DEBATE UNIT: PART 4DEBATE UNIT: PART 4

SELECTING DEBATE SELECTING DEBATE PATTERNS, ATTACKING PATTERNS, ATTACKING

FALLACIES, & REFUTATIONFALLACIES, & REFUTATION

ORGANIZING THE BODY OF SPEECH/DEBATEORGANIZING THE BODY OF SPEECH/DEBATE2 Basic forms of reasoning 2 Basic forms of reasoning

#1 #1 Deduction/DeductiveDeduction/Deductive—Begins with a —Begins with a generally held truth (called a generally held truth (called a major premisemajor premise) ) and arrives, often via a specific instance and arrives, often via a specific instance (called a (called a minor premiseminor premise), at a ), at a conclusionconclusion about a particular principle, policy, or problem.about a particular principle, policy, or problem.This form uses a formalized 3-step pattern (called This form uses a formalized 3-step pattern (called

a a syllogismsyllogism)) Major Premise: is a generally held truthMajor Premise: is a generally held truth Minor Premise: is a specific instance or example Minor Premise: is a specific instance or example Conclusion: Answer based on rationale from both Conclusion: Answer based on rationale from both

premisespremises

Examples of Deductive ReasoningExamples of Deductive Reasoning

Major Premise: All teachers have college degrees.Major Premise: All teachers have college degrees. Minor Premise: Mrs. Bartel is a teacherMinor Premise: Mrs. Bartel is a teacher Conclusion: Therefore, Mrs. B has a college degree.Conclusion: Therefore, Mrs. B has a college degree.

This works as long as the major premise is accurate This works as long as the major premise is accurate and the subject of the minor premise properly and the subject of the minor premise properly belongs/fitsbelongs/fits

Another way to remember this is if either premise or Another way to remember this is if either premise or minor premise is false, then the conclusion will be minor premise is false, then the conclusion will be false.false.

Two Wrongs Do Not Make a RightTwo Wrongs Do Not Make a Right

A rule to remember about syllogisms is that if both A rule to remember about syllogisms is that if both premises are or contain a negative, no conclusion premises are or contain a negative, no conclusion can be reached.can be reached. Major Premise: No science teachers coach Major Premise: No science teachers coach

debatedebate Minor Premise: Mr. Crisson is not a science Minor Premise: Mr. Crisson is not a science

teacher.teacher. Conclusion: Therefore, Mr. Crisson _____Conclusion: Therefore, Mr. Crisson _____ No conclusion can truly be reached. Speculation No conclusion can truly be reached. Speculation

may occur, but no true answer may be deduced may occur, but no true answer may be deduced from the premise.from the premise.

If you use the deductive pattern in a If you use the deductive pattern in a speech, then you will begin by stating a speech, then you will begin by stating a generalization that is already accepted by generalization that is already accepted by your listeners. your listeners.

You will then show that specific instances You will then show that specific instances relate to the accepted generalization and relate to the accepted generalization and thus lead logically to the specific thus lead logically to the specific conclusion.conclusion.

EXAMPLE OF DEDUCTIVE EXAMPLE OF DEDUCTIVE PATTERNPATTERN

Accepted Generalization: Dishonest Accepted Generalization: Dishonest politicians should be removed from office.politicians should be removed from office.

Specific Instances: In instances A, B, C, Specific Instances: In instances A, B, C, and D, Politician X has used the power of and D, Politician X has used the power of public office to increase his own power public office to increase his own power and wealth. (You would specify examples and wealth. (You would specify examples in A, B, C, and D)in A, B, C, and D)

Specific Conclusion: Politician X should be Specific Conclusion: Politician X should be removed from office. removed from office.

22ndnd type of reasoning is Inductive type of reasoning is Inductive Inductive Reasoning—the reverse of Inductive Reasoning—the reverse of

deductive reasoningdeductive reasoningYou would start with the specific facts or You would start with the specific facts or

instances/examples and build from them to a instances/examples and build from them to a general statement. general statement.

Deductive can be seen as going from the Deductive can be seen as going from the bigger picture to the details or from the bigger picture to the details or from the outside to the inside (outside in)outside to the inside (outside in)

Inductive starts with the details and then goes Inductive starts with the details and then goes to the broader/bigger picture or from the to the broader/bigger picture or from the inside to the outside (inside out)inside to the outside (inside out)

***Inductive reasoning is actually the way ***Inductive reasoning is actually the way we build most of the assumptions we live we build most of the assumptions we live by. Some logicians believe that all by. Some logicians believe that all reasoning is ultimately inductive.reasoning is ultimately inductive.

If this is used in debate, begin with specific If this is used in debate, begin with specific examples and then move to a conclusion examples and then move to a conclusion dictated by those examples. dictated by those examples.

