more essential qualities of human nature. The essence of human nature is found in a tendency to seek to persuade one another. thus, any action that prevented the exercise of an obligation would be unethical. ________ ______- perspectives that elevate efforts to preserve the two-sided-ness of public discourse.Attitudes such as genuineness and empathy which nurture dialogue, are valued in debate. The ethical advocate does not forgo his or her own conviction and views but strives to understand those of others and avoids imposing his or her own on others. "Monologic" communication marked by self centered-ness, deceptiveness an other qualities that prevent dialogue. it is considered unethical. ________ _______- perspectives that identify ethical considerations or principles inherent to each communication setting. minimizes criteria from broad political human nature, dialogical or religious perspectives and avoids absolute and universal standards. seeks to appreciate the nuances of each argument setting and each issue being debated. allows the possibility of tailing ethical standards to debates. from serious social issues to those addressing more focus and less morally weighty topics. this approach does not recognize the topics we debate in a free society bring into play arranged values from our deepest moral commitments to many preferences or matters of taste.

A -------- B

Used to represent a reservation, a statement that does not support or works against the arguments conclusion. it is often employed to acknowledge an obvious counterargument. dashed line to show lack of support. Significant opposition or contrary evidence Cues like "although" or "even though" or "but" "nevertheless" "however"

A w/ B -> C

When two statements (A&B) are complementary reasons for a third statement (C) Complementary reasons must work together to support a conclusion. "because A ids the case, and because B is also true, it is therefore certain that C must be true. This is a deductive argument.

cause

When we don't expect arguments: When the _____ of an event is well known, we usually expect reports or descriptions and not arguments. when an audience already accepts an idea as true, arguments are not needed to support the idea. some claims are accepted as true by a more limited circle. we might no expect arguments when neither side in a controversy wishes to challenge a claim.

controversies

When we expect arguments: we expect to hear or need arguments when an assertion serves to require measured support anytime it makes sense to ask, in response to an assertion, why do you think that? the statement probably requires argument to undergrad it. once that support is presented, we have an argument- a claim advanced with a reason or reasons to support it. arguments are expected in the context of controversy or disagreement. ________ always involve advocates advancing and defending claims, efforts to persuade uncommitted individuals and a search for solutions to problems. many statements of personal opinion are accompanied by arguments. any time you ask others to accept a claim you made, they are entitled to ask you for your reasons before making up their minds on the issue. when you offer those reasons you are making an argument. inferences and predictions based on observations are arguments.

argument reason conclusion inference case

________- a claim advanced with a reason or reasons of support. ________- a statement advanced for the purpose of establishing a claim _________ a claim that has been reached by the process of reasoning Rational movement from a particular reason or reasons to a particular conclusion is called an ________, when we make an argument, we are translating an internal and private activity of reasoning into a public statement tailored to a particular audience. the term "argument" is also often used to refer to a series of reason-conclusion units, that all tend to support the same assertion. thus, a single sentence in a newspaper editorial may advance an argument. ________- a series of arguments all advanced to support the same general contention or set of conclusions sentences starting with "because" can advance reasons for a conclusion

fact predictive

a claim that can potentially be verified as either true or false causal claims are categorized as propositions of ____ because casual relationships between events are potentially verifiable as either true or false, all causal claims are proposition of ______ propositions of this type may be _________- making claims about the future the case supporting this type of proposition should satisfy the following three criteria: 1. advance sufficient evidence to support the factual claim 2. clarify and interpret the evidence for the audience 3. ensure that the evidence's relevance to the claim is made clear

honesty courage

a commitment not to willing mislead and generally regard for what is or what we take to be true. (candor and openness, unwillingness to mislead or to conceal facts) asking yourself whether you would be comfortable knowing exactly what you had done, in inventing, presenting or documenting your argument. courage is also necessary to the ethical practice of argumentation. _______- determination to avoid "easy" answers to difficult questions that advocates often fact. determined willingness to listen and to question, to practice the basic components of free speech

probable conclusions

a conclusion that can be shown to be more or less likely but not necessary. moves from a specific observation to a general conclusion.

