DEBATE UNIT:
PART 4
SELECTING DEBATE
PATTERNS, ATTACKING
FALLACIES, & REFUTATION
ORGANIZING THE BODY OF SPEECH/DEBATE

2 Basic forms of reasoning

#1 Deduction/Deductive—Begins with a
generally held truth (called a major premise)
and arrives, often via a specific instance
(called a minor premise), at a conclusion
about a particular principle, policy, or problem.
 This
form uses a formalized 3-step pattern (called
a syllogism)



Major Premise: is a generally held truth
Minor Premise: is a specific instance or example
Conclusion: Answer based on rationale from both
premises
Examples of Deductive Reasoning



Major Premise: All teachers have college degrees.
Minor Premise: Mrs. Bartel is a teacher
Conclusion: Therefore, Mrs. B has a college degree.
 This works as long as the major premise is accurate
and the subject of the minor premise properly
belongs/fits
 Another way to remember this is if either premise or
minor premise is false, then the conclusion will be
false.
Two Wrongs Do Not Make a Right

A rule to remember about syllogisms is that if both
premises are or contain a negative, no conclusion
can be reached.
 Major Premise: No science teachers coach
debate
 Minor Premise: Mr. Crisson is not a science
teacher.
 Conclusion: Therefore, Mr. Crisson _____
 No conclusion can truly be reached. Speculation
may occur, but no true answer may be deduced
from the premise.
If you use the deductive pattern in a
speech, then you will begin by stating a
generalization that is already accepted by
your listeners.
 You will then show that specific instances
relate to the accepted generalization and
thus lead logically to the specific
conclusion.

EXAMPLE OF DEDUCTIVE
PATTERN
Accepted Generalization: Dishonest
politicians should be removed from office.
 Specific Instances: In instances A, B, C,
and D, Politician X has used the power of
public office to increase his own power
and wealth. (You would specify examples
in A, B, C, and D)
 Specific Conclusion: Politician X should be
removed from office.

2nd type of reasoning is Inductive
 Inductive Reasoning—the reverse of
deductive reasoning

You would start with the specific facts or
instances/examples and build from them to a
general statement.
 Deductive can be seen as going from the
bigger picture to the details or from the
outside to the inside (outside in)
 Inductive starts with the details and then goes
to the broader/bigger picture or from the
inside to the outside (inside out)

***Inductive reasoning is actually the way
we build most of the assumptions we live
by. Some logicians believe that all
reasoning is ultimately inductive.
 If this is used in debate, begin with specific
examples and then move to a conclusion
dictated by those examples.

Examples of Inductive Reasoning




Specific 1: Former school debater Earl Hunsaker
is now President of the Student Senate at State
U
Specific 2: Former school debater Dorothy
Meredith is now a State Representative
Specific 3: Former school debater Louis Hawker
is now serving as our district attorney
Conclusion or inference drawn: High school
debate helps prepare students for positions of
leadership and responsibility in our society
Although Inductive Reasoning is often
used, it may still contain flaws and
Inductive arguments need to be tested.
 Inductive reasoning may best be
examined by asking questions about
particular types of inductive reasoning.
 4 main types of inductive reasoning:

1. Reasoning by example
 2. Reasoning by analogy
 3. Sign reasoning
 4. Causal reasoning

Reasoning By Example

For this, you use selected examples support
your main contention


You may claim that the American League is superior
to the National League and point to (1) the results of
the World Series between 1980-2009 and (2) the
ease with which certain players have improved their
records when traded from the American League to the
National League.
Under each of these headings, you would provide
specific examples.
Testing Reasoning By Example
1. Are there a reasonable number of
examples?
2. Are the examples typical?
3. Do the examples cover the critical period
of time being discussed?
4. Are there enough negative examples to
seriously damage your contention?
5. Are the examples relevant to contention?
You should answer yes to 1-3 & 5 and No to
#4
Reasoning By Analogy

This is based on comparisons of similar places,
people, objects, or events. You may reason that
since 2 people are alike in terms of certain
things you know about them, they must be alike
in other ways.


