III - Argumentation and Organization

Chapter III - Argumentation and Organization

A debate is a series of arguments.  While these arguments differ in function, structure, and importance, the basic format for delivery remains the same.   There are many models of argumentation.  The most basic model is the Claim-Support format. In addition to the argument itself, debate requires organizational structure to hold the arguments together and to help everyone keep track of the arguments.  Therefor, a sound debate argument consists of the following three parts.

1.    Sign-posting:  A signpost is a verbal map that allows the listener to know where to place the argument in the context of the debate. This tells everyone listening which issue the argument pertains to.  This is essential for the debate to remain organized.  For more information about sign-posting, see the organization section later in this chapter.

2.    Claim:  The statement of the argument.  The claim, much like an evidence tag should be brief and powerfully stated.  Example: "The Death Penalty Decreases Crime Rates."  This tells the listener what the argument is.  A claim by itself, however, is only an assertion.  To become an argument, it requires support.

3.    Support.  The two most common forms of support for an argument are reasoning and evidence.  For many arguments, logical reasoning is sufficient to win the point.  The debater may also refer to previously presented evidence as support.  At times, new evidence is required.  Please see Chapter V for much more information about the use of evidence in debate.

While sign-posting and stating claims requires practice, supporting claims requires the most preparation and work.   The type of support given to an argument will depend on its importance in the debate and the arguments and evidence presented up to that point.  Many arguments are made without the presentation of new evidence.  Some examples:

 

·       "Global Warming is scientifically doubtful [claim].  The global warming theory is suspect for several reasons.  First, despite predictions of scientists, we have seen no significant temperature increases.  Second, the computer models used to predict climate change are faulty.  And third, a growing number of qualified experts tell us that the theory is untrue." [support--the debater gives reasons for the listener to support the claim]

·      "Global Warming is scientifically doubtful [claim].  The negative team has provided evidence from three leading scientists that casts doubt on the global warming theory.  This evidence has not been refuted.  Therefore, we should consider the theory doubtful at best." [support--the debaters refers to previous evidence and the lack of refutation to support the claim]

• See Chapter VI. For more information on using evidence to support your arguments.

 

There are two specific kinds of debate arguments that you will make often: refutation and extension.

Refutation

Refutation is the process of disproving an argument. Not all of your opponent's arguments require refutation.  There are generally three ways to answer an argument.  First, you may simply agree with it.  Second, you can partially agree but modify (e.g. "we agree that air pollution causes health problems, however, you overstate the impact").  Thirdly, you can refute the argument (prove it wrong). Let's look at how each method may be used effectively.

Agreement

Why would you want to agree with an argument made by your opponent?  There are three main reasons. 

1.    Occasionally, your opponent may make an argument that actually helps you.  In this case, simply explain to the judge why the argument actually supports your position.

2.    Your opponent's argument may be irrelevant to the debate.  In this case, explain why the argument is irrelevant.

3.    Your opponent's argument may be true.  If you know that your opponent has made a true argument, it may not be worth your time fighting against it.  Instead, you may grant the argument and use your time to explain that while your opponent's individual argument is true, you should still win the debate. 

Modification

Often, you will agree with part of your opponent's argument, but will disagree with the amount of weight they try to assign it.  This most often happens when you feel that your opponent is exaggerating.  Example: "While I agree with my opponent that President Bush deserves some blame for the faltering US economy, the truth is that he only deserves a small share of the blame."

Refutation

There are several good ways to attack or disprove a debate argument.  Here are some effective strategies:

1)    Attack the argument's support:  You may explain that the argument lacks adequate support.  This may be because of insufficient reasoning, no evidence, poor evidence, or misapplied or mis-tagged evidence. 

            As you think about how to respond to your opponent, you may ask yourself:

o     Is the argument supported at all?  (If so, continue down the checklist)

o     Does the evidence match the claim/tag?

o     Does the evidence have a credible source?

o     Does the evidence provide reasoning?

2)    Present Counter-arguments and evidence.  Even well supported arguments often have equally persuasive counter arguments.  These counter-arguments can be reasoning, evidence, or (hopefully) both.  It then becomes your job to convince the judge that your reasoning and evidence is superior.  For example, experts disagree about whether tougher prison sentences reduce crime rates.  Your opponent may have very credible evidence that giving dangerous criminals more prison time makes America safer.  But, because experts disagree, you may present evidence from an equally reliable source to indicate that tough sentences don't really reduce crime rates.

 

Extension

When you "extend" your argument it means that you are restating and strengthening it in a later speech.  To effectively extend an argument, you need to do more than repeat what you said earlier.  Often debaters mistake repetition for extension ("if I just say it again, the judge will understand and will vote for me.")  Effective extension includes the following:

1)    Clarification:  You must make sure that the judge understands your argument.  Be the one who clarifies the debate.

