[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]
true. The debate speaker typically uses argument from sign
to establish that a problem exists or that a value is held.
38 Research and Reasoning
2. The causal argument asserts that if fact A exists, it will cause
fact B to follow. The fact that Jo s car ran out of gas may be
taken as a cause for her car to stop. The causal argument is
based on the generalization that all cases of A will be fol-
lowed by B. These arguments are very strong if you can es-
tablish the connective link between A and B. Asserting such
a causal link is easy, but proving it is dif¤cult because so
many B s in the world do not simply have a single cause A
to point to; instead they frequently have a variety of causes.
Causal arguments declare why an assertion is true. The
debate speaker uses causal arguments to establish why the
problem exists and why the proposed solution will work, or
why a certain value structure exists and what the impacts of
having such a value would be.
3. The argument from analogy asserts that if the facts relating
to A and the facts relating to B are alike in certain known
respects, they will also be alike in another respect. From the
fact that Jo s 1995 Toyota gets thirty-¤ve miles per gallon,
the conclusion may be drawn that my 1995 Toyota will get
the same mileage.
Arguments from analogy are based on the generalization
that if speci¤c instances are compared and found to be alike
in a number of essential and relevant respects, they will also
be alike in others, particularly the one under discussion. The
problem is that all analogies are ultimately false, for no two
things or circumstances are ever exactly alike. If they were
exactly alike, they would be the same thing. The debater
must establish that the similarities are close enough to be
signi¤cant. For this reason, analogy is best used to clarify or
add interest as an illustration but is weaker to establish proof.
4. The argument from example is the inductive reasoning pro-
cess that provides generalizations. These generalizations then
become the major premises on which deductive arguments
are based. After observing Jo wash her car each Saturday
morning for six weeks, you might generalize that Jo always
washes her car on Saturday mornings.
The argument from example asserts a generalization. The
Research and Reasoning 39
debate speaker uses examples to support general assertions
on which causal and sign arguments may be based.
As you can begin to appreciate, these different types often are
used in conjunction with each other. The interplay of types is
based on the type of argument being offered and the type of sup-
port necessary or available. Let us look to supporting materials
brie®y.
Evidence
One test of argument is the evaluation of the evidence on which
the argument is based. Evidence, as we have seen, consists of
facts and opinions, and is the raw material on which the debater s
reasoning depends. The function of evidence is to make the de-
bater s assertions evident. You should remember a few guiding
principles.
1. Use the best evidence available. It should be accurate, recent,
reliable, readily available and veri¤able, generally acceptable
to the audience, free from obvious bias, and directly germane
to the argument under consideration.
2. Use enough evidence to support your assertions clearly and
yet have more in reserve.
3. Make your evidence clear by relating it explicitly to the as-
sertion it aims to support.
4. Do not allow your evidence to be questionable. Ideally, the
evidence should not be debatable. The facts ought to be as
you say they are; the opinions ought to be the assertions of
relevant authorities. A debate in which the speakers contest
evidence is likely to be a poor contest; con®ict should center
on the meaning of evidence, its relevance, its impact, or its
implications, not its accuracy.
Follow these guidelines in collecting and using evidence, and
you will have a ¤rm foundation for debating. Make certain that
you examine your opponents use of evidence on the same basis,
and if they have been de¤cient, then you can cast great doubt on
the conclusions they draw. Challenges about the accuracy of evi-
dence are a rare and serious event in school debate. Most tourna-
ments and associations will remove debaters from competition
40 Research and Reasoning
who use falsi¤ed information. Remember, if you say it, you are
responsible for it, so make certain that any evidence you did not
obtain ¤rsthand has been veri¤ed to your satisfaction to the de-
gree that you would be willing to stake your debate reputation or
career on its authenticity.
Debating the meaning of evidence is another matter, for it at-
tacks the analysis of the opposition, not their trustworthiness or
honesty. Many attacks that challenge evidence are really attacks
on the interpretation of evidence and not on the honesty of the
team involved. Be careful not to confuse the two.
As you can see, evidence is the foundation of good debate,
whether that evidence is in the form of general information you
have read and remember or in the form of speci¤c materials you
have copied onto note cards and have available during the debate
itself. Good evidence leads to sound arguments, development of
issues and cases, and good refutation. Good research generates
good evidence, so if you follow the guidelines, even if they seem
time-consuming at ¤rst, they will pay off as you begin to debate.
This chapter was designed to introduce you to the basics of per-
forming research for debate or any academic undertaking. Some
important suggestions about how, where, and why to do research
were made. In addition, you were shown some initial methods for
evaluating evidence and some ways to put evidence and conclu-
sions together in a form called reasoning. The next step in this
process is to put your analysis and reasoning into a format that
you can support with the research and evidence you have gath-
ered. The format is called a case, and the next chapter will show
you how to organize both af¤rmative, or government, and nega-
tive, or opposition, approaches to a debate topic.
Constructing Af¤rmative and
5
Negative Cases
In the previous chapter, we talked about the importance of doing
high-quality research in creating your af¤rmative and negative
positions. It is now time to turn your attention to constructing
your cases. In a sense, you are always building a new case. As
information comes to you and as you consider, analyze, and re-
think your ideas and positions, you will constantly modify your
cases. We will begin with the af¤rmative, as that position is more
focused and easily grasped.
Constructing the Af¤rmative Case
Determining the Issues
Debaters who have acquired a background of knowledge relevant
to the proposition are ready to organize the results of their re-
search into a debate case. They should always begin by organizing
the af¤rmative case. Remembering that the issue is the basic ele-
ment in the support of the proposition, speakers should make it
their ¤rst task to discover what the issues are. To do this, they use
the method known as questionnaire analysis. Since certain issues
must be established for any proposition, the questions that sug-
gest these issues are stock, or standard, questions of anal ysis.
They are generally called the stock issues of a debate proposition
[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]