rebuttal

a counterargument, a reasoned answer that addresses specific points made or evidence advanced in the original argument. will include reasons and conclusions of its own. may challenge an argument's structure, bring its evidence into question, advance different evidence or question the original argument's intention and definitions.

repudiation

a dismissal of an argument without serious consideration. "that's ridiculous" or may appear as a personal attack tajes forms of laughter, silence, or some other nonverbal refusal to respond to the argument uncritical acceptance or refusal to enter dialogue, or a weak rebuttal could be unreasonable. this is a reasonable response only when an argument clearly has no merit and deserves neither consideration nor response.

inductive leap

a reasonable process in which the conclusion of an inductive agreement moves beyond its stated evidence deductive arguments involve no such leap beyond their evidence. deductions arrive at necessary conclusions and inductions arrive at more or less probable conclusions

respect for person

a regard for others as reasoning persons. we affirm a value for people as both givers and bears of reasons. if we do not consider our opponent's positions to be reasonable, we can still see them as people capable of reasoning. avoid tactics that circumvent reason or otherwise suggest that we do not view the other person as capable of forming reasonable opinions.

credibility qualify the source

a reputation for accuracy and reliability 1. does the source have a reputation for accuracy?- some sources are widely recognized as usually reliable 2. does the source posses appropriate credentials?- the education and expertise of persons cited as authorities on a topi. only individuals with extensive education and experience in a particular area are typically regarded as reliable sources of evidence when expertise is required Expertise is not transferable form one domain of study to another. if the audience may not recognize either the reputation of a published source or the qualification of an export source, you will need to _____ _____ _____- state the source's credentials and give reasons for it. this is important where not widely known, if there is any question about whether one of your sources will be accepted as credible, you should qualify the source by providing the appropriate credentials. similarly, you should explain the nature of the function of organizations with which your audience may be unfamiliar.

enemy camp

a school of thought with which the editor disagrees

pluralistic culture free public discussion

a society composed of groups who see the world from different perspectives, value different activities, hold disparate religious beliefs and aspire to different goals. best means for discussing and resolving vital issues while still preserving diversity and a plurality of views is the _________ _________ ______- the exchange of reasoned viewed, the interaction of ideas that thoughtful people have considered carefully and presented well

valid argument

a solid, internal structure that allows for reliable connections between evidence and conclusions in an argument. ______ _____- an argument whose structure connects its reasons to its conclusions in a reliable manner.

refutation

a thoroughly successful response to an argument, one that demonstrates a damaging flaw to the satisfaction of one relatively object listener or reader

courage in arguments cooperation

a willingness to accept the risks associated with open advocacy of one's position, even when that position is unpopular or dangerous. ______ a willingness to engage the argumentative process so that a rational resolution of issues can be achieved. strive to cooperation in the argumentative process even when we sharply disagree with an opponent's views. make the best case possible for our own views but required to both listen to and seek to address the opposing arguments.

regard for contexts

a willingness to create and preserve space for argumentation to occur, cultivate the relationships in which it occurs and allow the argumentative process to continue as long as necessary to ensure reasonable resolution of issues.

false impression emotional

an image should present a typical case rather than an extraordinary one. we should ask whether the images is characteristic of the situation or event being discussed. such images can lend powerful support to a case by rendering a problem seriously and clearly evident. second, given the ease with which perspective can be manipulated in setting up a photograph, and images themselves digitally altered, we will also want to ask whether an image presented as evidence has been artificially changed to create a ______ _______ third, in most cases, we will also want to ask whether an image is support by other types of evidence, such as statistics or testimony. visual evidence typically serves to corroborate other terms of evidence. fourth, images can have a powerful emotional impact on audiences. it is helpful to ask whether an image is persuasive because of it tendency to support the point being argued or because of its ______ force alone. emotional force is not in itself, inappropriate for public discourse but persuasion based on emotional content alone is not an adequate way to build a strong case.

