Section I: * Good reason: reasons that are psychologically compelling for a given audience that makes further inquiry both unnecessary and redundant. Therefore, justifying a decision to affirm or reject a proposition. (Page 2, 12th Edition)

Example:

* Ethos: means to convince by the character of the author and by the amount of respect and credibility the commands from the audience.

Example: As a doctor, I am qualified to tell you that this course of treatment will likely generate the best results.

* NDT*: National debate tournament. (Page 20, 12th Edition).

* CEDA*: Cross Examination Debate Association. (Page 20, 12th Edition)

* Sophists: A person who reasons with clever but fallacious arguments.

Example: A person who uses graphs and scientific observation to convince someone that humans are not mammals.

* Enthymeme: (1) A truncated syllogism, in which one of the premises or the conclusion is not stated. (Page 153, 12th Edition)

Example: “You will come out victorious, just do your best." The missing premise is "All people who do their best are people who come out victorious."

* Deduction: Argument that begins with a broad generalization and moves to a more specific application or conclusion. (Page 170, 12th Edition)

Example: All living organisms eventually die. A flower is a living organism. Therefore, it will eventually die.

* Induction: Argument that begins with a specific case and moves to a broader generalization. (Page 170, 12th Edition).

Example: All throughout history people have repeated the same mistakes, so we can conclude that mistakes will be made in the future.

* Causal reasoning: The process whereby one infers that a certain factor (a cause) is a force that produces something else (an effect). (Page 170, 12th Edition)

Example: if you kill someone, you will be trialed and sentenced.

* Reasoning by sign: 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. (Page 185, 12th Edition)

Example: When the fire alarm is going off in the kitchen, something is burning.

* Appeal to ignorance: Advocates maintain that something cannot be so because they, or the audience, have never heard of it. (Page 189, 12th Edition).

Example: Since no one can prove the Lochness monster does not exist, it is safe to assume that it exists. * Appeal to tradition: Support for an argument is based on customary and historical support for the argument. (Page 189, 12th Edition) Example: My father and his father before him polished wood this way. Do not tell me how to polish wood. * Arguing in a circle: Occurs when one assumes as a premise for the argument the very conclusion one intends to prove. (Page 189, 12th Edition) Example: The Bible is the Word of God because God tells us it is in the Bible.

* Hasty generalization: Argument from example in which the inference is made on the basis of insufficient evidence. (Page 189, 12th Edition) Example: My grandfather smoked 3 packs of cigarettes a day since age fourteen and he died of a car accident at the age of sixty-nine. Therefore, smoking really cannot be that bad for you. * Loaded language: Use of emotionally charged words in an effort to establish a conclusion without proof. (Page 189, 12th Edition)

Example: The Bible is filled with stories of God's magic.

* Non sequitur: A conclusion that does not follow from the premises or evidence on which it is based. (Page 189, 12th Edition)

Example: People like to walk on the beach. Beaches have seashells. Therefore, having a house made with seashells would be a great idea!

* 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. (Page 189, 12th Edition)

Example: if everyone carried a weapon, there would be no more crime in the world.

* Post hoc fallacy: It assumes a causal relationship where none has been proved. (Page 201, 12th Edition)

Example: I had a bad headache, after talking with my boyfriend, my headache started to go away.

* Repeated assertion: An argument is presented as proof for itself. (Page 190, 12th Edition)

Example: Serena Williams is the best tennis player she deserves to win the title. There are other good players but not like her.

* Straw argument: Setting up an issue merely so it can be knocked down. (Page 190, 12th Edition)

Example: Supporters of sex education want to give kids license to have sex with no consequences.

* Hegemony: influence or authority over others.

Example: The United States have so much power that it can influence how the Iraqi government is setup.

* Virtue ethics: is currently one of three major approaches in normative ethics. It may, initially, be identified as the one that emphasizes the virtues, or moral character, in contrast to the approach which emphasizes duties or rules (deontology) or that emphasizes the consequences of actions. Example: John always tells the truth even when the consequences are bad for him. * Consequentialism: the theory that the value and especially the moral value of an act should be judged by the value of its consequences.

