Speech Ch 15

policy debates

Gov: need-plan-advantage establish a need plan of action advantages Opp:direct refutation, disadvantages, minor repairs, counter plan

parliamentary debate

Gov: prime minister(PM), member of gov(MG) Opposition: leader of opposition(LO), member of opposition (MO)

value debate

Gov: value, criteria, application Opp: argue any of these

three types of reasoning

-deductive -inductive -analogic

mythos

a form of proof grounded in the social feelings that connect us powerfully with group traditions, values, legends and loyalities

logos

a form of proof that appeals to reason based largely on facts and expert testimony presented logically

ethos

a form of proof that relies on the audience's perceptions of a speaker's leadership qualities of competence, character, goodwill and dynamism

deductive reasoning

arguing from a general principle to a specific case In deductive reasoning, if something is true of a class of things in general, it is also true for all members of that class. For example, "All men are mortal. Harold is a man. Therefore, Harold is mortal." For deductive reasoning to be sound, the hypothesis must be correct. It is assumed that the premises, "All men are mortal" and "Harold is a man" are true. Therefore, the conclusion is logical and true.

slippery slope

arguing that one bad thing will result in many others

confusing fact with opinion

asserting opinions as though they were facts, or discrediting facts as opinions

begging the question

assuming as decided what has actually not been proved

post hoc

assuming because one event follows another, it was caused by it

ad hominem

attacking the person not the point

shaky principle

basing an argument on an unsound assumption

straw man

belittling or trivializing arguments to refute them easily

faulty analogy

comparing things that are dissimilar in some important way

omitted qualifiers

confusing probability with certainty by asserting a conclusion without qualifications

analogical reasoning

creating a strategic perspective on a subject by relating it to something similar about which the audience has strong feelings

red herring

distracting listeners with sensational, irrelevant material

hasty generalization

drawing conclusions based on insufficient or non representative observations

fallacies

errors in reasoning that make persuasion unreliable

either-or thinking

framing choices so that listeners think they only have two options

defective testimony

omitting when a statement was made or a speaker's credentials; quoting out of context

syllogism

pattern of deductive reasoning as it develops in reasoned persuasion

reasoning from parallel cases

presenting a similar situation as the basis of an argument. Often called analogical reasoning

pathos

proof relying on appeals to personal feelings

reason from principle

reasoning from shared principles,values, and rules. Sometimes called deductive reasoning

inductive reasoning

reasoning from specific factual instances to reach a general conclusion Harold is a grandfather. Harold is bald. Therefore, all grandfathers are bald." The conclusion does not follow logically from the statements.

non sequitur

reasoning in which principles and observations are unrelated to each other or to the conclusion drawn

minor premise

relating a specific instance to the general principle that supports an argument

Fact debate

standards-ethics examples

major premise

the general principle on which an argument is based

myths of the mean

using an average to hide a problem

inappropriate evidence

using facts when examples are needed, or examples when facts are needed or an intimidating list of authorities as a substitute for information

flawed statistical comparasions

using percentage increases or decreases to distort reality