Apologetics/Debate

1. Apologetics/Debate • The truth will set you free • Love your enemy • Faith and reason will never contradict each other

2. Essay Organization/Outline • 1. Subdivide topics by a system of numbers and letters, followed by a period. • Example: • I. •     A. •     B. •         1. •         2. •             a. •             b. • II. •     A. •     B. • 2. Each heading and subheading must have at least two parts. • 3. Headings for parts of the paper of speech such as, Introduction and Conclusion, should not normally be used. • 4. Be consistent. Do not mix up the two types of outlines. Use either whole sentences of brief phrases, but not both.

3. Audience: Assumptions: I Intro A. Establish need for topic B. Articulate assumptions II Premise I A. supporting evidence B. supporting evidence III Premise II A. Supporting evidence B. Supporting evidence IV Premise III A. supporting evidence B. supporting evidence V Conclusion A. Synthesis B. how need is met by conclusion

4. Clarity: • Avoid use of terms which can be interpreted differently by different readers.  When we are talking to people who substantially agree with us we can use such terms as "rednecks" or "liberals" and feel reasonably sure that we will be understood.  But in a debate, we are talking to people who substantially disagree with us and they are likely to put a different interpretation on such words.

5. Evidence: • Quoting an authority is not evidence. Quoting a majority opinion is not evidence. Any argument that starts with, "According to Einstein..." is not based on objective evidence.  Any argument that starts with, "Most biologists believe..." is not based on objective evidence. Saying, "The Bible says..." is not evidence. Authorities and majorities can be wrong and frequently have been.

6. Emotionalism: • Avoid emotionally charged words--words that are likely to produce more heat than light.  Certainly the racial, ethnic, or religious hate words have no place in rational debating.  Likewise, avoid argumentum ad hominem. Personal attacks on your opponent are an admission of intellectual bankruptcy. Also, slurs directed at groups with whom your opponent is identified are usually nonproductive. Try to keep attention centered on the objective problem itself. There is a special problem when debating social, psychological, political, or religious ideas because a person's theories about these matters presumably have some effect on his own life style. It is unlikely that in an argument over the existence of quarks an opponent's sexual behavior would be brought up and it would be easier to keep attention centered on the problem itself than if the argument was about the importance of the family or whether a liberal or conservative position was preferrable in a political debate. A suggested solution is to make a general statement rather than one referring specifically to the opponent. In other words, rather than saying "and that's why you are such an undisciplined wreck" say, "a person adopting your position is, I believe, likely to become an undisciplined wreck because ...”

7. Causality: • Avoid the blunder of asserting a causal relationship with the popular fallacy of post hoc ergo propter hoc which declares that because some event A happened and immediately afterward event B happened that event A was the cause of event B.  (I knew someone whose car stalled on the way to work.  She would get out and open the hood and slam it and then the car would start.  Singing a song would have been just as effective to allow time for a vapor lock to dissipate!) Also avoid the popular fallacy that correlation proves causation.  People who own Cadillacs, on average, have higher incomes than people who don't.  This does not mean that if we provided people with Cadillacs that they would have higher incomes.

8. Innuendo: • Innuendo is saying something pejorative about your opponent without coming right out and saying it but by making more or less veiled allusions to some circumstance, rumor, or popular belief. If you want to see some excellent examples of innuendo, watch Rush Limbaugh. Politicians are, unfortunately, frequently guilty of using innuendo. It is an easy way to capitalize on popular prejudices without having to make explicit statements which might be difficult or impossible to defend against rational attack.

9. Be sure of your facts. • What is the source of your information?  If it is a newspaper or a magazine, are you sure that the information hasn't been "slanted" to agree with that publication's political bias?  Where crucial facts are concerned, it is best to check with more than one source.  Often international publications will give you a different perspective than your hometown newspaper. Check to see whether the book you are using was published by a regular publishing company or whether it was published by some special interest group like the John Birch Society or a religious organization. These books cannot be trusted to present unbiased evidence since their motivation for publishing is not truth but rather the furtherance of some political or religious view.

10. Understand your opponents' arguments. • It is good practice to argue with a friend and take a position with which you do not agree.  In this way you may discover some of the assumptions your opponents are making which will help you in the debate.  Remember that everybody thinks that his position is the right one, and everybody has his reasons for thinking so.

