• Shuffle
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Alphabetize
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Front First
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Both Sides
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Read
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
Reading...
Front

How to study your flashcards.

Right/Left arrow keys: Navigate between flashcards.right arrow keyleft arrow key

Up/Down arrow keys: Flip the card between the front and back.down keyup key

H key: Show hint (3rd side).h key

A key: Read text to speech.a key

image

Play button

image

Play button

image

Progress

1/94

Click to flip

94 Cards in this Set

  • Front
  • Back
A form of instrumental communication relying on reasoning and proof to influence belief or behavior through the use of spoken or written messages
Argumentation
An attempt to move an audience to accept or identify with a particular point of view
The reasoning part of argumentation
Appeals to both emotions and logic
Persuasion
the faculty of observing in any given case the available means of persuasion
Aristotle's Rhetoric
Rhetoric – argument as strategy and process
Dialectic – argument as conversation in which people offer and analyze reasons
Logic – argument as mathematical equation, emphasis on proof and reasoning
Wenzel's three form of arguments
Moral choices a person makes regarding her or his behavior
Teleological ethics – based on outcomes or ends
Deontological ethics – based on absolutes or rules that separate right from wrong
Ethics
The obligation of the advocate to contest the ground by offering arguments that are logically sufficient to challenge presumption
Burden of Proof
One that “at first sight” is sufficient to justify changing belief or behavior
Prima Facie
Advocate has responsibility of presenting prima facie case, which justifies changing belief or behavior
The form and the content of the argument determines face value of an advocate’s case
Case must be both topical and inherent
Presentation of case causes suspension of presumption unless it is successfully challenged
Summary of Prima Facie
worth or importance of the argument
face value
the topic to be argued
topical
demonstrate that the nature of the problem is such that it can only be overcome by a change in behavior or belief
inherency
A statement that identifies the argumentative ground and points to a change in a belief or behavior
Proposition
Regarding what has happened, what is happening, or what will happen
Fact proposition
Good or bad, right or wrong
Value Proposition
What should or should not be done
Policy Proposition
have more than two meanings
equivocal
lack clear meaning
vague
jargon or specialized words belonging to a particular field or profession
technical
one nonexistent in current vocabulary
new term
– those invented when a convenient term does not exist
coined term
An opinion, conclusion
claim
Proof required for a rational person to accept the claim as true or probable
grounds
Shows why if one accepts grounds one must accept the claim
Inferential leap
Norms or rationalities of a culture
Warrant
Explicit information to establish the reliability of the warrant
Backing
Shows the degree of force arguer believes the claim possesses
Shows exceptions or instances that disconfirm your case
Qualifier
Means of accommodating the limitations of the claim
Rebuttal
Conclusion you draw about what you believe the proposition means based on the information contained in your definition of key terms
Primary Inference
Advocate
Affirmative
Opponent
Negativee
Determined by which side shows greater skill or better arguments
winner
Rules
Format
Emphasis is on speaking skill and use of general knowledge rather than copious research
Parliamentary Format
Lies with the negative
Where does Presumption lie?
Falls on the Affirmative
Where does Burden of Proof lie?
Establish Prima facia case; establish terms of propostion; use all evidence
Affirmative Constructive
establish philosophy of team and it's stand on proposition; offer alternative definitions; offer counterplan; establish points of clash and weak spots
negative constructive
Must answer attacks made in negative constructive; answer challenges to definition/topicality/extend refutation; respond to most critical or damaging negative constructive
affirmative rebuttal
give judge reasons to vote for neg team; cover main arguments that reject affirmative
negative rebuttal
summarize debate from affirmative perspective; respond to main arguments favoring rejection of affirmative argument; point out things not contested or that the neg has stopped arguing (suggesting favor of affirmative)
affirmative rejoinder
The inferential leap made from grounds to claim made through warrant;
reasoning
known as warrant, is used to infer that because these grounds exist, believing this claim to be true or probable is justified
the reasoning
suggests a temporal connection between phenomena (an event or condition is the cause of an event or condition; based on the idea that things occur in an orderly fashion)
argument from cause
important, required, question: are the grounds sufficient to bring about or cause the conditions specified in the claim?
argument from cause
if without its presence the effect will not occur
cause is neccessary
if by itself, it will not bring about the effect
cause is unneccessary
connect phenomena with conditions that exist (events seen as signs or attitudes or activities)
argument from sign
cautions: are other grounds likely to lead to the effect? Are there instances in which this effect has not followed these grounds - is the relationship consistent?
argument from cause
cautions: be sure the sign is reliable; do not mistakes signs for causes - a sign tells what is the case, while a cause explains why it is the case; note strength of sign
argument from sign
a form of inductive reasoning, in which one looks at specific examples and makes inferences about the whole
argument from generalization
