Resolution Ideas

Regular psychological evaluations mandatory for federal assets.

Extremism is insanity.

Utah is the happiest place in the U.S.

Term limits for mayor.

Insurance should cover abortions.

Every child should be insured.

Civil marriage shouldn't be a religious institution.

Procreation should be limited to two whole children.

Inheritances should be limited financially.

Milk is good for every body.

GM should fire their CEO.

Real estate values should be capped.

Qualifying non-qualifying individuals for financing should be a felony.

The Bill of Rights

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment II

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Amendment III

No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

Amendment VII

In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Amendment VIII

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

Policy

• Establish the resolution.
  
  • Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially increase social services for persons living in poverty in the United States.
• Research and find evidence.
  
  • Who said it-their qualifications-when they said it. Only read the last name and the year, e.g. Zizek '01
• Define.
  
• Establish harms of the resolution. Harms are what is wrong. Most cases have no less then three harms.
• Or establish advantages in lieu of harms.
  
• Move onto inherency, why your harms are not being solved in the status quo.
  
• Form your plan. The most common form of a plan is fairly simple. Just say explicitly what the United States Federal Government should do. We reserve the right to clarify"
• THUS THE PLAN: The United States federal government should permanently expand the authorized end-strength of the United States Army by 100,000 troops. The United States federal government should then establish a 15-month active-duty enlistment option for the United States Army guaranteeing post-graduate financial aid for enlistees. We reserve the right to clarify.
• And then establish solvency. This is how your plan solves for its harms. This also needs evidence, and it must be correlated directly to your harms. If say, one of your harms was AIDS in Africa is getting out of hand. You need to have a solvency card that says your plan will decrease AIDS.

Refutation

Five Devices of Refutation

Turning the Tables
This means adopting the opposing argument and turning it so as to use it against the case. It takes an argument and uses it to bolster the position of the one refuting.

Reducing to an Absurdity
This tool requires taking up the argument of the opposing viewpoint as if it were true and then showing that it leads to an absurdity.

Dilemma
This can take on three forms. It is possible to take the opposing viewpoint and reduce it into two alternatives and then disprove each of the two positions.

It is also possible to take the argument and make it into two alternatives that neither can be the answer.

A third way is to make it into two alternatives which include a greater and lesser evil, of which the audience will choose the lesser.

Example: In trying to propose a new paved road to replace a dirt road, the Dilemma might be used this way against the opponents. Their main objection is the additional $180 per year in property taxes it will bring for each and every resident.

“We can put a road in and increase everyone’s taxes by 50 cents per day for the privilege of using this new road or we can leave it to consider the future in hopes of the economy getting better.

"In the mean time, the cost of maintenance of a dirt road and the wear and tear and maintenance on our cars will continue to increase. The future cost of the road will also increase.

“So for less than a weekly trip to the car wash, we can have a clean dry road and reduce the dust in our homes along our new road or continue to replace springs and shocks and clean the dust and think about it tomorrow when it will cost more.”

Residues
Residues are like a dilemma only the proposition is divided into all of its possibilities and then eliminate the false or undesirable outcomes. The only true or the best is left standing.

Enforcing the Consequences
Similar to reducing to an absurdity, it takes an argument and shows that if carried out to its logical conclusion it is undesirable or illogical.

Consider the idea that there needs be an opposition in all things, a popular eastern philosophy and religious tenet. You need bad to appreciate the good, pain to enjoy pleasure.

If you carry that thought to its logical conclusion, it may be like the guy hitting his head against a wall. When he was asked asked why he was doing that he said because it felt so much better when he didn’t and he wanted to appreciate that feeling of not hurting.

Taken a step or two further, one would need to die to fully appreciate life, though it's unknown whether one could appreciate life when one's deceased. Even if you believe you went into some other life form, you could still no longer enjoy the life you have right now. It would be an entirely different life if it were true.

So not only is the philosophy or belief illogical, it doesn’t withstand some of the most basic truth tests let alone, the best truth test of all, common sense.

