REPORTING in argumentation and debate.pptx

argumentation and debate

1. CHAPTER IV Analyzing the Controversy

2. CONtents I. THE IMPORTANCE OF DEFINING TERMS II. METHODS OF DEFINING TERMS A. Basic Methods 1. Example 2. Common usage 3. Authority 4. Operation 5. Negation 6. Comparison and contrast 7. Derivation 8. Combination of methods

3. B. Providing a Satisfactory Definition C. The Meaning of Should and the Convention of Fiat III. ISSUES A. Discovering the Issues B. Introducing the Issues C. Discovering the Number of Issues D. Phrasing the Issues E. Phrasing the Substructure of the Issues F. Considering the Decision Makers

4. I. THE IMPORTANCE OF DEFINING TERMS In analyzing the problem, advocates must carefully consider all possible definitions of all the terms. In presenting their cases, however, they will define only the terms that might be unfamiliar to their audience or about which they and their opponents might differ. In debating the proposition “Resolved: That Congress should be given the power to reverse decisions of the Supreme Court,” it would probably be unnecessary to define Congress and Supreme Court. But it would be necessary to define reverse and decisions, because legal age of these terms differs from popular usage, and opposing advocates sometimes interpret these words differently within the context of this proposition.

5. Terms that do not actually occur in the proposition itself but that an advocate expects to use in the course of the debate may also require definition. For example, the words cyclical, frictional, and hidden did not appear in the proposition “Resolved: That the federal government should establish a national program of public work for the unemployed.” Yet, because references to these types of unemployment likely recurred in debates on the proposition, the debaters needed to define them. In debates on this same proposition, dictionary definitions of the individual words public and work would have done little to clarify the meaning of the proposition or to furnish a basis for argument. Advocates define the phrase public work rather than the individual words, and, by referring to the use of this phrase in legislation, they were able to provide a useful definition.

6. II. METHODS OF DEFINING TERMS Basic Methods 1. Example Giving an example is often an effective method of defining terms. In debates on the “national program of public work” proposition, affirmative teams sometimes defined their terms by saying, “By a national program of public work, we mean a program similar to the WPA of the 1930s.” In this way they gave their audience a specific example of the type of program they proposed. Examples are generally discovered by debaters in the course of researching their issues and thus, they tend to appear in the literature related to the proposition or topic area.

7. 2. Common Usage In the interest of accuracy and precision, debate propositions sometimes contain technical terms. Often these terms can be defined effectively by referring to common usage, or “common person” or “person on the street” definition. Sources of common usage must be evaluated with care. One person’s common usage may differ with another’s for many reasons. An appeal to the judge or audience may fail if their sense of common interpretation differs from the debaters’. One source of common usage definitions is a general dictionary, including, for example, Webster’s, Oxford Collegiate, and American Heritage dictionaries. Wikipedia or other “wiki” sources may provide useful references for common usage definitions, as they are generated and edited by a community of Internet users, not necessarily scholars or experts. 3. Authority Some terms may be defined most effectively by referring to an authority qualified to state their meaning and usage. Dictionaries, encyclopedias, and books and articles by recognized scholars are often used as authority for a particular definition.

8. 4. Operation. Some terms are best defined if the advocate provides an operational definition and explains the function or special purpose represented by the terms in a specific context. The use of operation as a method of definition is often linked with the presentation of a plan and is a helpful way of explaining a complex matter. Example, Debates on the proposition “Resolved: That the nonagricultural industries should guarantee their employees an annual wage” required careful definition of the phrase guarantee … an annual wage. Some affirmative advocates chose to provide an operational definition, defining these terms by presenting their plan. One debater said: We propose a plan whereby the employer places the sum of five cents per employee hour worked in a trust fund until that fund equals 50 percent of the average annual payroll of that company for the past five years. When an employee is laid off, he may then draw from his fund a sum equal to 75 percent of his average weekly pay for the previous year less such state unemployment compensation as he may receive for 52 weeks or until he is rehired.

9. 5. Negation Sometimes a term may be defined effectively by indicating what it does not mean. In debates on the nationalization of basic industries, some teams defined basic industries by combining negation with example. That is, they said, “We do not mean the corner drugstore, we do not mean retail businesses, we do not mean service businesses; we mean steel, autos, transportation, mining, oil, and gas.” 6. Comparison and Contrast Some terms may be best understood if they are compared to something familiar to the audience or contrasted with something within the common experience of the audience. 7. Derivation One of the standard methods of defining words is to trace their development from their original, or radical, elements. Thus, in a debate on fair employment practices, it would be possible to define the word prejudice by pointing out that the word derived from the Latin words prae and judicium , meaning “before judgment.” Definition by derivation has limited use in argumentation and debate, because the advocate is usually concerned with the contemporary use of the word within a specific context. 8. Combination of Methods Because most propositions of debate contain several terms that must be defined, no single method is likely to be satisfactory for the definition of all of the terms. If any term is particularly difficult to define, or if it is of critical importance in the debate, the advocate may use more than one method of definition to make the meaning clear.

10. B. Providing a Satisfactory Definition A satisfactory definition is one that meets the expectations of those who render the decision and provides reasonable guidance in interpreting the proposition. To prove that a definition is reasonable, one must establish that the definition meets the relevant criteria or standards. To prove that a definition is the best in the debate one must establish that the definition meets the relevant criteria in ways that are superior to opposing definitions.

