Constructing Arguments for the Proposition/Opposition

Constructing arguments for the proposition is a process that varies depending on the type of proposition being debated.

We have already discussed the division of propositions into the categories of literal and metaphorical. Within each of those divisions, one can say propositions are either of fact, value, or policy. Propositions of fact Two types: 1. assert a factual truth/claim; 2. assert a statement of relationship.

ASSERT FACTUAL TRUTH/CLAIM : include motions about history or science such as "This House believes that Ferdinand E. Marcos was the brain master in the assassination of then Sen. Benigno Aquino, Jr. " or

Constructing Arguments

"Be it resolved that intelligent life exists on places other than the Earth."

Q1: Which Motion is about history?

Q2: Which Motion is about science?

ASSERTS STATEMENT OF RELATIONSHIP:

asserts a relationship

based on causality (direct connection) or similarity between two objects.

e.g. of statement of relationship based on causality (direct connection)

"This House believes that capital punishment deters murder"

Q: motion?

Between what connection is the main point of the

Constructing Arguments e.g. of statement of relationship based on similarity

"This House believes PGMA is beginning to look a lot like Marcos"

Q:

To whose similarity does the motion ascribe to?

Propositions of value Two categories: 1. assert the connection between an object and a value; 2. assert a comparison between two objects with respect to some value.

EXAMPLES of CONNECTION BETWEEN AN OBJECT & A VALUE:

"Be it resolved that affirmative action is praiseworthy" or "This House believes that Ferdinand E. Marcos was a great leader."

Constructing Arguments In Motion # 1: What is the OBJECT? What is the value?

In Motion # 2: What is the object? What is the value?

This kind of motion describes the OBJECT as VALUABLE. But, it does not compare the OBJECT to be more or less valuable than another object. In other words, NO COMPARISON.

VALUE PROPOSITION THAT COMPARES TWO OBJECTS WITH RESPECT TO SOME VALUE:

"This House believes that Fidel Ramos is a more effective President than PGMA."

Q1: Who are the objects in the motion? Q2: What is the value that both objects are being compared with?

Constructing Arguments Q3: What is the main issue of the motion?

Propositions of policy

Makes an explicit call for action based on evaluation

For instance: "This House supports capital punishment for all persons convicted of first-degree murder"

Q1: What action is explicitly called for? Q2: What is being evaluated? Q3: For what is it evaluated?

In Summary. The types of propositions are summarized in the following table:

Constructing Arguments

CONSTRUCTING A CASE DEPENDS ON THE KIND OF PROPOSITION

All of the kinds of propositions discussed here can be argued by using three types of arguments in relation to one another. The three kinds of arguments are based on three conceptual elements: description, relationship, and evaluation.

Q:

Why are they called CONCEPTUAL elements?

Constructing Arguments

Constructing a Case for a Proposition of Fact

ASSERT A FACTUAL CLAIM: Requires only a descriptive argument

ASSERT A RELATIONSHIP: Requires both descriptive and relational arguments.

An example of a proposition which asserts a factual claim is

Constructing Arguments "This House believes that Lee Harvey Oswald assassinated President John F. Kennedy" The kinds of arguments needed to prove this proposition are descriptive:

- Oswald was known to have purchased a 6mm Italian rifle; - the bullet that killed Kennedy was fired from that rifle; - Oswald was seen carrying a package the size of the rifle into the Texas School Book Depository on the morning of the assassination; - the trajectory of the bullet that killed Kennedy points directly to Oswald's nest on the sixth floor of the depository.

A proposition of fact that asserts a relationship:

Requires a relational as well as a descriptive argument.

When constructing a case for this kind of motion, a debater ordinarily:

Constructing Arguments 1. describes the characteristics of the object or concept; 2. and then relates that objects feature or concept to another object.

3. The relationship is usually one of causation (connection) or of similarity.

Take for example, the motion "This House believes that capital punishment deters murder".