books

another important source of evidence for developing an argumentative case. when you are evaluating a_____ as a source of evidence, here are some questions to ask: 1. who wrote it? - the author's credentials or qualifications to write a book on the particular subject are important to ascertain and evaluate background information also provide clues about an author's perspective or biases. 2. when was it published? should reflect current information in a field. look for original publication date 3. who is the publisher? university press publications typically represent reliable scholarship by individuals who are recognized as scholars and authorities. when publisher handles only workers that advance a particular point of view, or when a press is operated by an advocacy organization, the source should be used with some caution. skeptical of publications by organization know from extreme views or by publications that does not even identify a publisher. 4. for what audience is it written? the more general and less educated the audience is, the simpler the book's treatment of it subject is likely to be. the books written for an educated audience usually provide the most thorough and best researched evidence. 5. what method of obtaining data or conducting research did the author use? you may want to determine whether the book seems to have been researched carefully or instead relies on anecdotes, rumors, assumptions, and secondhand reports. check to see whether the writer did the major research reported. reliable books tell the reader where quotations and statistics come from. 6. what do others think of the book? check the see whether book is mentioned in other books on the same topic. reviews

deductive arguments

are arguments that led to necessary conclusions when their reasons are true

connectives

are reasons that consist of beliefs, values, assumptions or generalizations that link evidence to a conclusion. can't always be shown to be true or false. widely accepted generalizations, such as that people need food to survive, also serve as connectives in arguments. connectives are reasons that reflect personal commitments such as beliefs and values or generalizations that have been widely accepted. very simple arguments usually incorporate both evidence and a connective. evidence and connectives are each necessary to complete an inference.

inductive argument

argument whose reasons lead to probable conclusions establish their conclusions to one degree or another of likelihood in the initial stages of gathering evidence, this is the type of argument you have, you are showing what is probable but not necessarily the case.

agreements

argumentation is an ongoing interactive process of advancing and responding to arguments. it can occur any time a claim or statement is in dispute. though disagreement attends argumentation, the process the argumentation also requires some basic ______ Argumentation is fundamentally a cooperative process rooted in the agreement to advance and hear arguments as the preferred means of resolving disagreements.

fact, value, policy

argumentation is the means by which we advance our conclusions and back them up with our reasons. the conclusions of arguments are suavely categorizes under 1. propositions of _____ 2. propositions of _____ 3. propositions of _____

ethics of advocacy

argumentation makes many of us uncomfortable because know that its usual goal is persuasion- that the exchange of view is intended to bring about a change of views. trying to influence another person's decisions is an activity with a clear moral dimension. a framework for the ethics of advocacy arises from a conclusion consideration of the people- the advocate and the audience, who come together in a setting which arguments are advanced and heard. as an ethical advocate, I should seek to: 1. Accurately represent my own views. 2. regard audience members including opponents as reasoning people. 3. present good evidence and sound reasoning on the topic under discussion as an audience member 1. listen carefully and critically to the advocate's case 2. allow other members of the audience to hear and assess the case as well 3. make an informed decision or response as well when necessary

modal qualifiers Toulmin model: data------------------claim - - - - qualifier - - rebuttal - warrant - backing

