Download
1 / 30
310 likes | 395 Views
International Debate Education Association. Introduction to Reasoning. Arguments. When you argue, you are reasoning your way from one idea to the choice of another or to the reinforcement of the original idea.
E N D
International Debate Education Association Introduction to Reasoning
Arguments • When you argue, you are reasoning your way from one idea to the choice of another or to the reinforcement of the original idea. • Think of an argument as a trip. You start somewhere (the original idea) and travel somewhere else (the new idea or the reinforcement of the original idea).
Arguments, Claims, and Reasons • A claim is a simple statement that you are trying to get your audience to accept. It is the place you are trying to get the audience to go. • A reason is the support for the claim. It is the means you are using to get the audience to go somewhere. • An argument is the combination of claim and reason. It is a claim supported by one or more reasons.
Some Examples of Claims • Debaters are not taking my class seriously. • The war in Iraq is like the war in Vietnam. • Smoking leads to heart disease. • Millions of Africans are dying of AIDS. • Capital punishment is unjust. • You should personally oppose capital punishment.
Seven Categories of Reasons • Argument by example • Argument by analogy • Argument by cause and effect • Argument by authority • Argument by principle • Argument by incompatibility • Argument by dissociation (not considered in this presentation)
Argument by Example • An argument by example is used to describe a group by describing specific instances within the group. • Argument by example is based on the probability that examples in a class share important characteristics.
Daniel Pipes’s Claim Anti-American views “are unfortunately routine for the U.S. academy, which for some decades has been the major American institution most alienated from the rest of the country.” Daniel Pipes, director of the Middle East Forum, November 2002.
Daniel Pipes’s Reasons “Noam Chomsky, professor of linguistics at MIT and far-left luminary, insists that President Bush and his advisers oppose Saddam . . . [because] 'Iraq has the second-largest oil reserves in the world.' . . . Jim Rego, visiting assistant professor of chemistry at Swarthmore College, stated at a panel discussion that, even after Sept. 11, the U.S. government is merely manufacturing another enemy 'to have an identity.' . . . Glenda Gilmore, an assistant professor of history of the American South at Yale University, tells her school paper that confrontation with Iraq represents a plot to expand American power. . . . Mazin Qumsiyeh, associate professor of genetics at Yale University . . . concludes that a U.S. war against Iraq would be just a diversion created by 'Israeli apologists and [U.S.] government officials' . . . [and] Tom Nagy, associate professor of business at George Washington University, proudly . . . offered 'estimates of the number of civilians needed to act as a human shield to protect infrastructure and buildings for Iraqi citizens.' “
Adequacy of Argument by Example • The adequacy of argument by example is based on at least two assumptions: • (1) that a sufficient number of examples are presented as evidence, and • (2) that the examples are representative of the entire group.
Argument by Analogy • An argument by analogy is used to support a statement about one member of a group based on a statement about another member of that group. • Argument by analogy is based on the probability that the two group members are similar to one another.
The War in Iraq is like the War in Vietnam • The Vietnam War • (1) became quite unpopular with the American public, • (2) other nations in the global community eventually opposed the war, and • (3) the war in Vietnam was met with great resistance by groups inside Vietnam • The Iraq War • (1) the war in Iraq is unpopular with the American public, • (2) other nations in the global community are already at odds with the United States over the pursuit of this war, and • (3) the internal resistance to this war by groups inside Iraq is becoming stronger.
The Function of an Analogy • The analogy allows the debater to infer unknown features of one case based on known features of the other. • Since America lost the War in Vietnam, she is likely to lose the war in Iraq. • The analogy allows the debater to transfer the value of one case to another. • Since the war in Vietnam was an unjust war, so is the War in Iraq.
Adequacy of Analogies • The adequacy of analogies is based on the assumptions • 1) that important similarities exist between the two cases, • (2) that these similarities are relevant to the claimed relationship between the two cases, and • (3) that any differences between the two cases are unimportant to the claimed relationship
Argument by Cause and Effect • An argument by cause and effect usually shows that one thing causes another. • The debater usually supports such an argument by showing that some change in the first thing is accompanied by a corresponding change in the second thing. • On the basis of these changes, the debater may infer that the change in the first caused the change in the second.
