Upload
say-david
View
213
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Fallacies in debate
Citation preview
DEBATE
DEBATE•Formal type of argumentation•Intelligent exchange of points between the affirmative and negative sides
FOUR TYPES OF DEBATE
Lincoln Douglas
Rebuttal Debate
One Rebuttal Debate
Oxford- Oregon Debate
TYPES OF DEBATE
There are four types of debates that are most commonly used. These are as follows:
Lincoln- Douglas- is a kind of debate where there is only one speaker in the side of the affirmative as well as in the side of the affirmative side opens the debate then followed by the negative speaker.
THE REBUTTAL TYPE OF DEBATE
- is a kind of debate where each team from the affirmative and the negative side is composed of about two or three members. As the debate starts, the affirmative speaker opens the constructive speech and the negative speaker starts the rebuttal. Every speaker is allowed to deliver a rebuttal speech. The debate is closed with the affirmative side delivering the last rebuttal.
ONE REBUTTAL TYPE OF DEBATE
is considered as a modified form of the Lincoln-Douglas type of debate. However in this type of debate, there are about two to three members in both the affirmative and the negative side. In this debate, all of the speakers have a chance to refute the argument of the opponent with the exception of the first affirmative speaker who is given the opportunity to close the debate in his or her rebuttal speech.
OREGON-OXFORD DEBATE
traditional debate format used in elementary, governors debate, house debate rules, parliamentary debate rules, high school debate, youtube debate, presidential debate, colleges and all over the country.
There are 2 sides in this format : the Affirmative and the Negative. The Affirmative proves the validity of the issue or topic called the Proposition while the Negative disproves it. Each team has two speakers and one scribe. A Debate Moderator enforces the rules to ensure the debate’s smooth conduct.
FLOW OF OREGON OFXORD DEBATE
THREE SPEAKERS FROM EACH SIDE
1st speaker affirmative side constructive speech 5 minutes1st speaker negative side interpolation 3 minutes1st speaker negative side constructive speech 5 minutes1st speaker affirmative side interpolation 3 minutes2nd speaker affirmative side constructive speech 5 minutes2nd speaker negative side interpolation 3 minutes2nd speaker negative side constructive speech 5 minute2nd speaker affirmative side interpolation 3 minutes3rd speaker affirmative side constructive speech 5 minutes3rd speaker negative side interpolation 3 minutes3rd speaker negative side constructive speech 5 minutes3rd speaker affirmative side interpolation 3 minute5-minute breakspeaker negative side rebuttal 5 minutesspeaker affirmative side rebuttal 5 minutes
In debate
Proposition
Proposition
Topic or issue that is
argued upon
In exploring
Do some ORGANIZED research!
Utilize the library-it’s the first source
Do some intervie
ws
Take down notes!
Refer to the web
WRITING THE INTODUCTION
You should arouse the attention of
your audience.
REMEMBER!
Make them see that the
topic is important.
How?
Show them that the topic is timely.
How?
Preserve a favorable attitude.
How?
Second aim of intro is to
explain the proposition.
REMEMBER!
Define all important
words. (1st A)
How?
Set the parameters/ limit of the
debate (1st A)
How?
The whole idea must be clearly explained
.
How?
Present a short but
lively history of the topic.
How?
Third aim of intro is to state the ISSUES.
REMEMBER!
ISSUES are the questions that when answered,
may destroy a side.
UNDERSTAND
ISSUES are the questions that when answered,
may destroy a side.
UNDERSTAND
TEST FOR ISSUES Resolved that the K+12 be
implemented in the Philippine Educational System . (PROPOSITION)• How would the proposition
affect the Philippine Educational System? The
students?
TEST FOR ISSUES Resolved that the K+12 be
implemented in the Philippine Educational System. (PROPOSITION)
• Is there really a need to implement
the proposition?
2 SIDES OF DEBATE
OPPOSING SIDES
AFFIRMATIVE
negative
Aspects of the debatE(+)
Aspects of the debatE(-)
NECESSITY
beneficiality
practicability
PARTS of the debatE(+)
Constructive speech presentation of
each team member’s
arguments and evidence for each aspect of the case
Interpellation The opportunity for
the opposing debater to ask
questions regarding the speech of the
speaker
Rebuttal The summary and
defense of each team’s arguments
and evidence, to be delivered by the
team captain
Speaker roles 1A speaker-
NECESSITY 1N speaker-NON
NECESSITY
Speaker roles 2A speaker-
BENEFICIALITY 2N speaker-NON
BENEFICIALITY
Speaker roles 3A speaker-
PRACTICABILITY 3N speaker-NON
PRACTICABILITY
FALLACIES IN DEBATE
Fallacy refers to an incorrect argument which results in invalid or unsound statements.
There are different kinds of fallacies but below are the commonly encountered fallacies in any argumentation.
FALLACIES IN DEBATE
AD HOMINEM- is the fallacy committed when one party attacks the character of the other party for the purpose of making the argument of that other party weak.
EXAMPLE: I cannot accept the argument of Capt. Juan Dela Cruz to implement zero alcohol policy on board since he himself is an alcoholic.
POST HOC Is the fallacy committed when one
party considers the fact or situation that occurred before as the cause of the occurence of another situation without significant basis.
EXAMPLE: I believe that this technical problem occured due to our newly-embarked master. I am certain, for this problem only occured two days after his embarkmention. He is probably a bad luck.
AD POPULUM is the fallacy committed when
one party attempts to win an argument by citing that most or a lot of people believe in a certain position, as in bandwagon fallacy.
EXAMPLE: Everybody is drinking on board. I should join them.
AD MISERICORDIAM
EXAMPLE: I believe we should give him a chance. I know the problem occurred out of negligence. Yet we need to consider his goodness. He has been with us for several months and he has been so good to us. He has been helpful to us somehow. What will happen to him if we will recommend him for repatriation? Anyway, nobody was hurt in that incident.
AD BACULUM
• is the fallacy committed when party uses threat to invoke fear in the other party and thus persuade the other party to accept the will of the former. However, the threatening argument used is not directly related to the main issue at hand.
EXAMPLE
I know I violated the code of ethics. Yet you need to give me a chance. Otherwise, I will inform the company about your anomalous activities here onboard.