arguments imply "backing" foundational assumptions or presuppositions that support a warrant. toulmin also directed attention to " ________ _________" which are terms tat indicate the intended strength of a conclusion. also included rebuttals, these are possible answers or exceptions to inference type decision. Toulmin suggested that warrants themselves are based on even deeper assumptions such as widely acknowledged cultural values or legal principles, this is called "backing"- this is deeper. advocates usually leave out such important details either because they believe they are clearly enough understood or because they wish to involve their audience in completing the argument. _________- a condition under which the warrant might not be involved in a particular case. "unless" warrants are almost always carrying in them an embedded reservation, a limit on how generally they are to be applied, every argument implied a potential counter argument. arguments involve evidence, a connective and a conclusion. this corresponding to toulmin's terms "data" "warrant" and "claim" frequently the unseated element is the connective or the warrant only when we know what advocated are assuming as they argue can we know whether we agree with them or reject their reasons. unless we can ask what the missing element is, we can never be certain. 3 guidelines: 1. add only statements that seem to be part of the argument as its author intended. 2. attempt to give the argument a stronger reading, avoid a straw man argument- a weak interpretation of someone else' argument in order to make it easier to refute.

tool 3 for analyzing arguments: diagramming

consists of mapping the arguments, using only the letters assigned during the scanning and drawing lines from reasons to the conclusions they support. produces a skeleton of an argument's inferences and other qualities such as reservations. also shows the structure.

complementary reasons linguistic link intermediate conclusion reservation

dependent reasons, these are pairs of reasons that must work together and lend support to their conclusion. Deductive reasoning- neither reason by itself produces the arguments conclusion but together they do. F w/ G "reason f with reason g" 1. one reason without the other will not produce the conclusion in question. 2. the statements deal with the same idea, as marked by a _________ ________- a repeated phrase or term that links statements to one another. 3. Complementary reasons are often but not always joined by the word "and" __________ ________- a conclusion that is then used as a reason. the _____ appears at the top of the standardization and the final conclusion is placed at the bottom of both the standardization and the diagram.

relevance

evidence that is accessible, internally and externally consistent, and recent must also be clearly related to the conclusion it is advanced to support ________- whether the evidence advanced has any bearing on the argument's conclusion two questions can help us make a decision about the relevance of evidence to a claim: 1. what is the specific claim being advanced? 2. does the evidence provided, if accurate, provide support for this claim? if the claim advances matches closely with that evidence, viewed independently, seems to provide then the test of relevance has likely been met. values will influence the conclusions people draw from a piece of evidence but there are reasonable limits to how far a particular item of evidence can be stretched as support for a claim.

Tool 1 for analyzing arguments: scanning

identifying and marking the statements in an argument as well as underline indicators and cues. statement- is any phrase or sentence that supplies a portion of the argument's content or meaning. may be reasons, conclusions or considerations. underline indicators and cues. statements are marking using letters or numbers. this tool does not reveal the precise relationships among all elements in the argument.

evaluating internet sites

language and content- credible websites reflect a series of moderate tone in language and visual elements used to connect with their audiences. measured, grammatical, well written prose and reliable information appropriate visual elements that send a serious message regarding their mission. a trustworthy website will usually be consistent with other responsible sources of information (external consistency) creator of the site- reliable internet sources are assembled by credible organizations of individuals. established professional, government and research organizations have developed websites with a great deal of reliable information that can be useful when you are preparing a case. identify the organization sponsoring the site you are using, assess the original credibility and political stance, and determine what biases might influence its presentation of information. citing internet sources- qualifying the source will mean identifying the organization or individual who created and maintains the site.

tool 2 for analyzing arguments: standardizing

making each statement or implied statement in the argument a complete sentence, changing indefinite references such as pronouns to definite nouns they represent and placing reasons along the conclusions they support. when this is done, the letters assigned to statements when the argument was scanned are maintained. separate out indicators and cues. the second step in this is to place reasons above the conclusions they support. a conclusion follows the reasons advanced in its support. this step may require you to rearrange these reasons and conclusions in a different order.

statistics

numerical evidence from records, studies, reports, surveys, polls and the like generalizations from sampling 1. is the ____ reliable? 2. has it been interpreted correctly? often, we have little knowledge of how any specific _____ read on the news was arrived at.

