Advantages
The part of the affirmative case about policies that
demonstrates the positive effects of the affirmative’s
plan.
Ambiguity
A fallacy of language that occurs when a word in an
argument has two or more possible meanings and the
listener has no means to determine adequately which
meaning the arguer intends.
Analogy
An argument that supports associations between things
based on their similarity or dissimilarity.
Appeal
to fear
A fallacious argument that occurs when an arguer uses
irrelevant appeals to fear to take the focus off the
arguer’s original argument.
Appeal
to popularity
A fallacious argument that occurs when a debater uses
the popularity of a person, product, or belief to
justify a favorable conclusion about that person,
product, or belief.
Appeal
to tradition
A fallacious argument made when a debater argues in
favor of a particular action on the grounds of tradition
rather than on the basis of that action’s merits.
Argument
A controversial statement, frequently called a claim,
supported by evidence and a warrant. The standards
of a logically good argument include acceptability,
relevance, and sufficiency.
See also Standard of acceptability, Standard of relevance,
standard of sufficiency.
Argumentation
The uniquely human use of reasoning to communicate.
Argument
ad hominem
A fallacy that occurs when an arguer attacks a person’s
character or background, which is irrelevant to the
claim.
Argument
by example
An argument that supports an association between specific
examples and a general rule.
Argument
by incompatibility
An argument designed to reject something because it
is incompatible with something else.
Argument
by principle
An argument that supports a certain action based on
the connection between that action and a general principle.
Argument
sphere
A community within which arguments are made.
Argument
structure
The way evidence and warrants are arranged to support
a claim.
See also Convergent argument structure; Independent
argument structure; Simple argument structure.
Arrangement
The organization of arguments in a speech.
Authority
An argument that supports a claim with the opinion
of experts in the field.
Ballot
A document on which the judge records the decision,
the reasons for the decision, and speaker points awarded
to each debater.
Begging
the question
A fallacy of acceptability that occurs when a debater
introduces evidence that is the same as the claim.
Case
One or more arguments sufficient to support a proposition.
Causal
argument
An argument that supports associations between causes
and effects.
See also Contributory causal argument; Intervening
and counteracting causal argument; Necessary causal
argument; Sufficient causal argument.
Cause-and-effect
proposition
A proposition that asserts that one object causes
a specific outcome.
Cause-and-effect
reasoning
The type of reasoning that examines the reasons certain
actions, events, or conditions (causes) create specific
consequences (effects).
Claim
A controversial statement an arguer supports using
reason. Claims are divided into four general categories:
definitional descriptive, relational, and evaluative.
Comparative
advantages case
A method used for developing a case about policies
that advocates the adoption of the plan based on its
advantages compared with the status quo or some other
policy.
Comparative
policy proposition
Compares two or more policies.
Comparative
value proposition
Compares two or more objects with respect to some
value.
Constructive
speech
A speech that presents a debater’s basic arguments
for or against the resolution.
Contributory
causal argument
An argument that states that the purported cause is
one of several contributors to the effect.
Convergent
argument structure
Two or more bits of evidence that, in combination
with one another, support a claim.
Counterplan
A plan proposed by the negative team as an alternative
to the affirmative plan.
Cross-examination
A period during the debate when a member of one team
asks questions of a member of the opposing team.
Debate
The process of arguing about claims in situations
where an adjudicator must decide the outcome.
Dissociation
An argument that creates new categories by dividing
an old category into two new ones.
Equivocation
A fallacy of language that occurs when a word is used
in two different senses and the meaning of the word
is shifted during the argument.
Evidence
Different types of information (facts, statistics,
theories, opinions, or narratives) that are used to
support arguments. Evidence can be divided into two
categories: that relating to reality (facts, theories,
and presumptions) and that relating to preference
(values, value hierarchies, and value categories).
See also Facts; Presumption; Theory; Value; Value
categories; Value hierarchy.
Facts
(evidence)
Observed or observable data.
