final topics

• know the difference between argument 1 and 2 (4-6)
• Argument 1: claims offered by arguers
• example: access to healthcare
• Argument 2:  Types of interactions in which  people engage.
• Example: The dispute that would occur when someone disagreed with the above stated claim. For instance, someone could respond to the claim offered above by arguing that health care is a privilege and not a right, and thus it is  the responsibility of all  people to provide for their own health care needs and for the healthcare needs of their family. They might support that argument by claiming that if people were able to access  the healthcare  system without needing to pay they would perhaps overuse doctors, hospitals, and prescription drugs to treat only very minor ailments thus taking up valuable resources  that could be devoted to other, sicker patients. Or they might argue that providing access to health care for all citizens might be so very expensive that it would require a very steep tax increase ad raising taxes would damage the economy and lead to a loss of job and new investments for business development that could grow the economy and create more economic opportunities for all citizens
• it is possible to make argument (argument 1) without engaging in disputes or disagreements ( argument 2 )
• using stories for arguments (27-28)
• people will accept stories as true  if these stories speak to them and account for their experiences. Walter R. Fisher has argued  that people reason through narratives. He referred to this mode of reasoning as the narrative paradigm, which he summarized as follows   
• (1) Humans are... storytellers (2) The paradigmatic mode of human decision making and communication is "good reasons" which vary in form among situations, genres, and media of communication. (3) The production and practice of good reasons are ruled by matters of history, biography, culture and character...(4) Rationality is determined by the nature of persons as narrative beings--- their inherent awareness of narrative probability, what constitutes a coherent story, and constant habit of testing narrative fidelity, whether or not the stories they experience ring true with the stories they know to be true in their own lives... (5) the world as we know it is a set of stories that must be chosen among in order for us to live life in process of continual re-creation
• narrative probability - whether a story seems coherent this is the argumentative structure of the story satisfying and complete
• narrative fidelity - concerns whether a story represents accurate about social reality
• this dimension of narrative reasoning is firmly rooted in the human capacity for making judgments about issues of value.
• values ( 10)
• the very act  of naming-the choice of one symbolic referent over another-helps to form our attitudes and values
• universal audience ( 45)
• This universal audience is not an actual, existing one but is instead but is instead created in the mind of the arguer
• they believed by using this abstract audience as a reference point for evaluating arguments, one can better tailor arguments to a broad range of potential audience members  
• marketplace of ideas
• is a rationale for freedom of expression based on an analogy to the economic concept of a free market. The "marketplace of ideas" holds that the truth will emerge from the competition of ideas in free, transparent public discourse.
• fact value and policy (77-79) - what they are and how to tell them apart
• a proposition of fact is in dispute. For example, two friends who are having an argument about the hottest place in the United States are disputing a proposition of fact. Thus the statement, "Death Valley is the hottest place in the country," is a proposition of fact. The rival position, "Corpus Christi is the hottest place in the country," is also a proposition of fact. While propositions of this type readily lend themselves to argument, the are also typically through the appropriate empirical evidence  
• inductive and deductive logic (97)
• 3 types of inductive logic
• argument by example examines one or more cases within a specific class and reasons that if these cases have certain common features, then other, as yet unknown cases in that class will also have these features.
• hasty generalization- arguments from examples  to a generalization that move too quickly or without sufficient rationale
• a fallacy is a flaw in the reasoning process
• an argument of analogy seeks to identify similarities between cases that might on the surface seem to be quite dissimilar, in order t permit an interference to be drawn.
• 2 types of analogies
• a literal analogy is a statement drawing a direct comparison between two or more cases.
• a figurative analogy is a statement that makes comparisons between classes that are materially dissimilar from each other but that are nonetheless suggestive of each other materially dissimilar from each other but that are  nonetheless suggestive of each other in some characteristic manner
• toulmin model ( claim, warrant, grounds, modal qualifier) (pg 109 - 112)
• while few artifacts of argument exhibit all of the elements of the tulmin model, and while abstracting an argument from its social context in order to diagram it risks distorting, and oversimplifying it, the toulmin model is a useful tool for understanding the components of argument and it provides real insight into the reasoning process that arguers use. Once you understand the elements of  argument, and it provides real insight into the reasoning process that arguers use
• the six components
• claim: conclusion of the argument; that statement which the advocate wishes the audience to believe  
• Grounds: foundation or basis for the claim; the support
• Warrant: reasoning that authorizes the inferential leap from the grounds to the claim
• Backing: support for the warrant
• Modality: degree of certainty with which the advocate makes the claim
• Rebutal: exceptions that might be offered to the claim
•  (119-122) share premise, condradictrary premise, public vs private
• Shared pemise enjoy presumption with audiences. That is, audiences tend to believe these premises until convinced otherwise
• Contradictory premise - An argument (generally considered a logical fallacy) that draws a conclusion from inconsistent or incompatible premises. Essentially, a proposition is contradictory when it asserts and denies the same thing.
• Public opinion - views prevalent among the general public.
• Private Opinion - views which you have that are not shown to the public  
• breakdown of an IPDA debate
• 5 minutes - 1st aff
• 2 minutes - Cross examination
• 6 minutes - 1st negative
• 2 minute - cross examination
• 3 minute - affirmative rebuttal
• 5 minute - negative rebuttal
• 3 minute affirmative summary