pluralism

our contemporary diversity of vALUES AND BELIEFS MAKES THE PROBLEMS facing the argument ethicist difficult to negotiate but also renders the ethical practice of advocacy imperative. __________- the variety of moral and ethical perspectives present in contemporary societies. the potential for argumentation to bring about cooperation without violence or coercion have render it invaluable in free societies. the value of argumentative depends on the advocates willingness to argue within ethical boundaries. opponents in controversies may pursue their arguments ethically but from radically different moral perspectives. ethical advocates can be found arguing on different sides of almost all issues about which reasonable people can disagree. benefits of two side reasonable arguments: 1. disagreements are aired 2. ideas are tested 3. positions are refined an ethics of advocacy rooted in a single moral orientation is likely to garner only limited acceptance

assertions

our definition of an argument suggests that not all assertions or contentions qualify as arguments When we make an argument in public, we ask an audience to believe that a statement is there on the basis of other statements. a series of ________, even if they all seem express the same view does not by itself count as an argument. in order to call a series of statements an argument, we have to see the reason, conclusion relationship merge.

popular magazines

periodicals intended to provide pleasure and advice on a range of personal and professional issues numerous graphics and advertisements as well as advice and updates on issues. written by magazine staff and freelance writers and occasionally well know people who may or may not have experience in the appropriate field. aimed at a general audience and do not assume a high level of education. language is simple, articles are often short and shallow, brief and lacking detail, not good sources of information for academic research. published by commercial publishers to provide info to make a profit and occasionally to advocate a particular political perspective. a publisher's political perspective can have a great deal of influence on which stories are covered and how they get covered.

scholarly journals refereed editorial process

periodicals that feature essays and studies by experts, scholars and researchers who are qualified to conduct research in their own fields. published by professional and academic organizations with the purpose of reporting on original research or experimentation one reason that scholarly journals are considered among the most reliable sources of evidence is _______- reviewed by two or more qualified readers before publication. careful review of research reports- _______ _________, provides an important check on the quality of research published by the periodical. the principle audience for scholarly journals consists of specialists in the discipline. as a result, the language is often academic and technical. political considerations can affect what is published in scholarly journals.

special interest periodicals

periodicals that focus on a specific topic but are written for wider audiences than scholarly journals are. these stories or reports written in these are written by journalists with special training in a relevant field of knowledge. based on interviews with experts, recent books, scholarly journals, government reports and the publications of institutions sound evidence and accessible to many readers, many of their readers are well educated so the writing may be moderately technical and of a high quality

news and commentary periodicals

periodicals that specialized in reporting news and presenting informed editorial opinions the reporters editors and other writers on the staff of news and commentary publications may draw on personal observation an interviews with exports, as well as information gathered from services, scholarly publications and government institutions and a variety of other sources. sources of statistical and testimonial evidence.

virtues

personal qualities that assist us in making ethically good choices

technical

some evidence is relatively easy to understand and requires little interpretation. interpretation becomes important when: 1. evidence is _____ or difficult to understand 2. evidence might be understood in several ways 3. implications of the evidence might not be readily appreciated usually need to provide our audience with some help in understanding or interpreting our evidence. an interpretation may advance only one among many possible understandings of the evidence. an advocate may need to interpret both for clarity and for the sake of supporting a particular claim.

internal consistency

the requirement that the evidence and sources must not contradict themselves. It is not self refuting, it casts doubt on the advocate's case and weakens the credibility of the source from which the evidence was drawn is it is not this

propositions of value

statements that advance judgments about morality, beauty, merit or wisdom. can be identified by the presence of an evaluative term may also incorporate the relative merit of two objects just as a case supporting a proposition of fact should need specific standards, a full developed case in support of a proposition of value should satisfy three criteria 1. clarify the criteria of evaluation- the standards on which value judgement is based. 2. provide evidence supporting the evaluation 3. set out evidence to show that the criteria of evaluation have been satisfied. applying the criteria directly to the object being evaluated

