Debate Manners

1. Debate Manners Recall that debate is a cooperative activity with a long history as civil discourse.

2. Before the debate • Begin when everyone is ready • Determining sides • Introductions (don’t play mind games) • Dress appropriate (coat and tie for men and semi-formal suit for women)

3. During the debate • Properly representing evidence • Identifying the source • Speak only when it’s your turn • Avoid personal attacks (argument ad hominem)

4. After the debate • Shake hands with opponents • Stop the debate • Accept the decision graciously • Use criticism as a means to improve your skills

5. Additional considerations • Be here and be prepared for the debate • Take responsibility for your own behavior, case, evidence, etc. • Avoid covert operations against another team, disinformation campaigns, etc.

6. Reasoning It is important to know something about reasoning and the common tests of logical validity

7. Deductive works from general to specific Major premise Minor premise Conclusion Inductive works from specific to general Example a Example b Example c Conclusion Deductive vs. Inductive Logic

8. Deductive (Aristotilean) Logic A major premise is asserted and must be supported • All insurance companies work to maximize their profits • The AFF uses these companies in plan • Therefore, the AFF plan works against their goal of cost savings

9. Types of deductive syllogisms • Categorical: All college students are smart • Disjunctive: College students are either smart or they are well connected • Conditional: If a student is smart, s/he will enroll in debate

10. Tests of deductive reasoning • Are premises and conclusions overtly stated. If an enthymeme, is the missing premise justified? • Is the minor premise within the field of the major premise? • Can the premise be accepted at face? • Specific tests are detailed in ch. 8

11. Tests of inductive reasoning • Do the examples support the conclusion? • Are enough examples provided (no--you must use statistics) • Are there examples which dispute the conclusion? (almost always)

12. Toulmin’s Inferential Pattern Data Warrant Claim Medicare has proven cost- effective The AFF plan will be cost- effective The AFF plan is very similar to Medicare

13. Tests of Toulmin’s pattern • Are there contrary warrants? • Is the warrant reasonable at face? • Is the claim overstated? • Is the data substantial, valid, and correctly interpreted?

14. Fallacies common to debate • Non-sequitar • Confusing sign and cause • Post hoc, ergo propter hoc • Multiple causes • Arguing in circles • Argument ad hominem • Argument ad populem

15. Fiat: an affirmative privilege Primarily exists in order to prevent the possibility of should/would arguments

16. Argument Cogency • Use “tags” for arguments • Explain the argument simply in your own words, without repeating • Don’t use lengthy evidence cards. Just read the “heart” of the quote—the most important part • Impact can simply be something like “This shows that the affirmative cannot solve this problem,” or “this shows that the problem is not inherent in our current approach to drug law enforcement.”