Refuting Arguments

• The refutation process is to refute an argument and deny its validity and refuse to agree with it
• 4 steps of refutation
• listening in a focused way
• critically evaluating the arguments
• formulating a response
• presenting the response
• factors affecting hearing
• selective exposure
• distortion
• intrapersonal argument
• externalities
• internalities

• find a problem
• attention getter: sad story
• thesis
• preview: today I will talk about the problems, causes and solutions
•   MBP1
• SUb1
• Sub 2
• MBP 2
• SUb 1
• Sub 2
• MBP3 - solution
• Sub 1 - big solution; what can big organizations do  
• Sub - personal solution: what can you and I do
• review, thesis, closer
• 3 to 5 sources

• actual aspect of the product 
• core aspect of the product- what are some benefits you are offering to the target audience 

• grounds - evidence 
• artistic proof - premise - personal knowledge - cultural knowledge: symbols, rituals, presumptions
• inartistic proof 
• test- shared premise
• does your audience agree to definitions 
• believe the same things you do 
• contradictory 
• opposing ideas 
• public vs private - believe one thing privately, one thing publicly 

• AG 
• thesis - Q,I,A/D
• preview  
• mbp1 - link 
• mbp2 - summary little mermaid, link 
• mbp3- summary beauty and the beaset , link
• life gets better 
• the grass is greener on the other side 
• it not how much we have , but how much we enjoy that makes happiness 
• Life is about the happy moments not how much things you have 
• with more money comes more problems 

• you should use a hearing aid. 70% of all people over 65 have a hearing difficulty. A hearing aid helps most people to hear better/ But hearing aids can be expensive 
• claim, grounds, warrant, rebutal
• evidence shows that when women are allowed in combat she isn't strong enough, romantic relationships form, and male bonding is difficult. 
• combat units need high morale to function effectively. Women should be barred from combat duty. However, times are changing there are successful mixed-gender professions example- women astronauts working in close quarters 
• it gets cold when the sun goes down. You should put on a jacket. Last night the sun went down at 6 pm, it is 6 pm now so the sun will go down. But I won't be cold without a sweater 
• claim: joe should not be promoyed 
• grounds: 
• warrant: 
• reubuttal: 
•  

