What has and what has not happened, what is true and what is not true, what may and what may not occur in the future.
Fact cases tend to focus on cause and effect in natural phenomena, social events or in mechanics and science.
Characteristic of a Good Fact Case:
Simple declarative sentence using only needed terms
Expressed in neutral terms encouraging debate
Limits the scope of the debate
Establishes the desired change (solvency)
Facts are not facts until they're mutually agreed upon
When there's confusion, controversy or conflict, we also have rhetorical demand - a reason to speak:
Make positive statements when possible
Define unclear words
Don't elevate your normal way of speaking by using huge words
Avoid complex sentences as your propositions
Don't color your language with persuasive adjectives or exaggerations. Just that facts, Ma'am.
Argument Tips:
Building your argument from the ground up means posing a possible proposition and then look to the research to see if its grounded.
You can't use it all, prioritize the pertinence of your evidence.
Remember that fact evidence is founded in research, not bias.
Evidence isn't always nicely packaged and easy to find.
No single-argument cases - at least two arguments with multiple grounds for each
The First Constructive (Prima Facie) Template Introduction - The rhetorical demand, justifies the topic and its relevancy.
Thesis Proposition - Declarative sentence, neutrally phrased, indicating direction of change from status quo.
Define key terms
Issue A: A significant Phenomenon exists.
Claim 1:North Korea is turning hostile.
Warrant 1:Evidence of missile and rocket testing. (Remember there can be more than one warrant labeled a, b, c, and so on. Tell us the reason the claim is true. Link the evidence with the claim.)
Grounds 1:Testing indicates aggressive posturing. (Grounds should be associated with with the relevant warrant. Don't list the warrants and then the grounds, integrate them: Warrant 1A with Grounds 1A, then Warrant 1B with Grounds 1B, etc.)
Claim 2: (The phenomenon is significant) NK's hostilities could be turned on South Korea.
Warrant 2: (There are commonly two warrants here: short term, long term.) Immediate harms include..., long reaching harms include...
Grounds 2: (There should be figures and stats here, research with specific examples, narratives about impacts or social issues.)
Issue B: The phenomenon's cause can be identified.
Claim 3:Kim Jong-il is the reason for this aggression.
Warrant 3: There may be multiple causes and they should have their own warrants with appropriate grounds for each, ie; W3a-G3a, W3b-G3b, etc.
Grounds 3: Evidence, testimony.
Underview or Conclusion: Summarize keys points, relate back to the thesis and show that you've made your point. Close with a statement of significance. NO VALUES, NO SOLUTION HERE. That comes in the second constructive. Draw an objective conclusion about what the facts reveal.
Remember:
Make sure your case is balanced and you're using factual evidence to support your claims.
Construct preemptive arguments to anticipate counter constructives.
The Sample Case of Farming and Irrigation Water:
-->
Introduction - The rhetorical demand, justifies the topic and its relevancy.
Thesis Proposition – Farmers are being denied irrigation water.
(Environmentalists are intervening via legislation to divert the flow of IW to sustain an endangered species.)
Issue A: A significant Phenomenon exists. (Environmentalists are intervening via legislation to divert the flow of IW to sustain an endangered species.)
Claim 1:Negating farming.
Warrant 1: ”Food grows where water flows.” (Remember there can be more than one warrant labeled a, b, c, and so on. Tell us the reason the claim is true. Link the evidence with the claim.
Grounds 1:No water, no food. (Grounds should be associated with the relevant warrant. Don't list the warrants and then the grounds, integrate them: Warrant 1A with Grounds 1A, then Warrant 1B with Grounds 1B, etc.) (Insert source/evidence here)
Claim 2: (The phenomenon is significant) Loss farming means loss of jobs..
Warrant 2: Short term: economic. Long term: foreign aid.
Grounds 2: (There should be figures and stats here, research with specific examples, narratives about impacts or social issues.) California Aqueduct (Insert evidence here)
Issue B: Legislation to divert IW is the cause.
Claim 3:Diversion to conserve endangered species.
Warrant 3: Best for the greater good. Humans v. minnows.
