Applied debate is conducted on propositions, questions, and topics in which the advocates have a

special interest, and the debate is presented before a judge or an audience with the power to render a
binding decision on the proposition or respond to the question or topic in a real way. Academic debate
is conducted on propositions in which the advocates have an academic interest, and the debate typically
is presented before a teacher, judge or audience without direct power to render a decision on the
proposition. Of course the audience in an academic debate does form opinions about the subject matter
of the debate, and that personal transformation may ultimately lead to meaningful action. However, the
direct impact of the audience decision in an academic debate is personal, and the decision made by the
judge is limited to identification of the winner of the debate. In fact, in academic debate the judge may
be advised to disregard the merits of the proposition and to render her win/loss decision only on the
merits of the support as presented in the debate itself. The most important identifying characteristic of
an academic debate is that the purpose of the debate is to provide educational opportunities for the
participants. 19 ✵ I. APPLIED DEBATE Applied debate may be classified as special debate, judicial
debate, parliamentary debate, or nonformal debate. After discussing each of these classifications of
debate briefly, we will consider academic debate in more detail. A. Special Debate Special debate is
conducted under special rules drafted for a specific occasion, such as political campaign debates.
Examples include the Lincoln–Douglas debates of 1858, the Kennedy–Nixon debates of 1960, the Bush–
Clinton–Perot Miniglossary Academic debate Debate conducted under the direction of an educational

Special debate is conducted under special rules drafted for a specific occasion, such as political campaign
debates. Examples include the Lincoln–Douglas debates of 1858, the Kennedy–Nixon debates of 1960,
the Bush–Clinton–Perot

Judicial debate is conducted in the courts or before quasi-judicial bodies. Governed by the rules of a
court of law, its purpose is the prosecution or defense of individuals charged with violation of the law or
the determination of issues of law alleged to be applicable to specific cases before the court. judicial
debate is known as moot court debate

Parliamentary debate is conducted under the rules of parliamentary procedure. Its purpose is the
passage, amendment, or defeat of motions and resolutions

Nonformal debate is conducted without the formal rules found in special, judicial, parliamentary, and
academic debate. This is the type of debate to which newspapers and television commentators typically
are referring when they speak of the “abortion debate,” the “immigration debate,” and other
controversies that arouse public interest.

Academic debate is by no means limited to the classroom and the argumentation course.
Argumentation is reason giving in communicative situations by people whose purpose is the justification
of acts, beliefs, attitudes, and values—a definition based on language adopted at the National
Developmental Conference on Forensics.4 British philosopher Stephen Toulmin makes a similar point
when he asks, “What kind of justificatory activities must we engage in to convince our fellows that these
beliefs are based on ‘good reasons’?”5 Good reasons may be defined as “reasons which are
psychologically compelling for a given audience, which make further inquiry both unnecessary and
redundan

Debate is the process of inquiry and advocacy, a way of arriving at a reasoned judgment on a
proposition. Individuals may use debate to reach a decision in their own minds; alternatively, individuals
or groups may use it to bring others around to their way of thinking

The ability of every decision maker to make good, reasoned, and ethical decisions relies heavily upon
their ability to think critically. Critical thinking enables one to break argumentation down to its
component parts in order to evaluate its relative validity and strength. Critical thinkers are better users
of information, as well as better advocates.

Argumentation Reason giving in communicative situations by people whose purpose is the justification
of acts, beliefs, attitudes, and values. Coercion The threat or use of force. Critical thinking The ability to
analyze, criticize, and advocate ideas; to reason inductively and deductively; and to reach factual or
judgmental conclusions based on sound inferences drawn from unambiguous statements of knowledge
or belief. Debate The process of inquiry and advocacy; the seeking of a reasoned judgment on a
proposition. Deontological ethics An ethical approach that is process- or act-oriented, and is based on
the notion that actions have moral value. Ethics A set of constructs that guide our decision making by
providing standards of behavior telling us how we ought to act. Good reasons Reasons that are
psychologically compelling for a given audience, that make further inquiry both unnecessary and
redundant—hence justifying a decision to affirm or reject a proposition. Persuasion Communication
intended to influence the acts, beliefs, attitudes, and values of others. Propaganda The use of
persuasion by a group (often a closely knit organization) in a sustained, organized campaign using
multiple media for the purpose of influencing a mass audience. Teleological ethics An ethical approach
that is results oriented, and would focus on the good or bad consequences of an action or a decision

