DEBATE UNIT: PART 4

1. DEBATE UNIT: PART 4 SELECTING DEBATE PATTERNS, ATTACKING FALLACIES, & REFUTATION

2. ORGANIZING THE BODY OF SPEECH/DEBATE • 2 Basic forms of reasoning • #1 Deduction/Deductive—Begins with a generally held truth (called a major premise) and arrives, often via a specific instance (called a minor premise), at a conclusion about a particular principle, policy, or problem. • This form uses a formalized 3-step pattern (called a syllogism) • Major Premise: is a generally held truth • Minor Premise: is a specific instance or example • Conclusion: Answer based on rationale from both premises

3. Examples of Deductive Reasoning • Major Premise: All teachers have college degrees. • Minor Premise: Mrs. Bartel is a teacher • Conclusion: Therefore, Mrs. B has a college degree. • This works as long as the major premise is accurate and the subject of the minor premise properly belongs/fits • Another way to remember this is if either premise or minor premise is false, then the conclusion will be false.

4. Two Wrongs Do Not Make a Right • A rule to remember about syllogisms is that if both premises are or contain a negative, no conclusion can be reached. • Major Premise: No science teachers coach debate • Minor Premise: Mr. Crisson is not a science teacher. • Conclusion: Therefore, Mr. Crisson _____ • No conclusion can truly be reached. Speculation may occur, but no true answer may be deduced from the premise.

5. If you use the deductive pattern in a speech, then you will begin by stating a generalization that is already accepted by your listeners. • You will then show that specific instances relate to the accepted generalization and thus lead logically to the specific conclusion.

6. EXAMPLE OF DEDUCTIVE PATTERN • Accepted Generalization: Dishonest politicians should be removed from office. • Specific Instances: In instances A, B, C, and D, Politician X has used the power of public office to increase his own power and wealth. (You would specify examples in A, B, C, and D) • Specific Conclusion: Politician X should be removed from office.

7. 2nd type of reasoning is Inductive • Inductive Reasoning—the reverse of deductive reasoning • You would start with the specific facts or instances/examples and build from them to a general statement. • Deductive can be seen as going from the bigger picture to the details or from the outside to the inside (outside in) • Inductive starts with the details and then goes to the broader/bigger picture or from the inside to the outside (inside out)

8. ***Inductive reasoning is actually the way we build most of the assumptions we live by. Some logicians believe that all reasoning is ultimately inductive. • If this is used in debate, begin with specific examples and then move to a conclusion dictated by those examples.

9. Examples of Inductive Reasoning • Specific 1: Former school debater Earl Hunsaker is now President of the Student Senate at State U • Specific 2: Former school debater Dorothy Meredith is now a State Representative • Specific 3: Former school debater Louis Hawker is now serving as our district attorney • Conclusion or inference drawn: High school debate helps prepare students for positions of leadership and responsibility in our society

10. Although Inductive Reasoning is often used, it may still contain flaws and Inductive arguments need to be tested. • Inductive reasoning may best be examined by asking questions about particular types of inductive reasoning. • 4 main types of inductive reasoning: • 1. Reasoning by example • 2. Reasoning by analogy • 3. Sign reasoning • 4. Causal reasoning

11. Reasoning By Example • For this, you use selected examples support your main contention • You may claim that the American League is superior to the National League and point to (1) the results of the World Series between 1980-2009 and (2) the ease with which certain players have improved their records when traded from the American League to the National League. • Under each of these headings, you would provide specific examples.

12. Testing Reasoning By Example 1. Are there a reasonable number of examples? 2. Are the examples typical? 3. Do the examples cover the critical period of time being discussed? 4. Are there enough negative examples to seriously damage your contention? 5. Are the examples relevant to contention? You should answer yes to 1-3 & 5 and No to #4

13. Reasoning By Analogy • This is based on comparisons of similar places, people, objects, or events. You may reason that since 2 people are alike in terms of certain things you know about them, they must be alike in other ways. • Example—An Oklahoma legislator might contend that since a particular tax structure was working well for Texas, it should work well for Oklahoma. • He could claim the two states are alike since they border on one another and since oil and cattle have contributed to the wealth of both.