Fallacy
An argument that fails to meet any one of the standards
of acceptability, relevance, and sufficiency.
See also Argument ad hominem; Ambiguity; Appeal to
fear; Appeal to popularity; Appeal to tradition; Begging
the question; Equivocation; Fallacy of composition;
Fallacy of division; Fallacy of incompatibility; Faulty
analogy; Hasty conclusion; Improper appeal to practice;
Loaded term; Poisoning the well; Post hoc fallacy;
Problematic premise; Red herring; Slippery slope argument;
Straw person fallacy; Two wrongs fallacy; Vagueness.
Fallacy
of composition
A fallacious argument where the evidence is drawn
from some part of a whole but the conclusion is about
the whole.
Fallacy
of division
An erroneous argument where the evidence is drawn
from the whole, but the conclusion is made about the
part.
Fallacy
of incompatibility
Occurs when a debater makes a statement as evidence
that is at odds with another statement made by the
debater, or when a debater’s argument is incompatible
with some action she has performed or recommended
elsewhere.
Faulty
analogy
A fallacious argument that occurs when two cases are
compared with each other but are not similar in terms
of the relationship stated in the comparison.
Guilt
by association
A fallacious argument that occurs when a person’s
argument is attacked using that person’s association
with groups and people rather than using issues pertinent
to the argument.
Hasty
conclusion
A fallacious argument that fails to meet the standard
of sufficiency. It includes hasty generalization,
irrelevant slippery slope arguments, fallacy of composition,
fallacy of division, faulty analogy, improper appeal
to practice, post hoc fallacy, and two wrongs.
Hasty
generalization
A fallacy of reasoning by example that occurs when
the examples selected to support the claim are either
insufficient in number or in their representativeness.
Improper appeal to practice A fallacious argument
that occurs when a debater suggests doing something
because it is a common practice, even if that practice
clearly is wrong.
Independent
argument structure
Several pieces of evidence, any one of which can provide
sufficient support for a claim.
International
debating
Debating that occurs between representatives of different
countries, nations, or cultures.
Intervening
and counteracting causal argument
An argument that demonstrates a cause that prevents
the completion of a cause-and-effect sequence.
Irrelevant
reason
An argument that fails to meet the relevance criterion.
It includes ad hominem argument, appeal to fear, appeal
to popularity, appeal to tradition, guilt by association,
poisoning the well, red herring, and straw person.
Judge
An observer of a debate who has the responsibility
of deciding which team has done a better job of debating.
Karl Popper
debate format
A debate format that matches two three-person teams
against each other: one affirming the proposition
and one opposing it. Each team has one constructive
speech presenting its basic arguments for and against
the proposition and two constructive speeches refuting
the opposing team’s arguments and summarizing
its own.
Loaded term
A fallacy of language that occurs when the arguer
labels something with a word that includes an evaluation
and that evaluation plays a role in supporting the
conclusion.
Method
of agreement
A method of reasoning used in cause-and-effect analysis
that examines more than one case where two elements
are simultaneously present, concluding that one is
the cause of the other.
Method
of correlation
A method of reasoning used in cause-and-effect analysis
that examines examples that demonstrate that as the
amount of the cause increases (or decreases), the
effect will also increase (or decrease).
Method
of difference
A method of reasoning used in cause-and-effect analysis
that examines examples wherein both the purported
cause and the purported effect are absent, concluding
that one is the cause of the other.
Minor
repair
A strategy the negative uses to defend the present
system with minor changes.
Necessary
causal argument
An argument that states that without the suspected
cause, the effect cannot occur, thus the cause is
necessary to produce the effect.
Need
The part of the affirmative case about policies that
identifies a certain problem in the status quo that
the existing system cannot solve.
Need-plan-benefit
case
A method used for developing a case about policies
that involves the identification of a need, proposal
of a plan, and a demonstration of the advantages of
the plan.
