Team+Policy+Debates

A team policy debate normally consists of two teams -- those arguing in support of the resolution (the “affirmative” or “pro” side) and those arguing against the resolution (the “negative” or “con” side). A resolution is essentially a suggestion, such as a policy statement, that becomes the subject of the debate. Certain rules apply to policy debates that must be strictly enforced by the individual responsible for maintaining order, known as the moderator. For this debate, the role of moderator will be performed by your teacher.
 * GRADE 12 ACCOUNTING** **MODIFIED TEAM POLICY BUSINESS DEBATES**

Modified Speaking Format:

__ Round One __ Affirmative Side - constructive arguments - 5 minutes maximum Negative Side - constructive arguments - 5 minutes maximum

__ Round Two __ Negative Side - rebuttal arguments - 4 minutes maximum Affirmative Side - rebuttal arguments - 4 minutes maximum

__ Round Three __ Either Side - open debate - 4 minutes maximum

During round one, only constructive (new) arguments are permitted. Rebuttals (critiques) of opponents’ arguments are not allowed. Each member of each side must advance at least one constructive argument during this round. Interruptions are not permitted during this round.

During round two, new arguments are not permitted. Instead, debaters may only address their comments to a rebuttal (critique) of their opponents’ constructive arguments. (Accordingly, debaters should be taking notes during round one of the debate.) Each team member must advance at least one rebuttal argument during this round. And once again, interruptions are not permitted.

During round three, members of either side are permitted to speak at will. There are no restrictions as to the type of argument (constructive or rebuttal) permitted during this final round. Furthermore, interruptions __are__ permitted during this round at the discretion of the moderator.

However, heckling is __not__ permitted at any point during this policy debate.

Resolutions: The resolution employed in this type of debate is typically a general policy statement often expressed in the following terms: BE IT RESOLVED THAT (for example) capitalism is bad. Arguments in support of or in opposition to the resolution may be of a legal, political, historical, philosophical, sociological, psychological, anthropological, ethical, religious, commercial, economic or experiential nature, inter alia. And finally, providing support for your arguments (see below) will greatly benefit your grade on this assignment.

ASSESSMENT RUBRIC FOR ORAL PRESENTATION MODIFIED TEAM POLICY DEBATE

Level 1 (50-59%) Level 2 (60-69%) Level 3 (70-79%) Level 4 (80-100%) (k/u) || 5.2 5.5 5.8 || 6.2 6.5 6.8 || 7.2 7.5 7.8 || 8.2 8.5 8.8 9.2 9.5 9.8 || (think) || 5.2 5.5 5.8 || 6.2 6.5 6.8 || 7.2 7.5 7.8 || 8.2 8.5 8.8 9.2 9.5 9.8 || (comm) || 5.2 5.5 5.8 || 6.2 6.5 6.8 || <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;">7.2 7.5 7.8 || <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;">8.2 8.5 8.8 <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;">9.2 9.5 9.8 || <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;">and presentation of position, including non-verbal cues (voice variables, posture, etc.) <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;">(app) || <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;">5.2 5.5 5.8 || <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;">6.2 6.5 6.8 || <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;">7.2 7.5 7.8 || <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;">8.2 8.5 8.8 <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;">9.2 9.5 9.8 || <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;">Note: A student whose achievement is below Level 1 (50%) has not met the expectations for this assignment.
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;">evaluation criteria || <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;">limited || <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;">satisfactory || <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;">good || <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;">outstanding ||
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;">familiarity with fundamental issues and concepts related to resolution
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;">degree and effectiveness of logical support provided for arguments
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;">recognition of clarity and effectiveness of language variables (grammar and vocabulary)
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;">overall professionalism

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;">Comments:

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;">FINAL MARK /40


 * __ Business-related resolution(s) to be debated in this exercise: __**

BIRT corporations have a duty to be socially responsible

BIRT those convicted of financial fraud should be treated just as harshly by the justice system as those convicted of violent crimes

BIRT financial literacy should be a mandatory course in public schools

BIRT public schools should encourage more partnerships with private businesses

BIRT the World Bank and International Monetary Fund (IMF) have failed in their mandate

BIRT every citizen of the world has a right to a decent standard of living

BIRT socialism is superior to capitalism

BIRT banks should be compelled by government to lower their service fees and lending rates

BIRT developed nations have a duty to support the citizens of developing nations

BIRT the wealthy should be forced to pay more personal income taxes to support the poor

BIRT corporations should be forced to pay more income taxes to support social programs

