Persuasion and Debate Theory
Mr. Lyke
What is debate?


Formal method of interactive
representational argument
Includes


Persuasion - which appeals to the emotional
responses of an audience
Rules - enabling people to discuss and decide
on differences within a specific framework

Value


Propositional types
A proposition of value contains a relative
term that makes a value judgment
Matter under consideration—problematic
“X is good/bad.” under given criteria
 The possession of nuclear weapons is immoral.

Propositional types
 Policy


A proposition of policy evaluates potential
courses of action – “Should we do something?”
Agent—cupula (should)—action called for

Systemic: “The US should outlaw smoking.”

Belief

Propositional types
All other declarative sentences
Propositional characteristics


Appropriate to the knowledge, experience,
and interests of both speakers and
audience.
Debatable--that is, not obviously true or
false. The statements should involve an
honest difference of opinion, with
arguments and evidence on both sides.
Propositional characteristics



cntd.
Phrased in the affirmative. Positive
statements prevent confusion by making
the issue clear-cut.
Restricted to only one idea. This policy
keeps the debate within narrow limits.
Worded clearly. The words should be ones
that can be defined exactly, so the debate
does not become a matter of semantics
“Thought” systems
SKEPTICISM:
“There is no truth”
DOGMATISM
“My source of information could not be
wrong”
RELATIVISM
“Everyone has their own version of
truth”
CRITICAL THINKING
“The truth exists, though I may not
know it…
…yet
Socrates
Dialectical procedure
1. Advance a proposition.
2. Draw out the implications.
3. Note any resulting contradictions.
Dialectic


Dialectic – discussion and reasoning by
dialogue as a method of intellectual
investigation
Dialectic statements must be concrete

Cannot be defined using “relational” words
e.g. “like” and “better than”


These terms cannot be defined positively
(through necessary and sufficient
characteristics)
They must be defined DIALECTICALLY (via
a CRITERIAL ABSOLUTE)
A is like B (with respect to C)
 A is better than B (with respect to C)

Factors affecting Dialectic
UNCONTROLLABLE FACTORS
1. PUBLICITY 2. REPUTATION 3. DEMOGRAPHY
CONTROLLABLE FACTORS (VERBAL)
1. DOWNGRADING SELF OR SUBJECT
2. USE OF AUTHORITATIVE SOURCES
3.
ESTABLISHMENT OF OWN AUTHORITY
CONTROLLABLE FACTORS (NONVERBAL)
APPEARANCE
VOICE
DELIVERY
•
Dress
•
Modulation
•
Animation
•
Grooming
•
Breathing
•
Enthusiasm
•
Posture
•
Fluency
•
Friendliness
•
Expression.
•
Diction
•
Conversationality
Dialectic
The “first principles” which constitute the structure
of reason and the denial of which renders
discourse meaningless.
These principles cannot be operationally denied
from any theoretical perspective and may be
reducible to the law of non-contradiction.
They provide the means by which the dialectician
can escape the phenomenological circle of his
rhetoric and validate the components of his
deep rhetoric
ACTUAL, EMPIRICAL,
RECORDABLE
COMMUNICATION OR
BEHAVIOR (TALK)
MATERIAL ADDED
(UNCONSCIOUSLY) BY THE
LISTENER TO COMPLETE THE
ENTHYMEME
Argument bases
Ultimate terms
(God, Devil)
Pertinences
Resonances
So What!?!
What we know
Rhetoric
is affected by
What we learn
which affects
What we do
Dialectic
Choice
Human action involves choice
To say, “I choose A,” is to say all things considered
“I believe, that “A” (the option I elect)
is better than “B” (all the options I reject.)
But “better than” is a form of “good,” and “good” is
the fundamental value term.
Therefore;
All human choice, hence, all human action is value laden.
It involves sentiment.
Realms of Choice
1. A person operates according to his/her meaning
2. A person operates through choice.
3. To say “I choose A” is to say, “(I believe, all things considered)
A is better than B.
4. But, “better than” is the comparative form of “good.”
5.All human choice, hence, action, involves value--is
“value laden.”
person
Realms of Choice
state
political
order
aesthetic
person
goal
Moral
ethical
Practical
prudential
God
religious
theological
senses
Taste
appetite
Etc.
person
Law of non-contradiction
“A” is not “not “A”
A thing cannot both “be” and “not be”
at the same time.
Law of the Excluded Middle

