HUMSS 02: ARGUMENTATION AND DEBATE

A. Introduction to Argumentation
 Arguing is reason giving.
 Reason giving is when people speak to one another, or with an audience in mind,
they make claims. They make statements that they believe, and that they would
like for their listeners or their readers to believe as well. We make claims about
matters that are uncertain, that we cannot establish absolutely or definitely.
 is reason giving in communicative situations by people whose purpose is the
justification of acts, beliefs, attitudes, and values (Freeley & Steinberg, 2000)
 is commonly conceived as the art of influencing the beliefs or actions of other
people (Bauzon, 2004:48)
 “the art of influencing others through medium of reasoned discourse” through
written or spoken discourse
 An indirect effect is also stirring the feelings of the readers or hearers

Debate
 the process of inquiry and advocacy; the seeking of a reasoned judgment on a
proposition; both a strategic and thinking activity (Freeley & Steinberg, 2000)
• is the art of formal and oral controversy (Aquino & Deveza, 1962:93)
• a formal direct oral contest in argumentation between two or more persons (Bauzon,
2004:48)
• an oral contest or controversy on one definite question known as the proposition
between opposing speakers with one or more members on the affirmative and
negative sides
• a formal controversy, not a mere verbal wrangling
• all debates are forms of argumentation; BUT not all forms of argumentation are
debates.

ROLES OF ARGUMENTATION AND DEBATE

• It is FUNDAMENTAL –men are in constant state of flux in searching for answers to

fundamental questions affecting him, between him and his universe and his fellowmen. It is
innate in man’s nature to search for the truth.

• It is UNIVERSAL – “All men are, by nature gregarious.”

• It is INDISPENSABLE – as man and his society are constituted, life would be meaningless if he
does not communicate with his fellows
TYPES OF DEBATE

• ACADEMIC DEBATE – debate conducted under the direction of an educational

institution for the purpose of providing educational opportunities for its students.

• APPLIED DEBATE – debate presented before a judge or audience with power to render
binding decision on the proposition

VALUES OF ACADEMIC DEBATE

• Provides preparation for effective participation in a democratic society

• Offers preparation for leadership
• Provides for the investigation and intensive analysis of significant contemporary
problems
• Offers training in argumentation and critical thinking/listening
• Develops proficiency in writing and in purposeful inquiry
• Encourages mature judgment and social awareness
• Promotes integration of knowledge
• Develops proficiency in purposeful inquiry
• Develops proficiency in writing
• Enhances speech composition and delivery
• Gives courage and essential proficiencies

DEBATE PRINCIPLES

• The debater should respect the intellectual integrity of argument.

• Debate is based on the fair exchange of opinion.
• Debate should be conducted with respect for others.
• Debate should be the product of honest research and valid evidence.
• Debate should be treated as a learning experience.

B. Critical Thinking
a. pre-requisite for truly successful debating (Wood & Goodnight, 2006)
b. mode of thinking — about any subject, content, or problem — in which the thinker
improves the quality of his or her thinking by skillfully analyzing, assessing, and
reconstructing it (criticalthinking.org)
c. is self-directed, self-disciplined, self-monitored, and self-corrective thinking

C. Debate Propositions
o comes from the root word “propose” which means to offer for consideration
o a statement offered for consideration, specifically a statement made to others for
the purpose of gaining acceptance after due consideration
o a statement of judgment that identifies the central issue in a controversy
 • STATUS QUO – the present/existing state of things

• BURDEN OF PROOF – the risk of the proposition; the obligation of the affirmative to
give good and sufficient reasons for adopting the proposition.

CHARACTERISTICS OF PROPOSITIONS
• controversy (topical in nature or current)
• one central idea
• unemotional terms
• precise statement of the affirmative’s desired decision

EXAMPLES
• “Resolved: That the university clubs deplore abortions and lotteries as immoral.”
• “Resolved: That the national government should adopt a program of compulsory wage and
price controls.”
• “Mortgage rates are too high – everything is too expensive.”
• “What can be done to curb inflation?”
• “Resolved: That cruel, sadistic experimenters should be forbidden to torture defenseless
animals pointlessly.”
• “Resolved: That vivisection should be illegal.”