BIRT the rich deserve their riches

BIRT high schools do a poor job of preparing students for life after school

BIRT Walmart is bad

BIRT unions are bad

BIRT international free trade is bad

BIRT corporations are bad

BIRT banks are bad

BIRT wealthy persons are bad

**__ LOGICAL FALLACIES __** <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">This is a guide to using logical fallacies in everyday conversation and debate - or more accurately, not using them in everyday conversation and debate. What is a logical fallacy? In short, a logical fallacy is an argument that lacks reason or logic. And that is why you should avoid using them... unless you want to look or sound silly. Why else should you learn about logical fallacies? Well, during a debate, if you can not only show that the opposition has made an error in reasoning, but you can give that error a name as well (in Latin!), it shows that you can think on your feet and that you understand the opposition's argument possibly better than they do. And maybe more importantly, pointing out a logical fallacy is a way of removing an argument from the debate rather than just weakening it. Much of the time, a debater will respond to an argument by simply stating a counterargument showing why the original argument is not terribly significant in comparison to other concerns, or shouldn't be taken seriously, or whatever. That kind of response is fine, except that the original argument still remains in the debate, albeit in a less persuasive form, and the opposition is free to mount a rhetorical offensive saying why it's important after all. On the other hand, if you can show that the original argument actually commits a logical fallacy, you put the opposition in the position of justifying why their original argument should be considered at all. If they can't come up with a darn good reason, then the argument is actually removed from the round. It is therefore not enough simply to point out a logical fallacy and move on; there is an art to pointing out logical fallacies in your opposition's arguments. Here are a few strategies I've found useful in pointing out logical fallacies in an effective manner: State the name of the logical fallacy, preferably in both Latin and English, and make sure you use the phrase "logical fallacy." Why? Because it is important to impress on everyone that this is no mere counterargument you are making, nor are you just labelling the opposition's viewpoint as "fallacious" for rhetorical effect. Then you can tell everybody what the fallacy means and why it is wrong.

**__ EXAMPLES OF LOGICAL FALLACIES __** <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">1. Argumentum ad antiquitatem (the argument to antiquity or tradition). This is the familiar argument that some policy, behavior, or practice is right or acceptable because "it's always been done that way." This is an extremely popular fallacy in debate rounds; for example, "Every great civilization in history has provided state subsidies for art and culture!" But that fact does not justify continuing the policy.

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">2. Argumentum ad hominem (argument directed at the person). This is the error of attacking the character or motives of a person who has stated an idea, rather than the idea itself. The most obvious example of this fallacy is when one debater maligns the character of another debater (e.g, "The members of the opposition are a couple of fascists!"), but this is actually not that common. A more typical manifestation of argumentum ad hominem is attacking a source of information -- for example, responding to a quotation from Richard Nixon on the subject of free trade with China by saying, "We all know Nixon was a liar and a cheat, so why should we believe anything he says?"

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">3. Argumentum ad ignorantiam (argument to ignorance or attempting to prove a negative). This is the fallacy of assuming something is true simply because it hasn't been proven false. For example, someone might argue that global warming is certainly occurring because nobody has demonstrated conclusively that it is not. But failing to prove the global warming theory false is not the same as proving it true.

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">4. Argumentum ad logicam (argument to logic). This is the fallacy of assuming that something is false simply because a proof or argument that someone has offered for it is invalid; this reasoning is fallacious because there may be another proof or argument that successfully supports the proposition. This fallacy often appears in the context of a straw man argument (see below).

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">5. Argumentum ad misericordiam (argument or appeal to pity). The English translation pretty much says it all. Example: "Think of all the poor, starving Ethiopian children! How could we be so cruel as not to help them?" The problem with such an argument is that no amount of special pleading can make the impossible possible, the false true, the expensive costless, etc.

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">6. Argumentum ad nauseam (argument to the point of disgust; i.e., by repetition). This is the fallacy of trying to prove something by saying it again and again. But no matter how many times you repeat something, it will not become any more or less true than it was in the first place. Of course, it is not a fallacy to state the truth again and again; what is fallacious is to expect the repetition alone to substitute for real arguments.

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">7. Argumentum ad numerum (argument or appeal to numbers). This fallacy is the attempt to prove something by showing how many people think that it's true. But no matter how many people believe something, that doesn't necessarily make it true or right. Example: "At least 70% of all Americans support restrictions on access to abortions." Well, maybe 70% of Americans are wrong!

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">8. Argumentum ad populum (argument or appeal to the public). This is the fallacy of trying to prove something by showing that the public agrees with you in general. For an example, see #7 above.

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">9. Argumentum ad verecundiam (argument or appeal to authority). This fallacy occurs when someone tries to demonstrate the truth of a proposition by citing some person who agrees, even though that person may have no expertise in the given area. For instance, some people like to quote Einstein's opinions about politics (he tended to have fairly left-wing views), as though Einstein were a political philosopher rather than a physicist.

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">10. Circulus in demonstrando (circular argument). Circular argumentation occurs when someone uses what they are trying to prove as part of the proof of that thing. In other words, the conclusion is stated at the outset and then used to prove the truth of the conclusion so stated, without actually providing any support for the conclusion. Here is one of my favorite examples (in pared down form): "Marijuana is illegal in every state in the nation. And we all know that you shouldn't violate the law. Since smoking pot is illegal, you shouldn't smoke pot. And since you shouldn't smoke pot, it is the duty of the government to stop people from smoking it, which is why marijuana is illegal!"

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">11. Complex question. A complex question is a question that implicitly assumes something to be true by its construction, such as "Have you stopped beating your wife?" A question like this is fallacious only if the thing presumed true (in this case, that you beat your wife) has not been established.