Grounds 3: Farming land’s best use is to feed people, not to preserve little fish. (Insert evidence here)
Underview or Conclusion: Summarize keys points, relate back to the thesis and show that you've made your point. Close with a statement of significance. NO VALUES, NO SOLUTION HERE. That comes in the second constructive. Draw an objective conclusion about what the facts reveal.
They explain why the grounds prove the point and analyze and summarize the grounds.
The warrant is the "because" statement.
When it is evident that the evidence proves the point, it's called the implied warrant.
Inductive reasoning - working from specific evidence to a general understanding.
Deductive reasoning - working from a generalized body of evidence to reach a specific example or understanding.
An error in reasoning is called a fallacy.
Types of Reasoning and their Fallacies Parallel Reasoning - More often called an analogy, it's used for comparison. Since similar circumstances may have similar outcomes, parallel reasoning leads one to assume or predict outcomes.
This is used to compare and contrast as well, using what we know to help others understand what they don't
Parallel reasoning uses literal analogies and figurative analogies.
Syntax may include like, as, similar, resembles, compared to, by contrast...
This becomes fallacious reasoning when the analogy is false (false analogy), the apples to oranges mistake.
Examples:
Employees are like nails. Just as nails must be hit in the head in order to make them work, so must employees.
Government is like business, so just as business must be sensitive primarily to the bottom line, so also must government. (But the objectives of government and business are completely different, so probably they will have to meet different criteria.)
Construction workers use blueprints to guide them as they build. Doctors use X-rays and MRI images as diagnostic aids. Therefore, presenters should use PowerPoint slides as teleprompters during live-audience presentations. This argument, of course, is the fallacy of "False Analogy". Why? Blueprints and MRIs are created as visual aids for the construction worker and doctor. A presenter's visual aids are intended for the audience. The comparison, therefore, is invalid.
Subsidized healthcare is socialism.
Generalization - Sometimes drawn from extended parallel reasoning, generalizations involve making predictions, classifications and descriptions. It's also called reasoning by example.
Generalization is indiscriminitive, reasoning that what is true about one member of a group is true about the rest.
Syntax includes we have concluded, it is generally so, usually so, normally so...
This becomes a hasty generalization when there are too few cases counted toward the generalization, so one jumps to conclusions.
Examples:
All Mormons are polygamists.
All men are pigs.
All democrats are tree-huggers.
Reasoning by Definition - Breaking down something by what it means, a deductive process.
Syntax includes it follows that, its necessarily so, so by definition...
This becomes a sweeping generalization when the definition is too rigid in include relevant exceptions.
fallacious syntax includes always, never, in every case, certainly, necessarily, categorically...
So, if all men are pigs, and Chris is a man, therefore he must also be a pig.
By that definition that would make me a tree-hugging, post-polygamous swine.
Reasoning by Sign - what I call symptomatic reasoning. Recognizing how artifacts or actions are associate with related events. Summativity v. nonsummativity. Inductive reasoning, very close to causal reasoning.
Syntax includes language that deals with factors.
This becomes a false sign when the link between the indications and the correlating events fails. Superstitions are typical false signs.
Causal or Cause to Effect Reasoning - _____ leads to _____ . Much can go wrong with this type of reasoning.
A causal link has to be proved with a specific agent of cause.
Syntax includes causes, leads to, produces, activates, provokes, generates, brings about, results in...
There could be multiple causation, where the arguer has to sort and prioritize most influential causes.
However, there can also be unrelated events that contribute to the issue.
There are a number of fallacies related to causal reasoning:
This becomes oversimplification where one ignores other causes, eliminating others to promote their own agenda of cause.
Correlation v. Causation - connecting two events due to proximity.
Post hoc ergo propter hoc reasoning, meaning before , therefore because of , just because something happened before something else does not mean it is the cause of the outcome.
Example: "I can't help but think that you are the cause of this problem; we never had any problem with the furnace until you moved into the apartment." The manager of the apartment house, on no stated grounds other than the temporal priority of the new tenant's occupancy, has assumed that the tenant's presence has some causal relationship to the furnace's becoming faulty.
