1. Arguments The basics and beyond…

2. The the form of an argument A B A B In words: If A then B, A is true, Therefore B is true…

3. Toulmin puts it all together

4. An example therefore Data----------------------------Qualifier-----------Claim Russia has | Probably Russia would violated 50 | | violate the of 52 intl. | | proposed ban agreements | | on nuclear | | weapons since unless testing. Warrant---------------Rebuttal Past violations The ban on nuclear are symptomatic weapons testing is of probable future significantly different violations from the violated | agreements | | | | because Backing Other nations that had such a record of violations continued such action; Expert X states that nations that have been chronic violators nearly always continue such acts; etc.

5. Claim and Warrant and Impacts A claim is an assertion of what is : – E.G. Rehabilitation is superior to punishment because it lowers recidivism (repeat offenders). Claims can be : – Analytical one Intuitive premises: appeal to common sense and common experiences to valid these. Empirical one: –These are real world –They require evidence to validate.

6. Warrants A warrant: – E.G. This is true because a study by Professor Jones shows that states that favor rehabilitation have lower recidivism rates than those which favor punishment. warrant impacts to standards is the first key to strong arguments!

7. Warrants 2 Warrants 2 A warrant answers the question: why is this true – Empirical claims require empirical warrants – Empirical claims are inductive arguments My study was done in 30 states and in each case rehabilitation proved superior to punishment. Therefore rehabilitation is superior to punishment. – Analytical warrants are deductive arguments Psychologists tells us that rewards are superior to punishments in changing behavior. Rehabilitation provides rewards for changed behavior, punishment does not. Therefore rehabilitation is superior. – You should be able to simply an analytical argument to an intuitive base or first principle.

8. Claim and Warrant and Impacts Impacts: so what? Why should I care even if this is so? – Why should I care that recidivism rates are lower if we favor rehabilitation? – Example of an impact that should make me care: when recidivism rates go down, crime goes down and people are more secure.

9. Difference between valid argument and true argument If the basis for the warrant are untrue, then no matter how sound the steps in the argument are, the argument is false.

10. No one line cards Need analysis that show why A is the case. Just because Professor Jones says it is true does not mean he should be believed without explanation and analysis. Anecdotes are not warrants.

11. Attacking Warrants Attacking warrants: Illogical reasoning step: – Tautology: circular argument where conclusion is in premise – Empirically denied warrants also fall – Post hoc : propter hoc: correlation proves causation! for this one, give alternative possible causes!

12. Use CX to impeach evidence: Study : how conducted, sample size, – Meta studies better because of this – WATCH OUTLAYERS! : these are cases which are the “exceptions” the cases that fall outside of the “average range of cases”. Ask why the warrants actually warrants the claim offered! Keep asking why….

13. Impacts a. warrants: b. Few claims, many warrants is strong, warrants Also need warrants, but multiple for impacts is strong c. Impact can be standard for round Weigh vs. your standard and his or her standard: e.g.: under my standard, I avoid the increase in dangerous concentrations of government power, under your standard this is unavoidable.

14. Weighting: Deontological vs. teleological Real harm vs. potential harms : which better or worse? Same weighing mechanism in AC and 2 AR creates clearer round and case position.

15. The “so what” test for impacts  if “X” happens, why should anyone care? How does it tie back to your case position, your standard(s)?  Beware: claims for procedural impacts : show significance…  Some impacts are in standard itself.  Use evidence to set up impacts:  Extend analysis, shore up studies: indicate how massive impact is Causation is needed for big impacts Have block to take our bias claims, establish strong correlation then use as warrant.

16. Language of argumentation:  Power of language:  Riot  Civil disturbances  Insurrection  Gang-inspired thieves (thuggery)  Anarchy  The difference it makes

17. turns A turn is an argument which transforms a disadvantage into an offensive argument for the your side. There are two types of turnarounds: link turns and impact turns. A link turn argues that the action suggested has the opposite effect of the one claimed. The impact turnaround is an argument which maintains that if the disadvantage occurs it will actually be a good thing.

18. There are eight general test of evidence Is the source of the evidence clearly identifiable? Is the source of the evidence free from bias. Is the source able to make a qualified judgment ? Is the evidence consistent? Is the evidence relevant to the issue? Does the evidence provide a clear rationale for the expert opinion offered? – Challenge expert opinion that offers no explanation for ideas asserted

19. Responding to statistical evidence Just because a statement includes numbers or is based upon a statistical study does not mean that it is true. Many statistics are not based upon actual count or example counts of the number of homeless people are often draw of mint complete and questionable data. Even the unemployment statistics are projections based upon sampling techniques Even experts disagree on how to sample a statistical universe and over how to interpret what they find.

20. Attacking Stats 1 1. There are 4 suggestions on what to look for it in statistical studies. 2. Look for the original research report and study it. 3. Those who use research report often put their own spin on the. 4. Finding copies of original research reports requires special effort. 5. Consult footnotes in articles or books. 6. Consult government agencies or congressional committees. 7. Consult Social Science Citation Index. 8. One can even try contacting the author of the report by e-mail or snail mail

21. Attacking Stats 2 1. The original research report contains a section on methodology and one on interpretation or conclusions. 2. In both sections one can find reservations about the meaning and scope of the study 3. The section on conclusions or interpretations is often the most fruitful place for attacking a study. Here one finds inferences and value judgments. 4. Sampling technique should be thoroughly examined. 5. Since most statistical findings are based on studies of limited population the selection of the sample population is critically important. The same arguments one uses for evidence by example can be applied to these studies.