2)    Presenting additional reasoning and evidence:  You simply need to strengthen your position with more (and better) support.

3)    Add new (additional) argumentation:  Sometimes it may be advantageous for you to add new ideas in support of a position.  For example, your general position may be that coal harms the environment.  In the first affirmative constructive, you argue that coal causes air pollution, acid rain, and global warming.  In the first affirmative rebuttal, you may further explain the health impacts of these environmental problems.

Often, extension and refutation go hand in hand and must be carefully blended

FAQ:  Can I bring up "new" arguments in rebuttals?

Debaters often want to know what they can and can't bring up in rebuttals.  The answer is somewhat dependent on the specific round of debate, but here are some general guidelines:

• You are always allowed to directly answer your opponents arguments.
• You may extend arguments you made earlier by presenting clarification and additional supporting evidence.
• You should not bring up totally new main ideas in rebuttals.  This is unfair to your opponent because they will have less time to refute these new ideas.  Imagine a debate in which you are winning all of the major issues.  It would be unfair for your opponent to bring up a whole new set of main issues in one of the last speeches of the debate.  This is why debaters should not bring up new main arguments in rebuttals.

 

Organization

During the course of a debate, hundreds of arguments are made.  Dozens of facts and experts are cited.  The issues are complex and interconnected.  Because of this complexity, effective organization is absolutely essential to debate.  This chapter deals with two aspects of organization within a debate, note-taking and sign-posting.

Note-taking (Flowing)

In order to keep track of everything, debaters need to keep a flow of the debate.  This is a set of notes that track the arguments made throughout the debate.  Flowing goes beyond normal note-taking because it charts the progress of arguments.  When a specific argument is responded to, the flow chart places the response directly to the right of the original argument.  In this way, you can see the entire history of an argument by reading from left to right across the page.  Here are some important tips on flowing:

1.  You will need (at least) two sheets of paper for your flow chart.  Two 8 ½ by 14 size legal pads are ideal.  Label 1 flow sheet "Affirmative Case" and 1 flow sheet "Negative Case."  The affirmative sheet will need to be divided into 7 columns.  The negative sheet will only need 6 columns.  Each column is for a speech during the debate.

2.  Write small and neatly.  You need to fit seven columns across the page, so you will need to write small.  To increase your space, you may use a 81/2 x 14 inch legal pad turned sideways.  This gives you 2 inches for each column.  Of course, your flow is only valuable if you can read it--be NEAT!

3.  Abbreviate.  You need to record all the main arguments in the debate.  If you try to write out all of the words, you will fall behind and miss things.  Develop your own set of abbreviations.  Instead of writing "Russia will decrease organized crime," for example, you could write "R will d org. cr."  You should immediately come up with a set of abbreviations for words you are likely to hear often for your debate topic.

4.  Leave yourself space.  As you flow the arguments made by the first affirmative, write them down the first column on your chart.  However, after each point is made, skip some space, maybe half an inch to an inch, before writing the next argument.  This way, when responses are made you'll have plenty of room to write them directly to the right of the original argument.  This leads to the next point.

5.  Flow responses to the right of the original argument.  If the 1NR is responding to the third point made by the affirmative, you want to find the point and write the responses in the 1NC column to its right.  This way, all the arguments pertaining to a certain issue should be grouped together.  This allows you to respond directly to your opponents arguments and improves the clash in  rebuttals.

6. Don't give up.   Flowing takes practice.  You will miss points from time to time.  Don't stop.  Keep listening and write as much as you can.  Your partner may be able to help you get missed points or you can ask for clarification in cross-examination.

 

Sign-Posting

Sign-posting means telling the judge and your opponents "where you are on the flow."  Put another way, it is stating the argument that you are responding to before you respond.  You should state which main issue you are on, which specific point you are answering, and what your answer is.

Sample:  "Please turn to my opponent's second contention.  She states that the death penalty is applied in a discriminatory fashion.  I have two responses.  First..."

If you forget to sign-post, it will be unclear to the other people in the debate which argument you are responding to.  This will create confusion for all when they try to answer you.  It is also helpful to deal with the issues in the order they were originally presented.  Debaters who jump from point to point tend to lose their audience (and judge) and are therefore less effective. 

 

Conclusion

Once again, the skills of organization and argumentation are improved upon greatly through practice.  As a summary, try to always remember the following tips for effective debating:

1)    An argument consists of a claim and support for that claim

2)    It is important to keep a flow chart of the arguments made during the debate

3)    When making any argument, you must sign-post

Now that you are more familiar with the mechanics of debate, let's focus on the art of public speaking.