proposals of fact

statements that report, describe, predict or make causal claims not the same as to say the statement is true

propositions of policy

statements that urge that an action be taken or discounted 1. provide evidence that a problem exists as a result of the present way of doing things 2. show that the problem is serous and in need of immediate attention 3. outline a proposal for changes that will solve the problem without causing additional problems typically, propositions of fact and value are advanced and supported as part of the effort to establish this type of proposition

record keeping

statistics such as these are usually highly reliable estimated. statistics on countable phenomena such as traffic deaths often are derived from this. when an organization is generally recognizable as reputable when outside investors have access to reported records and when there is no obvious reason that the records have been misinterpreted or reported, statistics can usually be considered reliable. however, some organizations with a stake in public perceptions of their activities or influence deliberately misreport records and do not allow outside review

evidence

support of the strength of one's evidence, the truthfulness or accuracy of the claims the argument advances or accuracy of the claims the argument advances to bolster its position ______ can be derived from personal experience, testimony, experiment, record keeping, expert opinion, images and physical objects and other forms of direct or indirect observation. it is often interpreted through a framework of personal and cultural values. people holding different values may understand and interpret the same piece in quite different ways.

accessibility

the availability of evidence for examination sometimes an audiences willing to accept an argument without seeing the actual evidence. in such a case, a simple allusion to a well known or readily accepted evidence may be accepted. however, inaccessible evidence is a serious problem when we are not sure about the reliability of a claim and have no way of handling or obtaining the evidence on which it is based. in such cases, we are under no obligation to accept either the evidence or the claim it support in some cases, good evidence is both available and inaccessible (when evidence is too complex to decipher without special expertise), in such cases, the test of accessibility may have to be set aside in favor or trusting an expert's interpretation of available evidence. if your evidence is not likely to accept your claim readily or if the evidence is not well known, full citation of the source of evidence is important

reasons structure consistent

the basic requirements of a reasonable argument are that 1. it advances good ______ 2. the _____ is sound. 3. the definition of its key terms are clear and _____ 1. support 2. validity 3. linguistic consistency a reasonable argument satisfies all three criteria while an unreasonable argument violates one or more of them. 1. Does the argument exhibit support for its conclusion? 2. is the article structurally sound or valid? 3. does the argument demonstrate linguistic consistency? if the argument fails one or more of these tests, we are not obliged to accept it as reasonable. reasonable vs. unreasonable should reveal more than our own inclinations or biases.

digital literacy

the capacity to skillfully navigate and employ online resources. we often know little or nothing about those responsible for creating a particular website

linguistic consistency

the clarity of its language and its use of terms in the same way through the argument. advocates is responsible for clarifying an important terms meaning for the audience. once a definition has been introduced, whether stated or implied, the advocate is obliged to maintain that definition throughout the argument.

necessary condition

the conclusion of a deductive argument is said to be a _______ _______- a particular conclusion to which the reasons or premises in a deductive argument when accepted or true unavoidably heed moves from a general principle to a specific application of that principle in a particular case

reservation

the first statement in the argument, which we call __________, is included in the argument because it is a statement that acknowledges the existence of an argument, evidence or an attitude opposing the conclusion being advanced. "moreover" and "in addition" signal the introduction of a new line of argument, a second conclusion or perhaps an additional item of information. Quantitative items such as first, second and finally may point to a series of reasons that all tend to support a single conclusion.

premises

the reasons in a deductive argument most likely from a general principle/ premise and a more specific observation. sometimes called a mono premise to a conclusion that applies the general principle to a particular case.

external consistency

the requirement that evidence must not be sharply at odds with either the majority of evidence from other sources or with the best evidence from other sources. a check against evidence that seems to contradict or ignore broad agreements among experts, settled judgments or well established facts or scientific findings. sound evidence usually will not run contrary to what the majority of the most informed voices have to say. when the test of external consistency shows us evidence that contradicts the best or the majority of other evidence available to us, it is important to stop and take a closer look and perhaps do additional research.

recency

the requirement that the evidence must be up to date and not superseded by more timely evidence. when facts are certain to change over time, this is a major concern. not all reliable evidence needs to have a recent data. some ideas are not considered outdated even though they have been believed for a long time. nevertheless, confirming older findings and ideas with more recent information can lend credibility to evidence.

