1 / 26

Argumentation & Logical Fallacy

Argumentation & Logical Fallacy. Murray High Debate. What is debate?. An activity where two sides use persuasive, researched arguments to convince a 3 rd party to support one side or the other. Assertion is not a debate – you have to back it up. Proof is what makes a debate.

barb
Télécharger la présentation

Argumentation & Logical Fallacy

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Argumentation & Logical Fallacy Murray High Debate

  2. What is debate? • An activity where two sides use persuasive, researched arguments to convince a 3rd party to support one side or the other. • Assertion is not a debate – you have to back it up. Proof is what makes a debate. • What is proof? • “Proof is the process of securing belief in one statement by relating it to another statement already believed.”

  3. The Basis of a Good Argument • Assumption • For example: “International terrorism is wrong.” For this to be true, what is my underlying premise? • Killing is wrong. • Is this true? What about the Revolutionary War? • Your underlying premise/assumption must be something the listener can believe is true. Then you can move on in your argument.

  4. Parts of an Argument Claim – what you want them to believe Warrant – your “because…” statement Impact – the “so what” statement. What is the problem you are trying to solve. What does it impact?

  5. Example Argument • “Uninsured Americans are going without needed medical care because they are unable to afford it. Because access to health care is a basic human right, the United States should establish a system of national health insurance.” ~ Taken from Richard E. Edwards Competitive Debate

  6. Claim • A clear statement of exactly what you’re advocating. • Answers the question, “What are you trying to get me to believe?” • “Uninsured Americans are going without needed medical care because they are unable to afford it. Because access to health care is a basic human right, the United States should establish a system of national health insurance.” • “Uninsured Americans are going without needed medical care because they are unable to afford it. Because access to health care is a basic human right, the United States should establish a system of national health insurance.”

  7. Warrant • Why is your claim true? • Usually the “because”. • “Uninsured Americans are going without needed medical care because they are unable to afford it. Because access to health care is a basic human right, the United States should establish a system of national health insurance.” • “Uninsured Americans are going without needed medical care because they are unable to afford it. Because access to health care is a basic human right, the United States should establish a system of national health insurance.”

  8. Impact • The “so what” of your argument. • “Uninsured Americans are going without needed medical care because they are unable to afford it. Because access to health care is a basic human right, the United States should establish a system of national health insurance.” • “Uninsured Americans are going without needed medical care because they are unable to afford it. Because access to health care is a basic human right, the United States should establish a system of national health insurance.”

  9. The negative counter-argument • Start by repeating the opponent’s claim: • “The affirmative says that Macs are better than PC’s. • Why is this good? • It keeps you on point. You aren’t going to say this and then follow immediately by going on a tangent. Otherwise your debate becomes “Giraffes are cool; rocks are hard.”  (I love that. It’s one of my favorite debate phrases.) • “The affirmative says that Macs are better than PC’s, however PC’s are better than Macs (claim) because (warrant)….(impact).” • Clash occurs at the level of the warrant.

  10. Let’s try this together… Logically, which side would start arguing first? The affirmative’s claim is the resolution. Your resolution is: Macs are better than PC’s.

  11. Start with the affirmative Claim: Macs are better than PC’s. Warrant: because… Impact: so what?

  12. Spontaneous Argumentation • In debate lingo, this is called SPAR. • It is one-on-one debate, often on a silly topic. • 1min prep • 3min Affirmative Constructive speech • 1min prep • 3min Negative Constructive speech (present their own case and refute aff) • 3min CF (debaters question each other) • 1min Affirmative Rebuttal • 2min Negative Rebuttal • 1min Affirmative Rebuttal

  13. LOGICAL FALLACY

  14. Ad Hominem • Attacking the individual instead of the argument (name calling) • Example: • Attack a quote on foreign policy from Richard Nixon simply because it was said by Richard Nixon. • “Those pro-life Bible-thumpers want to take away your rights!”

  15. Erroneous Appeal to Authority • Cited expert is not really an expert on the subject • Base on “expert’s” reputation, not their relevant qualifications. • Also, you can’t say something is true simply because an expert said it. • Example: • “I’m not a doctor, I just play one on TV. Here, take this aspirin…” • John Stewart clip (Move past the obvious politics in the clip to the point being made)

  16. Hasty Generalization • Conclusion is based on limited experience or evidence. • Could be true. • Example: • Judging a person/class/book based on first meeting. • “Despite the women’s movement in the 70’s, women still do not receive equal pay for equal worth. Obviously, all such attempts to change the status quo are doomed to failure.”

  17. Straw Man • Focus argument on weak or misrepresented parts of opponents’ speech so that they can be easily defeated. • Example: • “Men should not shave their legs because you have the potential to bleed and therefore hinder all athletic ability.”

  18. False Analogy • Comparing two situations that aren’t really similar. • Example: • Public universities are like businesses and should be run like them. • Are they really fundamentally the same? • Businesses are designed to make money and universities are nonprofit. • Debate is just as much a sport as tennis or wrestling because sports involve physical movement and in debate, you move your jaw. • Are these two really comparable? Maybe. Maybe not.

  19. Post Hoc Fallacy • Just because one thing follows another, does not mean one causes another. (Correlation vs. Causation). • Make sure you ask yourself if there could be a third (or fourth or fifth…) factor playing into it. • Example: • Could there be a post hoc fallacy in the John Stewart clip? • Let’s say a football team had a losing season, after losing their head coach at the beginning of the season. This may have caused the losing season, but what if the fact that their QB was injured never occurred to you as a potential different reason for the losses?

  20. Appeal to Popularity • Just because something is popular, it’s true or good. • Example: • Can you think of how marketing agencies use this fallacy?

  21. Slippery Slope • Letting your reasoning make logically unjustified leaps. You must explain how you reached your final conclusion. • Example: • We must stop the banning of controversial literature in schools. Once they start banning one form of literature, they will never stop. Next thing you know, they will be burning all the books in the library!

  22. Either/Or Fallacy • Suggesting that there are only two sides to an issue. • The world is more complicated than that! • Example: • Vizzini in Princess Bride

  23. Begging the Question • Circular reasoning—assume your conclusion is true without proving it. • Example: • I am a good worker because Frank says so. How can we trust Frank? Simple. I’ll vouch for him. • “We could improve the undergraduate experience with coed dorms since both men and women benefit from living with the opposite gender.”

  24. Argument of Ignorance Assuming something is true if nothing has been offered to prove it false. Example:

  25. Non Sequitur • Conclusion is drawn from information that does not logically support that conclusion. • Example: • We know why it rained today. It’s because you washed your car.

  26. Red Herring • Shift focus away from central issue by offering a distracting, unrelated idea. • Example: • "Argument" for making grad school requirements stricter: • "I think there is great merit in making the requirements stricter for the graduate students. I recommend that you support it, too. After all, we are in a budget crisis and we do not want our salaries affected." • “Affirmative action proponents accuse me of opposing equal opportunity in the work force. I think my position on military expenditures, education, and public health speak for themselves.”

More Related