Resolve these...

Women are from Mars and men are from Venus.

I'd rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy.

Batman is the superior to Superman.

Bang goes creation.

It's the most wonderful time of the year.

T'is better to live to eat.

We are all enlisted till the conflict is o'er.

All in all we're just another brick in the wall.

Orange is the new black.

One nation, indivisible.

Your Final Argument

I will divide the class into groups of four individuals, two who will argue in favor of their resolution and two who will oppose. The resolutions will be philosophical and can be argued straight-up or can be defined.

For example, should the resolution read, "Sometimes the wrong train arrives at the right station," those arguing in favor of the resolution can define the words train and station as person and place and argue the benefits of serendipity. The opposition in turn could argue against the concept of fate, or redefine the resolution to fit a better argument. This resolution would not do well to be argued straight-up. 

Should a resolution read, "Dogs are better than cats," (and we all know they are) this could be argued straight up, meaning those in favor of the resolution could actually argue in favor of canines, those opposed would have the burden of either proving that dogs are inferior to cats or that the case is inherently flawed on the basis of their reasoning. 

The trick here is in how the resolution is interpreted. Those proposing the argument need to be carefully critical in how they define the case in that it upholds the intent of the resolution's argument. If they do not, and the opposition exploits their fallacy of misinterpreting the resolution the opposition can win the case without further argument.

Each group will follow this format:

1. The speaker for the resolution will present their case. 
2. The speaker against the proposition will present either their opposing case or their case critique (why the argument itself fails based on reasoning or why it doesn't follow the intent of the resolution). 
3. The second speaker for the resolution will answer the opposition's claims and advance their case.
4. The second speaker against the resolution answers the second speaker's rebuttal and advances their case or case critique. 

I'll be looking at two criteria in assessing how you do with your respective arguments:

1. All speakers both for and against the resolution establish argumentative ground using sound reasoning, exemplifying any of the following:

• Parallel or Analogy
• Generalization
• Definition
• Symptomatic
• Causal

2. The counter-resolution of the opposition used refutation - turning tables, absurdity, dilemma, residues, or consequences or fallacies - or rebuttal that attempts to nullify the case itself.

The assessment is pretty straight forward; if your team is arguing for or advancing the resolution, define and build a case based on reasoning to defend it and divide its delivery between the two of you. If your team is arguing against the case or creating a case critique, divide your case among the two of you to introduce your counter-claim or critique and then advance your argument with your second speech. 

The class, also known as the House, will quickly vote at the end of each case as to the victors. 

For the Record

From the Congressional Research Service white paper published January 13, 2014

Clash

Several of you have posed a question about clashing in your opposing argument. This is good. Clashing against the arguer is not.

Make sure when you establish your opposing case that it is against the first constructive case, not the person delivering it.

Clash against evidence. If you find evidence that contradicts the case evidence, use it.

Clash against the reasoning. You know the fallacies - we even identified several in our last meeting.

Clash against the claim, but remember the dilemma fallacy; there are usually more than two sides to an argument.

Let's Try a Little Exercise

Were I to create an argument supporting the RAP Tax Initiative, what critical questions might I ask? (Other than what the heck is the RAP Tax Initiative.)

Please comment below.

Look Harder

I'm knee deep in assessing your arguments and I'm noticing an overall trend in much of your research - it's shallow.

What I mean by this is that generally, much of the evidence I'm seeing in cases is whatever has popped up in the top five lines of your Google searches, and that's not only a lazy-ass approach to building your arguments, it circumvents one of the main objectives of critical thinking.

It's not supposed to be easy. Look harder.