Policy Debate Intro

Three Key Parts

• Equity– Both teams are given an equal amount of time

• Rules• Topic

– Changes yearly

Equity and Debate

• The role of debate is to maintain equity in debate so that both teams have the ability to win– In actuality, the split is about 45% Aff and 55% Neg

• Maintained through “Switch Side” debate– Requires students to debate both sides of an issue

• Socratic Method

Equity through “Fiat”

• Fiat is Latin for the phrase “let it be done.”

• Often describes as a “magic wand” that allows the passage of the plan.

• Should v. Would—Fiat allows the focus of the debate on should the affirmative plan pass and not would the affirmative plan pass.

Equity thru structure• Constructive Speeches

– 1AC: 8 Minutes• Cross-Examined by 2NC: 3 Minutes

– 1NC: 8 Minutes• Cross-Examined by 1AC: 3 Minutes

– 2AC: 8 Minutes• Cross-Examined by 1NC: 3 Minutes

– 2NC: 8 Minutes• Cross-Examined by 2AC: 3 Minutes

• Rebuttal Speeches– 1NR: 5 Minutes– 1AR: 5 Minutes– 2NR: 5 Minutes– 2AR: 5 Minutes

Rules

• There are several norms in debate that shape the way that these debates go down

• Basic Rules– Debaters cannot speak beyond speech times

Rules through Stock Issues

• Topicality: Is it germane?

• Harm: Is there a problem?

• Inherency: What is causing the problem?

• Solvency: Can the problem be solved?

• Disadvantage: Will the solution create more serious problems than the ones it resolves?

The Aff is stuck with SHIT:

• All affirmatives must meet 4 prima facie burdens to win the debate

• Topicality• Inherency• Harms • Solvency

Constructive Speaker Burdens

• 1AC: Present a “Prima Facie” Case– Harm, Inherency, Solvency, Plan

• 1NC: Present the Negative Attack– Traditionally attacked the 1AC– More recently: Topicality, Disads, Case

• 2AC: Re-Defends Against 1NC– Follows 1NC point-by-point

• 2NC: Answer 2AC positions– Divide positions with the 1NR (division of

labor)

Rebuttal Speaker Burdens

• No new arguments in rebuttal (new evidence OK)

• 1NR: Answer remaining 2AC arguments

• 1AR: Answer all 2NC & 1NR arguments

• 2NR: Extend winning negative arguments

• 2AR: Answer all remaining negative arguments & claim all affirmative positions that are no longer contested

Cross Examination

• The speaker completing the constructive speech remains at the podium for questions

• Both questioner and respondent face the judge

• The questioner controls the cross examination period

• What to ask?– Set up arguments for later speeches– Use all of your time (it’s prep time for your

partner)

Cross Examination Debate

Cross Examination Debate (also called policy debate or team debate). Two teams (two students each ), one representing the affirmative

position and one representing the negative position, will debate topics of public or government policy.

Each person on the team speaks twice Examples:

Resolved, that chain stores are detrimental to the best interests of the American public (1931)

Resolved, that all electric utilities should be governmentally owned and operated (1937)

Resolved, that the federal government should own and operate the railroads (1940)

Resolved, that a federal world government should be established (1943). Typically, all public and private schools will debate the same topic all

year long (some public school debate organization picks a new topic each year).

Structure of debate

• Constructive Speeches – 1AC: 8 Minutes– 1NC: 8 Minutes– 2AC: 8 Minutes– 2NC: 8 Minutes

• Rebuttal Speeches– 1NR: 5 Minutes– 1AR: 5 Minutes– 2NR: 5 Minutes– 2AR: 5 Minutes

Means of Persuasion

Ethos

Pathos Logos

The Earliest Teachers of Rhetoric

• Rhetoric began in Ancient Greece: the world’s first “democracy”

• Corax – Credited with the invention of rhetoric– Doctrine of general probability

The Earliest Teachers of Debate

• Aristotle—wrote The Rhetoric– Rhetoric: The study of the available means of

persuasion– 3 modes of proof

• Ethos• Pathos • Logos

– 3 persuasive situations• Deliberative• Epidictic• Forensic

• Capital T truth - objective• Lower case t truth – subjective

Credibility (Ethos)

The audience's perception of whether a speaker is qualified to speak on a given topic.

Factors of Credibility(Aristotle)

Competence• How an audience regards a speaker’s:

– intelligence– expertise or knowledge of the subject– delivery

• Character • How an audience regards a speaker’s:

– sincerity– trustworthiness

• Goodwill– concern for the well-being of the audience

Credibility is an audience perception

Phases of Credibility• Initial: The credibility of a speaker before she or he

starts to speak.

• Derived: The credibility of a speaker produced by everything she or he says and does during the speech.

