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.