Preparing a debate – Arguments and fallacies

slide1. Preparing a debate – Arguments and fallacies Christopher Sanchez – Debating Society Germany e.V. – sanchez@schoolsdebate.de 1<br>
slide2. Analyse and define the motion Christopher Sanchez – Debating Society Germany e.V. – sanchez@schoolsdebate.de 2 FACT: Something is or is not
VALUE: Something is of inherent worth or not
POLICY: Something should be done or not be done

Alfred Snider, WSDC Playbook, 2015<br>
slide3. Christopher Sanchez – Debating Society Germany e.V. – sanchez@schoolsdebate.de 3 Motions of fact
THBT advertising does more harm than good
Harm and Good: which one predominates?
Most common standards for determination:
Majority of examples
Preponderance of evidence
True beyond a reasonable doubt

Alfred Snider, WSDC Playbook, 2015<br>
slide4. Christopher Sanchez – Debating Society Germany e.V. – sanchez@schoolsdebate.de 4 Motions of fact
THBT China and the USA will be allies in the 21st century
Set to determine a future fact, but still a fact, the same determiners apply.

Alfred Snider, WSDC Playbook, 2015<br>
slide5. Christopher Sanchez – Debating Society Germany e.V. – sanchez@schoolsdebate.de 5 Motions of value
THBT Shakespeare is the world‘s greatest writer.
Locate the value term

Name some criteria to prove this motion.

Which criteria is the most reasonable?

Alfred Snider, WSDC Playbook, 2015<br>
slide6. Christopher Sanchez – Debating Society Germany e.V. – sanchez@schoolsdebate.de 6 Motions of policy
THW legalise prostitution
Proposition needs a model.

Relevant details needed: Who? What? Why? How? Who pays for it?

Build a model anticipating the opposition‘s arguments

Alfred Snider, WSDC Playbook, 2015<br>
slide7. Christopher Sanchez – Debating Society Germany e.V. – sanchez@schoolsdebate.de 7 THW legalise prostitution

Framing (aka Case, aka Model, aka Plan, aka Mechanism):

Philosophical: hypothetical approach using real-world examples.

Engage on a pragmatic and principled level.

NSDA on YouTube<br>
slide8. Christopher Sanchez – Debating Society Germany e.V. – sanchez@schoolsdebate.de 8 Other general issues
THBT parents should not hit their children

Either policy (investigate and prosecute abusive parents)

or value (morally wrong)

Decide on most likely winning option

Avoid local/regional  go international to fulfill principle approach (e.g. agent can be developing countries or Western Liberal Democracies…)

 Anticipate interpretations of the other side  Prepare several different models to align/edit strategy accordingly<br>
slide9. Christopher Sanchez – Debating Society Germany e.V. – sanchez@schoolsdebate.de 9 WHICH TYPE?

• THW execute convicted war criminals.
• THBT humanity will not reach the 22nd Century.
• THBT state-run media cannot serve the function of a free press.
• THBT it is wrong to eat whales and sharks.
• THBT viewing violent media leads to violent behavior.
• THBT NATO is an outdated institution.
• THBT standardized testing is the enemy of learning.
• THW require all candidates for national office to undergo lie detector tests with questions submitted by their opponents.<br>
slide10. Areas of argumentation Christopher Sanchez – Debating Society Germany e.V. – sanchez@schoolsdebate.de 10 Economy
Environment
Moral issues
Societal issues
Family
World of Work
Education Politics
Geopolitical issues
International affairs
Religion
Corporate World

Other current events<br>
slide11. SPERM rule Christopher Sanchez – Debating Society Germany e.V. – sanchez@schoolsdebate.de 11 Social
Political
Economy
Environment
Education
Religion
Moral issues Corporate World, Family issues
Geopolitical issues, intl affairs

Other current events<br>
slide12. Christopher Sanchez – Debating Society Germany e.V. – sanchez@schoolsdebate.de 12 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2oEzZQ7pPUU<br>
slide13. Christopher Sanchez – Debating Society Germany e.V. – sanchez@schoolsdebate.de 13 Model policy framing

A delicate issue to be balanced: too vague  too detailed

Too vague: appears to have too little content/preparation

Too detailed: attempt at narrowing the debate too strongly (weaseling)<br>
slide14. Christopher Sanchez – Debating Society Germany e.V. – sanchez@schoolsdebate.de 14 Model policy framing

Agent: Who will do it?