• Terminal: The credibility of a speaker at the end of the speech.

Tips for Enhancing Credibility• Be prepared• Know what you’re talking about• Provide credible evidence• Explain your competence before your message• Establish common ground and trust with

your audience and demonstrate civic-mindedness• Adopt appropriate language• Express a sense of caring for the topic and audience• Deliver your speeches fluently, expressively, and with

conviction

Emotional Appeals(Pathos)

Appeals that are intended to make listeners feel sad, angry, guilty, afraid, happy, proud, sympathetic, reverent, etc.

Why In the world would you want to do this?

The Path to Pathos

• Can’t just ask the audience to feel pity or anger!!

• First, ask “What EMOTION do I want the audience to feel?

• Then, “What is the OBJECT necessary to invoke that emotion?”

Path to Pathos

TOPIC• War speech

• Donate to charity

EMOTION• Anger

• Pity and guilt

OBJECT• Other country

• “Pablo”

Using Emotional Appeal Ethically

• Make sure emotional appeal is appropriate to the speech topic

• Do NOT substitute emotional appeal for evidence and reasoning

Tips for Generating Emotional Appeal

• Develop vivid examples (the power of ONE)• Use emotional language• Reinforce by speaking with sincerity and

conviction

Essence of Pathos

• Closing argument to “A Time to Kill”

Logos

• Aristotle’s name for logical appeals

• Evidence & reasoning

Evidence

Supporting materials used to prove or disprove something

Evidence

• Use specific evidence

• Use novel evidence

• Use credible evidence

• Make clear point of evidence

Reasoning

Drawing conclusion based on evidence

Types of Reasoning

• Specific instances

• Principle

• Causal

• Analogical

Specific Instances

Particular facts to general conclusion

Minor Premise 1 + Minor Premise 2 = Conclusion

Specific Instances

“My P.E. course last term was easy. My roommate’s P.E. course was easy. My brother’s P.E. course was easy. Therefore, P.E. courses are easy.”

Specific Instances

• Avoid hasty generalizations

• Qualify argument when necessary

• Reinforce argument with statistics, testimony

Reasoning from Principle

General principle to specific conclusion

Major Premise + Minor Premise = Conclusion

Reasoning from Principle

Major Premise:

All people are mortal.

Minor Premise:

Socrates is a person.

Conclusion: Therefore, Socrates is mortal.

Reasoning from Principle

• Use major premise listeners will accept

• Provide evidence for minor premise

Causal Reasoning

Establishes relationship between causes & effects

Cause + Effect = Conclusion

Causal Reasoning

“Because that patch of ice was there, I fell and broke my arm.”

Analogical Reasoning

• Comparing two similar cases

• What is true for first case is also true for second

• Cases must be essentially alike• Minor Premise 1 + Minor Premise 2

• = • Minor Premise 3 + Minor Premise 4

Analogical Reasoning

“If you’re good at racquetball, you’ll be great at Ping-Pong.”

Causal Reasoning

• Avoid fallacy of false cause

• Do not assume events have only one cause

Claim Data Warrant –the secret to winning all of your

arguments.

Stephen E. Toulmin

philosopher and rhetorical theorist

born in England in 1922 received his Bachelor’s

degree at King’s College and his Master of Arts and Doctor of Philosophy degrees from Cambridge

More on Toulmin

Toulmin taught at the University of Southern California from 1993 - 2009

In 1958, Toulmin offered his model of argumentation: a way to compare “truths”

Claim

Toulmin’s Model

Toulmin Model has three main parts:

Data / Grounds

Warrant

Toulmin Model, cont.

Simply: A Claim is made. Data is provided in the form of

supporting facts. The Warrant connects the Data to the

Claim.

Debate & House Metaphor

• Forming a debate is like building a house

Debate & House Metaphor

• An opinion / claim

Debate & House Metaphor

An opinion / claim

Warrant

Debate & House Metaphor

An opinion / claim

Warrant

Data / Evidence

Debate & House Metaphor

YAY

Toulmin’s House

• Toulmin says that the Claim and the Data cannot hold without a sufficiently strong Warrant, or, the weakest argument is the one with the weakest warrant.

Example #1

“I am an American.” (Claim) “My mother was an American citizen

when I was born.” (Data) Anyone born of an American citizen is a

legal American citizen. (Warrant)

Example #2

The U.S. Postal service is wasteful and inefficient. The proposed new mail distribution agency will be wasteful and inefficient.

Claim: The proposed new mail distribution agency will be wasteful and inefficient.

Data: The U.S. Postal service is wasteful and inefficient.

Warrant: the two situations are similar (Reasoning by analogy)

Let's try one together

This is the coldest winter since 2000. My heating bills are going to be outrageous.

