debate definitions

7/23/2019 Debate Definitions

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/debate-definitions 1/13

AAdvantages

The part of the armative case about policies that demonstrates the positive eects of

the armative’s plan.

Ambiguity

A fallacy of language that occurs when a word in an argument has two or more possible

meanings and the listener has no means to determine adequately which meaning the

arguer intends.

Analogy

An argument that supports associations between things based on their similarity or

dissimilarity.

Appeal to fear

A fallacious argument that occurs when an arguer uses irrelevant appeals to fear to take

the focus o the arguer’s original argument.

Appeal to popularity

A fallacious argument that occurs when a debater uses the popularity of a person,

product, or belief to ustify a favorable conclusion about that person, product, or belief.

Appeal to tradition

A fallacious argument made when a debater argues in favor of a particular action on the

grounds of tradition rather than on the basis of that action’s merits.

Argument

A controversial statement, frequently called a claim, supported by evidence and a

warrant. The standards of a logically good argument include acceptability, relevance, and

suciency. !ee also !tandard of acceptability, !tandard of relevance, standard of

suciency.

Argument ad hominem

A fallacy that occurs when an arguer attacks a person’s character or background, which is

irrelevant to the claim.



Argument by example

An argument that supports an association between speci"c e#amples and a general rule.

Argument by incompatibility

An argument designed to reect something because it is incompatible with something

else.

Argument by principle

An argument that supports a certain action based on the connection between that action

and a general principle.

Argument sphere

A community within which arguments are made.

Argument structure

The way evidence and warrants are arranged to support a claim. !ee also $onvergent

argument structure% &ndependent argument structure% !imple argument structure.

Argumentation

The uniquely human use of reasoning to communicate.

Arrangement

The organi'ation of arguments in a speech.

Authority

An argument that supports a claim with the opinion of e#perts in the "eld.

(o to top

BBallot

A document on which the udge records the decision, the reasons for the decision, and

speaker points awarded to each debater.

http://idebate.org/glossary#top




Begging the question

A fallacy of acceptability that occurs when a debater introduces evidence that is the same

as the claim.

(o to top

CCase

)ne or more arguments sucient to support a proposition.

Causal argument

An argument that supports associations between causes and eects. !ee also

$ontributory causal argument% &ntervening and counteracting causal argument% *ecessary

causal argument% !ucient causal argument.

Cause-and-eect proposition

A proposition that asserts that one obect causes a speci"c outcome.

Cause-and-eect reasoning

The type of reasoning that e#amines the reasons certain actions, events, or conditions

+causes create speci"c consequences +eects.

Claim

A controversial statement an arguer supports using reason. $laims are divided into four

general categories- de"nitional descriptive, relational, and evaluative.

Comparative advantages case

A method used for developing a case about policies that advocates the adoption of the

plan based on its advantages compared with the status quo or some other policy.

Comparative policy proposition

$ompares two or more policies.

Comparative value proposition





$ompares two or more obects with respect to some value.

Constructive speech

A speech that presents a debater’s basic arguments for or against the resolution.

Contributory causal argument

An argument that states that the purported cause is one of several contributors to the

eect.

Convergent argument structure

Two or more bits of evidence that, in combination with one another, support a claim.

Counterplan

A plan proposed by the negative team as an alternative to the armative plan.

Cross-examination

A period during the debate when a member of one team asks questions of a member of

the opposing team.

(o to top

DDebate

The process of arguing about claims in situations where an adudicator must decide the

outcome.

Dissociation

An argument that creates new categories by dividing an old category into two new ones.

(o to top

EEquivocation







A fallacy of language that occurs when a word is used in two dierent senses and the

meaning of the word is shifted during the argument.

Evidence

ierent types of information +facts, statistics, theories, opinions, or narratives that areused to support arguments. /vidence can be divided into two categories- that relating to

reality +facts, theories, and presumptions and that relating to preference +values, value

hierarchies, and value categories. !ee also 0acts% 1resumption% Theory% 2alue% 2alue

categories% 2alue hierarchy.

