Flashcards in Final Deck (34):
attacking the person not the argument
arguments that move from examples to generalizations too quickly or without sufficient rationale
Fallacy of Analogy
comparing two things that are more unalike than alike
Fallacy of Composition
Arguing that what is true of a part is true for the whole. Whole may not posses qualities of individual parts
Fallacy of Division
assuming that what is true of the whole is automatically true of the part. Part of the component may not posses the qualities of the whole
Correlation Mistaken for Causation
incorrectly asserting a casual link(when there is strong evidence of cause-effect relationship btw variables)
as opposed to just a correlation (when strong relationships btw two variables exist)
just b/c A happens after B does not mean B caused A
redirecting the argument to another issue; a diversion of attention with the intention of trying to abandon the original argument.
appeal to popularity, bandwagon; implies we should do something because “most” people do it.
Proposition of Value
statement that asserts a principle, standard, or moral claim. Judges whether something is good/bad, ethical/unethical (SUBJECTIVE)
Proposition of Fact
statement that asserts a claim known as a certainty. Proposes whether something is true or false and can usually be resolved through empirical evidence.
Proposition of Policy
advocates a specific course of action; “should”.
Form for policy propositions
[agent/subject] + should + [action]
presents topic and stance, background info, team split and the team's main arguments
refutes the 1st speakers main arguments
defends their team's main arguments against 2nd speaker refutations
Types of Cross Examination Questions
Clarification, Warrant, Elaboration, Source
Types of Refutation
denial, mitigation, additional consideration
when opponent tries to disguise/conceal (evaluation)
polite language used to avoid harsh words (evaluation)
a word or phrase that takes a different meaning (evaluation)
language that is overly broad or unclear (evaluation)
listening to what we already agree on (noise)
shifting message into something we find more pleasing (noise)
discussions in your head (noise)
distractions and other noise (noise)
your physical state (noise)
claim, grounds, warrant
backing, modality/qualifier, rebuttal
Analyzing propositions of policy
Need/problem, cure/plan, advantage
how extensive is the problem?
what exactly must be done?
Agent: who is doing the plan? is agent appropriate?
Financing: Does it incur cost? How much?
Enforcement: How do we know the change will be put in place or followed?
Cohen's "For argument's sake"
Dominates how we think about, act, and conduct arguments; (adversarial)
Deforming effects: Elevates tactics over substance, Magnifies US vs THEM, Outcomes: triumph or defeat
Prevents: deliberation, negotiation, compromise, and collaboration
Learning = losing (being educated in the argument and agreeing with the opposition, even though you got cognitive gain)