Reading...
Play button
Play button
Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
74 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
hasty generalizations
|
applying one common feature to all
|
|
|
ad populum
|
bandwagon
|
|
|
ad hoc (ergo prompter hoc)
|
events that occur near one another don't necessarily relate
|
|
|
ad homenem
|
personal attack
|
|
|
either/or
|
insisting that only two choices are available, or that there are only two ways to solve a problem
|
|
|
red herring
|
attempt to cloud an issue
|
|
|
appeal to misplaced authority
|
believing someone just because they are well known
|
|
|
non sequitor
|
non-response, question doesn't get answered, a response that does not follow
|
|
|
persuasion
|
communication intended to influence attitudes, actions, beliefs and values of others
|
|
|
propaganda
|
sustained, organized persuasion campaign, usually carried out by closely knit groups, using multiple media to influence mass audiences
|
|
|
coercion
|
threat or use of force
|
|
|
Affirmative case
|
Sig/harms
inherency plan solvency advantages |
|
|
plan planks
|
admin
mandates enforcement funding intent |
|
|
negative case - sig/harms
|
minimizing harms --> minimizes solvency
|
|
|
negative case - inherency
|
usually granted to set up disadvantages, but if no inherency, then no need for plan
|
|
|
negative case - disadvantages
|
link - what the aff plan calls for
brink - existing problem that will be exacerbated impact - bad things that will happen if the plan is implemented |
|
|
enthymeme
|
debate style that leaves conclusion to audience
|
|
|
neg case - topicality
|
definitions
violations of definitions standards (fairness, bright line) rules - a'priori issue, aff plan MUST be topical |
|
|
counterplan
|
grants harms
better way to solve generally NONtopical competitive and mutually exclusive with aff plan net benefits without aff disads |
|
|
burden of proof
|
rest on aff
must establish prima fascie case stock issues - harms, inherency, plan, solvency, ads |
|
|
burden of refutation/rebuttal
|
rests on neg to respond to aff case
|
|
|
presumption
|
favors negative, assumes that all else being equal, staying with the status quo is less risky
|
|
|
Four functions of rhetoric
|
prevents triumph of fraud and injustice
method of public instruction presents both sides of a case means of defense |
|
|
things to consider in phrasing the proposition
|
controversy is an essential prerequisite
more than one central idea can cause confusion must be stated in unemotional terms should represent a statement of the affirmative desires |
|
|
Four Debate proposition types
|
propositions of fact - true or false
propositions of value - moral or immoral, good or bad propositions of policy - should or would quasi-policy - a value judgment about a policy |
|
|
Methods of defining terms
|
offer an example of what the term refers to
common usage authority, such as a dictionary operation - explain the function of the term negation - talk about what the term does not mean comparison and contrast talk about where the term derives from combination of the above |
|
|
Criteria for a satisfactory definition
|
officially stipulated for the resolution
grammatically correct derived from the appropriate field based on common usage consistent with the policy- or value-maker's usage meets the original understanding of the proposition's framers provides a clear distinction between what fits the definition and what is excluded |
|
|
Types of issues in a debate
|
potential issues - all possible answers to stock issues questions
admitted issues - issues one side concedes or does not challenge debate issues - issues actually introduced ultimate (voting) issue arises when there is only one issue in dispute contentions - statements offered in support of an issue |
|
|
Stock issues on propositions of value
|
definitive issues
what are the definitions of key terms what are the criteria for the values designative issues do the facts correspond to the definitions what are the applications of the values |
|
|
Stock issues on propostions of policy
|
Harm
does a compelling problem exist is the problem quantitatively and qualitatively important Inherency are the causes of the problem built into the status quo is the problem likely to continue without significant policy action Solvency is there a workable plan of action does the plan solve the problem does the plan have advantages do the advantages outweigh the disads |
|
|
Locating references
|
who is concerned with the proposition
who is interested in adoption of the proposition who is interested in preventing the proposition |
|
|
Judicial notice of evidence
|
evidence must be introduced
must be well-known may be refuted *absence of evidence is not evidence of absence |
|
|
Tests of credible evidence (6 C's, 3 R's, 2 S's, 1 U, 1 V)
|
clear
consistent internally consistent with other evidence competent cumulative critical recent relevant reliable statistically sound sufficient unprejudiced verifiable |
|
|
Tests for statistically sound evidence
|
accurate collection
accurate classification accurate sampling accurately defined units significant data reasonable percentage base fair visual materials claims only reasonable precision reasonable interpretation unbiased questions stats meaningful to the audience |
|
|
Testing audience acceptance
|
consistent with audience beliefs
source of evidence acceptable suited to audience level consistent with audience motives consistent with norms of audience documented for audience |