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">12. Cum hoc ergo propter hoc (with this, therefore because of this). This is the familiar fallacy of mistaking correlation for causation, i.e., thinking that because two things occur simultaneously, one must be a cause of the other. A popular example of this fallacy is the argument that "President Clinton has great economic policies; just look at how well the economy is doing while he's in office!" Cum hoc ergo propter hoc is very similar to #13 below.

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">13. Post hoc ergo propter hoc (after this, therefore because of this). This is the fallacy of assuming that A caused B simply because A happened prior to B. A favorite example: "Most rapists read pornography when they were teenagers; obviously, pornography causes violence toward women." The conclusion is invalid, because there can be a correlation between two phenomena without one causing the other.

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">14. Red herring. This means introducing irrelevant facts or arguments to distract from the question at hand. For example, "The opposition claims that welfare dependency leads to higher crime rates -- but how are poor people supposed to keep a roof over their heads without our help?" It is perfectly valid to ask this question as part of the broader debate, but to pose it as a response to the argument about welfare leading to crime is fallacious. (There is also an element of ad misericordiam [#5] in this example.)

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">15. Slippery slope. A slippery slope argument is not always a fallacy. A slippery slope fallacy is an argument that says adopting one policy or taking one action will necessarily lead to a series of other policies or actions also being taken, without showing a causal connection between the advocated policy and the consequent policies. A popular example of the slippery slope fallacy is, "If we legalize marijuana, the next thing you know we'll legalize heroin, LSD, and crack cocaine." This slippery slope is a form of non sequitur (#20) because no reason has been provided for why legalization of one thing leads to legalization of another. Tobacco and alcohol are currently legal, and yet other drugs have somehow remained illegal.

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">16. Straw man. This is the fallacy of refuting a caricatured or extreme version of somebody's argument, rather than the actual argument they've made. Often this fallacy involves putting words into somebody's mouth by saying they've made arguments they haven't actually made. One example of a straw man argument would be to say, "Mr. Jones thinks that capitalism is good because everybody earns whatever wealth they have, but this is clearly false because many people just inherit their fortunes," when in fact Mr. Jones had not made the "earnings" argument and had instead argued, say, that capitalism gives most people an incentive to work and save. The fact that some arguments made for a policy are wrong does not imply that the policy itself is wrong.

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">17. Tu quoque ("you too"). This is the fallacy of defending an error in one's reasoning by pointing out that one's opponent has made the same error. An error is still an error, regardless of how many people make it. For example, "They accuse us of making unjustified assertions. But they asserted a lot of things, too!"

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">18. Dicto simpliciter (spoken simply, i.e., sweeping generalization). This is the fallacy of making a sweeping statement and expecting it to be true of every specific case -- in other words, stereotyping. Example: "Women are on average not as strong as men and less able to carry a gun. Therefore women can't pull their weight in a military unit." The problem is that the sweeping statement may be true (on average, women are indeed weaker than men), but it is not necessarily true for every member of the group in question (there are some women who are much stronger than the average).

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">19. Appeal to nature. This is the fallacy of assuming that whatever is "natural" or consistent with "nature" (somehow defined) is good, or that whatever conflicts with nature is bad. For example, "Sodomy is unnatural; anal sex is not the evolutionary function of a penis or an anus. Therefore sodomy is wrong." But aside from the difficulty of defining what "natural" even means, there is no particular reason to suppose that unnatural and wrong are the same thing. After all, wearing clothes, tilling the soil, and using fire might be considered unnatural since no other animals do so, but humans do these things all the time and to great benefit.

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">20. Non Sequitur ("It does not follow"). This is the simple fallacy of stating, as a conclusion, something that does not strictly follow from the premises. For example, "Racism is wrong. Therefore, we need affirmative action." Obviously, there is at least one missing step in this argument, because the wrongness of racism does not imply a need for affirmative action without some additional support (such as "Affirmative action would reduce racism," or "There are no superior alternatives to affirmative action.")

//Logical fallacies and the art of debate.// <[]> Last modified January 29, 2001.

** DEBATING SOCIETY - FORMS OF PROOF ** When presenting an argument, there are at least four forms of proof or evidence that may be advanced in support of one’s claim. In order of effectiveness, they are as follows:

1) Statistical evidence (e.g., national census results, survey findings, scientific research) - The effectiveness of this form of proof is predicated on the notion that it is difficult to discount or rebut that which has been demonstrated to be empirically evident. When referring to statistical evidence, always provide the name and date of the source, if possible.

2) Personal observations - The effectiveness of this form of proof is predicated on the notion that it is difficult to discount or rebut that which has been shown to be my own personal experience.

3) Others’ observations communicated to myself - The effectiveness of this form of proof is predicated on the notion that it is somewhat difficult to discount or rebut that which has been communicated to me to be another’s own personal experience. However, the weakness in this form of proof lies in the second-hand (hearsay) nature of the evidence offered.

4) Common sense – Common sense, by definition, is knowledge common to all reasonable persons. However, the weakness in this form of proof lies in the generalized nature of the evidence offered.