debate rule

The formal rules that govern debate can best be found in your class and the texts associated with it. There is some variation in the rules of debate, and frequently the precise rules will be whatever is agreed upon by the parties doing the debate.

Q. What is the purpose of debate?
A. No question is so settled that there can be only one opinion. Debate is the exchange of opinions in a structured manner. Each side will try to persuade an audience that their opinion has greater merit than their opponents. This form of seeking to improve our knowledge of the world is another of those marvelous inventions of Classical Greece.

Q. What are the acceptable means of persuading an audience?
A. There are three basic approaches defined by the Greeks: Logos, ethos, and Pathos.

Logos is the use of reason and use of formal logic. There are many books available describing the use of logic, and the most frequent errors of logic. Logical faults tend to have latinized names. To present your case in the most persuasive way using logic and reason, you have to know how to think within the rules of formal logic. Your opponent(s) will very likely argue that their position is supported by logic, and you need to be able to point out the flaws in their thinking. The use of Logos is essential to modern scientific enquiry, mathematics, and the practice of law. It is highly recommended that you learn as much about logical thinking, and logical faults, as possible.

Ethos is the appeal to the audience that your position is the good one, the one supporting public and private virtue. It is not logical that a soldier sacrifices himself to save the life of his friend, but few would not praise that act of heroism. There are many positions that we and our audience hold to be more important than the merely logical. This approach to persuading others can be seen in the patriotic speeches of independence Day, and it is a powerful tool in the hands of an experienced debater.

Pathos is the appeal to the audience's emotions. Not long after the American Civil War there was a debate in Congress about whether Reconstruction should be terminated. It seemed both logical (logos) and important to reunification of the country (ethos) that Reconstruction should be ended. A radical Congressman rose to argue against the end of Reconstruction, and during his talk he cited the cost in Union lives to win the war. He actually waved before the legislature a bloodied coat, and his presentation was so emotionally effective that Reconstruction was continued. Emotion is what drives peaceful citizens to become part of a lynch mob. Emotion is causes lovers to elope to escape the censure of their families and friends. Emotion almost always trumps logic and our dedication to the greater good, to virtue.

An experienced advocate will use all three of those strategies. The argument will be rational and the flaws of logic minimized, there will be an appeal to the audience's sense of rightness and virtue on behalf of the position being argued for, and finally, the advocate must touch the emotional springs within the audience on behalf of their argument.

What is it that moves people to believe one thing over another, to decide one way or another? The successful advocate is a student of human foibles and motivations, and they know how to use those to persuade their audience to accept their version of whatever it is that is being debated. Sometimes ttechniqueiqe is to be loud, and other times silent. Sometimes the argument is more logical than emotional. You need to know your audience, and your subject. The OJ trial was decisively turned when OJs attorney seized upon a prosecution error with the words, "if it does not fit, you must acquit". In that phrase we see see logos, ethos, and pathos all bound up in a catchy sound-bite that haunted the audience, the jury, through their deliberations. A master stroke, but did the verdict really reflect the dictates of logic and justice? Who knows, the point is that the debate was carried by the defense, not the prosecution.

When you go into the forum, you want to control as much of the debate as you can. You want the audience with you, not your opponent. Your dress and demeanor, as well as your spoken words all make a difference. Some elements of your opponents argument may be vulnerable to logic, others lacking in your version of rightness and justice, and you always want the audience to emotionally back your argument. If you are cross-examining a person who has the sympathy of the audience, be careful of how you conduct your effort to make their testimony support your position. For example, it is a great mistake to treat a rape victim as a hostile witness, even if that is the reasonable conclusion of their attitude.

Oh well, if you have questions ... shoot.

The only question I have Asherman, is how can logic become a valid argumentative tool in the face of demands for posts of others' opinions to support your own?

Foxfyre, I'm no expert in debate, but, from what I read in Asherman's post, it seems that others' opinions would be an appeal to ethos or pathos, not logic.

I know Kicky. But the kind of debate Asherman suggests is normally not accepted here on A2K. At least it isn't accepted from most of us. Asherman has enough clout to be able to do it.

Back in the days when I was a debate coach and judge, it was required to defend your statement if asked to do so, but logic was an acceptable means by which that was done. The debater was marked up or down on how persuasive his/her logical argument was.Of course if you said 50% of Martians think New Yorkers are weird, you would need to come up with some data to support that.

In arguing say the existence of God, however, logic and reason are all we have. There is no available data to prove or disprove that.

The appeal to greater authority is one of the logical fallacies.

I believe A,
X believes A,
Therefore A is correct.

Not necessarily. X may not know anymore about the proposition than that idiot who lives down the street. How often have we seen this argument, " Doctor X, theeminentt Nobel Prize winner in Economics, declares that Quantum Physics is bunk". "Reverent Billy Joe Bobbus supports the view that all Muslims are terrorists". "All the news commentators agree that the government's Iraqi policy is a disaster", this sort of assertion has more than one logicalfallacyy. And so on.

Even when the authority is indeed an expert in the field they are being cited for, there is still a chance that they are being misquoted, or have made an error in their own judgement.

Use of logic and reason, on the other hand, when properly applied can be a powerful argument. "DNA evidence collected at the scene of the crime matches the defendant's DNA, ergo the defendant was at the scene of the crime. Note, that the argument does not establish that the defendant did the crime, though that may be established by further evidence, and the laws of probability.