Claim: Data: Warrant:

And another one together

I work hard in class, do my homework every night and study for tests. I am going to ace my debate class!

Claim: Data: Warrant:

Types of Claims

fact: claims that have historical backing

judgment/value: claims involving opinions and attitudes

policy: claims advocating courses of action that should be undertaken

Types of Data

Fact or Statistic: a point of data that claims some objective

Expert Testimony: a stated opinion by a person experienced in the field

Personal Anecdote: personal experience gained from time in the related field

Appeals thru Advertising

• The most common way that we engage persuasion is thru advertising– Magazines– Newspapers– Ads on Youtube– Television commercials– Infomercials– Movies and TV shows (product placement)

Ethos, Pathos, or Logos?

Ethos, Pathos, or Logos?

Ethos, Pathos,

or Logos?

Ethos, Pathos, or

Logos?

Ethos, Pathos, or Logos?

Ethos, Pathos, or Logos?

Ethos, Pathos, or

Logos?

Ethos, Pathos, or Logos?

Ethos, Pathos, Logos?

Ethos, Pathos,

or Logos?

Toulmin Extended

• warrants can be based on:

• ethos: source credibility, authority

• logos: reason-giving, induction, deduction

• pathos: emotional or motivational appeals

• value premises: values shared by, or presumed to be shared by, the receiver(s)

• note: these categories aren't mutually exclusive, there is considerable overlap among the three

Sample Argument 1

Claim Grounds

Warrant

The Lakers are likely to win tonight

They are playingat home

The home team enjoys an advantage in basketball

The Lakers are likely to win tonight at home because the home team enjoys the advantage

Sample Argument 2

Claim Grounds

Warrant

“Slumdog Millionaire” the greatest movie.

It was nominated for 10 Academy Awards

a movie’s greatness can be measured in the number of Oscar nominations it receives

Slumdog Millionaire is a wonderful movie because it was nominated for 10 Academy Awards. Oscar nominations demonstrate that these movies are much better than others.

A Note on Warrants

• Sometimes the warrant is typically implicit (unstated) and requires the listener to recognize the connection between the claim and grounds

• The implicit nature of warrants means the “meaning” of an argument is as much a part of the receiver as it is a part of the message.

Sample Argument 1

Claim Grounds

Warrant

You will fail a class You don’t take notes

Without notes, it is likely that you will forget a majority of the material from the class discussion

You will fail a class because you don’t take notes

Sample Argument 2

Claim Grounds

Warrant

I need coffee in the morning

Coffee has caffeine

Caffeine increases your alertness and will help you stay awake.

I need coffee in the morning because coffee has caffeine.

Need for Refutation

• Arguments of refutation provide CLASH because they answer arguments that are already in play– clash is when arguments directly oppose one

another

• Four Steps – Identify their argument– Signal that you are disagreeing– Explain why– Explain why your argument is superior

Four Step Refutation:

Ex. Bananas are better than oranges because they contain more potassium. 

Step 1: "They say..." State the argument that you are about to refute.Ex. “THEY SAY that bananas are better than oranges because they contain more potassium."

Four Step Refutation

Ex. Bananas are better than oranges because they contain more potassium. 

Step 2:  "But I disagree..." Here, you will state your basic counter-argument.

Ex. "THEY SAY that Bananas are better than oranges because they contain more potassium, BUT I DISAGREE. Oranges are better than bananas...

Four Step Refutation

Ex. Bananas are better than oranges because they contain more potassium. 

Step 3: "Because..." This is the reasoning for your position.

Ex. THEY SAY bananas are better than oranges because they contain more potassium, BUT I DISAGREE. Oranges are better than bananas BECAUSE they contain more vitamin C.

Four Step Refutation:

Step 4: "Therefore..." This is the conclusion of your argument where you compare your refutation to their argument to show why yours is better.

Ex. THEY SAY bananas are better than oranges because they contain more potassium, BUT I DISAGREE. Oranges are better than bananas BECAUSE they contain more vitamin C. THEREFORE, you should prefer oranges because while many foods in an ordinary diet contain potassium, few contain an appreciable amount of vitamin C. It is more important to eat oranges whenever possible than it is to eat bananas.

“Therefore. . .”why your argument is better

• It’s better reasoned (no errors is logic or reasoning)• It’s better evidenced (more/better evidence, more

qualified or recent sources)• It’s empirical (empirically proven—proved by past

examples, rather than speculations)• It takes theirs into account (uses opponent’s argument

—perhaps by strategic agreement—to take yours a step further)

• It has greater expressed significance (it’s more important to a specific individual or to a larger number of individuals)

• It’s consistent with experience (over time, in many places, in several different circumstances—”something that we can all relate to”)

Activity Time!!!!

• YAY