interpertating the resolution/types of criteria
Affirmative has the right to define
Gets to specify what the resolution means
State the controversy
The first speaker must read the full text of the resolution
Must be read verbatim
Must be done within the first minute of the first speech
Define the controversy
Articulate a clear and compelling vision of what it means to say yes to the resolution.
Establish your vision of the good and true.
Preserve the controversy
Must offer a case that is debatable and fair
define
Definitions are governed by logical principles
1st Principle: stating the class, or group, to which the object of definition belongs.
Ex. Humanism is a “philosophy of general development”
2nd Principle: showing how your subject for definition differs from the other members of its group.
Ex. What is an argument? An art that convinces and persuades a reader or listener
Principles of Definition
relies upon reading words from a page or screen
Most ordered and controlled method of preparation available
Manuscript:
When is evidence not needed?
When evidence is “self-evident”
When a claim is common knowledge
When it is stipulated by both sides of the controversy
destruction of opposing proofs
Supplementary to positive proof
Refutation:
3 ways the affirmative can FAIL to preserve the controversy
truism
tautology
abuse
define For a definition in a debate round, we usually need a meaning more specific and nuanced than what you will find in a general-purpose dictionary. Fashion your own definitions
Specific Means of Definition
involves holding the entire text of a speech (word-for-word) in a speaker’s mind.
Less reliable
Memorization”
three linguistic treats to clear meaning:
ambiguity, vagueness, and interdeterminacy
3 errors in the management of controversy
Answering too much
Answering too little
Answering yourself, not your opponent
Grounding truth conditions of the win/loss in big picture terms
Show when the resolution should be affirmed
Rational grounds for holding the resolution to be true
how many definitions by are there and can you name them all
7
Definition by Authority
Definition by Etymology
Definition by History
Definition by Illustration
Definition by Contrast of Comparison
Definition by Negation
Definition by Enumeration
a prepared speech in which most of the words spoken are selected in the moment of utterance
Extemporaneous: the one clark wants us to use
how can we tell Is it True?
Accurately
Clearly
Completely
With a complete citation
Is the source
Recent
Biased
Competent
Reliable
Is the Content
Relevant
Internally consistent
Externally consistent
strong
Three Fundamental Requirements of Refutations for Positive Argument
Position of Refutation
Arrangement of Refutation
Special refutation
General Refutation
Concerned with establishing the truth-value of the resolution
Criteria of What (issues)
Criteria of How (formal)
Criteria of How Much (Frequency and Proportion)
Criteria of How Certain (Probability)
Epistemic vs Non-Epistemic Criteria
What are Issues?
Issues: essential questions that must be answered “yes” by the Affirmative to establish the resolution.
generated in the moment of presentation
Impromptu:
Relationship of the debater to the evidence
Accuracy: Is the debater accurately reporting the evidence to the audience
Clarity: evidence should be presented clearly
Completeness: not only should a presenter accurately report what was said, but that statement should be representative of what was presented in the source
Citation: Where is the content being presented from?
Who said it? (the author)
Where was it said? (the platform that published the information)
When was it said? (the publication date)
showing that the evidence presented by an opponent is unsound in some way, fails to meet the proper tests of such evidence, or is an effective refutation
Attack on the forms of argument: demonstrating the weakness of any argument… is also an excellent method of refutation
Tests of Evidence:
Concerned with beauty and moral claims that stand outside the resolution
Delivery, style, organization
Decorum
Wit
Kritik
Non-Epistemic Criteria
what are the Stock Issues for Policy Propositions
•HARM / ILL
•INHERENCY / BLAME
•SOLVENCY / CURE
•PRACTICABILITY
• COST-BENEFIT
Pieces of evidence and individual arguments that are prepared in advance of the debate
Cards: Notes
Source questions involve consideration of both the speaker and the platform.
Recency: It is common in academic debate that the side that has the most recent evidence wins a content claim
Bias: source is relatively disinterested in the dispute and not likely to be led by prejudice for or against one side?
Reluctant testimony: works in favor of the credibility of a source (whistleblowers)
Competence: Is the source qualified to speak on this issue?
Reliability: If a source regularly makes extreme and bizarre claims, they may be regarded as unreliable even if they hold legitimate credentials
Relevance: Does the evidence support the claim?
Internal Consistency: Is the evidence consistent with itself?
External consistency: Does what the source alleges fit with accounts offered by other sources?
Strength: Evidence supports claims strongly and weakly
when we expose a fallacy in another’s argument, we are using a very common and very effective method of refuting them
Fallacies: