DEBATE UNIT: PART 4

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

2. Organizing the Body of a Debate • Two basic forms of reasoning #1 = Deductive: Begins with a generally held truth and arrives, often via a specific instance, at a conclusionabout 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 at SHS have college degrees. • Minor Premise: Mrs. Ribblett is a teacher at SHS. • Conclusion: Therefore, Mrs. Ribblett has a college degree. • This works as long as the major premise is accurate and the subject of the minor premise properly belongs or fits. • Another way to remember this: 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: if both premises are or contain a negative, no conclusion can be reached. • Major Premise: No science teachers coach debate. • Minor Premise: Mr. Orange is not a science teacher. • Conclusion: Therefore, Mr. Orange _____ • No conclusion can truly be reached. Speculation may occur, but no true answer may be deduced from the premise.

5. Using Deductive Reasoning • Begin by stating a generalization that is already accepted by your listeners. • 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. Organizing the Body of a Debate #2 = Inductive: Begins with the specific facts, instances, or examples and builds to a general statement. • Inductive starts with the details and then goes to the broader or bigger picture. • This is the way we build most of the assumptions we live by. Some logicians believe that all reasoning is ultimately inductive.

8. 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.

9. Using Inductive Reasoning • Begin with specific examples and then move to a conclusion dictated by those examples. • Although Inductive Reasoning is often used, it may still contain flaws. Therefore, it should still be tested.

10. Types of Inductive Reasoning • To examine your inductive reasoning, ask questions about the particular types. • Four main types of inductive reasoning: 1. Reasoning by example 2. Reasoning by analogy 3. Sign reasoning 4. Causal reasoning See handout #4!

11. Avoiding Fallacies • Fallacies: 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. See Handout #4!

12. Attacking Fallacies--Refutation • Refutation: 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 must listen carefully to the opposing argument, and when it’s your turn, attack any of the following errors:

13. 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. • Evidence that does not meet the test of good evidence. • Lack of sufficient evidence.

14. General Refutation Pattern 1. Restate your opponent’s 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. 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.

15. Refutation Practice If the opposing team presented one of these arguments, what would you say to refute their point? 1. Teenagers should be given more homework so they stay out of trouble. 2. Students shouldn’t be required to go to school because then there will be kids there who don’t want to be there and they might cause trouble.

16. Refutation Practice • Students should be allowed to use their smart phones in class. • The school day should be shortened because more time in school does not increase the quality of learning.