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;
125 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
Evidence
|
supporting material known or discovered but not created by the advocate
|
|
|
Forms of Evidence
|
Facts
Examples (Hypothetical/Literal) Testimony |
|
|
Tests of Evidence (6)
|
Source Credibility
Source Bias Recency Internal Consistency (contradiction?) Completeness Corroboration (external consistency) |
|
|
Hierarchy of Evidence
|
Consensus of empirical studies
Empirical evidence/consensus of expert opinion Expert opinion/consensus of lay opinion Lay opinion Judicial notice of common knowledge Assertion |
|
|
Debate
|
Process of inquiry and advocacy
|
|
|
Double Bind
|
how do we debate if we don't know things but how do we know things unless we debate
|
|
|
Why debate?
|
Life skills, Argument training, decision making method
|
|
|
Tips to being a good debater
|
Critical thinking
Questioning Understanding Persuasion Strategy |
|
|
Critical thinking
|
the active application of principles of reasoning to your own ideas and those of others
|
|
|
Types of Debate (3)
|
Propositions of Fact - states that something is factually true, was factually true, or will be factually true
Propositions of Value - argues in favor of a positive or negative evaluation about something Propositions of Policy - argues in favor of a particular course of action. |
|
|
what type of debate are we focusing on in this course?
|
Policy Debate
|
|
|
Rules for phrasing policy resolutions (5)
|
Must indicate a change from the status quo
Must indicate the nature and or direction of change Must focus on one central theme/policy change Must be phrased using neutral terms Must indicate an agent of change |
|
|
Format of Policy Debate
|
Two sides: Affirmative and Negative
Constructive speeches (8 min) Rebuttal speeches (4 min) Cross-exam (2 min) |
|
|
Order of Speeches
|
1st Affirmative
1st Negative 2nd Affirmative 2nd Negative 1st Negative Rebuttal 1st Affirmative Rebuttal 2nd Negative Rebuttal 2nd Affirmative Rebuttal Cross Exam after each constructive No Cross Exam after rebuttals |
|
|
who has burden of proof?
|
affirmative
|
|
|
who has the presumption?
|
negative
|
|
|
Stock issues of Debate
|
resolution focuses on questions of should not questions of would
need to imagine a hypothetical world in which resolution would occur |
|
|
Risk =
|
probability X impact
|
|
|
Fiat Power
|
avoids questions of would and instead focuses on questions of should
|
|
|
Affirmative is trying to prove...
Negative is trying to prove... |
affirmative is trying to prove the advantages of adopting a policy outweigh the disadvantages
negative is trying to prove the disadvantages of that policy outweigh the advantages |
|
|
5 stock issues of debate
|
Inherency
Harms Significance Solvency Topicality |
|
|
Inherency
|
description of the status quo, where the affirmative proves there is a barrier to their proposed course of action
ex. bush has no interest in joining the ICC |
|
|
Harms
|
there is a harm to continuing with the status quo and not enacting the policy
ex. not ratifying the ICC alienates the critical allies |
|
|
Significance
|
there is a significant impact to the harms resulting form the status quo
Ex. alienating allies prevents critical cooperation on the war on terrorism |
|
|
Solvency
|
the explanation of why the plan solves the harms outlined
ex. joining the ICC would appease our allies and create goodwill |
|
|
Topicality
|
the affirmative must prove their plan is an example of the resolution
ex. the topic is about the ICC, the affirmative is about spaying and neutering dogs |
|
|
*****
|
Significance, harms, inherency, topicality, solvency
|
|
|
when the affirmative has met the stock issues they have presented a...
|
prima facie case
|
|
|
when the affirmative has presented a prima facie case, the negative is said to have the...
|
Burden of Rejoinder
|
|
|
ways negative can attack the affirmative
|
attack the stock issues
present disadvantages to the plan present a counter plan |
|
|
date nations voted to establish ICC
how many nations? |
July 17, 1998
120 nations |
|
|
the ICC was modeled after the...
|
Nuremburg Trials
|
|
|
the court would not be created until...
|
60 days after 60 nations ratified the treaty
|
|
|
date that the 60th instrument of ratification was deposited - 10 countries simultaneously submitted
|
April 11, 2002
|
|
|
Statue entered force on...
|
July 1, 2002
|
|
|
the court is not retroactive which means...
|
it does not have jurisdiction over anything that happened before July 1, 2002
|
|
|
By October 1, 2008 ___ nations will be state parties to the ICC
|
108
|
|
|
5 major nations that have not ratified
|
Russia, China, India, Israel, and the United States
|
|
|
the seat of the court is in
|
Hague, Netherlands
|
|
|
how many judges are on the ICC
|
18
|
|
|
The president of the ICC is...
from? accounts for? |
Philippe Kirch from Canada
accounts for proper administration of the court |
|
|
the Chief Prosecutor is...