I do not need to have pain to know the joy of feeling great. I do not need heartache to appreciate the wonder of being in love. I don’t have to grow old and have aches and pain to enjoy my youth.

It may sound like something smart to repeat, but there is no scientific evidence let alone evidence in the Bible that such a belief is a truth. It is just a philosophy. It is not true.

Issues of Value

This image stirs something very deep within me, a number of values that drive the choices I make every day; family, fatherhood, security, adventure, travel, time well spent.

Can you identify your values and their contexts?

When a comparison or social judgment is advanced in an argument, the issue becomes an argument of value.

Value arguments are derived when:

• You evaluate - Abortion is wrong.
• You compare - The rights of the fetus outweigh the rights of the mother.
• You argue the harms - Abortion is dangerous.
• You argue the advantages - Women's rights should be protected.
• You argue the disadvantages - The unborn's rights will be violated.

When you consider the constructive arguments presented in class, consider the values. You'll find them in the claim (abortion is wrong), in the grounds (the rights of the fetus outweigh the rights of the mother), even in the warrant (abortion is wrong because it takes a human life).

Assess Values Through Definition
What criteria are being used to define the value?
"Preserving the right to choose is in the best interest of the mother." What is meant by "best interest"?

Assess Values Through Relevance
What argument is more relevant to the value of human life, the rights of the mother? the rights of the unborn baby?
Is the value distorted or misrepresented to apply to the argument? "She gave up her rights when she had sex."

Assess the Value Through Importance
The right to choose versus the right to life.


American Value Systems (Argumentation and the Decision-Making Process, R. D. Rieke & M. O. Sillars)

Puritan - Pioneer - Peasant
Individuals have an obligation to themselves and the people around them, even their god, to work hard and remain righteous (virtue, hard work, temperance, dependability, sobriety).

Enlightenment
Individuals discover truths through reason (freedom, nature, science, liberty, individualism, knowledge, reason, progress).

Progressive Values
Progress is inherently good and continues to make things better (practicality, efficiency, change, evolution).

Transcendental Values
Intuition is higher than reason, the centrality of love for others, the Golden Rule (humanitarian, respect, truth, equality, love, kindness, compassion, friendship).

Personal Success
Pragmatic concern for material happiness of the individual, personal achievement (career, security, family, identity, health, dignity, consideration).

Collectivist Values
Some control of the excesses of freedom are perceived necessary (cooperation, unity, brotherhood, social good, order).

The Flow

Prime Minister Constructive presents the government case in favor of the resolution

Leader of the Opposition Constructive presents Disadvantages, Counterplan, Kritiks, Topicality Arguments, and Case Responses.

Member of the Government Constructive answers the Disadvantages, Counterplan, Kritiks, Topicality Arguments, and defends the Case.

Member of the Opposition Constructive kicks positions (there is almost never enough time to go for everything), and then defends the Disadvantages, Counterplan, Kritiks, Topicality Arguments, and Case Responses. The FOCUS IS THE LINE BY LINE ARGUMENTS.

Leader of the Opposition Rebuttal WEIGHS THE ARGUMENTS—TOUCHES ON THE KEY POINTS ON THE KEY ISSUES IN THE DEBATE AND MAKES THE LARGER CASE FOR VOTING FOR THE OPPOSITION. Note: avoid making new responses/arguments other than extensions of arguments presented in the Member of Opposition constructive speech.

Prime Minister Rebuttal presents THE REASONS THE GOV SHOULD WIN—RESPONDS TO THE LEADER OF OPPOSITION REBUTTAL. Note: Unless the Member of the Opposition constructive made new arguments, the PMR should not make new responses other than extensions of what the Member of the Government constructive argued.

New arguments and ideas are welcome throughout all four constructive speeches. However, during the rebuttal speeches new arguments are not allowed. The only exception is in instances where the Government rebuttalist is taking advantage of their first opportunity to address an argument presented in the Second Opposition Constructive. New examples, analysis, analogies, etc. which support former arguments are permitted and welcome in rebuttals.