Example: Luc believes that the whole point of morality is to spread happiness and to relieve others pain.

* Deontology: the ethical system in which morality is determined by duty or laws.

Example: it is the obligation of every employee to report any misconduct in the company regardless of what the consequences might be. * A Proposition of Policy: makes a persuasive argument about a course of action regarding a controversial topic of social or public concern.

Example: The United States should make birth control more affordable to low income families in order to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies.

* A burden of proof: The obligation to prove what one asserts. (Page 44, 12th Edition)

Example: Luc says that he was abducted by aliens. Since no one can prove that he was not abducted, his claim is then true.

* Status quo: The existing state of things; the present system. (Page 44, 12th Edition)

Example: in order to prevent his health condition to deteriorate, the doctor moved Luc to the intensive care unit.

* Presumption: A predisposition favoring a given side in a dispute. (Page 44, 12th Edition)

Example: Men are stronger than women. Since John is a man he must be stronger than Lucy.

* Proposition: A statement of judgment that identifies the central issue in a controversy.
Example of a proposition of value:”Resolved: “Killing is immoral” * Fiat: The convention in academic policy debate that, for the sake of argument, participants may assume implementation of a reasonable policy. (Page 61, 12th Edition)

Section II:
31. A Syllogism is a systematic arrangement of arguments consisting of a major premise, a minor premise, and a conclusion.
Categorical syllogism example: 1. All mammals are animals. (major premise)
All humans are mammals. (minor premise)
Therefore, all humans are animals. (Conclusion)

2. All soldiers are patriots. (major premise)
No traitors are patriots. (minor premise)
Therefore, no traitors are soldiers. (Conclusion)
Disjunctive syllogism example: 1. Either I will buy shoes or I will by sandals. (major premise)
I will not buy shoes. (minor premise)
Therefore, I will buy sandals. (Conclusion)

2. It is either hot or cold. (major premise) It is not hot. (minor premise)
Therefore, it is cold. (Conclusion)
Conditional syllogism example: 1. If I do not study, then I cannot graduate. (major premise)
If I cannot graduate, then I will not find a job. (minor premise)
Therefore, if I do not study, then I will not find a job. (Conclusion)

2. If atoms are ultimate particles, they are indivisible. (major premise)
If Atoms are not indivisible. (minor premise)
Therefore, they are not ultimate. (conclusion)

33. 1. Harm issues identifies an imperfection within the status quo, marked by urgency and characterized by important deleterious consequences of inaction.
Example: underage drinking is a serious issue. 2. Inherency issue considers the likelihood that absent of positive action, the HARM will continue. It is based in the embedded nature of the harm within the status quo.

Example: the current drinking policies do not fully solve the issue.

3. Solvency issue is the ability of a plan to work and to reduce the harm identified by the affirmative.
Example: European countries have lowered the legal drinking age to 18 years old.
34.
* Tabula Rasa Judge or clean- slate: works to avoid the imposition of his/her own debate philosophy and allows and expects the debaters to decide the theoretical framework for the decision as the debate evolves. Tabula rasa judges claim to begin the debate with no assumptions on what is proper to vote on (Freeley Steinberg pg. 324) and. Example: if the affirmative is using a stock issue case and argues successfully providing all necessary evidence than the judge will vote affirmatively because he had no predispositions about the topic.

* Policymaker Judge: Policymaker judges tend to take the theoretical viewpoint that they are the "policymaker," and as such, they vote for the side that presents the best policy option. Policy maker judges focus on the affirmative plan as compared to available alternatives and through a cost benefit analysis; they compare the merits of the competing policies. Example: If the affirmative case is the ban of “No child left behind” and the negative argues that it should not be completely banned but rather improved, than the policymaker judge will go by “which policy is better” by doing a cost benefit analysis.

* Hypothesis-Testing Judge: takes the perspective of a scientist seeking to determine the probable truth of a hypothesis. Unlike the policymaker judge, the hypothesis-testing judge does not seek to compare two policies systems but rather seek to test the hypothesis which is the proposition as exemplified by the affirmative case (Freeley Steinberg pg. 324).