(o to top

FFacts

)bserved or observable data.

Fallacy

An argument that fails to meet any one of the standards of acceptability, relevance, and

suciency. !ee also Argument ad hominem% Ambiguity% Appeal to fear% Appeal to

popularity% Appeal to tradition% 3egging the question% /quivocation% 0allacy of

composition% 0allacy of division% 0allacy of incompatibility% 0aulty analogy% 4asty

conclusion% &mproper appeal to practice% 5oaded term% 1oisoning the well% 1ost hoc fallacy%

1roblematic premise% 6ed herring% !lippery slope argument% !traw person fallacy% Twowrongs fallacy% 2agueness.

Fallacy of composition

A fallacious argument where the evidence is drawn from some part of a whole but the

conclusion is about the whole.

Fallacy of division

An erroneous argument where the evidence is drawn from the whole, but the conclusion

is made about the part.

Fallacy of incompatibility

)ccurs when a debater makes a statement as evidence that is at odds with another

statement made by the debater, or when a debater’s argument is incompatible with some

action she has performed or recommended elsewhere.





Faulty analogy

A fallacious argument that occurs when two cases are compared with each other but are

not similar in terms of the relationship stated in the comparison.

(o to top

Guilt by association

A fallacious argument that occurs when a person’s argument is attacked using that

person’s association with groups and people rather than using issues pertinent to the

argument.

(o to top

H!asty conclusion

A fallacious argument that fails to meet the standard of suciency. &t includes hasty

generali'ation, irrelevant slippery slope arguments, fallacy of composition, fallacy of

division, faulty analogy, improper appeal to practice, post hoc fallacy, and two wrongs.

!asty generali"ation

A fallacy of reasoning by e#ample that occurs when the e#amples selected to support the

claim are either insucient in number or in their representativeness. &mproper appeal to

practice A fallacious argument that occurs when a debater suggests doing something

because it is a common practice, even if that practice clearly is wrong.

(o to top

I#ndependent argument structure

!everal pieces of evidence, any one of which can provide sucient support for a claim.

#nternational debating

ebating that occurs between representatives of dierent countries, nations, or cultures.









#ntervening and counteracting causal argument

An argument that demonstrates a cause that prevents the completion of a cause7and7

eect sequence.

#rrelevant reason

An argument that fails to meet the relevance criterion. &t includes ad hominem argument,

appeal to fear, appeal to popularity, appeal to tradition, guilt by association, poisoning the

well, red herring, and straw person.

(o to top

J $udge

An observer of a debate who has the responsibility of deciding which team has done a

better ob of debating.

(o to top

K%arl &opper debate format

A debate format that matches two three7person teams against each other- one armingthe proposition and one opposing it. /ach team has one constructive speech presenting

its basic arguments for and against the proposition and two constructive speeches

refuting the opposing team’s arguments and summari'ing its own.

(o to top

L'oaded term

A fallacy of language that occurs when the arguer labels something with a word thatincludes an evaluation and that evaluation plays a role in supporting the conclusion.

(o to top

M(ethod of agreement











A method of reasoning used in cause7and7eect analysis that e#amines more than one

case where two elements are simultaneously present, concluding that one is the cause of

the other.

(ethod of correlation

A method of reasoning used in cause7and7eect analysis that e#amines e#amples that

demonstrate that as the amount of the cause increases +or decreases, the eect will also

increase +or decrease.

(ethod of dierence

A method of reasoning used in cause7and7eect analysis that e#amines e#amples wherein

both the purported cause and the purported eect are absent, concluding that one is the

cause of the other.

(inor repair

A strategy the negative uses to defend the present system with minor changes.

(o to top

N)ecessary causal argument

An argument that states that without the suspected cause, the eect cannot occur, thusthe cause is necessary to produce the eect.

)eed

The part of the armative case about policies that identi"es a certain problem in the

status quo that the e#isting system cannot solve.

)eed-plan-bene*t case

A method used for developing a case about policies that involves the identi"cation of a

need, proposal of a plan, and a demonstration of the advantages of the plan.