• PHRASING THE PROPOSITION

• Significant Contemporary Problem

• Equal conflicting evidence and reasoning
• Single declarative sentence
• Avoidance of ambiguity

TYPES OF DEBATE PROPOSITIONS

• Proposition of FACT
• an objective statement that something exists
• the statement can be verified by someone other than the person making
the statement
• may be an object or event that can be experienced directly by the senses
of sight, hearing, touch, smell, and taste
• Federal intervention in state policies is unconstitutional.
• Shakespeare was not the real author of the literature that bears his name.
• America was first discovered by the Norse.
• Television viewing contributes to the mounting crime rate.
 • Proposition of VALUE
• expresses judgments about the qualities of a person, a place, a thing, an
idea, or an event
• when you make a statement about values, you move from the realm of
senses and inferences into the realm of opinions and attitudes
• evaluates an action or any subject as whether good or evil, advantageous
or disadvantageous, etc.
• Environmental protection is more important than economic stability.
• When they are in conflict, freedom of speech is more desirable than
national security.

• Proposition of POLICY
• a statement of a course of action to be considered for adoption
• the spheres of policy formulation include all those problem areas deemed
appropriate for government action
• Resolved: That the proposed tax bill should be enacted.
• Cyber Libel be decriminalized.
• Divorce Bill be passed in Congress.
• EXAMPLE:
• Life begins at conception.
• The act of abortion is highly immoral.
• Abortion should be decriminalized in the Philippines.

D. Researching and Gathering Materials

a. Gathering Material for your Speech

i. Primary Sources
- Created by individuals and groups who are directly
involved in events at the time they take place .. more
i. www. ORIGINAL SOURCES .co.uk
ii. www. CREATIVE WORKS .co.uk
iii. www. RELICS / ARTIFACTS .co.uk

ii. Secondary Sources

- A step away from the actual persons or events under
study, produced by non-participants who summarize and
interpret these same people and events .. more
i. www. SCHOLARLY ARTICLES .co.uk

iii. Oral Sources

- Information gathered from direct, face-to-face interactions
.. more
i. www. INTERVIEWS .co.uk / Experts or Laymen
 ii. www. LECTURES .co.uk

iv. Print & Electronic Sources

- Provides a great deal of information in materials found
either in libraries or on the internet .. more
i. www. BOOKS .co.uk
ii. www. ENCYCLOPEDIAS .co.uk
iii. www. MAGAZINES and JOURNALS .co.uk
iv. www. NEWSPAPERS .co.uk

b. Recording your Information

i. Photocopied Materials - You have the entire resource in front of you ..
more
ii. Mind Maps - Create a diagram or web of related concepts .. More
iii. Note Cards - Write the important ideas encountered .. more
1. www. SOURCE CARDS .co.uk / accdg to SOURCE
2. www. INFORMATION CARDS .co.uk / accdg to TOPIC

c. Evaluating Internet Information

i. Reliability - Make sure that the site is reliable in the sense that
contributors of the page are providing you with accurate information ..
More
1. www.philippineinformationagency.gov.ph
2. www.usc.edu.ph/cebuanostudiescenter
ii. Verifiability - The facts presented can actually be checked and further
counter checked with other reliable web sites and authors are
accounted for .. More

d. Using Supporting Materials

i. Facts - Data that can be verified by observation and validated by many as
true and correct .. more
ii. Definitions - Providing the meaning in a simplified manner .. More
iii. Descriptions - Describing objects provide listeners with imageries
iv. Examples - Adds credibility and attracts attention .. more
1. www. REAL EXAMPLES .co.uk
2. www. HYPOTHETICAL EXAMPLES .co.uk
3. www. BRIEF / EXTENDED (narrative) EXAMPLES.co.uk
v. Testimonies and Quotations - Lifting ideas or opinions of authoritative
sources or experts or lay sources (verbatim or paraphrased) .. more
vi. Enumerations - Simply means counting or listing down .. More
vii. Statistics - Providing scientifically proven numbers resulting from
extensive studies .. more
 viii. Comparison and Contrast - Adds credibility and attracts attention ..
more
www. LITERAL ANALOGY .co.uk
www. FIGURATIVE COMPARISON.co.uk