from? does what? |
Luis Moreno-Ocampo from Argentina
conducts investigations and prosecutions |
|
|
3 crimes it can punish
|
crimes of genocide
crimes against humanity war crimes |
|
|
Genocide (ICC definition)
|
the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group
|
|
|
crime of aggression
|
review conference will be held in 2009 to further define this term
can also prosecute crimes of aggression |
|
|
court can exercise jurisdiction in these three circumstances
|
the person accused is a national of a state party
the crime was committed on the territory of a state party situation is referred to the ICC by the UNSC |
|
|
three ways court can exercise jurisdiction
|
referred to the prosecutor by a state party
referred to the prosecutor by the UNSC prosecutor can initiate his own investigations but must go through pre-trial chamber of 3 judges |
|
|
Complementarity
|
the ICC will not replace national courts but will complement them
court will only investigate if a state is unwilling or unable to prosecute or if the court determines that a trial were used to shield a ciminal from the court |
|
|
first case brought before ICC
|
Uganda
referred: Dec 2003 |
|
|
first defendant to go to trial
|
Congolese warlord Thomas Lubanga Dyilo
|
|
|
the first head of state to be indicted by the ICC
|
Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir
|
|
|
for the US to ratify it would have to get....
|
2/3 of the senate to vote in favor of it
|
|
|
the US unsigned the Rome Statute on...
|
May 6, 2002
|
|
|
Article 98 Agreements
|
us withdrew military assistance to 35 states who were parties in the Rome Statute unless they signed a Bilateral Immunity Agreement with the US
|
|
|
Nethercutt Amendment
|
cut off Economic Support Fund aid which provided counter-terrorism funds, HIV/AIDS education, ect
|
|
|
in 2002 the US threatened to block several peacekeeping operations unless...
|
the UN agreed to exempt the US from ICC jurisdiction
|
|
|
ASPA
|
American Service members' Protection Act
prohibits military aid to countries who have ratified the ICC (some exceptions) authorizes military force to retrieve US and allied national form teh custody of the court conditioned US support of UN peacekeeping missions |
|
|
nickname of ASPA
|
"Hague Invasion Act"
|
|
|
Dodd Amendment
|
amendment to ASPA that allows the US to work with the ICC over the prosecution of foreign nationals
|
|
|
Advantages to US ratifications of the court
|
Legitimacy
Double standard Military muscle Prosecutorial skills Funding |
|
|
Soft Power
|
ability to influence countries through persuasion, cultural, economic factors
|
|
|
Hard Power
|
ability to influence countries through coercion, military, economic factors
|
|
|
criticisms of US not ratifying
|
universal support
double standard bullying US ideals on human justice sovereignty |
|
|
Disadvantages to US ratification
|
military power
prevents deployment/actions, chilling effect on US soldiers constitutionality violates several articles in constitution |
|
|
Toulmin Model
UNC Example |
qualifier
probably data claim beat unc----------------------------BC = good | | backing-------------------warrant--------------------rebuttal unc top ranked beat unc = good lose harvard |
|
|
Toulmin Model
Russia Nuclear Test Ban |
qualifier
probably data | claim russia violate----------------------------------violate nuke test ban 50 out of 52 | | backing----------------------------warrant--------------------rebuttal other russian actions past action kept two studies-other countries = likely future not same russia |
|
|
6 Parts of the Toulmin Model
|
data: the evidence, facts or reasoing to support a claim
claim - the statement that the advocate hopes to establish warrant - the mental reasoning used by the arguer which permits him/her to move from the data to the claim backing - sup[port that helps to strengthen the warrant rebuttal - the exception to the warrant. The condition when the warrant is not true qualifier - the degree of certainty attached to the claim |
|
|
Morality vs. Ethics
|
Morality: concern with the distinction between good and evil or right and wrong; right or good conduct
Ethics: major branch of philosophy, encompassing right conduct and good life. It is significantly broader than the common conception of analyzing right and wrong. |
|
|
Kant's Ideology
|
Deontology
Categorical imperatives: principles that are intrinsically valid; they are good in and of themselves; they must be obeyed in all situations and circumstances if our behavior is to observe the moral law. |
|
|
Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill's Ideology
|
Utilitarianism
Greatest good for the greatest number Tries to maximize utility/happiness Act Utilitarianism: look at the likely consequences of an act We don’t like you we are going to kill you Rule Utilitarianism: If adherence to the rule produces more happiness than otherwise, it is a rule that morally must be followed at all times We shouldn’t kill people because it doesn’t maximize utility but we should look at every circumstance it may be okay in self-defense |
|
|
Arguers as Rapist/Abuser
|
view co-arguer as someone to be dominated, use force, bullying, fabrication, yell, cheat, ect. the arguer sees the co-arguer as an enemy to be conquered and tries to win the argument through force, intimidation, fabrication, monopoly of communication channels , or other unfair advantages
|
|
|
Arguer as Seducer
|
try to manipulate co-arguer into agreeing with use, misuse information, withholding information, misusing language, gains assent through means other than clear, sound argumentation.