I think that the originator of this thread may be preparing for a gun control debate on the basis of their post on that topic elsewhere. That is a reasonable conclusion, but it may be wildly wrong. If I were to argue the case, I would have to muster a lot more evidence to support that opinion.

One of the reasons that a strategy of logic is so powerful is that it at least seems objective. What comprises private or public virtue, or justice? These values aren't objective, but something that we tend to believe on the basis of our upbringing, and the cultural set we belong to. Appeals to the emotions are very effective, but often run counter to what a person or group might choose with cooler, clearer heads. Each of the three strategies have both strong and weak sides, and are often best used in a careful integrated manner. As an audience being asked to adopt an opinion, we need to be very careful to identify the techniques being used to sway us. For instance, Loaded terms and words that tend to incite are a pretty good clue that our emotions are the target. If the advocate appears rational and reasonable, but they use flawed logic, then we should be on our guard against false logic. To be forewarned is to be forearmed.

To help out TIA though I find the time worn GOLDEN RULES helpful. (Before somebody feels need to point it out, I am frequently guilty of violating one or more of these tenets):


Golden Rules

( Originally Published 1912 )

GOLDEN RULES IN ARGUMENTATION

1. Do not argue about everything.

2. Never belittle your opponent.

3. Control your temper.

4. Be impartial in your search for truth.

5. Seek to make a favorable impression.

6. Cultivate calmness and candor.

7. Do not resent opposition.

8. Avoid egotism.

9. Keep your eyes on all your company.

10. If you agree in part with an opponent, say so.

11. Do not be obstinate.

12. Many trifles may go unchallenged.

13. Be concise.

14. Hear others with patience, as you yourself would be heard.

15. Avoid high key.

16. Don't quibble.

17. Have a main point to prove.

18. Never fear to put the truth on trial.

19. Avoid generalization.

20. Look your hearer in the eye.

21. Do not argue with your hands.

22. Speak distinctly.

23. Avoid personalities.

24. Do not emphasize the obvious.

25. Define your terms.

26. Keep some ammunition in reserve.

27. Make a strong ending.

Edited to correct embarassing spelling error

Good guidelines, and mostly aimed at helping the advocate to avoid the pitfalls that commonly sabotage an arguement.

Thank you Asherman. I was taught critical analysis this way:

1st observor: Look, there is a black sheep in the field..

2nd observor: Correction, there is a black sheep in the field at this time. We know that the sheep is black at least one side.

3rd observor: Correction, we know there is a black sheep in the field that is black on at least one
side at least some of the time.

4th observor: I'm going to take my chances that the sheep is black on both sides all the time as that has been my experience.

Which statement is true? Which statement is the most logical? Are the 2nd and 3rd statements more logical because they are the most true?

2 and 3 may be closer to the "truth", but 1 and 4 are more likely to sway an audience. The point of debate is to prevail. Any lawyer that went into court only when convinced that his client was innocent would soon be flipping burgers.That doesn't meant that one should argue unethically. To lie or distort is often the surest way to defeat. It is not unethical to craft your arguement in the most persuasive manner possible.

Because advocates will cast their arguments in the most favorable light to their case, it is important that the audience be aware of how to separate the wheat from the chaff. Frequently the most reasoned and logically correct position will lose to the impassioned plea. Be aware of that when you are being appealed to.

BTW, A2K isn't so much a forum of debate as it is a colloquium.

LOL agreed. Those who attempt to utilize point-by-point methods as would be used in a 'real life' debate are sometimes effective for a short string, but are too often boring and lose the point in a long string. The most frustrating of all are the nitpickers who latch onto something, anything to refute while ignoring the point the 'speaker' was making. (These got marked down a LOT by me.) They of course weaken their own argument doing this.

In this format, cordial discussion using logic, reason, and documentation as is necessary is the most satisfying to me. I am personally more impressed by a person's reasoning ability and a logical new perspective they might present than I am impressed by a plethora of posts of other people's opinon.

Maybe that's why I like you so much, Asherman.

TIA, could you clarify your question? Are you asking about formal debate rules that would be utilized say in highschool or college competitions? Or are you asking about debate rules that would be utilized on A2K?

When the facts support your case, argue them. (logos)
When the law supports your case, argue the law. (ethos)
When everything seems to run against you, then wave the bloody shirt. (pathos)

I doubt that many who learn this little lesson in law school ever connect it with the teachings of the Ancients. Clever folks those Greeks.

Fox,

TIA = thanks in advance

teach me to debate,

The information you are getting is very misleading and has more to do with history on Able2Know than real debate rules.

You need to first learn about debate format, as the format defines the rules.

Regards

I did see the TIA and took it as a signature line. Apologies Teach.

I disagree with Craven that you are getting misleading information. If you clarify what manner of debate you are requesting information for--competitive argumentation, political, etc.--i can give you the format and rules that are most commonly used.

I should expound.

There is a lot of good advice on how to debate here, but much of it is not related to debate rules.

Debate rules are contigient on the format of the debate and usually address fillibustering more than debating well.

So depending on the format, the rules will usually be about when your turn is, how many turns you get and how long turns last.

Well there's a bit more to it than that. But I would like for Teach to clarify what s/he is looking for before putting up a full page of stuff s/he doesn't want.

How to win a debate:

The technique explained

An informative graphic

Well, any good coach will say it's okay to make up a fact when you're desperate. But you run a real chance of getting nailed if you get caught.