Slippery Slope proposes a series of events was caused by one event (the Butterfly effect) without ever showing how it's linked. I had two debaters that no matter what the resolution linked their warrant to total mutual nuclear destruction.
Reasoning from a Dilemma - It's the either/or position of reasoning. If you're not for us, you're against us.
Syntax includes either, or, must choose betwee, pros/cons, costs/gains...
The fallacy is in forcing the dichotomy, not everything is for or against the proposition. When you make it seem there are only two choices when in fact there are more to consider, you are guilty of forcing the dichotomy.
The complex question is an example of this when there is a major hidden presumption - Have you stopped beating your wife?
Arguing from Authority - takes an authority's opinion, states their qualifications and then states what the authority said. Syntax includes in the words of, as was established by, according to, research shows, studies show... Not all sources are valid authorities. There's always room to question even the brightrest in the field - QUESTION AUTHORITY Blind obedience to authority is not cirtical thinking - don't get me started on this. The fallacy is the appeal to authority, using celebrity to persuade is an example of this.
Fact A. Artifacts - Object used to prove a point. Physical evidence in court is considered artifactual, or it could be a visual aid such as a model or representation of something. B. Anecdotal - Narratives that parallel, illustrate and dramatize social issues. Audiences identify with anecdotes through relating. C. Figures and statistics quantify a social phenomenon or event. These numbers must be synthesized for impact. This synthesis leads to more powerful description or to inference resulting in generalization.
Opinion A. Quotations from various sources or content experts are known as source-based evidence. B. Testimony of witness or first-hand experience. Creates identification with audience.
Evidence and Persuasion
Testimony is persuasive as long as it's documented.
Factual evidence needs to be specific
Stats and empirical evidence combine well to affect an audience.
Valid evidence inoculates audience sympathies with counterarguments.
Evidence has a short shelf life, and the more novel the better.
Evidence that backs the audience's cultural and social contexts works better than contradictory evidence.
While it may beg the question, it cannot be a question.
Declarative
Clear
Indicative of Direction
Definitive
The culmination of your introduction
Types of Propositions
Fact Argues what does or what does not exist, what has or has not happened, what may or what may not occur. Proposition: Cell phone "sexting" increases risk of exploitation of minors.
The language is determinate: words like is, has, will, quantifiers like more, fewer, increasing, diminishing.
Value Deals with questions of what is right/wrong, ethical/unethical, moral/amoral/immoral
How are the values defined for the issue?
Whose standard set the evaluation?
Whose value is better?
Proposition: Sexting is immoral. The language is evaluative: words like right, wrong, ethical, unethical...
Policy Deals with what should or shouldn't be done as a matter of social action.
Problem/solution oriented.
Question if there is harm that requires a solution (like sexting).
What are the causes of the harm?
What's proposed as a workable solution?
What are inherent effects and side effects of solution?
Proposition: Sexting should not be considered a sexually predatory offense. The language is declarative, should, must, ought, plan,program, system...
Argumentative Ground
The structure of the argument that lends itself to the best critical analysis and resolution.
Thesis, antithesis and synthesis as measures of arguability. (I just made up that word.)
Narrows the scope while still maintaining substance.
Qualify, limit the grounds.
Definitions and Shared Meaning
All need to be on the same page - imperative to define key terms.
Denotative trumps connotative meaning unless established in ethos.
Inclusive or exclusive definitions - sometime you can define something easier by what it is not.
Qualifiers
Allow a degree to which something is true without becoming absolute (I'm convinced there are none) and lets us adopt our opinions to our audience.
Speak in terms of probability instead of certainty - helps to moderate and preserve attention.
Avoid terms of extreme.
Use statistics to qualify, but be sure to synthesize.
Preserve context, especially cultural, psychological, social and temporal.
Gamemanship Challenge the status quo. The affirmative challenges and advocates, the negative defends and opposes. Each has their advantages: Aff - The advantage of attack Neg - The advantage of strategy and neg wins in a tie. Stay topical. The burden falls to the aff side to win. The audience or speaker decides the victory.
