REFUTATION METHOD
DEFINITION
CHALLENGING
ANALYSIS
MINIMIZING
AUTHORITY
DENYING
THE
EVIDENCE
STATISTICS
DEMONSTRATING THE OPPOSITE
EXPOSING FALLACIES IN
REASONING
EXPOSING SPECIAL TYPES
OF FALLACIES
SPECIAL
METHODS
REDUCTIO AD
ABSURDUM
ADOPTING
OPPOSING
ARGUMENTS
RESIDUES
METHOD
DILEMMA
EXPOSING
INCONSISTENCIES
ACTION / POINTS
opponent
 doesn’t understand the problem
 hasn’t interpreted the problem correctly
 is misleading the audience because of
vagueness in definitions
 has lack of knowledge
opponent
 didn’t cover all the areas
 is using different criteria for analysis
 overlooked great dangers contained in his
proposal
 opponent used worst, atypical, extreme
examples rather than average ones
 “so what” argument – evil exists as claimed but
quantitatively the harm or damage is not so
great
 authority has not made a study
 authority has not been trained in research
 authority is prejudiced
 authority is exaggerating
 authority is inconsistent in his/hers beliefs
 statistical unit has not been defined
 statistical units are not comparable
 statistics are not an index to what we want to
know
 other studies in the same area brought out
different results
 showing opposite conclusion from what the
opponent is proposing
 fallacies in inductive, deductive, casual
reasoning, reasoning from analogy and
reasoning from authority
 arguing in circle (two or more unproved
propositions used to establish one another)
 assuming a more general truth which involves
the point at issue
 fallacious question (based on assumed truths)
 appeals to prejudice (argumentum ad populum)
 argument involving personalities (argumentum
ad hominem)
 shifting ground
 argument from tradition and custom
 appeal to the ignorance of the opposite
 false synthesis
 fallacy of division
 fallacy of equivocation
general principle applied to specific cases made to
seem ridiculous
using opponents arguments, examples, evidence to
support one’s own case
discarding several options by proving their
disadvantages in order to accept the last one
actions lead to two results, both bad
showing contradictions in speech
Material for Debate Workshop (July 2006) at
Wenzao Ursuline College of Languages
by Ewha Debating Society
Material for Debate Workshop (July 2006) at
Wenzao Ursuline College of Languages
by Ewha Debating Society