Ethos or the ethical appeal, means to convince an audience of the author's credibility or
character. Pathos or the emotional appeal, means to persuade an audience by appealing to
their emotions. ... Logos or the appeal to logic, means to convince an audience by use of logic
or reason.
Backing Additional evidence and reasoning advanced to support a warrant. Categorical syllogism A
syllogism in which the major premise is an unqualified proposition. Such propositions are characterized
by words like all, every, each, and any, either directly expressed or clearly implied. Claim The conclusion
we seek to establish by our arguments. Conditional syllogism A syllogism in which the major premise
deals with uncertain or hypothetical events. Usually identified by if, assuming, supposing, or similar
terms, either expressly stated or clearly implied. Also known as a hypothetical syllogism. Disjunctive
syllogism A syllogism in which the major premise contains mutually exclusive alternatives. Usually
indicated by such words as either, or, neither, nor, but, and although, either expressly stated or clearly
implied. Enthymeme (1) A truncated syllogism, in which one of the premises or the conclusion is not
stated. (2) A syllogism based on probability, signs, and examples, whose function is rhetorical
persuasion. Its successful construction is accomplished through the joint efforts of speaker and
audience. Grounds Evidence and reasoning advanced to establish the foundation of a claim. Modal
qualification The degree of cogency we attach to our claim. Rebuttal Evidence and reasoning introduced
to weaken or destroy another’s claim. Syllogism A systematic arrangement of arguments consisting of a
major premise, a minor premise, and a conclusion. Warrant Evidence and reasoning advanced to justify
the move from grounds to claim.

Toulmin’s model offers a good method for providing answers to an opponent’s arguments (see Chapter
8). First, consider offering a counterclaim to answer your opponent’s claim. Generally, if you make a
counterclaim, you must provide evidence to support it. Next, consider your opponent’s data. Can any of
the tests of evidence discussed in Chapter 7 be applied so as to discredit or reduce the strength of the
evidence? Finally take a look at the warrant, or the logical reasoning that links the data to the claim. Can
any of the tests of reasoning discussed in Chapters 8 and 9 be effectively applied to diminish the
strength of the argument? Further refutation techniques involve evidence, reasoning, and fallacies.

Coercion is defined as the threat or use of force. Parents employ coercion when they take a box of
matches from a baby; society employs coercion when it confines criminals to prison; the nation employs
coercion when it goes to war. A democratic society places many restrictions on the exercise of coercion.
Parents
Analogy, reasoning by The process of making a comparison between two similar cases and inferring that
what is true in one case is true in the other. Causal reasoning The process whereby one infers that a
certain factor (a cause) is a force that produces something else (an effect). Deduction Argument that
begins with a broad generalization and moves to a more specific application or conclusion. Degree of
cogency The extent to which an argument is both sound and intellectually compelling because it is well
founded in fact, logic, or rationality. Example, reasoning by The process of inferring conclusions from
specific cases. Induction Argument that begins with a specific case and moves to a broader
generalization. Sign, reasoning by The process of inferring relationships or correlations between two
variables.

The degree of cogency is the extent to which an argument is both sound and intellectually compelling
because it is well founded in fact, logic, or rationality. (As we saw in Chapter 8, Toulmin used the term
modal qualification to express this concept.) The degrees of cogency are certainty, probability,
plausibility, or possibility. These may be thought of as existing on a continuum, represented by the
following diagram.

Certainty is associated with absolute truth.

Probability is associated with a high degree of likelihood (but not certainty) that a conclusion is true.

Plausibility is associated with a lesser degree of likelihood that a proposition is true

Possibility is associated with a low degree of likelihood that a proposition is true

A. Reasoning by Example The process of reasoning by example consists of inferring conclusions from
specific cases. This process may be represented as follows:

The process of reasoning by analogy consists of making a comparison between two similar cases and
inferring that what is true in one case is true in the other. Reasoning by analogy is a form of inductive
reasoning, in which the advocate seeks to show that the factors in his or her analogy are either a cause
or a sign of the conclusion presented

In the process of causal reasoning, one infers that a certain factor (a cause) is a force that produces
something else (an effect).

