ARGUMENTATION AND ADVOCACY
Fall 1980
27 August 1980
Communication can be broken down into 2 basic elements:
Rational/Affective (Debate has to do with this area.)
and
Conviction/Persuasion
ARGUMENT involves propostion + supports. A proposition requirees some
kind of action.
We will be debating this proposition:
“Resolved: that the US should significantly increase its foreign
military commitments.”
There is no place at all for sloppy definitions in argumentation.
Argument isn't disagreement. It's more positive.
[covered grading criteria for the semester]
Meditate on freedom.
Consider the processes you go through to determine what it means.
29 August 1980
Epistemology = The study of Knowing.
Rhetoric (According to Aristotle) "How is it that we modify other
people's opinions?"
Aristotle was a student of Plato.
Positive
Contingent
(Studies)
Science; Analytics
Dialectic, Rhetoric, Politics, Ethics
(Methodology)
Empirical Investigation
Demonstration
Deliberation and Inquiry
Persuasion
2
Greek divisions of knowledge:
 - Certain knowledge; based on causation (natural law.)
 - probability
 - Trust (has to do with trust in someone's word.)
 &  both are used with reference to inanimate objects.
 has to do with creatures who possess a will. They decide to do
what they do.
When dealing in --with people--you are dealing in the contingent
sphere of knowledge.
Politics comes from polis, has the idea of a family--community. Today
we think in terms of power relationships. We are by nature social
beings (interdependent) We, as human beings, choose the grounds and
process by which we will relate to one another in the polis. Basically
two means of accomplishing that:
Force--involves fear.
Persuasion—“suasio”(Latin) "to make sweet"
A free society is based on persuasion. There is no middle ground. It's
one or the other.
Rhetoric --the study of persuasion. (Aristotle) "the faculty of
observing in any given case the available means of persuasion.”
3 Sept 1980
(Discussed sources for supporting materials)
DISCUSSION OF ETHICS
Ethics--The study of the good in human relationships.
Two branches of Ethics:
1. Axiology--value theory; asks the question, "What is good?"
2. Deontology--theory of obligation; "What should we do?"
3
Rhetoric is the only way to structure our society if it's to remain free.
Argumentation focuses on the rational element of Rhetoric.
Ethics examines the nature of words such as "good." Why is A better
than B? Why should I choose A above B?
POSITIVE TERMS
DIALECTICAL TERMS
terms that denote something with concrete existence
terms with contingent value (involves relationship)
eg, "over", "under", "good", "better"
Everything is not ultimately relative. Dialectical terms confuse relativists.
A is better than B with respect to . . . . There must be a reference point.
5 Sept 80
Aristotle's definition of rhetoric--The faculty of observing in any
given case the available means of persuasion. Concerned with altering
people's actions through discourse.
Argument is the art of influencing others by an appeal to their reason.
Speaking situations:
Deliberative--"we are in it together" (Speaker and audience on
same level.) Legislative, concerned with future.
Epidiectic--Ceremonial kind of speech. Praise and Blame, concerned
with present.
Forensic--Court of law. "pertaining to law court" Issues of
liability, concerned with past.
Paradigm--an example with universal application. Speaking situations
are best understood when explained by paradigm.
Debate combines deliberative and forensic. It is a game of advocacy.
FORENSIC RULES:
Fiat--It is so because some people said it will be so. (eg, speed
4
limit.)
Expectation--they are expected.
Necessity--arrived at by rationality. Necessities originate from one
or two basic axioms:
1. The affirmative affirms (says "Yes" to) the resolution.
& The negative denies (says "No" to) the resolution.
2. Proposition--any declarative statement.
THREE TYPES OF PROPOSITIONS:
1. Fact--Asserts something to be "so."
2. Value--Asserts something to be "good" or "bad."
3. Policy--Self-explanatory.
example: "Brushing reduces cavities." fact
"Cavities are bad." value
10 Sept 1980
In our society we've come to see VALUE as something relative to
individuals.
Murder is bad. That's universal--not just, "Well, I'm not into it, but
you go ahead!" How can you deal with a person rationally who says,
"Murder is OK?"
What does it mean to make a decision?
It involves making a choice. A is better than B if you choose A.