Every statement is either true or false.
Test
Determine for oneself if a proposition is true
Proof
Establish the validity of the proposition
Convince
Bring others to believe the proposition is true
PROOF
Anything that leads to assent
That gets the audience to say “YES” to an assertion.
PROOF
artistic
nonartistic
speaker created
evidence
roadmap notes
“stuff” standing about
If the speaker did not exist,
neither would the artistic
materials.
Propositions the audience
establishes are relatively free
of speaker bias
PROOF
Modes of
persuasion used in
Speech
Communication
ethos
pathos
logos
Personal
Emotional proof
Proof
Sentiment
Intellectual proof
(argument)
(logic &
evidence)
Proofs / Persuasion
Artistic
Speaker made
Inartistic
Evidence—propositions the audience establishes are
relatively free of speaker bias
Ethos
Sagacity, virtue, benevolence. The ability to look at a
subject objectively and provide true insight and
understanding.
Pathos
Rhetorical devices designed to put the audience in the
proper state of mind for the reception of the speaker's
arguments
Logos
Enthymemes (syllogism without C)
examples (paradeigma)
signs (fallible, infallible)
ETHOS
(ETHICAL PROOF
PERSONAL PROOF CREDIBILITY)
audience
assessment of the
speaker
Classical
formulation
character
(virtue)
benevolence
(good will)
sagacity
(wisdom)
trust-worthiness
dynamism
(charisma)
Expertise
(knowledge)
Modern formulation
PATHOS
Emotional proof - Sentiment
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
Pathos:Proper sentiment
Must not be confused with
Bathos:
Sentimentality, loose
laughter and unnecessary tears
LOGOS
An appeal to reason:
Argument using
Form (logic)
&
Material (evidence)
SYLLOGISM (ARGUMENT)
Major premise
if
“A” is “B”
and
Minor premise
if
“C” is an “A”
then
Conclusion
“C” is “B”
VALID FORM
SYLLOGISM (ARGUMENT)
Major premise
if
All pigs are green
and
Minor premise
if
Rosie is a pig
then
Conclusion
Rosie is green
Valid form; untrue material
SYLLOGISM (ARGUMENT)
Major premise
if
All men are mortal.
and
Minor premise
if
Minor
term
Conclusion
Middle
term
Socrates is a man.
Major
term
then
Socrates is mortal.
Valid form, true material
Sound argument
Hypothetical Syllogism
(very similar to scientific inquiry)
I.
The major premise of a hypothetical syllogism is a
hypothetical proposition (an “if…then”
[antecedent…consequent] statement)
II.
The minor premise must affirm or deny the hypothesis or
consequent
III. Valid options:
A. Affirm the antecedent (the “if” statement)
B. Deny the consequent (the “then” or conclusion
IV. Invalid options:
A. Deny the antecedent
B. Affirm the consequent
If
plants are green
Then
hypothesis
Stuff
the plants are alive
consequent
Living stuff
The plants are green
The plants aren’t green
The plants are alive
The plants aren’t alive
Green plants
Major premise
Minor premise
Conclusion
All green plants are alive
If
plants are green
Then
hypothesis
Stuff
the plants are alive
consequent
Living stuff
The plants are green
The plants aren’t green
The plants are alive
The plants aren’t alive
Green plants
Major premise
Minor premise
Conclusion
All green plants are alive
How would you test the validity of
the following statements?



Water is composed of two atoms of
hydrogen and one atom of oxygen.
CG & E built its first hydroelectric plant in
1911.
Slavery is immoral.
Domains of knowledge
Science
Goal of
inquiry
Discover
eternal,
universal
natural laws
Source of
knowledge
Experiment
involving
Validation
assumption
Data under
consideration
is articulated
via material
History
Philosophy
“capture”
particular,
spatiotemporally
Discover
eternal,
universal nonnatural
bound event
principles
Dialectical
testimony
examination
empirical data
causation
Event is not
logically or
materially
necessary
Universe is
coherent
(logos)
Causation



The concept of causation is that you can
assign the reason for a result to a specific
initiating action
There are several issues with causation
both positive and negative
The most important element of causation
is support and analysis
Formulations
 If
“A” then, necessarily, “B.”
 If “not A” then “not B.”
 If “not B” then “not A.”
 “A” is the generator of “B.”
 “B” is the inevitable result of “A.”
Types of causation

Sufficient condition



Establish causal chains (to where intervention can
alter outcome)
Whole chain constitutes sufficiency
Necessary condition

If B, then A




and
If not—A then not—B
“A” is the presumed causal factor—”B” the event
Necessary and sufficient condition


If B, then A and if not—A then not—B
All variables “A” must align to complete the event
“B”
Designating factors as causes



Triggering factor
Unusual factor
Controllable factor

Factors can also be referred to as events
Causal explanation

X: To say: “A caused B” (about
particulars)


“X” can be coincidental so is not positive
explanation
Z: “When A occurs (under conditions C)
then B occurs”

“Z” constitutes a “causal law.” and the
grounds of a deductive explanation
Method of Agreement