A -> B A -> B -> C B-> A

the simplest pattern is employed when one statement (A) is presented as a reason for another statement (B). the Reason is above the conclusion. "A thus B" Or, "A is true, therefore B, and thus C" "A because B"

argumentative context

the spaces, venues and relationships in which arguments are made and heard.

support

the strength and accuracy of the argument's evidence. For an argument to be sound or reasonable, its evidence must be in good order. does the evidence provide us with good reasons for accepting the conclusion advanced? be assured that the source cited is reliable in what it reports and that it is not sharply at odds with another credible source. reasonable arguments provide evidence for their claims that is accurate and derived from reliable sources. when an argument fails to provide sound evidence from questionable sources, you are likely encountering an unreasonable argument.

General tests of evidence

there are 7 general tests, they may be applicable to different kinds of evidence: accessibility, internal consistency, credibility, external consistency, recency, relevancy and adequacy these tests offer us a means of assessing whether an argument provides sufficient support for considering or accepting its claims

the toulmin model

there are hidden elements in some arguments- components that are implied rather than stated. In public discourse, arguments are often incomplete as presented, lacking a crucial component such as a reason, evidence, or connective or even a neatly stated conclusion. Sometimes we supply what is missing without even knowing we are doing it. usually a deeply help value is a hidden element. Stephen Toulon sought to show that the arguments we hear and advance every day are just as rational as the arguments advanced in technical disciplines. he explained the extent to which the formal study of logic might be applied in critical assessment of actual arguments. sought to demonstrate that there is considerable rational strength in ordinary arguments but such arguments conceal elements that would help us appreciated this quality. Toulmin noted that a basic argument consists of a "claim" some "data" and a "warrant" or generalization (connective) that links data to a claim. data, warrant and claim are common to many of the arguments we encounter every day.

democracy

there is a close connection between the flourishing of ______ and a nation's willingness to test its foundational principles in the area of public debate. the success of testing such ideas depends on how well citizens are prepared to participate in public discourse. our right to express our views and support these views with reason is guaranteed in the first amendment to the US constitution. democracy itself depends on the free expression and continuous interactions of differing points of view.

value

though evidence usually originates in experience we always view it though the lenses of our personal ______. evidence leads us to the conclusions along the pathway of our personal or community value commitments.

audience

whereas our reason may be conducted privately, argumentation is a public activity, something we do in the presence of other people. people for whom we develop arguments constitute an ________ the audience usually has a significant impact on how we make our arguments. based on what we know of their interests and attitudes or even in response to their reactions. as soon as someone responds to your arguments with another argument, the process of argumentation begins. this activity of argumentation makes democracy possible.

adequacy

whether the evidence presented, when taken together, is sufficient to support its claim. the seriousness of the question being decided determined how much evidence is enough, the more serious an issue is, the more reasonable it is to require that more and better evidence be provided. what we regard as serious appeals to our values however. adequacy is achieved when the quantity and quality of the entire range of evidence advanced to support a claim satisfy these criteria, while at the same time being commensurate with the seriousness of the claim.

cues

words or phrases that signal something, other than a reason or a conclusion about the context of a argument "and" can tell us that the first two statements perform similar functions. "nevertheless" or "although" may signal that the person is advancing the argument and is aware of the counterargument.

logical sense

your sense of how arguments develop, which we call _______ _______, suggests to you what the argument's conclusion is _____ _____ is often no sufficient for accurately distinguishing reasons from conclusions