The process of reasoning by sign consists of inferring relationships or correlations between two
variables. Here one argues that two variables are so closely related that the presence or absence of one
may be taken as an indication of the presence or absence of the other
Ambiguity Arises when the meaning of a word, phrase, or passage may reasonably be interpreted in two
or more ways. Appeal to ignorance Advocates maintain that something cannot be so because they, or
the audience, have never heard of it. Appeal to tradition Support for an argument is based on customary
and historical support for the argument. Arguing in a circle Occurs when one assumes as a premise for
the argument the very conclusion one intends to prove. Bandwagon Support for an argument based on
its popular support by a large number of people. Fallacy Any unsound mode of arguing, which appears
to demand our conviction, and to be decisive of the question at hand, when in fairness it is not. Denying
a valid conclusion Advocate admits or cannot refute the premises of an opponent, yet denies the
conclusion that logically follows from these premises. Grammatical structure Reasoning based on
meaning distorted by incorrect or imprecise grammar. Hasty generalization Argument from example in
which the inference, or movement from specific example to generalization, is made on the basis of
insufficient evidence, either nonrepresentative example(s) or an insufficient number of examples.
Incomplete comparison A type of grammatical fallacy in which the point of comparison is missing or not
clearly identified. Irrelevancy An argument in which proof is carried beyond its reasonable limits, and
therefore does not pertain to the claim. Loaded language Use of emotionally charged words in an effort
to establish a conclusion without proof. Non sequitur A conclusion that does not follow from the
premises or evidence on which it is based. Popular appeal An advocate tries to win support for a
position by maintaining that he or she is merely an “ordinary person” like everyone else. Post hoc
Assuming a causal relationship where none has been proved. Pseudoargument Fallacy created (by
accident or design) by distortion, confusion, manipulation, or avoidance of the matters at issue or by
substitution of matters not germane to the issue. Pseudoquestion An advocate asks an unanswerable,
“loaded,” or ambiguous question or series of questions, or asks a question based on a false assumption.

Repeated assertion An argument is presented as proof for itself. Special pleading Urging that an
exception be made to an accepted line of reasoning. Straw argument Setting up an issue merely so it can
be knocked down. Structured response A pattern is established leading to an improper or unsupported
conclusion. Verbalism The abundant use of words without conveying much meaning.

A. Example A speaker who maintained that the public schools are failing to educate our children offered
as proof the following examples of their “failure”:

” A hasty generalization based on insufficient evidence often leads to unsound conclusions that will not
be accepted by those who render the decision

B. Analogy A Russian leader once told an American visitor: “With the death of communism, Russia is
now completely democratic. We even have competing candidates running for some offices.” The
American exposed the fallacy in this analogy by replying, “You have started toward democracy, but you
still have a way to go. In America we have at least two well-established political parties and we are ruled
by laws, not by decrees.” In this case the American applied the question, “Are there critical differences
in the factors compared?” Her answer pointed out two essential differences between American and
Russian governments. Additional questions that will help us detect fallacies in reasoning by analogy can
be found in the Chapter 9 section “Reasoning by Analogy.

C. Cause Many causal factors are at work in most situations. For example, following the disastrous 1989
oil spill in Prince William Sound, Alaska, oil prices rose dramatically nationwide. Some consumer
advocates were quick to charge that the price increase was excessive. Industry experts, however,
pointed out that the price increase was only partially related to the costs of cleaning up the spill; OPEC
had earlier decided to decrease oil production, and new EPA regulations had just come into effect
tightening fuel-grade requirements. Was the price increase due solely to the costs of cleaning up the oil
spill, or was it caused by a combination of factors? Fallacies of this type may be detected by asking, “Is a
partial causal relationship treated as the sole or distinguishing causal factor?” Additional questions we
may ask to expose fallacies of causal reasoning are found in the Chapter 9 section “Causal Reasoning

D. Sign The ability to use reasoning by sign effectively is an essential part of the work of all who seek
rational decisions. The physician, for example, must constantly be on guard against fallacies in
interpreting signs. In diagnosing a case, the neurologist may look for the Babinski sign, a certain type of
movement of the toes after stimulus. This sign is apparently inherent in certain types of illness and,
when found in adults, is taken as an indication of the presence of disease of the corticospinal pathway.
The Rossolimo sign, a certain type of flexing of the toes after stimulus, indicates disease of the pyramidal
tract. It is a much less reliable sign, however, because it is sometimes absent when the disease is present
and it