Location: Global or in just some parts?

Level of government: intl., natl., regional, local…?

Detail of action should be clear and structured, not off the top of your head

High costs  include funding
Hard to enforce  specify method
Needing facilities  specify how you would build them
Needing time  give a schedule/timeframe

Example of a successful precedent model<br>
slide15. Christopher Sanchez – Debating Society Germany e.V. – sanchez@schoolsdebate.de 15 Examples

This House would make voting compulsory:

Voting in all elections will be mandatory using the system in Australia that offers small penalties to those who do not vote but allows for extremely easy voting registration and balloting. If you just had a model that said use penalties but you did not make voting & balloting easier you might be a target of opposition arguments. If you put these elements into your model (listing early voting, national holiday, automatic registration, etc.) there would be a perception of trying to go too far and beyond the motion.<br>
slide16. Christopher Sanchez – Debating Society Germany e.V. – sanchez@schoolsdebate.de 16 Examples

This House would legalize prostitution:

National governments will legalize adult prostitution as a commercial activity. Prostitutes will register, undergo periodic health checks and be given commercial rights and police protection. The program will model the system used in Berlin, Germany. In this model you avoid opposition arguments like child prostitution, health issues, while gaining advantages in the areas of rights of prostitutes and customers, end of harmful pimp influence because of police protection, tax revenue advantage, avoid abuse by clients, etc.<br>
slide17. Christopher Sanchez – Debating Society Germany e.V. – sanchez@schoolsdebate.de 17 Motions of policy
THW legalise prostitution
Proposition needs a model.

Relevant details needed: Who? What? Why? How? Who pays for it?

Your turn:
Build a model anticipating the opponent‘s arguments<br>
slide18. Christopher Sanchez – Debating Society Germany e.V. – sanchez@schoolsdebate.de 18 Preparing a debate – Arguments and fallacies THW require all users of social media platforms to publicly display their reail names on their profiles
THR the increasing importance of home delivery services in the consumer economy
THW levy a tax to develop and improve public transport
THBT the British government should hold a second Brexit referendum
TH is in favour of raising a European army
TH welcomes the transition towards a cashless society
THW allow the creation of donor siblings
THW not install facial recognition cameras in public areas<br>
slide19. Argument structure Christopher Sanchez – Debating Society Germany e.V. – sanchez@schoolsdebate.de 19 Argument development:

Fully explain and develop your arguments (connecting the dots)

TITLE: (signposting)

THESIS: One or two sentences to describe the argument (supply context)

 Make it easy for judge to understand

Linear development: causes before effects, links before impacts, assumptions before implications etc…<br>
slide20. Christopher Sanchez – Debating Society Germany e.V. – sanchez@schoolsdebate.de 20 Argument development:

RESAONING

Explain logic and reasoning behind the operation of the argument (induction, deduction, causation)

Making the most simple logical connections sounds counter-intuitive, but it is vital to the delivery of the argument to be bought by judges.

EVIDENCE and SUPPORT

Link your abstract argument to the real world: current event, expert opinion, quotation, statistics, empirical/case studies, analogy/comparison, narrative, historical example, commonly accepted idea

ARE (Argument, Reason, Example)
SEE (Statement, Explanations, Evidence)<br>
slide21. Christopher Sanchez – Debating Society Germany e.V. – sanchez@schoolsdebate.de 21 Argument development:

One argument could be:
"Passive smoking is a threat to public health"
 
One reason why you choose this argument could be:
"Because smoking is allowed in public places, virtually everybody could be a victim of passive smoking. Studies show that one's health is at risk if exposed to cigarette fumes on a repeated basis. This harm could weigh heavily on a society if there is no stopping this condition. Health risks such as circulatory problems and lung diseases could be avoided as well as people becoming ill early and drop out of the workforce or even die younger than the average citizen."
 