If two or more instances of the
phenomenon under investigation have
only one circumstance in common…
logically…
The circumstance in which alone all the
circumstances agree is the cause (or
effect) of the given phenomenon.
The Method of Differences


If an instance in which a phenomenon
under investigation occurs and and an
instance in which it does not occur have
every circumstance in common save one…
Logically…
That one occurring in the former; the
circumstance in which the two instances
differ is the effect, or the cause , of the
phenomenon.
The Joint Method of Agreement and
Difference



If two or more instances in which the phenomenon
occurs have only one circumstance in common
and
Two or more instances in which it does not occur
have nothing in common save the absence of that
circumstance…
Logically…
The circumstance in which alone the two sets of
instances differ is the effect, or the cause of the
phenomenon.
The Method of Concomitant
Variation

If a phenomenon varies in any manner
whenever another phenomenon varies in
the same manner, it is either a cause or an
effect of that phenomenon or is connected
with it through some fact of causation.
Complications of Causation




Experiment bias
Theoretical prevarication
Poor operationalization
Statistical errors


Lack on balance (universality) condition
Inappropriate data level
Proper understanding requires
distinctions between:

Proof


Truth

Evidence
Opinion
Fact






Whatever convinces
(subjective)
The way things are,
objectively—regardless of
anyone’s opinion
Nonartistic materials
Claims one believes
Opinions based on
empirical data.
Sign


Ratio Cognoscendi (a way of knowing)
Uses a symptom or outward mark to prove the
existence of something which cannot be directly
observed.
Reliability


Infallible (cannot be disproven)
 Pregnancy is caused by sexual activity
Fallible (easily proven wrong)

Black clouds will cause rainfall
Using signs in proof
A
“sign” must bear a necessary
relationship to the object.
 The reliability of signs is relative
to the context.
 Significations (proof) typically
require more than one sign.
Examples of sign usage



Make abstract ideas concrete
They assist documented evidence—
They do not substitute for it
Types of examples


Historical instances
 Past
 Current
Hypothetical cases
 Strictly illustrative
 Non-conclusive
Applicability

Audience must find the example
 Clearly relevant to point
 Representative of the matter under
discussion
 Appropriate for the desired conclusion
 Vivid
 Timely
Evidence



Non-artistic proof
Documentable “stuff found lying about” in
books, magazines, etc.
The parts of a speech that would exist even if
the speaker did not.
Advantages of evidence

Establish the speaker’s credibility
– Show respect for audience
– Show respect for source

Borrow the credibility of the source
Problems with evidence



Consumes time
Complicates message
Fatigues audience
When using evidence:
1. Give citation (as briefly as possible.)
2. Read evidence.
3. Apply to point.
Full argument organization
point
support
transition
citation
evidence
apply to point
Evidence
types
Testimony
Claims by someone besides the speaker.
When using:
1. Quote experts and qualify them.
2. Avoid purely conclusionary material.
3. Don’t use too much (about 1/10 total time)
4. Keep reading as brief as possible.
5. Apply the evidence to the point.
Statistics
•Compilation of numerical facts based on a
relative number of occurrences
Statistics
1. Generally, the most effective form of evidence.
2. Probably, the most abused form of evidence.
When using statistics
1. Give source
2. Round off, if possible
3. Relate to audience's experience; place
the statistics in a context the audience
can understand
Typically, statisticians do not
lie,
but
They may get you to lie to
yourself.
Visual
Tricks
And
Distortions
Thousands
East
West
North
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
1st Qtr Sales
Thousands
East
West
North
50
45
40
North has 225%
the sales of East
35
30
45
25
20
15
20
10
5
0
1st Qtr Sales
Thousands
East
West
North
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
1st Qtr Sales
Thousands
East
West
North
50
45
North has 600%
the sales of East
40
30
35
30
25
20
5
15
1st Qtr Sales
Graphic Assumptions
1. The graph occupies the top
right quadrant of a graphing axis.
mystery
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Graphic Assumptions
1.
2.
The graph occupies the top right
quadrant of a graphing axis.
The units on the vertical axis are
the same as the units on the
horizontal axis
mystery
60
50
40
30
20
10
A
0
10
B
A=B
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
cost of living
60
Cost
of
Living
50
40
30
20
10
0
1950 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000
Years
cost of living
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
1950 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000
cost of living
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
1950 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000
cost of living
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
1950 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000
Statistics demonstrate
correlations
They cannot demonstrate causation
They can show the significance of causative
effects established in other ways.
Valid statistical inferences
require



Consistent theory application
Random data gathering
Ceteris paribus conditions


(all other things being equal )
The proper level of data
End of Philosophy portion of the slideshow
but
That means it is time for the Philosophy quiz