E. Logic: Syllogisms and Fallacies

A. Syllogism – or LOGICAL APPEAL
a. is a kind of logical argument in which one proposition (the conclusion)
is inferred from two others (the major and minor premises) of a certain
form
b. deductive forms of argument, proceeding from generalization to
specific application
c. systematic arrangement of arguments
d. by understanding the structures of syllogism … for the purpose of
analysis, we can apply the appropriate tests of formal validity and of
rhetoric to the reasoning we encounter as we explore a problem, to
the reasoning we develop for our own case, and to the reasoning we
meet in our opponent’s case

PARTS OF AN ARGUMENT

0 MINOR TERM (S) – the subject of the conclusion; it is

either the subject or the predicate of the minor premise
0 MAJOR TERM (M) – the predicate of the conclusion; it is
either the subject or the predicate of the major premise
0 MIDDLE TERM (P) - occurs in each of the premises but not
in the conclusion; the third term with which the two terms
(major and minor) are compared
0 Maj P: All men are mortal.
0 Min P: All Greeks are men.
0 Concl.: Therefore, All Greeks are mortal.

ELEMENTS OF SYLLOGISMS

0 MAJOR PREMISE - a proposition stating a generalization (“All A’s are B’s”)

- the proposition containing the major and the middle terms
MINOR PREMISE – a proposition stating a specific instance related to the
generalization (“C is an A”)
- the proposition containing the minor and the middle terms
CONCLUSION – necessarily must follow from these premises (“Therefore, C is a
B”)
- the statement being proved
TYPES OF SYLLOGISMS
0 Categorical Syllogism - the major premise is an unqualified
proposition characterized by words like all, every, each, and any, either
directly expressed or clearly implied
0 Maj P: All legally insane persons are incompetent to make
binding agreements.
0 Min P: John Doe is legally insane.
0 Concl.: Therefore, John Doe is incompetent to make binding
agreements.

RULES FOR VALID C. SYLLOGISM

0 There must be three and only three terms—the major, minor,

and middle terms
0 The middle term does not occur in the conclusion.
0 The major or minor term may not be universal (distributed) in
the conclusion if it is only particular (undistributed) in the
premises.
0 The middle term must be used as a universal (distributed)
term at least once.
0 Two negative premises yield no valid conclusion.
0 If both premises are affirmative, the conclusion must be
affirmative.
0 If one premise is negative, the conclusion must be negative.
0 If one premise is particular, the conclusion must be particular.
0 From two particular premises, no valid conclusion can be
drawn.

0 Disjunctive Syllogism - the major premise contains mutually

exclusive alternatives and the separation of alternatives is usually
indicated by such words as either, or, neither, nor, but, and although,
either expressly stated or clearly implied

0 Maj P: Either Congress will amend this bill or the president will
veto it.
0 Min P: Congress will not amend this bill.
0 Concl.: Therefore, the president will veto it.
 0 Conditional Syllogism - also known as the hypothetical syllogism

0 the major premise deals with uncertain or hypothetical events

that may or may not exist or happen and the conditional event
is usually indicated by if, assuming, supposing, or similar terms,
either expressly stated or clearly implied
0 major premise contains an antecedent statement, which
expresses the conditional or hypothetical event under
consideration, and a consequent statement, which expresses
the event that is maintained as necessarily following the
antecedent
0 Maj P: If the present measures have reduced greenhouse
emissions, then we will not need to implement a cap-and-
trade system.
0 Min P: Present measures have not reduced greenhouse
emissions.
0 Concl.: Therefore, we will need to implement a cap-and-trade
system.