This motion implies a causal relationship between capital punishment and murder.

To construct a case for such a motion, a debater might begin by describing some feature of capital punishment: for instance, that it is a very severe punishment.

Then the debater would relate that feature (the severity of punishment) to the other concept (murder). The relational argument might be something like the more severe the

Constructing Arguments

10

punishment, the more likely a criminal will reconsider committing the act of murder.

Thus, the case for the motion is constructed by building two arguments: a descriptive one (capital punishment is a very severe punishment) and a relational one (severe punishments decrease the likelihood of murder).

Constructing a Case for Proposition of Value

When called upon to construct a case for a value proposition, debaters need to employ a new kind of argument an

evaluative argument.

The case for a proposition of value still uses the descriptive and relational arguments; it simply adds an argument of evaluation.

STEPS IN DOING IT:

Constructing Arguments

11

1. Build your case by describing a feature of an object (Descriptive) 2. Relate that feature to some effect (Relational) 3. Evaluating the effect (Evaluation) ---- SHORT TERM and LONG TERM GOALS.

For example, "Be it resolved that affirmative action is negative."

Q1: What is the object of the motion? Q2: What is meant by the object in this motion? Q3: What is the value of the motion? Q4: What is the feature/characteristics of that object? Q5: How will you relate that feature/characteristic of that object to the value of the motion?

Thus, the case for a proposition of value is made by describing, relating, and evaluating.

Constructing Arguments

12

The case has described an essential feature of affirmative action, related that feature to an effect, and has evaluated that effect as negative.

Constructing a Case for a Proposition of Policy

In reality, a proposition of policy is simply a proposition of value that makes an explicit call for action.

Take, for example, the policy proposition

"This House would end the embargo of Cuba."

As with the earlier value proposition, this motion requires that debaters construct descriptive, relational, and evaluative arguments.

KEY ELEMENT HERE : CUBAN EMBARGO

Constructing Arguments DESCRIBE CUBAN EMBARGO:

13

the embargo was created in the 1960s in an attempt to bring down the Castro regime.

- The embargo prohibits any U.S. company from exporting products to Cuba - It prohibits import of any Cuban products to the U.S.

RELATE THE DESCRIPTION TO SOME CONDITIONS - the embargo not only has failed to bring down Castro; - Castro has become a much stronger and a much more popular leader over the years. - The restrictions on exports, have reduced the prosperity of Cuban businesses by not allowing them to compete in a successful market. - import restrictions to a reduced availability of goods to the Cuban people.

Constructing Arguments

14

These arguments are designed to demonstrate a relationship between the embargo and Cuba's economic health both in terms of business prosperity and goods available to Cuba's people.

Having described the key element in the motion and related that element to another condition, the final logical requirement is to evaluate the condition.

What is the condition to be evaluated? --- the economic health of Cuba.

EVALUATION OF THE EFFECT OF THE EMBARGO (short term and long term goals)

- the current state of the economy in Cuba creates an unusually high incidence of poverty - and that improving the Cuban economy would help the Cuban poor.

Constructing Arguments Constructing the Case to Oppose the Motion

15

Just as the primary task of the Government is to construct a case to support the motion before the house, the primary job of the Opposition is to refute or disprove that case.

1. 2. 3.

Refutation of the Government case, construction of an Opposition case, or a combination of the two,

are the basic strategies available to the Opposition team.

Direct Refutation

The direct refutation of a case involves rejection of the arguments that were used to build it.

Constructing Arguments

16

To do this, the Opposition shows how the descriptive, relational, and evaluative dimensions of the Government's case are logically or substantively flawed.

Descriptive arguments can be refuted by showing that the Government's description of a feature is flawed or by showing that the Government has failed to describe other essential features of the object or concept.

Relational arguments are particularly subject to logical attack. One example of a logical attack involves a debater charging that a relational argument is based on inadequate causal reasoning.