12. LOGIC • Logic is the science of reasoning, proof, thinking, or inference . • Logic allows us to analyze a piece of reasoning, and determine whether it is correct or not. To use the technical terms, we determine whether the reasoning is valid or invalid.

13. Logical Vocabulary Before using logic to reach conclusions, it is helpful to know some important vocabulary related to logic. Premise/ Proposition: used as evidence in an argument. Conclusion: Logical result of the relationship between the premises. Conclusions serve as the thesis of the argument. Argument: The assertion of a conclusion based on logical premises. Syllogism: The simplest sequence of logical premises and conclusions, devised by Aristotle. Induction: A process through which the premises provide some basis for the conclusion. Deduction: A process through which the premises provide conclusive proof for the conclusion.

14. Arguments • Deductive: valid or invalid (based on premises) +All dogs are mammals +Benji is a dog => Benji is a mammal • Inductive: conclusion is ‘reasonable’ but neither valid nor invalid • + Sally like chocolate • + My cake is chocolate • => Sally will like my cake

15. Reaching Logical Conclusions Reaching logical conclusions depends on the proper analysis of premises. The goal of a syllogism is to arrange premises so that only one true conclusion is possible. Example A: Consider the following premises: • Premise 1:Non-renewable resources do not exist in infinite supply.Premise 2: Coal is a non-renewable resource. From these two premises, only one logical conclusion is available: • Conclusion: Coal does not exist in infinite supply.

16. Example B: Often logic requires several premises to reach a conclusion. • Premise 1: All monkeys are primates.Premise 2: All primates are mammals.Premise 3: All mammals are vertebrate animals. • Conclusions: Monkeys are vertebrate animals.

17. Example C: Logic allows specific conclusions to be drawn from general premises. Consider the following premises: • Premise 1: All squares are rectangles.Premise 2: Figure 1 is a square.Conclusion: Figure 1 is also a rectangle.

18. Example D: Notice that logic requires decisive statements in order to work. Therefore, this syllogism is false: • Premise 1: Some quadrilaterals are squares.Premise 2: Figure 1 is a quadrilateral.Conclusion: Figure 1 is a square. This syllogism is false because not enough information is provided to allow a verifiable conclusion. Figure 1 could just as likely be a rectangle, which is also a quadrilateral.

19. Example E: Logic can also mislead when it is based on premises that an audience does not accept. For instance: • Premise 1: People with red hair are not good at checkers.Premise 2: Bill has red hair.Conclusion: Bill is not good at checkers. Within the syllogism, the conclusion is logically valid. However, it is only true if an audience accepts Premise 1, which is very unlikely. This is an example of how logical statements can appear accurate while being completely false.

20. FALLACIES

21. Slippery slope: • This is a conclusion based on the premise that if A happens, then eventually through a series of small steps, through B, C,..., X, Y, Z will happen, too, basically equating A and Z. So, if we don't want Z to occur, A must not be allowed to occur either. Example: If we ban Hummers because they are bad for the environment eventually the government will ban all cars, so we should not ban Hummers. • In this example the author is equating banning Hummers with banning all cars, which is not the same thing.

22. Non sequitur • This is a conclusion based on insufficient or biased evidence. In other words, you are rushing to a conclusion before you have all the relevant facts. • Example:  We know why it rained today: because I washed my car. • Example:  I don't care what you say.  We don't need any more bookshelves.  As long as the carpet is clean, we are fine. • Example:Even though it's only the first day, I can tell this is going to be a boring course. • In this example the author is basing their evaluation of the entire course on only one class, and on the first day which is notoriously boring and full of housekeeping tasks for most courses. To make a fair and reasonable evaluation the author must attend several classes, and possibly even examine the textbook, talk to the professor, or talk to others who have previously finished the course in order to have sufficient evidence to base a conclusion on.

23. Post hoc ergo propter hoc: • This is a conclusion that assumes that if 'A' occurred after 'B' then 'B' must have caused 'A.' Example: • Example:  When the rooster crows, the sun rises.  Therefore, the rooster causes the sun to rise. • Example:  When the fuel light goes on in my car, I soon run out of gas.  Therefore, the fuel light causes my car to run out of gas. • Example: I drank bottled water and now I am sick, so the water must have made me sick. • In this example the author assumes that if one event chronologically follows another the first event must have caused the second. But the illness could have been caused by the burrito the night before, a flu bug that had been working on the body for days, or a chemical spill across campus. There is no reason, without more evidence, to assume the water caused the person to be sick.