Good is a word that is related to-1. goals--"prudence" good
2. people--"ethical" good
3. Society--"Political" good
4. Art--"Aesthetic" good
5. God--"Religious" good
6. Sensation--"Taste" good
If your only argument for liking something boils down to, "I like
it"--sensation--there is no way I can refute that.
If you can't talk about value judgments rationally, there is no way you
can have rational action. You are, by nature, a free thinking
creature. You are who you are because you choose to be who you are.
You can't live without making decisions. You are a rational creature.
5
In order to make decisions, values must be considered. You've got to
accept values--some people don't. Try to grasp the difference between
propositions of fact and value.
12 Sept 1980
How do you demonstrate an important proposition?
Example:
This is a chair. (Proposition of fact.)
This is a rostrum, 6 feet tall. Prove it. How? Measure it, right?
right. Your tape measure is called your "criterion."
You prove the height of the rostrum by comparison. You compare the
height of the rostrum and the tape measure.
This rostrum | is six feet tall.
problematic predicate
The problematic is what you want to find out about.
You want to develop criteria for your predicate and then apply it to you
problematic.
"This is a chair."
- How do you seek a definition for chair? Definitions are of ideas. You
do not define things. You define what it is.
ELEMENTS OF DEFINITION
Inherent Its function is for sitting.
characteristics It must have a seat and a back.
It is designed for one person.
Those characteristics without which the object will become something
else. They are necessary conditions for an object being called a
chair. Looking at all the inherent characteristics we would say that
we have sufficient conditions for it being called a chair. This is the
process called definition.
Another means is by Classification. (Look for differentia.)
Under the category, "Furniture," what distinguishes it from other
furniture you sit on?
PROPOSTION OF POLICY
Policy deals with deontology--"What should I do?"
6
Types:
1. Personal policy
What should I do as an individual?
Always reduces down to a proposition of value.
(eg., "You should stop smoking."-policy
"Smoking is bad."-value)
2. Systemic policy--We, as a group, should do something.
Usually raises many delicate ethnic issues. (You make decisions
which concern other people.
Nature of propositions of Systemic policy:
I. Single, unambiguous assertion.
II. Formal requirements
A. Agent--Who is to perform the change? (The agent must have the
power to undertake the change.)
B. Cupula--Always in the form "should."
1. It connects agent with the action.
2. eg., "The US gov't should . . . ."
a) Ought to, not necessarily will.
C. Action asserted.
1. What should the US gov't do?
III. Must be stated so as to place the burden of proof on the
affirmative.
Status quo has the presumption. (Status quo="the way things now stand.")
Presumption--presumed to be innocent until proven guilty. The accused
is not responsible for proving their innocence. The accuser must prove
you to be guilty.
The court is to, first, decide if the prosecutor has a prima facie case
against the defendant. The status quo stands in the place of the accused.
Burden of proof--"He who asserts must prove."
The affirmative has the burden of proof on the proposition. If they
cannot show you the need for a change, things will remain the same. The
person proposing change always bears the burden of proof.
17 Sept 1980
Status quo will continue as it is until sufficient reason is presented
to facilitate change.
--Presumption could also be called "Rhetorical inertia."
7
"Proof" is whatever would convince an audience.
Prima facie--that which is adequate to convince in the absence of
refutation.
(Latin for "first look.")
Essence of debate--In supporting its resolution, the affirmative must
guarantee a significantly better system will result from the adoption of
the affirmative policy than would be possible under the status quo.
This is a rule of necessity. It is, because of the rational process,
the way things are. "Significantly better" is key. It has to be better
enough to justify making a change.
If you can get the same results by making minor modifications, you would
be a fool to adopt a big change. There are always ramifications involved
in change that we are not sure of--chances to take.
STOCK ISSUES OF DEBATE
In a traditional case,
Affirmative must demonstrate that the status quo has:
A. Need to change.
NEED
1. Harms (Value dimension)
HARMS
.
SIGNIFICANCE
2. That the harms are significant enough to warrant a change
INHERENCY
3. The harms are inherent to the status quo.
a. Caused by the system.
b. The system generates them.
B. Plan
WORKABILITY
1. They must present a workable plan to fix the problem.
SOLVENCY
2. This plan must solve the need without presenting new evils.
Significance basically deals with the question of "How much?"
Definition explains the inherent characteristics of any one item or idea.