* Issue Judge: A stock issues judge believes that the affirmative must fulfill their burden of proof by specifically elaborating the stock Issues (which are Harm, Inherency and solvency). If the negative proves that the affirmative is lacking in any one of the issues, it is grounds for the affirmative case to be rejected. Stock issue judges generally prefer a clear, eloquent presentation of issues during the debate.
35. In parliamentary debate since only one question may be considered at a time, the sequence in which motions are taken up is fixed by parliamentary law. A rank of motions indicating the order in which specific motions should be processed. When a motion is immediately pending, any motion above it on the Precedence of Motions is in order and any motion below it is out of order.
Once the main motion is before the meeting, any of the following motions, when appropriate, may be made. The order of precedence is categorized as followed: 1. Privileged motion: have no direct connection with the main motion before the assembly. However, they relate to urgent matters that need immediate consideration which is why they hold the highest precedence. The privileged motion includes: Fix the time of the next meeting, Adjourn, recess and question of privilege. Example: Recess is a very important matter that is justified to take first precedence over the Incidental, subsidiary and main motion because in a parliament for instance when people are tired it’s better to recess or suspend the meeting temporarily otherwise nothing good comes out of the debate. 2. Incidental motion: only arise incidentally out of the business before the assembly. Also they are second in precedence and include: Appeal decision to the chair (secure reversal ruling by the chair), close nominations, division of the house (require a standing vote), object to consideration, parliamentary inquiry, point of order, suspension of the rule, request for information and withdraw a motion. All these incidental motions play a vital role in the unfolding of a debate. That’s why they hold second precedence. Example: calling for “division of the house” is an important matter because it helps to clearly identify who is voting for or against a law or an issue (Reference our classroom debates). That’s why it has second precedence. 3. Subsidiary motion: are alternative aids for changing, considering, and disposing of the main motion. Therefore, they are subsidiary to the main motion Example: vote immediately (means to close the debate and bring the matter before the meeting to an immediate vote. (Freeley and Steinberg pg. 408) 4. Main motion: Brings substantive proposals before the assembly for consideration and decision. It has zero precedence 36. * Lincoln-Douglas Debate: commonly practiced in high school debate. The idea behind this form of debate is to focus on discussing the merits of competing ethical values in a persuasive manner (the goal is to be able to win arguments by persuading the judges). Lincoln-Douglas debates were inspired by the debates between Abraham Lincoln and Stephen A. Douglas during a senatorial race in the 1850s. A round of Lincoln-Douglas debate consists of five speeches and two cross-examination periods. So to summarize Lincoln-Douglas debates have traditionally placed strong emphasis on speaking persuasively, logically and in a very clear manner.

* CEDA stands for Cross-Examination Debate Association. This is a newer form of college-level Debate compared to NDT. It was born as a reaction to NDT the same way that Lincoln-Douglas debate was born as a reaction to team policy debate. CEDA is a two-on-two debate, with a structure very similar to the NDT and team policy debate. The difference resides in the style of the resolution. While NDT resolutions are policy-oriented CEDA resolutions are more value oriented. Mainly practiced in College.

* Parliamentary debate is another form of debate that arose as a reaction against the excesses of NDT and team policy debate. The emphasis in this form of debate is on persuasiveness and logic. Unlike in other forms of debate, where the resolution is established well in advance of a tournament, in Parliamentary debate the resolution is usually not established until 10 minutes before the debate round begins. A debate round has two teams with two debaters each and a Speaker. One team represents the Government, while the other represents the Opposition. The Government team is composed of a Prime Minister, who speaks twice, and a Member of Government, who speaks once. The Opposition team is composed of a Leader of the Opposition, who speaks twice, and a Member of the Opposition, who speaks once. The Government proposes a specific case statement, which they must demonstrate to be correct. The Opposition does not have to propose anything, but must demonstrate that the case statement is not correct. The Speaker decides at the end of the round, based on the arguments made which met the burden of proof.

Work cited
Freeley, Austin J., and David L. Steinberg. Critical Thinking for Reasoned Decision Making. 13th ed. Boston: Cengage Learning, n.d. Print