|
|
|
Arguer as Lover
|
the arguer sees the co-arguer as someone deserving of respect and attempts to argue in an honest and open a way, only lovers can influence the growth of the arguers, arguing as a lover is risky
|
|
|
inherency (ICC)
|
despite the icc being in existence, the us has no intention of joining the court anytime soon
|
|
|
Harms/Significance
(2 advantages for ICC) |
international credibility
preventing genocide |
|
|
Solvency
(ICC) |
ratifying the icc would restore goodwill with the allies
(credibility) ratifying the icc increases effectivenes of prosecuting criminals (deterrence) |
|
|
what is a brief?
|
an organized collection of evidence defending a particular argument
each brief should represent a different argument |
|
|
why brief evidence?
|
method of organizing your evidence into usable form
easier to respond to arguments if you're prepared |
|
|
affirmative obligation
|
extension briefs to defend all of the stock issues
1AR briefs to answers negative DAs |
|
|
negative obligation
(1NC and 2NC) |
1NC briefs - be prepared to attack the stock issues
2NC briefs - be prepared to initiate DAs |
|
|
1nc attacks the...
|
stock issues of the affirmative
|
|
|
DAs
|
negative argument that proves that doing the affirmative will result in undesirable consequences
|
|
|
burdens of the DA
|
A. uniqueness - prove the bad consequences won't happen in the SQ
B. link - prove the plan results in a negative action C. internal link - connects the plan to the impacts D. impacts - how bad the consequence is |
|
|
counterplans
|
negative alternative policy option that provides another way to solve the affirmative harms
|
|
|
because the negative has the burden of rejoinder they have the burden to prove...
|
that the affirmative is a bad idea
|
|
|
characteristics of critical thinking (5)
|
1. not passive or automatic - active, involved
2. deal with ideas; beliefs 3. focuses on reasoning and arguments 4. involves making judgments 5. need certain skills |
|
|
two types of argumentation
|
implicit or explicit
|
|
|
sound arguments meet 3 criteria
|
1. the premises of argument must be true (ie the data must be valid)
2. the conclusion logically follows from the premises 3. reasoning of the argument avoids logical fallacies |
|
|
The neg can attack the affirmative in 3 ways
|
1. attack the stock issues
2. present DAs to the plan 3. present a counterplan |
|
|
rhetoric
|
the faculty of observing in any given case the available means of persuasion
|
|
|
persuasion
|
to move by argument a belief, position, or course of action
persuasion is a sort of demonstration - we must demonstrate our arguments |
|
|
enthymeme
(rhetorical syllogisms) |
an argument that is missing at least one part of the syllogism, comes to a probable conclusion, or both
leaving out the warrant or something else and letting the audience fill it in |
|
|
syllogism
|
a deductive argument that includes a major premise, minor premise, and conclusion and which comes to and absolutely certain conclusion that is the inevitable result of accepting the premises
deductive reasoning all humans are mortal (major, general) socrates is a human being (minor, specific) therefore: socrates is mortal |
|
|
strong arguments have two characteristics
|
use the best evidence and reasoning possible
logically valid |
|
|
categorical syllogism
|
the most common type
need a middle term to connect the premises all humans are mortal (major premise) socrates is human (minor premise - more specific) socrates is mortal (conclusion) middle term: human |
|
|
logical validity
|
an argument that is properly structured, in which all of the logical components fit together correctly
|
|
|
materially true argument
|
an argument that reaches a truthful conclusion or uses premises that are true, as much as "truth" can be determined
|
|
|
difference between material truth and logical validity
|
Logical Validity: an argument that is properly structured, in which all of the logical components fit together correctly
Material Truth: an argument that reaches a truthful conclusion or uses premises that are true, as much as "truth" can be determined |
|
|
disjunctive syllogism
|
either a or b
i choose a therefore, i do not choose b ex: we must either raise taxes or reduce services we will raise taxes therefore, we wont' reduce services |
|
|
hypothetical syllogism
(conditional syllogism) |
if a then b
a, therefore, b a=antecedent (the if) b=consequent (the then) ex: if it rains today, then we won't go to the beach it's raining today therefore, we won't go to the beach |
|
|
contrapositive syllogism
|
reverse and negate the statement
conditional statement: if a, then b contrapositive: if -b, then -a every other way is wrong contrapostive: if it rains today, then we won't go to the beach we went to the beach therefore, it did not rain |
|
|
affirming the consequent
|
if it rains today, then we won't go to the beach
we didn't go the beach therefore, it rained today NOT RIGHT affirming the consequent = logical fallacy if a, then b b therefore, a the consequent can exist without the antecedent if a then b does not equal if b then a |
|
|
denying the antecedent
|
logical fallacy
if it rains today, we won't go to the beach it did not rain today therefore, we went to the beach if a, then b -a concl: -b logical fallacy the consequent does not depend on the antecedent |
