Debating Workshop 2C. 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

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:

1. The examples cited must be factual, not hypothetical.
2. The examples must be analogous; they must be of the same type, species, or category.
3. 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.
4. The conclusion of induction is a generalization. 
5. 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.

Corruption in the current government will make it difficult for the party to win the upcoming election. The cause is that voters will not vote for a corrupt government.