• claim-resolution 
• grounds-evidence/support 
• warrant-logic behind why the grounds support claim 
• modal qualifier - how you frame or structure your claim 
• backing- support for warrant 
• rubuttal - counter argument 
• lives in america are taken by guns 
• g-w-c
• c-w-g
• c-g-w
• w-g-c
• 
  

chapter 6

• inductive reasoning might be described as arguing from specific cases to more general conclusions 
• deductive reasoning is essentially the opposite process, and entails moving from overall theories or generally accepted principles to conclusions about moving from overall theories or generally accepted principles to conclusions about specific cases 
• an argument by example examines one or more cases within a specific class and reasons that if  cases have certain common features, then other, as yet unknown cases in that class will also have these features 
• hasty generalizations are arguments from examples to a generalization that moves too quickly without sufficient rationale or a logical fallacy 
• A fallacy is a flaw in the reasoning process 
• An advocate who commits a hasty generalization has potentially reasoned fallaciously and the generalization
• an argument by analogy seeks to identify similarities between cases between cases that might on the surface seem to be quite dissimilar, in order to permit an interference to be drawn.
• analogies are typically, literally and creative devices that appeal to the listeners' expierences and beliefs and they often used to embellish our stories  

• fact - evidence 
• value - opinions/beliefs, rightness and wrongness 
• policy - actions should be taken 
• ill- problem: victims are dying
• blame-cause: trained to use guns 
• policy-solution/cure: actions should be taken. police should be trained for non violence 

does facebook make you dumb

• 1.6 active users 
• us - people of the society and have access to social media 
• dumb- a reliance of technology and a procces of thinking 
• dependence on social media 
• people rely on social media for answers 
• without social media they cant rely on anything to find sources 
• people have withdraw from social media 
• makes us unproductive 
• people tend to copy others 
• we feel like we have nothing to do and social media 
• we rely on influences anyways 
• people have used others ideas since the beggining of time 
• there is always distractions 
• newspapers are digital now its still the same 
• books are digital now and can be found on facebook though now 

• one can judge a civilization by how it treats women - this means that how they treat their people determines the success of a civilization 
• i dsagree with this because the way we judge a civilization is based on its accomplishments 
• civilization is the victory of persuasion over force - those who conquer have a civilization 
• i agree with this because history is written by the victor 
• the most persistent threat to freedom, to the rights of Americans is fear - fear controls our lives 
• 
  

chapter 4

• language is a shared symbol system 
• epistemic function is the language we learn and employ shapes and constrains our understanding of what constitutes reality 
• demotative meaning is the content level of the word 
• conotative meaning- how an individual feels about the word 
• abstraction - the more abstract the term the more meanings it conveys
• characters create images and act in accordance with the impressions they wish to sustain 
• a role is a set of assumptions about how an individual should act based on his or her position, occupation, behavior and status 
• character types: In his analysis of American literature, Orrin Kxlapp concluded there are three major american social types: heroes, villians and fools. Klapp argued Americans are guided by the desire to emulate positive social types, although there will almost certainly be culture-specific expectations for particular roles 
• metaphor - special forms of argument that can enhance the appeal of a claim 
• an ornamental metaphor asks audiences to see that phenomenon A has some characteristic that resembles phenomenon B, If we say, "Peter is as strong as an ox," we are only comparing one aspect of peter-his strength-with one one aspect of the ox-its strength 
• an argumentative metaphor contend that contends that phenomenon A should be seen as phenomenon B
• 
  

• AFF- Approve
• NEG- Discredit 
• Healthcare is a responsibility not a right 
• marijuana is appropriate for medical use 
• the electoral college should be abolished 
• AFF - Background and relevance, thesis, define the terms, define wheter its a fact or policy debate - 5 minutes 
• go on case 1234
• ask questions about clarifying things - 2 minutes 
• ask loaded questions 
• solvency 
• harmes 
• inherency - cause/effect
• topicality - fair 
• Neg - 6 minutes 
• correct and change the terms / agree 
• go on case - list the reasons why your against their points 
• tell all the reasons the aff is wrong 
• the aff then has to refute what the neg said 
• the neg then reemphasizes their points and tell the aff why they are wrong and then tells the judge why they won the debate 
• the the neg say why they won and then the debate is over