Brian Blasé’s Causal ClaimThe Digital Collegian, February, 2002 • Women’s changing role in the job force contributes to the increase in child suicide.
Brian Blasé’s Causal Reasons • Women began entering the work force en mass. • The suicide rate for girls ages 10–14, increased 27 percent between 1979 and 1989, and the rate among boys that age rose an astounding 71 percent.
The Function of Causal Arguments • Debaters use causal arguments to judge actions based on their consequences. • A debater can argue that an action with good consequences is justified while an action with bad consequences is unjustified. • In the preceding example, the action is women entering the job force and the consequence is child suicide.
Adequacy of Causal Arguments • Factors associated with the adequacy of causal arguments include: • (1) are the facts as represented in the evidence accurate? Have child suicide rates actually increased? Have women actually entered male-dominated jobs more frequently than in the past? • (2) Is the relationship between women’s roles and child suicide really a causal relationship? Perhaps that relationship is merely coincidental and other factors, not identified in the argument.
Argument by Authority • Argument by authority is based on the relationship between a person and their acts. • A person who engaged in certain positive acts becomes an authority. • The statement of the authority becomes the argument.
Angie Howard and Nuclear Energy“The Risk of a Lifetime.” Catalyst Fall 2004) Nuclear power “is the only expandable source of generating capability that doesn’t contribute to air quality issues with greenhouse gases and controlled pollutants.”
The Function of Authority • Person “A” is an authority (Angie Howard is the Vice-president of the U. S. National Energy Institute.” • Person “A’s” word should be trusted.
When is Argument by Authority an Appropriate Reason • Descriptions? Historical claims? • Causal Relationships? Technical issues? • Evaluations?
Adequacy of Argument by Authority • Is the person an expert? • Is the person an expert in a field relevant to the claim? • Is the person trustworthy?
Argument by Principle • This kind of argument judges an action based on principles rather than consequences. • For instance, why is cheating wrong? • Because you might be caught and punished (consequence). • Because the principle of honesty is more important than anything to be gained.
Three Features of an Argument by Principle • Select the appropriate principle. • Sanctity of human life • Argue for the importance of that principle. • Without life, no other values are important • Relate the action to the principle. • Capital punishment violates the sanctity of human life
Adequacy of Argument by Principle • Is the principle a sound one? Is it absolute? Has the principle been refined to allow for exceptional circumstances? (Exceptions for accident or self-defense) • Does the action apply to the principle unambiguously? (Is capital punishment an act of self defense?)
Argument by Incompatibility An explorer asks: “are there any cannibals in the region?” The guide replies “No, we ate the last one Yesterday.” • An argument by incompatibility suggests that an argument is inconsistent with other beliefs that we hold. • Since it is not logical to believe in two things that are inconsistent, one of them must be wrong. From L. Olbrechts-Tyteca, Le Comique du discours (1974)
Seth Murphy’s Argument (From Marshall University’s Student Newspaper Parthenon, April 6, 2004) Two issues to which liberal Democrats are quick to react are capital punishment and abortion. On the one hand, they tell us that capital punishment is wrong and immoral. . . . Protecting the sanctity of life apparently isn’t as important to them as they would have us think—at least not when we’re talking about defenseless babies that have never even had a chance to march in a Planned Parenthood rally. . . . Save the murderers, kill the babies. It’s interesting logic these liberals have—if you can call double standards logic, that is.
Murphy’s Reasons • Liberal Democrats support abortion rights. • Liberal Democrats oppose capital punishment. • These positions are incompatible with regard to the sanctity of life.
Adequacy of Arguments by Incompatibility • 1. Are the positions of the opposing debater accurately described? • 2. Are the positions of the opposing debater based on the premises as described in the incompatibility argument? • 3. Are the positions really incompatible? • 4. Is the incompatibility significant? • 5. To what extent does the argument by incompatibility support the debater’s position?
