Contradictory premises
When there can be no valid conclusion because one premise denies the other can exist
Poisoning the Well
Attacking the person instead of the issue
Fallacy
A mistake or trick in reasoning
Slanting an argument
Using emotionally charged words to arrive at a conclusion rather than relying on evidence
Hasty generalization
Argument where too few instances support the conclusion
Appeal to force
Urging acceptance of conclusion based upon threat of force
Deductive reasoning
Reasoning from the WHOLE to the PART
False analogy
Fallacy comparing two unlike things
Black or white fallacy
Idea that there are only two possible choices or alternatives
Straying
Interpreting a resolution too broadly or narrowly
Absolute authority
Belief that experts in a given field cannot make mistakes
Hypothesis contrary to fact
Speculative argument that starts with untrue hypothesis
Appeal to pity
Appeal using sympathy
Throwing a red herring
To introduce irrelevant material distant from the real issue
Unqualified generalization
Arguments based on absolutes
Faulty cause and effect
Like superstition, this argument identifies the wrong cause
Argument from ignorance
Argument that something is true because it has not proven to be false
Argument from authority
Belief that because somebody famous supports a particular conclusion that it is accurate
Logic
The science of reasoning
Inductive reasoning
Reasoning from the PART to the WHOLE
Maslow
Hierarchy of needs
Rawl
Veil of ignorance
Forget everything we know about our selves
Mill and Bentham
Utilitarianism
Kant
Categorical imperative
Treat others the way you want to be treated
Hobbs, Locke, Rousseau
Social contract
an implicit agreement among the members of a society to cooperate for social benefits, for example by sacrificing some individual freedom for state protection.
Utilitarianism
Mathematical philosophy, best for most people
Deontology
Study of the nature of duty and obligation
Ends do not justify needs
Morality of action
Veil of ignorance
Forget things you already know
Social contract
Give up rights for protection of government
Harm principle
Laws that protect others from you
Claim
Main point made by debater; engine, drives argument forward
Warrant
Analysis that supports claim; The freight cart, carries all evidence
Impact
Consequences of an idea or action on society or an individual; the caboose, protects the end of the cart/case
Cross examination
Look at judge
Ask open ended questions
LD vs CX
LD: morality, value of something
CX: policy, implementing policy
Time frames
6 affirmative constructive
3 cx
7 negative constructive + attacks
3 cx
4 1st AR
6 negative rebuttal speech
3 2nd AR
AC
Ac 1nr 1ar 2nr 2ar
NC
Nc 1ar 1nr 2ar