Examples of Inductive ReasoningExamples of Inductive Reasoning

Specific 1: Former school debater Earl Hunsaker Specific 1: Former school debater Earl Hunsaker is now President of the Student Senate at State is now President of the Student Senate at State UU

Specific 2: Former school debater Dorothy Specific 2: Former school debater Dorothy Meredith is now a State RepresentativeMeredith is now a State Representative

Specific 3: Former school debater Louis Hawker Specific 3: Former school debater Louis Hawker is now serving as our district attorneyis now serving as our district attorney

Conclusion or inference drawn: High school Conclusion or inference drawn: High school debate helps prepare students for positions of debate helps prepare students for positions of leadership and responsibility in our societyleadership and responsibility in our society

Although Inductive Reasoning is often Although Inductive Reasoning is often used, it may still contain flaws and used, it may still contain flaws and Inductive arguments need to be tested. Inductive arguments need to be tested.

Inductive reasoning may best be Inductive reasoning may best be examined by asking questions about examined by asking questions about particular types of inductive reasoning. particular types of inductive reasoning.

4 main types of inductive reasoning:4 main types of inductive reasoning:1. Reasoning by example1. Reasoning by example2. Reasoning by analogy2. Reasoning by analogy3. Sign reasoning3. Sign reasoning4. Causal reasoning4. Causal reasoning

Reasoning By ExampleReasoning By Example

For this, you use selected examples support For this, you use selected examples support your main contentionyour main contention You may claim that the American League is superior You may claim that the American League is superior

to the National League and point to (1) the results of to the National League and point to (1) the results of the World Series between 1980-2009 and (2) the the World Series between 1980-2009 and (2) the ease with which certain players have improved their ease with which certain players have improved their records when traded from the American League to the records when traded from the American League to the National League. National League.

Under each of these headings, you would provide Under each of these headings, you would provide specific examples.specific examples.

Testing Reasoning By ExampleTesting Reasoning By Example

1. Are there a reasonable number of 1. Are there a reasonable number of examples?examples?

2. Are the examples typical? 2. Are the examples typical? 3. Do the examples cover the critical period 3. Do the examples cover the critical period

of time being discussed?of time being discussed?4. Are there enough negative examples to 4. Are there enough negative examples to

seriously damage your contention?seriously damage your contention?5. Are the examples relevant to contention?5. Are the examples relevant to contention?You should answer yes to 1-3 & 5 and No to You should answer yes to 1-3 & 5 and No to

#4#4

Reasoning By AnalogyReasoning By Analogy

This is based on comparisons of similar places, This is based on comparisons of similar places, people, objects, or events. You may reason that people, objects, or events. You may reason that since 2 people are alike in terms of certain since 2 people are alike in terms of certain things you know about them, they must be alike things you know about them, they must be alike in other ways.in other ways. Example—An Oklahoma legislator might contend that Example—An Oklahoma legislator might contend that

since a particular tax structure was working well for since a particular tax structure was working well for Texas, it should work well for Oklahoma. Texas, it should work well for Oklahoma.

He could claim the two states are alike since they He could claim the two states are alike since they border on one another and since oil and cattle have border on one another and since oil and cattle have contributed to the wealth of both.contributed to the wealth of both.

Testing Reasoning by AnalogyTesting Reasoning by Analogy

1.1. Are there significant points of similarity?Are there significant points of similarity?2.2. Are the differences crucial enough to Are the differences crucial enough to

destroy the analogy? destroy the analogy? **If you answer no to any of these, your **If you answer no to any of these, your

reasoning is weak and most likely false. reasoning is weak and most likely false.

***Although the analogy is often vivid and ***Although the analogy is often vivid and memorable, it is seldom very sound memorable, it is seldom very sound proof.proof.

Reasoning From SignReasoning From Sign

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

Testing Reasoning by SignTesting Reasoning by Sign

1.1. Is the sign related to the anticipated state or Is the sign related to the anticipated state or action? (Can differences in a teacher’s clothes action? (Can differences in a teacher’s clothes really relate to behavior pattern?)really relate to behavior pattern?)

---Determine if the sign is accidental, occasional or ---Determine if the sign is accidental, occasional or typicaltypical

2. Are there other signs which may be even more 2. Are there other signs which may be even more accurate predictors?accurate predictors?

(Finding consistencies such as if they dress a (Finding consistencies such as if they dress a certain way every Tuesday or other)certain way every Tuesday or other)

Causal ReasoningCausal Reasoning

This means that people assert that one This means that people assert that one thing (cause) produces another (effect). thing (cause) produces another (effect).

If you take a known course of action If you take a known course of action (hitting another student in the face with a (hitting another student in the face with a lemon pie as a part of a comedy act), we lemon pie as a part of a comedy act), we can predict the effect (audience laughter). can predict the effect (audience laughter).

You can also argue from effect to causeYou can also argue from effect to cause

Testing Causal ReasoningTesting Causal Reasoning

1.1. Is the alleged cause capable of Is the alleged cause capable of producing the effect?producing the effect?

2.2. Is the alleged cause the only factor that Is the alleged cause the only factor that could account for the effect?could account for the effect?

