[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]

ing of evidence. For example, in a debate on the policy question
of adopting a federal program of health insurance, the af�rmative
might argue that there is a need for compulsory health insurance
and support this argument with evidence showing that in cities A
and B, a signi�cant percentage of the aged receive inadequate
medical care. The negative might respond with evidence that in-
dicates that in cities C and D, the aged are well cared for and thus
no need exists. This futile matching of evidence results in an un-
founded leap from the evidence to the issue. Argument, or rea-
soning about the meaning of evidence, is omitted. If reasoning is
omitted from debate and if analysis is lost in simply comparing
different piles of note cards, then school debate is guilty of poor
education, as charged by its critics. The proper relationship of the
evidence would suggest that some problems do exist, and subse-
quent reasoning ought to be along the lines of �nding out whether
enough problems exist to constitute a need, whether the prob-
lems are inherent within the status quo, and ultimately, whether
the af�rmative provides an adequate solution to the problems.
64 Refutation
When a New York Times reporter assigned to the United States
Supreme Court was asked to evaluate the debating done at a
national debate tournament, his criticism was that the debaters
tended merely to match evidence, not bothering to discuss the
implications of the evidence. He suggested, not completely in jest,
that the debaters simply match cards on each side of the resolu-
tion until one side ran out of evidence and thus  lost the debate.
Evidence, of course, is absolutely vital to debate because it is
the foundation on which logical argument is based. But on any
debatable issue, there will be a wealth of evidence on each side.
Matching evidence does not constitute good debating. Reasoning
about the meaning of the evidence and the meaning of con�icting
evidence, on the other hand, can result in debate speaking that
has genuine analytical value. That is why it is still possible to de-
bate an opponent s argument even when you may not have any
speci�c evidence yourself. You can legitimately analyze and attack
the faults and errors of the conclusions that the opponents have
reasoned from their evidence. Often the strongest debating is not
about the evidence but about the correlations among, connec-
tions between, and implications of the evidence.
Attacks on Reasoning
In good debate, the evidence is usual l y not questionable. The
facts are as the speakers say they are, the opinions cited are those
of recognized authorities, and each debater has a thorough knowl-
edge of the evidence. Con�ict, therefore, should center on the
meaning of the evidence and on reasoning about the facts and
opinions.
Since argument in debate is nothing more than the oral ex-
pression that follows from the process of reasoning, any debate
speaker must develop skill in talking about the process by which
conclusions are derived from evidence. In short, the question is
 How does one talk about reasoning? To answer this question,
one must return to concepts introduced in the previous chapter.
If reasoning can be described in terms of the relationship of the
evidence to the conclusion, then the correctness of arguments
ought to be measured with questions that test the correctness of
Refutation 65
that relationship. Table 6.1 is provided as a guide to the testing of
arguments. In using the table, the reader should recall the guiding
principle underlying all tests of argument that every argument
either is based on a generalization (deductive) or makes a gener-
alization (inductive).
Applying the Tests of Argument
The foregoing materials demonstrate that the refutation of argu-
ment depends on analysis of the reasoning process. Debaters
ought to apply the tests of argument to their own cases and make
whatever further study they can of the process of argumentation.
We strongly urge you to follow up with advanced readings in this
area or even courses in argumentation, debate, critical thinking,
or logic.
Common Errors in Reasoning
Before leaving the analysis of argument, the debater s attention
should be directed to three fallacies, or errors in reasoning, that
often occur in school debating. These are the fallacies of question
begging, of extension, and of hasty generalization. While there are
other fallacies, some of which are subunits of these three, we be-
lieve that understanding these major errors will help you right
away in building good reasoning skills and, later, in understand-
ing and avoiding the other errors.
Question Begging
The error of the question-begging argument is that it assumes the
essential point that it ought to prove. For example, Jo argues that
engineering students should not have to waste their time taking
liberal arts courses. It may be agreed that engineering students
(or any student) ought not waste their time, but the essential
point to be established with reasoning and evidence is that liberal
arts courses are a waste of time for engineering students. Beware
of the unsupported assumption. Furthermore, the question-beg-
ging error may pertain to the whole case. Many debate teachers
are alarmed by how frequently they encounter an af�rmative case
Refutation 67
that is based on question begging. In practice, the erroneous rea-
soning goes like this.
1. Problems exist that constitute a need for a change.
2. Therefore the af�rmative proposal should be adopted.
or
1. The values of the current system have faults.
2. Therefore the resolution ought to be upheld.
The unsupported assumption here is that the af�rmative case
will solve the problems or respond to the faults. The workability
or desirability of the af�rmative cannot simply be assumed with-
out begging the question. A similar error is called the post hoc fal-
lacy, which assumes that because one event follows another event,
the �rst one caused the second. An example would be when a
debater presents evidence showing a decline in unemployment
after the institution of a federal program and then assuming that
the program was therefore responsible for the decline. Unless
some direct link is demonstrated, the mere sequence of events is
not enough to support the conclusion. These two problems stem
from faulty assumptions that imply or presume a relationship that
may not exist.
Extension
This error occurs when the debater exaggerates either the mean-
ing of evidence to make it prove more than it actually should or
the opponents position to make it easier to attack. The error is
avoided by learning to use evidence judiciously and by develop-
ing a sense of fairness and objectivity in dealing with the argu-
ment of the opponent. Many debaters get used to thinking about
ideas, issues, arguments, and even evidence in a standard way,
and often miss the meaning when an opponent offers a seemingly
standard idea but with a unique slant.
The debater who is not listening carefully then attacks the ar-
gument that was expected but not the one actually presented.
If you hear a negative speaker claiming,  This af�rmative team
would support greater freedom of information, thus making birth
control materials easily available to high school students and de-
stroying the American family, you are witnessing an error in ex- [ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]