24. Genetic Fallacy: • A conclusion is based on an argument that the origins of a person, idea, institute, or theory determine its character, nature, or worth. • Example:  The Nazi regime developed the Volkswagen Beetle.  Therefore, you should not buy a VW Beetle because of who started it. • Example:  Frank just got out of jail last year; since it was his idea to start the hardware store, I can't trust him. • Example: The Volkswagen Beetle is an evil car because it was originally designed by Hitler's army. • The author is equating the character of a car with the character of the people who built the car. However, the two are not inherently related.

25. Begging the Claim: • The conclusion that the writer should prove is validated within the claim. Example: • Example:  God exists because the Bible says so.  The Bible is inspired.  Therefore, we know that God exists. • Example:  I am a good worker because Frank says so.  How can we trust Frank?  Simple:  I will vouch for him. • Example: Filthy and polluting coal should be banned. • Arguing that coal pollutes the earth and thus should be banned would be logical. But the very conclusion that should be proved, that coal causes enough pollution to warrant banning its use, is already assumed in the claim by referring to it as "filthy and polluting."

26. Circular Argument: • This restates the argument rather than actually proving it. Example: George Bush is a good communicator because he speaks effectively. • In this example the conclusion that Bush is a "good communicator" and the evidence used to prove it "he speaks effectively" are basically the same idea. Specific evidence such as using everyday language, breaking down complex problems, or illustrating his points with humorous stories would be needed to prove either half of the sentence

27. Either/or: • This is a conclusion that oversimplifies the argument by reducing it to only two sides or choices. Example: • Example:  You either did knock the glass over or you did not.  Which is it? • Example:  Do you still beat your wife? • Example: We can either stop using cars or destroy the earth. • In this example where two choices are presented as the only options, yet the author ignores a range of choices in between such as developing cleaner technology, car sharing systems for necessities and emergencies, or better community planning to discourage daily driving.

28. Ad hominem: • This is an attack on the character of a person rather than her/his opinions or arguments. Example: • Example:  You are so stupid your argument couldn't possibly be true. • Example:  I figured that you couldn't possibly get it right, so I ignored your comment. • Example: Green Peace's strategies aren't effective because they are all dirty, lazy hippies. • In this example the author doesn't even name particular strategies Green Peace has suggested, much less evaluate those strategies on their merits. Instead, the author attacks the characters of the individuals in the group.

29. Ad populum: • This is an emotional appeal that speaks to positive (such as patriotism, religion, democracy) or negative (such as terrorism or fascism) concepts rather than the real issue at hand. Example: • Example:  The majority of people like soda.  Therefore, soda is good. • Example:  Everyone else is doing it.  Why shouldn't you? • Example: If you were a true American you would support the rights of people to choose whatever vehicle they want. • In this example the author equates being a "true American," a concept that people want to be associated with, particularly in a time of war, with allowing people to buy any vehicle they want even though there is no inherent connection between the two.

30. Red Herring: • This is a diversionary tactic that avoids the key issues, often by avoiding opposing arguments rather than addressing them. Example: • Example: I know your car isn't working right.  But, if you had gone to the store one day earlier, you'd not be having problems. • Example:  I know I forgot to deposit the check into the bank yesterday.  But, nothing I do pleases you. • Example: The level of mercury in seafood may be unsafe, but what will fishers do to support their families? • In this example the author switches the discussion away from the safety of the food and talks instead about an economic issue, the livelihood of those catching fish. While one issue may affect the other it does not mean we should ignore possible safety issues because of possible economic consequences to a few individuals.

31. Straw Man: • This move oversimplifies an opponent's viewpoint and then attacks that hollow argument. • Example:  The government doesn't take care of the poor because it doesn't have a tax specifically to support the poor. • Example:  We know that evolution is false because we did not evolve from monkeys. • Example: People who don't support the proposed state minimum wage increase hate the poor. • In this example the author attributes the worst possible motive to an opponent's position. In reality, however, the opposition probably has more complex and sympathetic arguments to support their point. By not addressing those arguments, the author is not treating the opposition with respect or refuting their position.

32. Moral Equivalence: • This fallacy compares minor misdeeds with major atrocities. That parking attendant who gave me a ticket is as bad as Hitler. • In this example the author is comparing the relatively harmless actions of a person doing their job with the horrific actions of Hitler. This comparison is unfair and inaccurate.