|
|
deductive reasoning
|
reasoning for the general to the specific
the conclusion follows the logical necessity from the premises if the premises are true then the conclusion must be true |
|
|
inductive reasoning
|
reasoning from the specific to the general
premise provide some evidence for the truth of the conclusion inferential leap from looking at the data - the conclusions are probable |
|
|
Reasoning by example
|
form of inductive reasoning
ex: you take one history class and assume all history classes will be interesting; stereotypes -example must be relevant -must be a reasonable number of examples -contradictory examples must be unimportant |
|
|
Reasoning by analogy
|
reasoning that makes a comparison between two similar cases and infers that what is known about one is true of the other
form of inductive reasoning ex: iraq and vietnam war; keeping a car running well is like keeping yourself healthy-regular checkups literal and figurative analogies |
|
|
literal analogies
|
analogy that compares cases within the same classification
ex: policies that work in LA will work in San Fran |
|
|
figurative analogies
|
an analogy that compares cases of different classifications
ex: your mind is like an egg (drug commercial) |
|
|
causal reasoning
|
reasoning that argues that one thing or event causes another thing or event to happen can be inductive or deductive, depending has a lot to do with policy analysis
ex: if you make me mad, then you will get a bad grade correlation does not equal causation the more firefighters fighting a fire, the more damage there is going to be, therefore firefighters cause damage |
|
|
sign reasoning
|
reasoning that argues that two variables are so strongly related to each other that the presence or absence of one may be taken as indication of presence or absence of another
form of inductive reasoning ex: swollen stomach, nausea and diarrhea are all signs of food poisoning |
|
|
fallacies
|
an often plausible argument using false or invalid inference
a fallacious argument is NOT a valid argument |
|
|
non sequitor (it does not follow)
|
an argument where its conclusion does not follow from its premises
ex: if i buy this cell phone, all ppl will love me |
|
|
abusive ad hominem
|
consists in attacking one's opponent in a personal or abusive way rather than responding to the claim or argument
ex: bush's for policy is failing in iraq. the prez is a moron from texas and rice spends more time shopping than conducting diplomacy |
|
|
equivocation
|
changing the meaning of a word or phrase from one part of the argument to another
ex: knowledge is power power corrupts absolutely knowledge corrupts absolutely |
|
|
begging the question
|
fallacy in which the premises includethe claim that the conclusion is true or (directly or indirectly) assume that the conclusion is true
also known as circular reasoning ex: the belief in God is universal. after all, everyone believes in God |
|
|
post hoc, ergo proper hoc (after that, therefore, because of that)
|
consists in falsely attributing a causal relationship where none exists
ex: assumes that B is caused by A, because B follows A in time |
|
|
straw person
|
falsely asserting that an opponent made an argument that is easy to defeat, defeating it, and acting as though that does significant damage to that person's argument
ex: to prevent global warming, Al Gore says we need to ban automobiles and ratify the Kyoto global warming treaty which bans CO2 emissions |
|
|
hasty generalization
|
consists in making an unwarranted leap from insufficient or unrepresentative data to a broader, general conclusion
ex: when you think of what some ppl have accomplished without a college education, you must admit it's a waste of time for anyone to spend four years there |
|
|
appeal to ignorance
|
arguing a claim must be true b/c there is no evidence that it is false
ex: you can't prove god doesn't exist, so god exists ex: you can't prove god does exist, so god doesn't exist |
|
|
bandwagon fallacy
|
argument based upon the appeal to the masses. because everybody thinks something is true, it must be true
ex: increasingly, ppl are coming to believe that eastern religions help us to get in touch with our true inner beings. therefore, eastern religions help us get in touch with our true inner beings |
|
|
appeal to authority
|
arguing that a claim is true based on evidence that an authority figure accepts the claim
ex: the red sox are the best baseball team b/c peter gammons says so |
|
|
confusion of a necessary with a sufficient condition
|
consists in assuming that a necessary condition of an event is also a sufficient one
ex: my prof told me that in order to get an A on my problem solution speech, I needed to cite at least 4 sources in my speech. I can't figure out why i didn't get an A, b/c I cited 4 different sources |
|
|
slippery slope
|
falsely assumes that one course of action will inevitably lead to some other course of action. one step will inevitably lead to an avalanche of other steps down the same path
ex: if the SC uphold the federal ban on partial birth abortions, then it is inevitable that women will completely lose their freedom to have any abortions |
|
|
red herring
|
fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue
|