Examples to prove this are:
"Young school kids going to school through train stations, every person commuting to work for that matter could be affected."
"Waitresses working in restaurants and bars aren't protected from exposure."
"The city/country of X has seen an increase of lung-related diseases in the period from Y to Z that can be related to second-hand smoking"
"Component X in cigarettes causes reaction Y in the body, which could ultimately lead to condition Z and possibly death."<br>
slide22. Christopher Sanchez – Debating Society Germany e.V. – sanchez@schoolsdebate.de 22 Argument development:

LINK TO MOTION

Link arguments to motion, model

Again, what seems intuitive must be explained to the fullest extent, links must be „seen“

IMPACTS

Answer the question“Why is this important?“ at as many instances as you can (unemployment is bad, slavery is bad…)  explain specific benefits and harms

 Debates are won on substantive arguments – rebuttal alone would be very hard to do.<br>
slide23. Avoiding fallacies Christopher Sanchez – Debating Society Germany e.V. – sanchez@schoolsdebate.de 23 Logical fallacies are errors in reasoning that are common enough to be labelled accordingly:

Ad Hominem
Strawman
Appeal to authority
Equivocation
Appeal to emotion
Hasty Generalisation
Slippery Slope
Red Herring
Tu Quoque
Appeal to Pity (…)<br>
slide24. Christopher Sanchez – Debating Society Germany e.V. – sanchez@schoolsdebate.de 24 https://thebestschools.org/magazine/15-logical-fallacies-know/

Ad Hominem: Ad hominem is an insult used as if it were an argument or evidence in support of a conclusion.

See if you can tell which of these is an ad hominem argument, and which is just an insult.

Example 1: “MacDougal roots for a British football team. Clearly he’s unfit to be a police chief in Ireland.”

Example 2: “All people from Crete are liars”<br>
slide25. Christopher Sanchez – Debating Society Germany e.V. – sanchez@schoolsdebate.de 25 2. Strawman Argument

With the strawman argument, someone attacks a position the opponent doesn’t really hold.

Strawman Argument on YT

See if you can detect how both of the following statements could qualify as a strawman argument.

Example 1: “The Senator thinks we can solve all our ecological problems by driving a Prius.”

Example 2: “Quite the contrary, the Senator thinks the environment is such a wreck that no one’s car choice or driving habits would make the slightest difference.”<br>
slide26. Christopher Sanchez – Debating Society Germany e.V. – sanchez@schoolsdebate.de 26 3. Appeal to Authority

This fallacy happens when we misuse an authority. This misuse of authority can occur in a number of ways. We can cite only authorities — steering conveniently away from other testable and concrete evidence as if expert opinion is always correct. Or we can cite irrelevant authorities, poor authorities, or false authorities.

Consider the following examples. How do these statements mishandle authorities?

Example 1: “Because Martin Sheen played the president on television, he’d probably make a great president in real life.”

Example 2: “One day robots will enslave us all. It’s true. My computer science teacher says so.”

Example 3: “This internet news site said that the candidate punches babies. We know that’s true because it’s on the internet.”<br>
slide27. Christopher Sanchez – Debating Society Germany e.V. – sanchez@schoolsdebate.de 27 4. Equivocation

Equivocation happens when a word, phrase, or sentence is used deliberately to confuse, deceive, or mislead by sounding like it’s saying one thing but actually saying something else. Equivocation comes from the roots “equal” and “voice” and refers to two-voices; a single word can “say” two different things. Another word for this is ambiguity.

How do each of these examples commit an equivocation fallacy?

Example 1: “His political party wants to spend your precious tax dollars on big government. But my political party is planning strategic federal investment in critical programs.”

Example 2: “I don’t understand why you’re saying I broke a promise. I said I’d never speak again to my ex-girlfriend. And I didn’t. I just sent her some pictures and text messages.”<br>
slide28. Christopher Sanchez – Debating Society Germany e.V. – sanchez@schoolsdebate.de 28 8. Red Herring

A red herring fallacy can be difficult to identify because it’s not always clear how different topics relate.

Thank you for Smoking

Which of the following examples is a red herring fallacy?

Example 1: “My wife wants to talk about cleaning out the garage, so I asked her what she wants to do with our patio furniture. Now she’s shopping for new patio furniture and not asking me about the garage.”

