Refuting, Attacking, and Cross-Examination

Refuting an Argument Briefly restate your opponent’s argument: “In the first claim, my opponent argues that health care is a precondition for political participation.”

Refuting an Argument State your response to each argument. There are both defensive and offensive arguments when refuting.

Refuting with Defensive Arguments: Counter-Claim: countering the truth of the original argument by giving counter evidence or examples. Resolution Example: Capital punishment deters future crime. Counter-Claim Example: Capital Punishment does not deter crime because people still are convicted of crimes.

Refuting with Defensive Arguments: Nit-picking/pimping: using nit-picky questions or responses, used to distract the opponent’s time and trick them into spending time on an argument not really going to be used to win the debate. Resolution Example: Capital punishment deters future crime. Nit-picking/Pimping Example: This argument has no warrant. This argument has no impact.

Refuting with Defensive Arguments: Mitigate: to diminish or reduce the severity of the argument; accepts that the argument is true but suggests that the impact is not as bad as claimed. Resolution Example: Capital punishment deters future crime. Mitigating Example: Evidence for and against deterrence exists. Since it is inconclusive, we can not be certain of the deterrent effect.

Refuting with Defensive Arguments: Taking out the argument: nullifies or cancels another argument Resolution Example: Capital punishment deters future crime. Taking out the argument Example: Conclusive evidence suggests that capital punishment does not have a deterrent effect because criminals are not rational so they don’t think about the consequences of their actions.

Refuting with Defensive Arguments: Citing a logical fallacy Explain the logical leap your opponent is making. Name the fallacy Explain the general rule of the fallacy Impact it to the resolution Refer back to the fallacy when extending the argument

Hasty Generalization A conclusion based on insufficient or unrepresentative evidence Generalizations use words like all, every, always, and never Use words like most, many, usually or seldom to avoid problems “People without health care can never get needed treatment.” “One hundred percent of non-Mexicans are stopped by the California Border Patrol.” Billy Strong DMR

Two Wrongs Make a Right Attempting to justify a wrong by pointing to another wrong committed by someone else. The operation cost just under $500, and no one was killed, or even hurt. In that same time the Pentagon spent tens of millions of dollars and dropped tens of thousands of pounds of explosives on Viet Nam, killing or wounding thousands of human beings, causing hundreds of millions of dollars of damage. Because nothing justified their actions in our calculus, nothing could contradict the merit of ours. Source: Weather Underground terrorist Bill Ayers, from his memoir Fugitive Days, defending a bombing attack by the Weathermen on the Pentagon. Quoted in "Radical Chic Resurgent", by Timothy Noah, Slate, 8/22/2001.

False Emotional Appeals Faulty play on emotions (envy, fear, hatred, pity, pride) Example: Just 50 cents a day can save abused animals.

False Use of Authority False use of expertise or celebrity Authority A believes that P is true. Therefore, P is true.

Non Sequitur – does not follow A conclusion that does not follow logically from preceding statements A conclusion based on irrelevant ideas -People are not satisfied with the present health care system, so we should do nationalized health care – one does not lead to the other.

x=y because y=a False Analogy Assumes that because two things are alike in one respect, they must be alike in others Analogies are not proof but visual metaphors to explain a situation Turn the analogy or show it is false x=y because y=a

Either or fallacy The suggestion that only two alternatives exist when in fact there are more “You are either with us or against us.” GWB

Ad Hominem “Toward the man”—attacking the person

Post Hoc Ergo Proctor Hoc Fallacy Faulty Cause and Effect reasoning – “after this, therefore because of this” False cause and effect reasoning is terribly persuasive because it seems so logical. "After I took office, the rate of inflation dropped to 3 percent."

Begging the Question Asking questions that go round in circles to get back to where you started from Begging the question is a way of ducking the issue. Instead of supporting the conclusion with evidence and logic, the speaker simply restates the conclusion in different language.

Ad Populum “To the people” Claiming that an idea should be accepted because of a large number of people are in favor of it is also called the bandwagon appeal

Straw Man Fallacy Attack on an easy target instead of the difficult one under scrutiny. It's a fallacy because it fails to deal with the actual arguments that have been made. "To be an atheist, you have to believe with absolute certainty that there is no God. In order to convince yourself with absolute certainty, you must examine all the Universe and all the places where God could possibly be. Since you obviously haven't, your position is indefensible.“ “So you believe in a minimalist state? A weak central government? So I suppose you believe people can govern themselves without any higher authority. People accused of murder should be their own judge, then, and children should raise themselves.

Appeal to Tradition Suggests tradition alone is an adequate source of validity

Naturalistic Fallacy “Is” does not imply “ought” Examples: Congress, famine, injustice and oppression exist – is does not imply it should exist. Congress acted or the Supreme Court ruled this way does not equal that they should have acted this way. Yes the constitution does allow us to have a right to …, but should it?

False Dilemma A false dilemma is oversimplifying a complicated situation. Limiting options to “either-or”

Slippery Slope Fallacy A slippery slope fallacy is one that states that a series of events will be initiated simply because the first event in the series has occurred or will occur. Also known as the “domino theory”

Refuting with Offensive Arguments: Link-turn:suggests that the claim does not connect to the impact but rather the claim connects to another impact that would prove the opposite side. Resolution Example: Capital punishment deters future crime. Link-turn Example: Evidence suggests that when murderers are witnessed that they kill any remaining witnesses because they would already receive the highest punishment. Capital punishment creates an incentive to finish the job.

Refuting with Offensive Arguments: Impact-turn:suggests that the impact argued by one debater to be detrimental was actually positive. Claim Example: Universal health care would cause the economy to collapse, resulting in war. Impact-turn Example: The economic decline as a result of Universal health care would dampen the desire to go to war.

Refuting with Offensive Arguments: Double-turn:it is a mistake for a debater to argue both link and impact turns against the same argument, so this works against the debater using them both Double-turn Example: If the link turn was that the affirmative solves a problem and an impact turn was that the problem is actually a benefit, then the affirmative can say that they stop a good thing from happening.

Purpose of Cross-Examination Ask clarification questions about: Arguments that the student missed Arguments that the student didn’t understand The exact meaning of definitions presented The tactical implications of arguments in the case

Purpose of Cross-Examination Attack the opponent’s case position To question the truth of the claims made To question the logical links between the arguments

Guidelines for Cross-Examination During cross-examination, look at the judge/teacher and not at each other. Stand still and upright. Remain calm and collected at all times.

When cross-examining: Start with offense. Have a plan and know what you are trying to accomplish with your questions. Use shorter questions and avoid one long ponderous question.

When being cross-examined: Remain calm and composed. Answer questions directly without rambling. Know your case and stick to it. Unless it is a yes or no question, make sure you clarify answers.