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 PathosLogos

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  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 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, 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 playing at 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 ClaimGrounds 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 ClaimGrounds 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