|
|
psycho-facts
|
beliefs not supported by evidence but are taken as real because of constant repetition
|
|
|
syllogism
|
classical arrangement of arguments
|
|
|
syllogism outline
|
major premise - all As are Bs
minor premise - C is an A conclusion - Therefore, C is a B |
|
|
Syllogism types
|
conditional
categorical disjunctive enthymeme |
|
|
categorical syllogism
|
must have exactly three terms
every term must be used exactly twice terms are used only once in a premise middle term must be used at least once in a universal sense terms in the conclusion must have been used in the premises at least one of the premises must be affirmative if one premise is negative, than the conclusion must be negative |
|
|
disjunctive syllogism
|
major premise must include all possible alternatives
alternatives must be mutually exclusive minor premise must affirm or contradict one of the major premise alternatives |
|
|
conditional syllogism
|
minor premise must affirm antecedent or deny the consequent, or no valid conclusion
|
|
|
Toulmin's elements of arguments
|
claims - usually the resolution
grounds - evidence and reasoning that establish the foundation for the claim warrants - evidence and reasoning that justify the move from the evidence to the claim backing - additional evidence and reasoning that support the warrant modal qualification - degree of cogency attached to claim possible rebuttals - elements that may impede movement of the argument |
|
|
General tests of reasoning
|
are the grounds solid
does the warrant justify the claim is backing adequate has the rebuttal been properly evaluated has the degree of cogency been properly determined |
|
|
types of reasoning
|
reasoning by example
reasoning by analogy causal reasoning reasoning by sign |
|
|
tests of example reasoning
|
are they relevant
are there enough do they cover a critical time period are they typical are the negative examples noncritical |
|
|
tests of causal reasoning
|
alleged cause relevant to the effect
only or distinguishing causal factor probable that no undesired effect will result no counteracting cause cause capable of producing effect cause necessary and sufficient affects of a new cause |
|
|
reasoning by analogy
|
making a comparison between two cases and inferring that what is true in one case will be true in another
|
|
|
causal reasoning
|
inferring that a certain factor is a force that produces something else
|
|
|
degree of cogency
|
extent to which an argument is both sound and compelling because it is founded in fact, logic or rationality
|
|
|
reasoning by example
|
inferring conclusions from specific cases
|
|
|
reasoning by sign
|
inferring relationships or correlations between two variables
|
|
|
tests of analogy reasoning
|
significant points of similarity
points of similarity critical to comparison points of difference noncritical reasoning cumulative only literal analogies used for logical proof |
|
|
tests of reasoning by sign
|
substance relevant to attribute
relationship between substance and attribute inherent no counterfactors to disrupt relationship sign reasoning cumulative |
|
|
arguing in a circle
|
assuming as a premise for the argument the very conclusion one is trying to prove
|
|
|
post hoc
|
assuming a causal relationship without proof
|
|
|
pseudoargument
|
fallacy created by distortion, confusion, manipulation, or avoidance of matters at issue or by substitution of matters unimportant to issue
|
|
|
special pleading
|
urging an exception to accepted lines of reasoning
|
|
|
straw argument
|
setting up an issue for the purpose of knocking it down
|
|
|
verbalism
|
abundant use of words without conveying meaning
|
|
|
fallacies of evidence
|
evidence omitted
unsupported assertions |
|
|
irrelevancy
|
carries an argument beyond its reasonable limits
|
|
|
prima facie case
|
provides sufficient good reason for adopting a proposition, must provide effective issue statements to answer each of the stock issue questions
|
|
|
What are requirements of a value case
|
Definition
Criterion for each value term provide application establish what is intrinsic to the term significance |
|
|
What are some types of inherency
|
structural (barrier or gap)
attitudinal existential (because the problem exists, the sq must be incapable of solving) |
|
|
Comparative advantages affirmative
|
identify goals of status quo
integrate plan with goals provide direct advantages of plan prove advantages are comparative |
|
|
Effective structure for attacking topicality
|
Definition(s)
Violation(s) Reasons to prefer Impact (voting issue) |
|
|
Justifications for attacking goals or criteria
|
Goals/Criteria incompletely identified
Other goals/criteria more important and incompatible |
|
|
case turn
|
argument that a harm is actually a benefit
|
|
|
Ways to prove disadvantages
|
Slippery slope
Provide generic disadvantages Link - Brink - Impact |
|
|
Structure of refutation
|
reference to argument to be attacked
response support explanation impact - how it weakens the opponents case or strengthens your own |
|
|
Methods of refutation
|
evidence - theirs is invalid or irrelevant, or that yours is contradictory and better
reasoning fallacies |
|
|
Style Factors in speech composition
|
Conciseness
Clarity Appropriate vocabulary Simple structure Concreteness Imagery Connotation Climax |
|
|
Rhetorical Factors in Speech composition
|
Coherence - order, transition
Unity - of purpose, of mood Emphasis - position, time, repetition, headlining, perspective Editing |