The purpose of this rule is simply to grant both teams equal opportunity to respond to each other's arguments. If a new argument is presented, this is another opportunity for the opponent to rise to a "Point of Order" and allow the judge to rule in favor or against the rule violation.

Debate Format

PM
First proposition constructive speech 7 minutes

LO
First opposition constructive speech 8 minutes

MG
Second proposition constructive speech 8 minutes

MO
Second opposition constructive speech 8 minutes

LO
Opposition rebuttal 4 minutes

PM
Proposition rebuttal 5 minutes

Your Resolutions

First Constructive Propositions (the Prima Facie case)

7. Brady – Current Dixie State College students' test scores are negatively impacted by noise in the Testing Center. Alayna opposing

4. Greg – WCSD should solarize their elementary schools. Chris opposing

1. DeAnne – Proposed elimination of the 12^th grade is bad for Utah. Juli opposing

W8. Sara – Mom's who choose to return to their careers after maternity shouldn't have their parenting values questioned. Jalynn opposing

2. Chuck – Illegal immigration contributes to the current economic recession. Mark opposing

W7. Steven - Utah should add a state lottery to pay for education. Greg opposing

Scott – Environment regulations strengthen our dependence on foreign oil.

3. Jessica - The stigmatism with vaccinating children must be actively battled.

8. Juli - Credit cards for teenagers or young adults is a bad idea. Jake opposing

W3. Alayna – There is a lack of student and community participation at Dixie State College’s athletic events. Paige opposing

6. Mark – Organized religion is form of brainwashing. Jessica opposing

Kirsten – Arizona’s Immigration Law should be federalized.  Brady opposing

5. Shanae – NCAA DI Athletics should implement a stricter standard for awarding scholarships.
Jarrod opposing

W2. Jake – Polygamists should not be awarded State or Federal welfare system. Scott opposing

W6. Preston – Women are more objectified in media now than ever before. Shanae opposing

Chris – The Federal government should abolish Arizona’s Immigration law. Chuck opposing

W5. Paige – It’s good to shop at WalMart. DeAnne opposing

W4. Jalynn – Text messaging has a negative effect on communication. Sara opposing

W1. Jarrod – The death penalty could regulate overcrowding and construction of new prisons. Preston opposing

Brad - Major League Baseball should institute instant replay for all plays. Steven opposing

Possible Resolutions
TH = This House
USFG = U.S. Federal Government


TH would reduce the drinking age in the USA to 18.
Gov: Jenn/Chris Opps: Katie/Erik

All convicted and released Level 3 sex offenders should be required to wear GPS monitoring systems.
Gov: Hayli/Myndie Opps: Candace/Casie

America is too obsessed with celebrities.
Gov: Tara/Kenny Opps: Corey/Bryaun

We've done it before and we can do it again.
Gov: Mike/Julie Opps: Anne/Kate

A Few Words on Delivery

Three Things to Consider:
Speaker-Message-Audience

Three Things to Remember:
Loud enough to be heard, slow enough to be followed, clear enough to be understood.

Loud
Work your voice, volume, and pitch vary your delivery dynamics

Slow
Rate: Speed kills. Pause, pronunciation, enunciation

Clear
Research, research, research. Not just your subject, you have to know your audience. Become your content's expert.


Delivery
Engage with a smile
Engage with eye contact
Engage with pertinent gesturing
Engage with bifurcating

Issues of Fact and Prima Facie Case Building

Remember the Fact case:

• 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:
  

1. Simple declarative sentence using only needed terms
2. Expressed in neutral terms encouraging debate
3. Limits the scope of the debate
4. 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:

1. Make positive statements when possible
2. Define unclear words
3. Don't elevate your normal way of speaking by using huge words
4. Avoid complex sentences as your propositions
5. 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.

Ways That We Reason and Ways That We Fail

Review: Warrants

• 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.

Finding and Using Evidence

Types of Evidence

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.
• Competency in delivery impacts value of evidence.
• Ethos impacts evidence.