As we have already said, creating a relationship between a condition and an effect is frequently necessary in constructing a logically valid case for the motion.

Constructing Arguments

17

To refute that case, an Opposition debater might clearly define and challenge the relationship by applying a concept called the ABSENCE TEST.

The absence test probes the validity of a causal relationship by asking the question:

"Absent the supposed cause, does the effect remain?" ---If the effect remains, we have reason to suspect that the supposed cause was not the real cause.

Using the Cuban embargo motion as an example, suppose the Government argued that the embargo has increased poverty in Cuba. The Opposition might ask, "Absent the embargo, would Cuban poverty disappear?" Poverty existed in Cuba long before the embargo. Cuba, like most other nations in that geographic area, was a poor nation long before President Kennedy decided to halt trade with Cuba. Even today, other nations in Latin America are as poor as Cuba.

Constructing Arguments

18

So, the Government's relating the embargo to poverty is suspect. By challenging the cause and effect relationship based on the absence test, the Opposition is using a simple tool of logic to refute an important part of a case.

In addition to challenging the Government's relational argument, the Opposition might present relational arguments of their own.

Evaluative arguments can be debated by showing that the values the Government has linked to the features of the policy are not as important as portrayed by the Government or by showing that these values are not values at all.

Take, for example, a Government team defending the motion "This House believes that affirmative action is praiseworthy."

Constructing Arguments

19

The Government's defense of this motion might include the arguments that affirmative action leads to diversity and that diversity is valuable, for example, in educational institutions.

The Opposition might respond that diversity is not a universal value for education by pointing to the value of all women's colleges, of traditionally African-American colleges, and to other examples of valuable college experiences which violated the standard call of diversity.

Thus, refutation of the Government's case can involve attacks on their descriptive, relation or evaluative arguments, or a

combination of all three. Refutation is, of course, only one option. Another involves building a case for the opposition.

Building an Case for the Opposition

Constructing Arguments

20

Building a case against the motion is one of many choices open to the Opposition. It is not a necessary choice although frequently it is a good one, especially when combined with an effective refutation of the Government's position.

Building an opposing case begins with conceptualizing the argumentative ground available to the Opposition. As the statement of the motion defines the ground that the Government must defend, the direct contradiction of the motion defines the ground available to the Opposition.

One earlier example was "This House would lift the embargo of Cuba." The direct contradiction of that statement, "This House would not lift the embargo of Cuba," defines the ground for the Opposition.

Descriptive arguments are just as important for the Opposition as for the Government. Building a case for the Opposition, like

Constructing Arguments

21

building a case for the Government, involves describing a feature of a concept or an object.

The choices that the Opposition team makes regarding description are always made with an eye toward their relational arguments.

Relational arguments for the Opposition may begin with the features described by the Opposition or those described by the Government. In the capital punishment example, the Opposition might choose to accept the Government's idea that the essential feature of capital punishment is severity. In this case, the Opposition might then argue that certainty of punishment--not severity--is the cause of deterrence.

In both cases, the Opposition is using argumentative techniques that are similar to those used by the Government. They are relating an essential feature to some effect which they will later be prepared to evaluate.

Constructing Arguments

22

Evaluative arguments for the Opposition also take two forms.

1. The Opposition may evaluate effects which they have described. 2. Alternatively, the Opposition may accept the effects advanced by the Government team and evaluate them in a different manner.

So, developing a case for the Opposition involves choosing from among three options: 1. directly refuting of the Government's case, 2. constructing an Opposition case (PARADIGM), 3. or both.

In all choices, the ability to construct and refute descriptive, relational, and evaluative arguments is the key to good case construction for both the Opposition and Government.

Constructing Arguments

23

WORKSHOP MOTIONS 1. This House would legalize performance-enhancing drugs in sport

2. This House believes that the media serves us well

3. This house believes that heterosexuals make better parents

4. This house believes that Famine is a human creation

5. This house believes that a womans intelligence is proportional to the length of her skirt