B. Fallacies - is, very generally, an error in reasoning

- is an "argument" in which the premises given for the
conclusion do not provide the needed degree of support.
- 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 (Richard Whately)

a. Begging the Question - also known as CIRCULAR LOGIC

i. happens when the writer presents an arguable point as a fact
that supports the argument; this error leads to an argument
that goes around and around, with evidence making the same
claim as the proposition
ii. a statement which says the same thing in the conclusion as in
the premise
iii. the thing to be proved is used as one of the assumptions
1. These movies are popular because they make so much money.
They make a lot of money because people like them. People
like them because they are so popular.

b. Non Sequitor - does not follow a logical sequence; The conclusion

doesn’t logically follow the explanation. These fallacies can be
 found on both the sentence level and the level of the argument
itself.
i. The arguer draws a conclusion from a premise without
showing a valid connection between the assumed or known
truth in the premise and the alleged truth in the conclusion.
1. Lizer is the most clever student in USC therefore he should
be granted basketball scholarship.

c. Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc - “after this, therefore also this
arguments”; assume a faulty causal relationship
i. This fallacy arises when the debater assumes that since one
occurrence precedes another in point of time, that event is the
cause of the one that follows.
ii. Writers must be able to prove that one event caused another
event and did not simply follow in time. Because the cause is
often in question in this fallacy, we sometimes call it a false
cause fallacy.
1. The Congress passes a new tax reform law that benefits
wealthy Filipinos. Shortly thereafter the economy takes a
nose dive. The activist group claims that the tax reform
caused the economic woes and they push to get rid of it.

d. False Analogy - In an analogy, two objects (or events), A and B are

shown to be similar. Then it is argued that since A has property P,
so also B must have property P.
- An analogy fails when the two objects, A and B, are
different in a way which affects whether they both have
property P.
1. Government is like business, so just as business must be
sensitive primarily to the bottom line, so also must
government.

e. Hasty Generalization - committed when a person draws a

conclusion about a population based on a sample that is not large
enough
i. It has the following form:
ii. Sample S, which is too small, is taken from population P.
iii. Conclusion C is drawn about Population P based on S.
iv. In other words, the size of the sample is too small to support
the conclusion.
1. My Christian / atheist neighbour is a real grouch. Therefore:
Christians / atheists are grouches.
f. Red Herring - a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in
order to divert attention from the original issue
i. The basic idea is to "win" an argument by leading attention
away from the argument and to another topic.
ii. This sort of "reasoning" has the following form:
iii. Topic A is under discussion.
iv. Topic B is introduced under the guise of being relevant to
topic A (when topic B is actually not relevant to topic A).
v. Topic A is abandoned.
1. "You may claim that the death penalty is an ineffective
deterrent against crime--but what about the victims of
crime? How do you think surviving family members feel
when they see the man who murdered their son kept in
prison at their expense? Is it right that they should pay for
their son's murderer to be fed and housed?"

g. Equivocation - committed when a term is used in two or more

different senses within a single argument.
i. The same word is used with two different meanings.
ii. For an argument to work, words must have the same meaning
each time they appear in its premises or conclusion.
Arguments that switch between different meanings of words
equivocate, and so don’t work. because the change in meaning
introduces a change in subject. If the words in the premises
and the conclusion mean different things, then the premises
and the conclusion are about different things, and so the
former cannot support the latter.
1. Criminal actions are illegal, and all murder trials are
criminal actions, thus all murder trials are illegal.

h. Ignoring the Question - similar to presenting a red herring

i. rather than answering the question that has been asked or
addressing the issue at hand, the writer shifts focus, supplying
an unrelated argument. In this way, the writer dodges the real
issues of the debate.
1. During a press conference, a political candidate is asked a
pointed, specific question about some potentially illegal
fund-raising activity. Instead of answering the allegations,
the candidate gives a rousing speech thanking all of his
 financial supporters. The speech was eloquent and moving,
but shifted the focus from the issue at hand.

i. Opposing a Strawman - Is a tactic used by a lot of writers because

they find it easier to refute an oversimplified opposition
- Writers may also pick only the opposition’s weakest or
most insignificant point to refute. Doing so diverts
attention from the real issues and rarely, if ever, leads to
resolution or truth.
1. People from Quebec want to secede from Canada to get their
own currency. Don’t they realize money isn’t everything?

j. False Dilemma - Reduce complex issues to black and white choices.