(o to top

P&lan







A course of action proposed by the armative when debating a proposition of policy that

proposes to solve the problems identi"ed in the 8need.9

&oisoning the +ell

A fallacious argument that attempts to discredit a person or a source in advance of thatperson’s argument.

&ost hoc fallacy

)ccurs when a debater assumes that because one thing predates another, the "rst must

have caused the second.

&reparation time

The time allotted to each team for preparation during the debate +eight minutes in :arl

1opper debate.

&resumption

The assumption that current policies will be maintained until someone makes a case that

another policy is a better option.

&resumption ,evidence

A statement concerning what people ordinarily e#pect to happen in the course of normal

events.

&roblematic premise

A fallacious argument that fails to meet the acceptability criterion. &t includes begging the

question and the fallacy of incompatibility.

&roposition

A "nal claim made by a debater and supported by a combination of claims.

&roposition of de*nition

Asserts that a certain de"nition should be applied to a certain category of things.

&roposition of description

Asserts a proper way to describe an obect or a number of obects.



&roposition of evaluation

Attaches a value to any obect.

&roposition of relationship

Assert a certain relationship between obects.

&roposition of similarity

Asserts that two obects are similar to each other.

(o to top

R.easoning

The process used to connect evidence to the claim. !ee also warrant.

.ebuttal speeches

The speeches in the debate that challenge and defend arguments introduced in the

constructive speeches.

.ed herring

A fallacious argument that shifts the focus from the original argument.

.efutation

The process of attacking and defending arguments.

.esearch

The process of locating and selecting evidence in preparation for debate.

.eservation

An e#ception made to a claim. A reservation usually involves a situation in which the

arguer does not wish to maintain the claim.

(o to top







S/imple argument structure

A single claim leading from a single piece of evidence following along a single warrant.

/imple policy proposition

A proposition that urges adoption of a certain policy.

/imple value proposition

Attaches a value to a single obect.

/lippery slope argument

An argument that connects a series of events in a causal chain that ultimately leads to

disaster or calamity. !lippery slope arguments are fallacies if the series of events is

improperly connected.

/tandard of acceptability

etermines whether the evidence is acceptable to those who udge the argument.

/tandard of relevance

etermines whether the evidence is relevant to the claim it supports.

/tandard of su0ciency

etermines whether all of the evidence taken as a whole is sucient to support the claim.

/tandards of a logically good argument

!tandards are acceptability, relevance, and suciency.

/tasis

A system devised to determine the key issues of clash in a topic. These key issues can be

used to develop a system of research.

/tatus quo

The course of action currently pursued +i.e., the present system.



/tra+ person fallacy

)ccurs when an arguer, intentionally or unintentionally, misinterprets an opponent’s

argument, then proceeds to refute the misinterpreted argument as if it were the

opponent’s actual argument.

/tyle

The use of language, voice, and body language used by a debater.

/u0cient causal argument

An argument that states that the presence of a cause virtually guarantees +is sucient

for the presence of the eect.

(o to top

T1heory

A statement that e#plains other facts or that predicts the occurrence of events.

1oulmin (odel of argument

A model of argument developed by philosopher !tephen Toulmin. The basic model

includes evidence, warrant, claim, and reservation.

1+o +rongs fallacy

)ccurs when a debater makes an argument urging the audience to accept, or condone,

one thing that is wrong because another similar thing, also wrong, has been accepted and

condoned.

(o to top

V2agueness

A fallacy of language that occurs when the meaning of some word or words in an

argument is indeterminate and when such vagueness prevents listeners from assessing

the argument.







2alue

/vidence based on the audience’s preferred value.

2alue case

A case supporting a proposition of value. Three principal elements of such a case are

describing, relating, and evaluating.

2alue categories ,evidence

An arrangement of values into groups so that a group +category can be used as

evidence.

2alue hierarchy ,evidence

/vidence based on how values are arranged in relation to each other.

(o to top

W3arrant

!tated or unstated reasoning process that e#plains the relationship between the evidence

and the claim.



debate definitions

Documents