14. Testing Reasoning by Analogy • Are there significant points of similarity? • Are the differences crucial enough to destroy the analogy? **If you answer no to any of these, your reasoning is weak and most likely false. ***Although the analogy is often vivid and memorable, it is seldom very sound proof.

15. Reasoning From Sign • We use this often. We learn to read signs to reason or make an educated guess. If your teacher comes to class wearing a suit on days of hard work and serious notes, you learn to connect the suit to hard work days. If your teacher dresses casually on days that you have informal, laid back activities, you learn to see the signs and connect them.

16. Testing Reasoning by Sign • Is the sign related to the anticipated state or action? (Can differences in a teacher’s clothes really relate to behavior pattern?) ---Determine if the sign is accidental, occasional or typical 2. Are there other signs which may be even more accurate predictors? (Finding consistencies such as if they dress a certain way every Tuesday or other)

17. Causal Reasoning • This means that people assert that one thing (cause) produces another (effect). • If you take a known course of action (hitting another student in the face with a lemon pie as a part of a comedy act), we can predict the effect (audience laughter). • You can also argue from effect to cause

18. Testing Causal Reasoning • Is the alleged cause capable of producing the effect? • Is the alleged cause the only factor that could account for the effect? • Is the alleged cause capable of producing other, and undesirable effects?

19. Avoiding and Attacking Fallacies • Fallacies are errors in reasoning. • There are many but the most common or most frequently occurring ones are known as the “slovenly seven.” • Try to avoid them when building your own arguments and also try to expose them when your opponents use them.

20. The Slovenly Seven • Ad Hominen —Attacks the person rather than the argument. Attacking someone’s religious beliefs, nationality, political party, or race needs to be avoided. • Begging the Question-This is acting as if an argument is true when, in fact, it is the very question at issue. • Centimeter-Kilometer—Give them a cent. and they will take a kilo (inch to mile). This consists of the idea to allow a certain action will inevitably lead to more serious consequences-when that is not necessarily true.

21. 4. Either-Or Fallacy—This occurs when someone oversimplifies a problem and improperly reduces the number of alternative to two. The tendency is to see one side as right and one as wrong and not even realize there may be more than just two sides. 5. False Analogy—When someone compares two things that are essentially unlike.

22. 6. False Cause—The fallacy of the false cause occurs when you label something as the cause of something else insufficient evidence. The false assumption here is that an event that happens first is necessarily the cause of an event that happens later. 7. Hasty Generalization—A statement or argument based on an insufficient number of examples. You make an assumption about a group based on one or limited examples.

23. Attacking Fallacies--Refutation • Refutation is the process of attacking your opponent’s arguments. • Each side is constantly trying to attack the other side’s arguments while building up its own. • During a debate, regardless of which side you are on, you would listen carefully to the opposing argument, and when it’s your turn, you attack any of the following errors:

24. Fallacious reasoning—use of the “Slovenly Seven” • Errors in reasoning—reasoning that does not meet sound standards of argument. • Inconsistent statements—for example, a governor who says education is at the top of his/her “priority list” and later in the same speech announces that actual funds for education will be cut in the coming year.

25. 4. Evidence that does not meet the test of good evidence. 5. Lack of sufficient evidence. A General Pattern of Refutation To Follow 1. Restate your opponents arguments as clearly & concisely as possible. Try to quote your point as exactly as possible. If not, that can be used against you by your opponent.

26. General Refutation Pattern cont. 2. Show the significance of your opponent’s argument to his or her position. Show what will happen to your opponent’s case if you demonstrate that his or her argument is not sound. 3. State concisely your objections to your opponent’s argument. Point out any errors. 4. Introduce new evidence or reasoning to support your objections. 5. Summarize your refutation, being sure to emphasize the effect of the refutation of your opponent’s case.