Credibility
Competency - eloquence, dynamism, knowledge, wisdom
Charisma - good will, consistency, honesty
Confidence - assertive, aesthetic, paralinguistic




Appeals and Evidence Selection

• Logos - appealing to logic and reason
• Pathos - appealing to emotion and relation
• Ethos - the credibility of the presenter

Appeals are based in how the speaker is perceived and can be evoked by evidence:

• Logos can be found in statistical evidence
• Pathos can be evoked via testimony and anecdotal evidence
• Ethos is inherent to valid evidence and content experts

Evidence Litmus Test

Is it...

• Accurate - no error in the details, better to directly quote rather than paraphrase.
• Biased - objective recall and disclosure, conflicts of interest.
• Consistent - does evidence agree intrinsically?
• Current - that shelf-life thing
• Relevant - forced claims and backing are brittle
• Representative - is it mutually exclusive or generally applied?
• Qualified - what credential does the evidence possess?
• Sufficient - Comprehensive? Don't claim more than you can prove.
• Verifiable - More than one source is encouraged.

The "R" Word

• Research both sides of the case.
• Find as many viewpoints as possible.
• Stratify your research.
• Document your research.

Subject, Form and Rule

The Issues
What's in Rhetorical Demand?

• Immigration
• Economy
• War on Terror
• Nuclear Arms
• Taxes
• Global Warming
• Education
• Health Care
• National security
• Homelessness
• Human Rights
• Religion

Audience Adaptation
Speaker, know thine audience.
Age, demographics, values, drivers, context.


The Proposition/The Resolution

• 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.

Warrants

Warrants/General Strategies of Argument

Warrants are chains of reasoning that connect the claim and evidence/reason. A warrant is the principle, provision or chain of reasoning that connects the grounds/reason to the claim. Warrants operate at a higher level of generality than a claim or reason, and they are not normally explicit.

Example: “Needle exchange programs should be abolished [claim] because they only cause more people to use drugs.” [reason]

The unstated warrant is: “when you make risky behavior safer you encourage more people to engage in it.”

There are 6 main argumentative strategies via which the relationship between evidence and claim are often established. They have the acronym “GASCAP.”

• Generalization
• Analogy
• Sign
• Causality
• Authority
• Principle
  

These strategies are used at various different levels of generality within an argument, and rarely come in neat packages - typically they are interconnected and work in combination.

Common Warrants

1. Argument based on Generalization
A very common form of reasoning. It assumes that what is true of a well chosen sample is likely to hold for a larger group or population, or that certain things consistent with the sample can be inferred of the group/population.

2. Argument based on Analogy
Extrapolating from one situation or event based on the nature and outcome of a similar situation or event. Has links to 'case-based' and precedent-based reasoning used in legal discourse. What is important here is the extent to which relevant similarities can be established between 2 contexts. Are there sufficient, typical, accurate, relevant similarities?

3. Argument via Sign/Clue
The notion that certain types of evidence are symptomatic of some wider principle or outcome. For example, smoke is often considered a sign for fire. Some people think high SAT scores are a sign a person is smart and will do well in college.

4. Causal Argument
Arguing that a given occurrence or event is the result of, or is effected by, factor X. Causal reasoning is the most complex of the different forms of warrant. The big dangers with it are:

1. Mixing up correlation with causation
2. Falling into the post hoc, ergo propter hoc trap. Closely related to confusing correlation and causation, this involves inferring 'after the fact, therefore because of the fact').
   
   

5. Argument from Authority
Does person X or text X constitute an authoritative source on the issue in question? What political, ideological or economic interests does the authority have? Is this the sort of issue in which a significant number of authorities are likely to agree on?

6. Argument from Principle
Locating a principle that is widely regarded as valid and showing that a situation exists in which this principle applies. Evaluation: Is the principle widely accepted? Does it accurately apply to the situation in question? Are there commonly agreed on exceptions? Are there 'rival' principles that lead to a different claim? Are the practical consequences of following the principle sufficiently desirable?