Make sure the plan addresses the need. There must be an inherent link
between plan and need.
"Stasis"--the point at which, if you get a handle on the "loop hole" of
your opponent’s case, he's had it!
In debate, you've got to presume that every person is rational.
You must find the stasis and cut off the person's case.
(eg., Abortion-Does a woman have a right to do with her own body what she will?
The stasis is--"Is the fetus a part of her own body?")
The effective debater ferrets out the stasis points.
8
22 Sept 1980
ISSUES--One question upon which decisions are based.
Affirmative issues:
Stock (need) issues--must be proved in order to show need of change.
Is there a harm?
Is the harm significant?
Is the harm inherent to the status quo?
Stock (plan) issues-Is the plan feasible?
Is it workable?
Does it actually meet the need?
Negative issues:
New harms (or, disadvantages)
The list of potential issues that can be brought forward in a case is
limitless. You must limit yourself to a few issues.
The affirmative brings up potential issues. The negative admits some of
them--agreement with some of those issues, but, let's get down to the
REAL issues. You debate the real issues.
Inherency--Qualitative justification of harm. Cannot be solved without
radical revision. If you cannot present a rational reason for changing
the status quo significantly, I do not want to hear your proposal.
causal link
System-----------------------------> Harm (Good way to look at it is in terms of goals.)
Any system exists in order to realize its goal. The structure is
designed to do this. Always question the goals of the system. Do not
grant to the affirmative that they have correctly defined the goals of
the system as upheld by the status quo. Establish what the goal actually is.
The implication is: If we are not meeting the goal, something must be
wrong in the structure. This is the most common way of approaching
inherency. The other way of approaching inherency is, "What we've got
here is a bad goal."
We use the word "inherency" here in two ways:
inherent harm
inherent change
9
An inherent change must be justified by an inherent harm. In politics,
if your change involves a change in law or constitution it is an inherent change.
26 Sept 1980
WEIGHING EACH POSITION
Affirmative
Burdens Advantages
Burden of proof Define terms
Establish issues
Negative
Burdens Advantages
Burden of rejoinder Presumption
(direct clash)
Burden of proof on
negative issues (eg., desirability)
Affirmative has the right to define terms any way he wants within the
bounds of common sense and fair play.
29 Sept 1980
NEGATIVE STANDS
1. Denial
a. Straight negative--"The affirmative has not carried its burden of
proof." -or- "They have failed one or more of the stock issues.
b. Straight refutation.
2. Status Quo
a. Stand pat--(Straight SQ) "There are lots of benefits to the SQ
which the Affirmative has ignored.
b. Minor repairs--(Progressive SQ) "With modifications, the SQ is a
better option.
3. Counter plan
a. "Yes, I accept the affirmative position, but I have a better plan
to deal with the problem."
1 Oct 1980
(Noodling on the topic)
10
3 Oct 1980
Negative Approach
The negative must first look at "Topicality."
operational definition--Asserts an identity between two objects. (A=B)
People using operational definition of the proposition are saying their
plan is the case. The negative is to oppose the resolution. There is
no way the negative can support the resolution.
Your plan operationally defines the resolution.
6 Oct 1980
Definition is to describe its inherent characteristics.
Genera--for the chair example, "furniture" is the generic characteristic.
Differentia--furniture w/ four legs.
furniture w/ a back.
furniture w/ a seat.
conceptual definitions are ideas--general.
Operational definitions try to clarify more clearly the characteristics
of what you are defining.
Two attacks which can be raised against you regarding your definitions:
Extra-topicality--You have not proved why we should implement your plan
in this manner given the resolution.
Sub-topicality--You have not justified all aspects of the resolution.
(Extra=topicality is showing additional advantages your plan introduces.)
Justification of your plan is always essential.
VALUE DIMENSION
Is that which you assume to be a harm actually a harm?
Who says it's a harm?
If we want to show that protecting our vital interests is the goal, why
was I wrong to try and establish that definition by quoting the
preamble? Military is the functionary of the Gov't. Gov't is to secure
vital interests.
Do they prove to me that their "advantages" are significant? Are they
11
actually making an inherent change in the SQ?
When they cross examine you, answer the question that is asked, not the
implied question. (eg., "Can you tell me what color that door is?" The
correct answer is, "Yes." Don't tell them what color it is!)