- Most often issues will have a number of choices for
resolution. Because writers who use the either-or argument
are creating a problem that doesn’t really exist
1. Either we go to Panama City for the whole week of Spring
Break, or we don’t go anywhere at all."

k. Slippery Slope - Suggests that one step will inevitably lead to more,
eventually negative steps.
- While sometimes the results may be negative, the slippery
slope argues that the descent is inevitable and unalterable.
Stirring up emotions against the downward slipping, this
fallacy can be avoided by providing solid evidence of the
eventuality rather than speculation.
• If I give you a free ticket, then I’ll have to give everyone a
free ticket. Then my boss will get mad and fire me, and I
will become homeless. So giving you a free ticket will
make me homeless.

l. Ad Populum (Bandwagon) - Try to get everyone on board. Writers

who use this approach try to convince readers that everyone else
believes something, so the reader should also. The fact that a lot of
people believe it does not make it so
- It is also equated to Peer Pressure.
• Most of the Christian community believes that the
Reproductive Health Bill is contrary to the teachings of
the church. The leaders of the church and many religious
associations are strongly against it. Therefore, it is a bad
law.
m. False Authority - a tactic used by many writers, especially in
advertising.
- An authority in one field may know nothing of another
field. Being knowledgeable in one area doesn’t constitute
knowledge in other areas.
• A popular sports star may know a lot about boxing, but
very little about shampoo. His expertise on the boxing
ring does not qualify him to intelligently discuss the best
anti-dandruff shampoo.

n. Ad Hominem - These arguments ignore the issues and attack the

people.
i. Arguments limit themselves not to the issues, but to the
opposition itself.
ii. Writers who fall into this fallacy attempt to refute the claims of
the opposition by bringing the opposition’s character into
question.
A: “I believe that abortion is morally wrong."
B: "Of course you would say that, you're a priest."
A: "What about the arguments I gave to support my
position?"
B: "Those don't count. Like I said, you're a priest, so you
have to say that abortion is wrong. Further, you are just a
lackey to the Pope, so I can't believe what you say."

o. Ad Misericordiam - appeal to pity

- instead of providing an argument based on facts alone,
the emotion of the listener is addressed instead in order to
gain sympathy
A: Why should I hire you?
B: You should hire me because I am the eldest in a brood of 10.
My parents are counting on me to help them send my siblings
to school. If I will not be able to help, they will have to stop
which is not good for their future…

p. Tuo Quoque ( You too) - argument avoids the real argument by

making similar charges against the opponent and do little to arrive at
conflict resolution.
 i. committed when it is concluded that a person's claim is false
because 1) it is inconsistent with something else a person has
said or 2) what a person says is inconsistent with her actions.
ii. This type of "argument" has the following form: Person A
makes claim X. Person B asserts that A's actions or past claims
are inconsistent with the truth of claim X. Therefore X is false.
A: "I think the RH bill shouldn't be supported because it
cannot really resolve the problem of overpopulation in the
country.”
B: "Well, just last month you supported the bill. So I guess
you're wrong now."

F. Reasoning: Toulmin Model - system of argumentation developed by philosopher

Stephen Toulmin
- not just based on a theory of how logic and argument should lead to truth, but
on how practical argumentation takes place, with all its varying degrees of
certainty and probability
- Argument moves from what you know and what you claim to be true; you start
with data and try to persuade the judge that you are warranted in moving from
the data to the claim

G. ELEMENTS OF ARGUMENT
a. Claim - Proposition that the arguer desires to be accepted; end or object of
making an argument
i. Factual claim
ii. Value claim
iii. Policy claim
b. Data - Also known as proof or evidence
- the information offered in support of a claim

i. Testimony
ii. Example
iii. Statistics
c. Warrant - General principle that licenses a debater to draw inferences from his
evidence
- Certifies the relevance and importance of the relationship between data
and claim
d. Backing - General area from which the data/evidence or warrant is drawn;
-Needed to substantiate warrant
e. Rebuttal - Involves introducing evidence and reasoning to weaken or destroy
another’s claim
0 Freeley, A. & Steinberg, D. (2014). Argumentation and debate: Critical thinking for
reasoned decision making. (13th ed.). USA: Wadsworth CENGAGE Learning.

0 How to understand syllogisms 5 steps. Retrieved July 26, 2013 from the World Wide Web
at…

0 Jayme, V. (2002). An introduction to logic. 2nd ed. Cebu City: ABC Publications, 95-104.