A.
Basics
of Argumentation
Why is
argument important in debate? In many
ways, the answers seem obvious; It is as important as air for our life. It is
important to be able to argue rationally
both in a debate championship or in a real life. Second, knowledge often comes through argument.
Once a case is proved; a dispute is opened up and then solved; a new hypothesis
is posited; you are asked to look at an old problem in a new way. Third,
argument is about clarification as well
as persuasion. Well-argued speeches contain
a sharp sense of meaning to an
issue. Fourth, argument can be enjoyable – and students are spaces in which
argument is encouraged and where it can flourish. The foregoing reasons may
seem obvious, since argument cannot be separated from debate.
Part of
this chapter is to help you learn better about how to bring the best from you
with regard to argument. Playing arguments is like playing your
gadgets: If you understand how they work, you are likely to get more service
out of them, understand what went wrong when they break down, and fix the
problem before your next outing. What matters most about argument to the debater is in differentiating bad argument from a good argument. In debate, this,
in many ways, remainss problematic.There is no such thing as a total bad argument;
rather, you should judge arguments based
on the effectiveness. Arguments must be judged on the basis of their
effectiveness.
There are three most common types of
argument. They are induction, deduction,
and causation. These include the vast majority of possible logical
relationships used in debates.
1.
Induction
Inductive
reasoning is the process of citing a sufficient number of specific examples to
prove a generalization. You may characterize the process as ‘from the specific to the general.’ You
cite example 1, example 2, and so on, and then draw the conclusion, a
generalized statement about those factual examples. You can also reverse the
process. You may state the generalization that you intend to prove and then
cite examples to support it. Debaters utilize the later technique most
frequently when using induction.
You
must consider the following five principles when using induction:
- The examples cited must be factual, not hypothetical.
- The examples must be analogous; they must be of the same type, species, or category.
- The induction must be built on a sufficient number of factual examples. What constitutes a sufficient number depends on the nature of your subject and your audience. If you are talking about nuclear power, for instance, you cannot not use examples from Iran alone. An audience that has knowledge of your subject will usually require more examples than one that has none. An audience that does not want to believe your conclusion will demand more examples than an audience that wants to believe it.
- The conclusion of induction is a generalization.
- You can effectively undermine an inductive argument by challenging the methodology or process used in collecting the data. Whenever you talk in terms of percentages, ratios, indices, the majority of cases, and the minority, you are referring to terms statistical in nature. Yet in most subjects for which we are apt to become advocates and use such statistical terms, the probabilities are great that the actual statistics have been gathered by a sampling process (an inductive process) rather than the complete counting.
Induction
is a powerful weapon in influencing people’s beliefs. Speakers use it to
defend or challenge the system of status quo, to demonstrate historical trends,
to estimate public opinion, to show that certain courses of action are
advantageous, and to establish universal truths. Induction is used widely in
all areas of endeavor to uncover knowledge and verify findings.Therefore, you
who wishes to become an effective debater will learn how to use it to
strengthen your arguments and to refute the arguments of others.
2.
Deduction
Deduction is one of the most common
forms of reasoning found in debate. The
essence of deduction is to take two ideas that we accept, find a relationship between
them, and then draw this relationship as a conclusion. Those investigating
crimes often use such reasoning. For example, if a murder was committed in one
city on Saturday night, and if the enemy of the victim was seen in another city
at the same time, then the enemy cannot be the murderer because of the accepted
generalization that a person cannot be in two places at once. Often a deductive
argument will take some accepted generalization and apply it to a specific
situation. If one accepts the generalization, then it seems reasonable to
accept the specific conclusion.
Deductive
reasoning is that form of reasoning in which a conclusion is drawn from
premises. The following are examples of deductive reasoning:
Any
nation that has good univesrities has good financing for them.
USA
has good universities.
Therefore,
USA has had good financing for universities.
Any person who has a record of honesty in the past
can be relied upon to be honest in the future.
Dr. Agus has a
record of honesty in the past.
Therefore, Dr. Agus can be relied upon to be honest in
the future.
Note
that the proposition to be proved in each case is the concluding statement of
the deduction. In each of the above examples the conclusion is drawn from the
two statements that precede it. The first two statements are the premises upon
which the conclusion is based.
3.
Causation/causal
reasoning
Causal
reasoning is the form of reasoning in which you can demonstrate that an event
that happens first has the means, power, facilities, and/or desire to produce a
second event. Teachers often suggest to a student, “You’ll fail because you
are cheating.” In this case, I am suggesting a certain conclusion, namely, you
will fail. This is our proposition to be proved. Our support or proof for the
proposition is the statement that you are cheating. The actual process of
causal reasoning in its simplest form involves the statement of either a cause
or an event as sufficient support for the whole reasoning process. This is what
you did when you cited cheating as the obvious reason why you would fail. In
most of your speaking, however, your causal reasoning will take the form of
explaining why the cause produces the effect.
You
can substantiate causal relationships and strengthen your arguments by citing
experts who attest to the relationship or by using induction. For example, to
prove that vitamin A in a food supply would reduce blindness, you could present
evidence that thousands of people used it in three different cities, with the
same results. You can then say that the causal relationship was proved. Here
are two examples of causal reasoning:
- Statistics show that smokers have a higher incidence of lung disease. The cause is that smoking damages the lungs.