Example—An Oklahoma legislator might contend that
since a particular tax structure was working well for
Texas, it should work well for Oklahoma.
He could claim the two states are alike since they
border on one another and since oil and cattle have
contributed to the wealth of both.
Testing Reasoning by Analogy
Are there significant points of similarity?
2. Are the differences crucial enough to
destroy the analogy?
**If you answer no to any of these, your
reasoning is weak and most likely false.
1.
***Although the analogy is often vivid and
memorable, it is seldom very sound
proof.
Reasoning From Sign

We use this often. We learn to read signs
to reason or make an educated guess. If
your teacher comes to class wearing a suit
on days of hard work and serious notes,
you learn to connect the suit to hard work
days. If your teacher dresses casually on
days that you have informal, laid back
activities, you learn to see the signs and
connect them.
Testing Reasoning by Sign
Is the sign related to the anticipated state or
action? (Can differences in a teacher’s clothes
really relate to behavior pattern?)
---Determine if the sign is accidental, occasional or
typical
2. Are there other signs which may be even more
accurate predictors?
(Finding consistencies such as if they dress a
certain way every Tuesday or other)
1.
Causal Reasoning
This means that people assert that one
thing (cause) produces another (effect).
 If you take a known course of action
(hitting another student in the face with a
lemon pie as a part of a comedy act), we
can predict the effect (audience laughter).
 You can also argue from effect to cause

Testing Causal Reasoning
1.
2.
3.
Is the alleged cause capable of
producing the effect?
Is the alleged cause the only factor that
could account for the effect?
Is the alleged cause capable of
producing other, and undesirable effects?
Avoiding and Attacking Fallacies
Fallacies are errors in reasoning.
 There are many but the most common or
most frequently occurring ones are known
as the “slovenly seven.”
 Try to avoid them when building your own
arguments and also try to expose them
when your opponents use them.

The Slovenly Seven
1.
2.
3.
Ad Hominen —Attacks the person rather than
the argument. Attacking someone’s religious
beliefs, nationality, political party, or race needs
to be avoided.
Begging the Question-This is acting as if an
argument is true when, in fact, it is the very
question at issue.
Centimeter-Kilometer—Give them a cent. and
they will take a kilo (inch to mile). This consists
of the idea to allow a certain action will
inevitably lead to more serious consequenceswhen that is not necessarily true.
4. Either-Or Fallacy—This occurs when
someone oversimplifies a problem and
improperly reduces the number of
alternative to two. The tendency is to see
one side as right and one as wrong and
not even realize there may be more than
just two sides.
5. False Analogy—When someone
compares two things that are essentially
unlike.
6. False Cause—The fallacy of the false
cause occurs when you label something
as the cause of something else insufficient
evidence. The false assumption here is
that an event that happens first is
necessarily the cause of an event that
happens later.
7. Hasty Generalization—A statement or
argument based on an insufficient number
of examples. You make an assumption
about a group based on one or limited
examples.
Attacking Fallacies--Refutation

Refutation is the process of attacking your
opponent’s arguments.
Each side is constantly trying to attack the
other side’s arguments while building up its
own.
 During a debate, regardless of which side you
are on, you would listen carefully to the
opposing argument, and when it’s your turn,
you attack any of the following errors:

1.
2.
3.
Fallacious reasoning—use of the
“Slovenly Seven”
Errors in reasoning—reasoning that does
not meet sound standards of argument.
Inconsistent statements—for example, a
governor who says education is at the
top of his/her “priority list” and later in the
same speech announces that actual
funds for education will be cut in the
coming year.
4. Evidence that does not meet the test of
good evidence.
5. Lack of sufficient evidence.
A General Pattern of Refutation To Follow
1. Restate your opponents arguments as
clearly & concisely as possible. Try to
quote your point as exactly as possible. If
not, that can be used against you by your
opponent.
General Refutation Pattern cont.
2. Show the significance of your opponent’s
argument to his or her position. Show what will
happen to your opponent’s case if you
demonstrate that his or her argument is not
sound.
3. State concisely your objections to your
opponent’s argument. Point out any errors.
4. Introduce new evidence or reasoning to support
your objections.
5. Summarize your refutation, being sure to
emphasize the effect of the refutation of your
opponent’s case.