Plan
A course of action proposed by the affirmative when
debating a proposition of policy that proposes to
solve the problems identified in the “need.”
Poisoning
the well
A fallacious argument that attempts to discredit a
person or a source in advance of that person’s
argument.
Post hoc
fallacy
Occurs when a debater assumes that because one thing
predates another, the first must have caused the second.
Preparation
time
The time allotted to each team for preparation during
the debate (eight minutes in Karl Popper debate).
Presumption
The assumption that current policies will be maintained
until someone makes a case that another policy is
a better option.
Presumption
(evidence)
A statement concerning what people ordinarily expect
to happen in the course of normal events.
Problematic
premise
A fallacious argument that fails to meet the acceptability
criterion. It includes begging the question and the
fallacy of incompatibility.
Proposition
A final claim made by a debater and supported by a
combination of claims.
Proposition
of definition
Asserts that a certain definition should be applied
to a certain category of things.
Proposition
of description
Asserts a proper way to describe an object or a number
of objects.
Proposition
of evaluation
Attaches a value to any object.
Proposition
of relationship
Assert a certain relationship between objects.
Proposition
of similarity
Asserts that two objects are similar to each other.
Reasoning
The process used to connect evidence to the claim.
See also warrant.
Rebuttal
speeches
The speeches in the debate that challenge and defend
arguments introduced in the constructive speeches.
Red herring
A fallacious argument that shifts the focus from the
original argument.
Refutation
The process of attacking and defending arguments.
Research
The process of locating and selecting evidence in
preparation for debate.
Reservation
An exception made to a claim. A reservation usually
involves a situation in which the arguer does not
wish to maintain the claim.
Simple
argument structure
A single claim leading from a single piece of evidence
following along a single warrant.
Simple
policy proposition
A proposition that urges adoption of a certain policy.
Simple
value proposition
Attaches a value to a single object.
Slippery
slope argument
An argument that connects a series of events in a
causal chain that ultimately leads to disaster or
calamity. Slippery slope arguments are fallacies if
the series of events is improperly connected.
Standard
of acceptability
Determines whether the evidence is acceptable to those
who judge the argument.
Standard
of relevance
Determines whether the evidence is relevant to the
claim it supports.
Standard
of sufficiency
Determines whether all of the evidence taken as a
whole is sufficient to support the claim.
Standards
of a logically good argument
Standards are acceptability, relevance, and sufficiency.
Stasis
A system devised to determine the key issues of clash
in a topic. These key issues can be used to develop
a system of research.
Status
quo
The course of action currently pursued (i.e., the
present system).
Straw
person fallacy
Occurs when an arguer, intentionally or unintentionally,
misinterprets an opponent’s argument, then
proceeds to refute the misinterpreted argument as
if it were the opponent’s actual argument.
Style
The use of language, voice, and body language used
by a debater.
Sufficient
causal argument
An argument that states that the presence of a cause
virtually guarantees (is sufficient for) the presence
of the effect.
Theory
A statement that explains other facts or that predicts
the occurrence of events.
Toulmin
Model of argument
A model of argument developed by philosopher Stephen
Toulmin. The basic model includes evidence, warrant,
claim, and reservation.
Two wrongs
fallacy
Occurs when a debater makes an argument urging the
audience to accept, or condone, one thing that is
wrong because another similar thing, also wrong, has
been accepted and condoned.
Vagueness
A fallacy of language that occurs when the meaning
of some word or words in an argument is indeterminate
and when such vagueness prevents listeners from assessing
the argument.
Value
Evidence based on the audience’s preferred value.
Value
case
A case supporting a proposition of value. Three principal
elements of such a case are describing, relating,
and evaluating.
Value
categories (evidence)
An arrangement of values into groups so that a group
(category) can be used as evidence.
Value
hierarchy (evidence)
Evidence based on how values are arranged in relation
to each other.
Warrant
Stated or unstated reasoning process that explains
the relationship between the evidence and the claim.