Example 2: “My wife wants to talk about cleaning out the garage, so I asked her what she wants to do with the patio furniture, because it’s just sitting in the garage taking up space.”<br>
slide29. Avoiding fallacies Christopher Sanchez – Debating Society Germany e.V. – sanchez@schoolsdebate.de 29 Logical fallacies are errors in reasoning that are common enough to be labelled accordingly:

Ad Hominem
Strawman
Appeal to authority
Equivocation
Appeal to emotion
Hasty Generalisation
Slippery Slope
Red Herring
Tu Quoque
Appeal to Pity (…)<br>
slide30. Christopher Sanchez – Debating Society Germany e.V. – sanchez@schoolsdebate.de 30 Angela Merkel is from East Germany and therefore unfit to govern all of Germany.
If the US economy is not doing well, Donald Trump is the only one to blame.
If immigrant families are not happy in their host country, they should go back to where they come from.
Economic experts say that the economic situation will improve next year. They must be right.
McDonald's is the most popular restaurant in the world. It must be the best food.
The only way to improve the educational system is to spend more money on it.
North and South Korea should reunify. It worked for Germany.
The EU is the world’s best democracy, so others should copy the EU’s form of government.
Mister Y, the baseball star, says, "Smokies are the least harmful of all cigarettes."
Freedom of speech is more important than security from terrorism.
Public nudity at beaches is obscene and dangerous.
All over the world we must guarantee equal rights for women.
Economic growth should always be pursued as a goal.
Freedom of the press is more important that the privacy of government officials.<br>
slide31. Christopher Sanchez – Debating Society Germany e.V. – sanchez@schoolsdebate.de 31 Teenagers should be given more homework so they stay out of trouble. 
High school students should have closed campus because there isn’t enough time to go anywhere for lunch in a safe manner. 
A school uniform should be implemented so there is less time wasted on enforcing a dress code. 
Students should park in the back portion of the parking lot because teachers have so much to carry in to the building every day. 
Students shouldn’t be required to go to school because then there will be kids there who don’t want to be there and they might cause trouble.
The school day should be shortened because more time in school does not increase the quality of learning. 
The school should abolish all organized sports and put all money into music because it has been proven that students involved with music are more successful in school.
Students should be allowed to eat and drink any time and anywhere during the school day because students have different needs for eating times.<br>
slide32. Debating in the classroom Christopher Sanchez – Debating Society Germany e.V. – sanchez@schoolsdebate.de 32 Full WSDC:

Distribute three motions to three teams
Some will do research, some will debate, some will judge<br>
slide33. Christopher Sanchez – Debating Society Germany e.V. – sanchez@schoolsdebate.de 33<br>
slide34. Debating in the classroom Christopher Sanchez – Debating Society Germany e.V. – sanchez@schoolsdebate.de 34 THINKING HATS

Problem-solving approach in which students solve a dilemma or pconflict by looking at the issue from different perspectives
Different hat colours stand for different aspects and mindsets
White: relevant facts,
yellow: advantages of the proposed solution,
black: negative aspects,
red: emotional aspects,
green: creative ideas,
blue: moderator supervising and guiding the whole process<br>
slide35. Christopher Sanchez – Debating Society Germany e.V. – sanchez@schoolsdebate.de 35 Nimby

Case in point: refugees to be sheltered in Bounremouth 2014

NIMBY movement ensued

Students are supposed to explore different dimensions of the issue

SKILLS USED: cognitive, interactive, use of language, descicion-making, selective reading, gather information, taking roles, develop critical thinking and empathy<br>
slide36. Christopher Sanchez – Debating Society Germany e.V. – sanchez@schoolsdebate.de 36 TAKING ACTION:

Open forum

Simple acts

E-Twinning<br>
slide37. Debating in the classroom Christopher Sanchez – Debating Society Germany e.V. – sanchez@schoolsdebate.de 37 DILEMMA DISCUSSION

Follows basic principles of WSDC format, just with the use of a ficticious character dilemma, e.g.
Jon in Deep Water
Alicia and Sam in Slam
Jess in Bend it like Beckham
Vincent‘s parents in Gattaca
…<br>