3.3. Is the alleged cause capable of Is the alleged cause capable of producing other, and undesirable producing other, and undesirable effects?effects?

Avoiding and Attacking FallaciesAvoiding and Attacking Fallacies

Fallacies are errors in reasoning.Fallacies are errors in reasoning.There are many but the most common or There are many but the most common or

most frequently occurring ones are known most frequently occurring ones are known as the “slovenly seven.”as the “slovenly seven.”

Try to avoid them when building your own Try to avoid them when building your own arguments and also try to expose them arguments and also try to expose them when your opponents use them.when your opponents use them.

The Slovenly SevenThe Slovenly Seven

1.1. Ad HominenAd Hominen —Attacks the person rather than —Attacks the person rather than the argument. Attacking someone’s religious the argument. Attacking someone’s religious beliefs, nationality, political party, or race beliefs, nationality, political party, or race needs to be avoided.needs to be avoided.

2.2. Begging the Question-Begging the Question-This is acting as if an This is acting as if an argument is true when, in fact, it is the very argument is true when, in fact, it is the very question at issue. question at issue.

3.3. Centimeter-KilometerCentimeter-Kilometer—Give them a cent. and —Give them a cent. and they will take a kilo (inch to mile). This consists they will take a kilo (inch to mile). This consists of the idea to allow a certain action will of the idea to allow a certain action will inevitably lead to more serious consequences-inevitably lead to more serious consequences-when that is not necessarily true.when that is not necessarily true.

4. 4. Either-Or FallacyEither-Or Fallacy—This occurs when —This occurs when someone oversimplifies a problem and someone oversimplifies a problem and improperly reduces the number of improperly reduces the number of alternative to two. The tendency is to see alternative to two. The tendency is to see one side as right and one as wrong and one side as right and one as wrong and not even realize there may be more than not even realize there may be more than just two sides.just two sides.

5. 5. False AnalogyFalse Analogy—When someone —When someone compares two things that are essentially compares two things that are essentially unlike. unlike.

6. False Cause—The fallacy of the false 6. False Cause—The fallacy of the false cause occurs when you label something cause occurs when you label something as the cause of something else insufficient as the cause of something else insufficient evidence. The false assumption here is evidence. The false assumption here is that an event that happens first is that an event that happens first is necessarily the cause of an event that necessarily the cause of an event that happens later.happens later.

7. Hasty Generalization—A statement or 7. Hasty Generalization—A statement or argument based on an insufficient number argument based on an insufficient number of examples. You make an assumption of examples. You make an assumption about a group based on one or limited about a group based on one or limited examples.examples.

Attacking Fallacies--RefutationAttacking Fallacies--Refutation

Refutation is the process of attacking your Refutation is the process of attacking your opponent’s arguments.opponent’s arguments.Each side is constantly trying to attack the Each side is constantly trying to attack the

other side’s arguments while building up its other side’s arguments while building up its own.own.

During a debate, regardless of which side you During a debate, regardless of which side you are on, you would listen carefully to the are on, you would listen carefully to the opposing argument, and when it’s your turn, opposing argument, and when it’s your turn, you attack any of the following errors:you attack any of the following errors:

1.1. Fallacious reasoning—use of the Fallacious reasoning—use of the “Slovenly Seven”“Slovenly Seven”

2.2. Errors in reasoning—reasoning that does Errors in reasoning—reasoning that does not meet sound standards of argument.not meet sound standards of argument.

3.3. Inconsistent statements—for example, a Inconsistent statements—for example, a governor who says education is at the governor who says education is at the top of his/her “priority list” and later in the top of his/her “priority list” and later in the same speech announces that actual same speech announces that actual funds for education will be cut in the funds for education will be cut in the coming year.coming year.

4. Evidence that does not meet the test of 4. Evidence that does not meet the test of good evidence.good evidence.

5. Lack of sufficient evidence.5. Lack of sufficient evidence.

A General Pattern of Refutation To FollowA General Pattern of Refutation To Follow

1. Restate your opponents arguments as 1. Restate your opponents arguments as clearly & concisely as possible. Try to clearly & concisely as possible. Try to quote your point as exactly as possible. If quote your point as exactly as possible. If not, that can be used against you by your not, that can be used against you by your opponent.opponent.

General Refutation Pattern cont.General Refutation Pattern cont.2. Show the significance of your opponent’s 2. Show the significance of your opponent’s

argument to his or her position. Show what will argument to his or her position. Show what will happen to your opponent’s case if you happen to your opponent’s case if you demonstrate that his or her argument is not demonstrate that his or her argument is not sound.sound.

3. State concisely your objections to your 3. State concisely your objections to your opponent’s argument. Point out any errors.opponent’s argument. Point out any errors.

4. Introduce new evidence or reasoning to support 4. Introduce new evidence or reasoning to support your objections.your objections.

5. Summarize your refutation, being sure to 5. Summarize your refutation, being sure to emphasize the effect of the refutation of your emphasize the effect of the refutation of your opponent’s case.opponent’s case.