Debate Tactics. Legitimate and Illegitimate Arguments. POLI 12 - Intro to IR. January 22, 2014

Transcription

1 Legitimate and Illegitimate Arguments January 22, 2014

2 Structure of An Argument Arguments have two components:

3 Structure of An Argument Arguments have two components: Premise(s): A statement that is taken as fact for the purpose of the argument. Ex: The US has the world s largest GDP. Ex: If Faulconer wins the most votes, he will become Mayor.

4 Structure of An Argument Arguments have two components: Premise(s): A statement that is taken as fact for the purpose of the argument. Ex: The US has the world s largest GDP. Ex: If Faulconer wins the most votes, he will become Mayor. Conclusion: A statement that logically follows if we accept the premises. Premise #1: Economic power is solely determined by GDP. Premise #2: The US has the largest GDP in the world. Conclusion: The US has the most economic power.

5 Valid Answers to an Argument How should you challenge an argument?

6 Valid Answers to an Argument How should you challenge an argument? Example: Premise: If Faulconer wins more votes than Alvarez, he will become Mayor. Premise: If Faulconer becomes Mayor, he will be happy. Conclusion: If Faulconer wins more votes than Alvarez, he will be happy.

7 Valid Answers to an Argument How should you challenge an argument? Example: Premise: If Faulconer wins more votes than Alvarez, he will become Mayor. Premise: If Faulconer becomes Mayor, he will be happy. Conclusion: If Faulconer wins more votes than Alvarez, he will be happy. Counter Arguments:

8 Valid Answers to an Argument How should you challenge an argument? Example: Premise: If Faulconer wins more votes than Alvarez, he will become Mayor. Premise: If Faulconer becomes Mayor, he will be happy. Conclusion: If Faulconer wins more votes than Alvarez, he will be happy. Counter Arguments: Challenge the logic and accuracy of the premises.

9 Valid Answers to an Argument How should you challenge an argument? Example: Premise: If Faulconer wins more votes than Alvarez, he will become Mayor. Premise: If Faulconer becomes Mayor, he will be happy. Conclusion: If Faulconer wins more votes than Alvarez, he will be happy. Counter Arguments: Challenge the logic and accuracy of the premises. Examine the evidentiary support for the premises.

10 Valid Answers to an Argument How should you challenge an argument? Example: Premise: If Faulconer wins more votes than Alvarez, he will become Mayor. Premise: If Faulconer becomes Mayor, he will be happy. Conclusion: If Faulconer wins more votes than Alvarez, he will be happy. Counter Arguments: Challenge the logic and accuracy of the premises. Examine the evidentiary support for the premises. Those premises alone are not sufficient to reach the conclusion.

11

12 False Premise: assumes facts not in evidence. Example: China has more military power than the US.

13 False Premise: assumes facts not in evidence. Example: China has more military power than the US. Vagueness: using weasel words. Example: Intervention could mean many things.

14 False Premise: assumes facts not in evidence. Example: China has more military power than the US. Vagueness: using weasel words. Example: Intervention could mean many things. Post hoc ergo propter hoc: assume causality because of order. Example: Bush was elected before 9/11, therefore he caused it.

15

16 False dichotomy: examining only the extremes. Example: We either participate in the ICC, or abandon all international cooperation.

17 False dichotomy: examining only the extremes. Example: We either participate in the ICC, or abandon all international cooperation. Slippery slope: predicts unlikely consequences. Example: If we don t reduce carbon emissions, global warming will go out of control, sea levels will rise, and billions of people will die.

18 False dichotomy: examining only the extremes. Example: We either participate in the ICC, or abandon all international cooperation. Slippery slope: predicts unlikely consequences. Example: If we don t reduce carbon emissions, global warming will go out of control, sea levels will rise, and billions of people will die. Ad hominem: attacks the opponent, not the argument. Example: Don t believe Krugman - he s too liberal.

19

20 Appeals to Emotion: Rhetoric or authority, not logic. Example: Krugman says free trade is good, and he has a Nobel Prize!

21 Appeals to Emotion: Rhetoric or authority, not logic. Example: Krugman says free trade is good, and he has a Nobel Prize! Changing the subject / Nitpicking: redirects attention away from substance. Example: Nuclear proliferation isn t a threat: chemical weapons are.

22 Appeals to Emotion: Rhetoric or authority, not logic. Example: Krugman says free trade is good, and he has a Nobel Prize! Changing the subject / Nitpicking: redirects attention away from substance. Example: Nuclear proliferation isn t a threat: chemical weapons are. Strawperson: simplifies an argument to misrepresent. Example: Our opponents want you to believe that we should always defer to the United Nations.

23 Appeals to Emotion: Rhetoric or authority, not logic. Example: Krugman says free trade is good, and he has a Nobel Prize! Changing the subject / Nitpicking: redirects attention away from substance. Example: Nuclear proliferation isn t a threat: chemical weapons are. Strawperson: simplifies an argument to misrepresent. Example: Our opponents want you to believe that we should always defer to the United Nations. Intimidation: badgering your opponent. Example: Being rude, interrupting your opponent, etc.