cautions: may be restricted in nature, arguing from some to more; when making universalisms, make sure the sample is adequate
argument from Generalization
involve reasoning on the basis of two or more similar events or cases; when we have all the particulars of a given case and we reason from it, comparing the known case to the unknown
argument from parallel case
cautions: how are the cited cases similar? are the similarities key factors:
argument from parallel case
assume some fundamental sameness exists between the characteristics of dissimilar cases;
argument from analogy
cautions: considered weakest form of argument! cases must be sufficiently similar in function in all important ways; the dissimilarities must not be so great as to overshadow the similarities
argument from analogy
relies on the credibility and expertise of the source
argument from authority
cautions: qualifications of the source; is the context in which the opinion made that of the expert's? Is the source unbiased? does the statement reflect the majority or minority view? is there a reliable factual basis on which the source's statement rests?
argument from authority
forces a choice between two unacceptable alternatives
argument from dilemma
Jumping to a conclusion- squeezing more out of an argument than is warranted
Hasty Generalization
extend reasoning beyond what is logically possible
Transfer
when a claim asserts that what is true of the part is true of the whole
fallacy of composition
arguing that what is true of the whole is true of the part
fallacy of division
bring up an argument that was never made (by opponent) just to tear it down or restate a strong argument (by opponent) in a way that makes it appear weaker
straw man/fallacy of refutation
one that does not seem pertinent in terms of the claim it advances or the proof it offers
non-sequiturs/irrelevant arguments
supports the claims with reasons identical to the claim itself
begging the question/circular reasoning
shifts attention away from the issue at hand
avoiding the issue
changing the subject or bypassing a critical issue
simple evasion
shifts the attention to the arguer's personality or appearance or ability to reason
ad hominem argument
arguer abandons her or his original position on a particular argument and adopts a new one
shifting ground
locate and magnify another's weak or indefensible argument
seizing on a trivial point
oversimplified, yes or no, choice
forcing a dichotomy/false dilemma
Ask the audience to accept the truth of a claim because no proof to the contrary exists
ad ignoratium argument/appeal to ignorance
because it is popular it is right - appeals to prejudice and feelings and not the issues
ad populum argument - because it is popular it is right
acceptable if used in moderation and in combination with sound reasoning
appeal to emotion
when used as only basis on which an alteration of belief or behavior is justified
pity or fear
when authority lacks expertise, is characterized as infallible, and is used to cut off consideration of issue
appeal to authority
ask audience to accept something because it is customary rather than because of the reasons that justify it
appeal to tradition
when used to entertain instead of enlighten; when humor is used to take a claim to its most extreme and therefore absurd meaning
appeal to humor/reductio ad absurdum
when a term is used differently by both parties
ambiguity
words have multiple, legitimate meanings
equivocation
language that arouses emotional response
emotionally loaded language
Becomes problematic when listeners lose sight of issues or when it is used in place of reasoning on the issues
technical jargon
focuses on one or more units of argument that call the audience's attention to the results of what has happened, is happening, or will happen
prima facie case - effect
importance
prima facie case - significance
why the state of affairs is the way it is, and therefore needs remedying
prima facie case - inherency
arguments that respond to the probable objections the opponent will make before she or he has had a chance to make them
preemptive arguments
determine whether to accept the advocate's primary inference as topical or as unnecessarily restricted; use presumption to dispute
evaluating primary inference
opponent argues that the advocate's is not consciously using distortion or deception but, the argument is indeed fallacious
refuting the argument - denial
opponent argues that the relationship inferred by the advocate is based on a limited understanding of the circumstances surrounding the facts and a more complete understanding would lead to a different inference
refuting the argument - extenuation
is there a reason for change in the manner suggested by the policy proposition? does the proposed policy resolve the reason for change? What are the consequences of the proposed policty
stock issues of policy propositions
establish strategy, examine definitions, refute the reason for change, challenge inherency, refute consequences of change, offer a counter proposal
opposing propositions of policy
By what value hierarchy is the object of the proposition best evaluated? By what criteria is the object best evaluated? Does effect, significance, and inherency of the object show that it conforms to the criteria?
Stock issues - propositions of value
Refute the measurement, challenge the criteria, consider the advocate's value hierarchy, is it the most appropriate? has the object been properly defined?
Examining definitions of hierarchy
organized pieces of evidence, along with explanation and citation, into a list of the strongest to the weakest
brief
Claim- Congress needs to vote to approve the bailout plan today.

I. Main contention one (worded as a complete, declarative sentence) Our economy is in recession.
A. Sub-contention one (worded as a complete, declarative sentence) The subprime
mortgage rates are killing lenders.
1. Evidence to support sub-claim one paraphrased in complete sentences
complete MLA citation for evidence
brief format