"Inherent barrier"--What is the block that will keep us from employing
the proposed plan under the SQ? (eg, Beefing up the civil defense
program to increase military preparedness. There is no reason we could
not beef up the existing CD program if more funding were available. No
inherent barrier.)
"Mandates"--what the plan demands be done.
20 Oct 1980
TYPES OF NEGATIVE ANALYSIS
Goals Analysis--The value of a system is going to be determined by its
ability to meet the goal set up for it.
As a negative, you must question the desirability of an assumed goal.
Is the new system going to be better than the old system? If the
affirmative says it is going to be better, what is the value system the
are using to establish its advantage? "We do not accept that as a
goal--it is not our philosophical goal in the US."
Don't just attack the lack of documentation of a bad goal--cast doubts
on the logic or desireability of the goal itself. (eg., Wage and price
controls will free the consumer from the effects of market fluctuation.
Where would you attack this contention? There is an underlying
assumption here that market fluctuations are bad. I would maintain that
market fluctuations are the only way producers have of gauging
production of goods. It is not bad.)
Uniqueness analysis--Where the affirmative states that the SQ cannot
achieve what their plan can. As a negative, you say, "We can achieve
your results under the SQ with minor modifications.
Contingency--"Even if--then"
Even if there is a harm it is not significant enough to justify the
change proposed in the affirmative plan.
Disadvantage--A prima facie attack against affirmative plan.
12
"Let's assume the affirmative plan is adopted. Here are the
disadvantages you will accrue."
You've got to go on to show inherency, significance and harms just like
the affirmative does with regard to the SQ.
30 Oct 1980
PROOF
Proof is that which convinces.
Ethos--Personal proof (credibility)
The speaker's image.
Pathos--Emotional proof.
Appeal to audience motives.
Logos--Logical proof.
Argument=Logic+evidence applied to the thesis.
3 means of convincing:
Fact
Truth
Demonstration
( implies integrity--"trust in agents.")
Greeks understood logos as:
Word--words denominate with the source of rationality. Words convey
ideals that are not bound by space and time. eg., "Love"
(*Greeks were really into words--they were holy to them, they saw words
as demonstrable of unknown absolutes-->God. So, Jesus, as the "Word
made flesh" is saying--"God revealed to us." Before we were aware of
him, now we see Him! I AM THE WAY, TRUTH, LIFE . . . each of these
words point to God. Jesus was saying, "Here I am.")
New phrase--"Fundamentally grotesque."
3 Nov 1980
13
Pathos
Pathetic proof includes all those materials and devices calculated to
put the audience in a frame of mind suitable for the reception of the
speaker's ideas.
Ethos
Ethical components
Classical:
Sagacity, Virtue, Benevolence
(wisdom, character, good will)
Modern: (credibility)
Expertness, Trustworthiness, Dynamism
Ethical etiology--"Where does Ethos come from?"
1. Publicity
2. Reputation These are all uncontrolled
3. Demography factors.
Controlled factors:
1. Downgrading of self or subject.
2. Use of authority sources.
3. Establishment of own authority.
Verbal Nonverbal
voice appearance
diction dress
modulation grooming
fluency posture
animation proxemics
enthusiasm
friendliness
In a policy proposition, the stock issues are propositions of value and
fact.
For example, "Abortion is bad."
People, in general, agree that the taking of human life is bad. Every
non-perverse human being agrees to this. When you get down to the
rock-bottom in a proposition of value--you cannot, very easily, prove
value. People have an intuitive knowledge of good and evil.
The only way to evaluate an opinion is to generalize it. "Can you act
that way generally?" Can you generalize the criteria? That is the only
way to establish a moral position.
14
7 Nov 1980
Logos = Logic + Evidence
Categorical syllogism:
All A are B.
C is an A.
C is a B.
The classical one is:
All men are mortal.
Socrates is a man.
Socrates is mortal.
You may have an argument that is based on valid form--relates to logic.
Is it true, though?--relates to evidence. If your argument has valid
form and the evidences are true, the argument is sound.
Reductio ad absurdum-Taking someone's criterial statement and reducing it to the absurd. If
abortion is allowable due to the fact that the fetus has no social
value, one can be justified in killing all the bums in Bowery.
12 Nov 1980
Aristotle's definition of logos: A statement plus its support.
