1 / 12

Deconstructing Arguments

International Debate Education Association and Willamette University. Deconstructing Arguments. 2010 BFSU Tournament. Robert Trapp, Willamette University Yang Ge, Dalian Nationalities University. Detecting Fallacious Arguments. Criteria for Logical Assessment of Arguments

lang
Download Presentation

Deconstructing Arguments

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. International Debate Education Association and Willamette University Deconstructing Arguments 2010 BFSU Tournament Robert Trapp, Willamette University Yang Ge, Dalian Nationalities University

  2. Detecting Fallacious Arguments • Criteria for Logical Assessment of Arguments • These standards – acceptability, relevance, and sufficiency – differentiate logically good arguments from logically poor ones. Acceptability Relevance Sufficiency RSA Triangle: The criteria that a good argument must satisfy

  3. Detecting Fallacious ArgumentsCriteria for Logically Good Arguments The Standard of Acceptability • Related to the concept of evidence. • To meet this standard, evidence must meet the following conditions: • It is common knowledge • It is supported elsewhere, usually in a published source • It is supported by a qualified authority • It is supported by a cogent sub-argument made by the debater. • Failure to meet this standard means the debater has committed the fallacy of problematic premise.

  4. Detecting Fallacious ArgumentsCriteria for Logically Good Arguments The Standard of Relevance • This standard is related to reasoning. • The standard of relevance answers the question of whether the evidence is related to the claim. • The standard is met if the evidence makes the audience or judge more likely to believe the claim. • Failure to meet this standard means the debater has committed the fallacy of irrelevant reason.

  5. Detecting Fallacious Arguments Criteria for Logically Good Arguments The Standard of Sufficiency • An argument can begin with acceptable evidence that is relevant to the claim and still not be good enough to persuade the judge or audience. • The standard of sufficiency demands that the evidence and the reasoning raise the audience or judge’s belief in the claim to a reasonable level of certainty. • When forced to choose between two competing arguments, judges will use the standard of relevance to accept the argument that they consider most probable. • Failure to meet the standard of relevance means that the debater has committed the fallacy of hasty generalization.

  6. Refuting Arguments What to Refute • Don’t try to refute every argument. • Refute those arguments that are most essential to your opponent’s case • Refute those arguments that stand in the way of your main arguments • Refute arguments that contain fallacious reasoning • Refute arguments by presenting a counter argument

  7. Refuting Arguments Four-Step Refutation Method • Identify the argument you are going to refute: “They say . . .” • Identify your response that argument: “But I say. . .” •  Support your response to that argument: “Because. . . • Show the importance of your refutation: “Therefore. . .”

  8. Using Points of Information • A point of information is offered by one debater to a debater speaking for the opposing side of the debate. • So an opposition speaker might offer a point of information to the Prime Minister for example. • Points of information may be in the form of a question or a brief argument. • Points of information can be offered only after the first minute and prior to the last minute of a speech. • The point of information can last no more than 15 seconds and the person offering the point is not allowed to follow up with an additional comment or question.

  9. Offering Points of Information • First, a debater must get the attention of the speaker. • A debater cannot actually make the point of information until recognized by the speaker. • The speaker may refuse the point by verbal statement or by nonverbal signal • The decision to accept or reject a point of information belongs solely to the speaker. • When an offer of a point of information is accepted, the person offering the point has a maximum of fifteen seconds to actually make the point.

  10. Reasons to Offer Points of Information • Offering points of information to deconstruct your opponent’s arguments “Don’t you realize that many municipalities have already reformed Hukou policies?” • Offering points of information to telegraph your own position. “Wouldn’t you agree that equality of individuals is not nearly as important for collectivist societies as supporting the community at large?” •  Offering points of information to set the direction of the debate. •  “If you will recall, the Leader of Opposition suggested that supporting a community is more important than equality of individuals. How does your current line of argument account for this argument made by my colleague?”

  11. Responding to Points of Information • Accept offers judiciously. • Accept points when you are in a comfortable part of your speech. • Carefully decide which person’s offer you want to accept • Respond to the point immediately • Respond to the point forcefully • Do not allow debaters to follow up

More Related