11. Criteria to Prove a Satisfactory Definition 1. Prove that your definition is officially stipulated as the correct one for this resolution. This 2. Prove that your definition is grammatically correct. 3. Prove that your definition is derived from the appropriate field. 4. Prove that your definition is based on common usage 5. Prove that your definition is consistent with policy makers’ or value makers’ usage. 6. Prove that your definition meets the original understanding of the proposition’s framers. 7. Prove that your definition provides a clear distinction between what legitimately fits within the definition and what is excluded by the definition. 8. Prove that your definition would provide a fair division of ground.

12. III. ISSUES Issues are those critical claims inherent in the proposition that the affirmative must establish. They may also be thought of as places where groups of arguments converge or points of clash subordinate to the proposition. Issues also suggest checklists or categories of arguments to be addressed by the participants in a debate or argumentative situation.

13. A. Discovering the Issues One of the first problems confronting the advocate in preparing to debate a proposition is discovering the issues. In a courtroom debate the issues are often stated explicitly in the law applicable to the case before the court. For example, if the proposition before the court was, in effect, “Resolved: That John Doe murdered Richard Roe,” in most jurisdictions the issues would be: 1. Richard Roe is dead. 2. John Doe killed Richard Roe. 3. John Doe killed Richard Roe unlawfully. 4. John Doe killed Richard Roe following premeditation. 5. John Doe killed Richard Roe with malice. If the prosecution failed to prove any one of these issues, John Doe could not be convicted of murder. However, he might be convicted of manslaughter or some other lesser charge if some of the issues were proved.

14. 1. Stock Issues on Propositions of Value. The stock issues in a debate on a proposition of fact or value are drawn from the two basic elements of the affirmative case: definition and designation. Because academic debate is more often concerned with propositions of value than with propositions of fact, we will refer to propositions of fact only briefly and consider propositions of value in much more detail. In their briefest form the stock issues may be phrased as follows: 1. Definitive issues a. What are the definitions of the key terms? As discussed above, the terms in the proposition must be defined in order to establish an interpretation of the proposition itself. This will necessarily include definition of the value(s) explicitly or implicitly identified as points of controversy. b. What are the criteria for the values (or for interpretation of definitions)? The values provide the points of clash for the debate, but in order to consider competing values, criteria or devices for measurement of the values must be provided. In the case of fact-based or descriptive definitions, some method for testing the definitions may be called for.

15. 2. Designative issues a. Do the facts correspond to the definitions? Examples provided in support of or in opposition to the proposition are relevant only inasmuch as they are relevant to the terms as defined in 1a; advocates must present proof that their examples are indeed consistent with the definitions and interpretations they have provided. b. What are the applications of the values? At this point, debaters must apply the criteria established in 1b to the facts presented in 2a. With this brief outline in mind, we can proceed to a more detailed consideration of the stock issues.

16. 2. Stock Issues for Propositions of Policy. The stock issues for the proposition of policy are drawn from the three basic elements of the affirmative case: harm, inherency, and solvency. In their briefest form, the stock issues may be phrased as follows: 1. Harm a. Does a compelling problem exist in the status quo? b. Is the problem quantitatively important? c. Is the problem qualitatively important? 2. Inherency a. Are the causes of the problem built into the laws, attitudes, and/or structures of the status quo? b. Absent a significant change in policy action, is the problem likely tocontinue ? 3. Solvency a. Is there a workable plan of action? b. Does the plan solve the problem? c. Does the plan produce advantages? d. Do the advantages outweigh the disadvantages? With this brief outline in mind, we can proceed to a more detailed consideration of the stock issues.

17. B. Introducing the Issues 1. Introduction by Either Side. In both value and policy debate the affirmative must introduce the issues necessary to establish a prima facie case one that provides good and sufficient reason for adopting the proposition. 2. The Counterplan. A counterplan is an alternative policy action, different from the plan, which if accepted would be a reason to reject the affirmative plan. In such a case the negative introduces this issue, and the affirmative may then argue that the counterplan: 1 Is topical and thus provides support for the affirmative resolution 2 I s not competitive with the affirmative plan and thus is not a reason to reject the plan, 3 Is not workable 4 Lacks solvency, or 5 Produces disadvantages greater than the status quo or the affirmative’s plan.

18. C. Discovering the Number of Issues The number of issues varies from one proposition to another and can be discovered only by careful analysis of the problem. In general, although there will be many arguments in a debate, the number of issues is rather small. There are usually four to six issues in dispute in the typical intercollegiate debate. If advocates claim a large number of “issues,” they may be confusing supporting contentions with issues. It is usually to the advantage of the affirmative to try to narrow the number of issues of the debate. D. Phrasing the Issues The issues must be so phrased as to provide maximum logical and persuasive impact on those who render the decision. First, each issue must be phrased to preview and then bring into focus the line of argument to be developed. Second, each issue must be phrased persuasively. Third, each issue must be phrased concisely. Fourth, taken as a whole, the issues must be phrased to provide a coherent organization for the case and allow a smooth transition from one issue to another.

19. E. Phrasing the Substructure of the Issues The same considerations that apply to the phrasing of the issues also apply to the substructure of the issues. The contentions—that is, the supporting arguments used to establish an issue—must be phrased with care so that they, too, have the maximum logical and persuasive impact. F. Considering the Decision Makers Advocates must consider the attitudes and values of those who render the decision as they decide what issues they will introduce and how they will handle them. In debating the “Comprehensive medical care for all citizens” proposition, some debaters quickly discovered the issue “Comprehensive medical care for all citizens will inflate taxes by prolonging lives.” The argument was irrefutable.