Toulmin model
data-------------------------------claim
|
|
|
warrant
|
backing
example-"It will be a hard winter." (claim)
"How do you know?" Meteorological stats for the past 20 years. (data)
(Warrant=Weather patterns are recurrent.)
15
Syllogistic form:
Weather recurs in 20 year cycles.
It was a bad winter 20 years ago.
This will be a bad winter.
The criteria whereby we measure things is frequently left out in debate.
EVIDENCE
That form of proof wherein the speaker confronts his audience with
propositions which the audience establishes are relatively free of
speaker bias.
According to Paul Brandeis; Logic is the study of the forms of mediate
inferences and the conditions they must meet to be valid.
Mediate inference--when making a claim, you refer back to your criterial
absolute, more or less subconsciously--automatically.
We must assume rationality regarding others. We must assume that
everyone deals in much the same way as others.
Theoria -> WARRANT -> criterial absolute (mediates the thought process.)
|
DATA -------------------- CLAIM
The only immediate inference you can make has to do with taste: ?Yuk!
That?s terrible!? non-logical
Data—“Is it true”?
Logic(form)—“Is it valid”?
The argument--Premises+conclusion=”Is it sound”?
The non-logical aspects of an argument=evidence.
Evidence is the material aspect of rational proof.
4 categories:
Facts: empirically demonstrable
Testimony: Other’s observations and opinions
Statistics: compilations of fact (numerical)
Examples
Theoria makes data applicable to the argument; it is sovereign.
16
TYPES OF SYLLOGISMS
Hypothetical
antecedent: If there were an invisible cat in the chair
consequent: the chair would look empty.
(Rules for using types of evidence:)
Testimony-1. Quote experts and qualify them; borrow their ethos to your
advantage.
2. Use sparingly.
3. Avoid simply conclusionary material.
4. Quote accurately.
Statistics-1. Give exact source
2. round figures if possible.
3. relate to audience
4. be sure statistics have common base for comparison.
?Statistics never lie.? Yes, but statisticians often do! Caution: You
can prove anything you want with statistics.
MATERIAL FROM PP. 177ff OF THE TEXT BY DOUGLAS EHNINGER:
Deduction is the only kind of logic that is definable as logic.
Def: Drawing inferences from general truths to specific applications.
Induction= “ “ “ “ specific instances to general truths. (also
called “generalization.”)
Deduction can be talked about, explained. Induction is a mystery.
A sound argument is a combination of valid form and true premises.
Form determines validity.
Disjunctive syllogism:
Bill is at home or he is not at school. (Major premise.)
Hypothetical syllogism:
If women were rational, (then) we could convince them.
If the minor premise leads to more than one possibility you cannot come
to a valid conclusion. A valid syllogism will lead to one and only one
valid conclusion.
17
Ratio cognoscendi--(What?) sign
Ratio essendi-- (Why?) cause
Through signs, we conclude the existence of something that cannot be
proved directly without signs. Fever is an infallible sign that
something is wrong. Another good word for sign is symptom.
Cogno—“know”
essendi--essence (cause logic) “What is the cause of this thing”?
inherency->harms->signs
The signs are evidence of a harm, the harm is caused by an inherent
deficiency in the status quo. The status quo causes harms which
produce signs.
Concomitant variations--(Mill’s canon) to vary in relationship.
Unemployment
A
Inflation
B
/\
/\
/\
/ \ / \ / \
/
\ / \ / \ /
\/
\/
\/
/\
/\
/\
\
/ \ / \ / \
\ /
\ / \ /
\/
\/
\/
Given the present state of affairs, we can make three statements
pertaining to causation:
A -> B
B -> A
*(C) -> A,B
*(C) is an unknown factor of causation which may cause both A and B.
When two things have a predictable varying relationship they have
concomitant variation.
When A and B vary predictably in relationship to one another, we can
assume three things:
A -> B
B -> C
(C) -> A,B
18
Rules of Syllogism:
3 and only 3 propositions.
Major premise-- All A is B.
All C is A. Minor Premise
Conclusion-- C is B.
3 and only 3 terms
Middle term
All A is B.
(Occurs in major and
All C is A.
minor premises.)
Minor term
C is B.
(occurs in minor prem. & conclusion.)
Major term
(occurs in major prem. & conclusion.)