http://www.debating.org.

za/schools/oxfordstylerules

RULES OF OXFORD STYLE DEBATE

Document Actions

An older, but still popular form of debate, Oxford style is characterized by very formal
structure and process compared to "BP" (British Parliamentary) debate or "World Schools
Style".

1 General

1. This is the set of rules that govern all debates to be held by Members of the South
African National Debating Council in the Oxford Style. At any debate the
chairperson and adjudicators have full authority in regard to the interpretation of
these rules.
2. All debates shall be conducted in the English language. Debaters for whom
English is a second language shall be judged as if they were native English
speakers.

2 The Structure of Debate

1. Unless otherwise established, all debates held will be in the Oxford style.
2. The topic shall be made known at least 14 days prior to the debate. A topic shall
be offered by the proposition which is subject to the acceptance of the opposition.
The organisers reserve power of veto over any potential topic to be debated under
the supervision of Rhodes Debating.
3. Two teams shall participate in a debate, each team comprising of three
competitors. Each speaker shall be assigned a particular function, namely opening
speaker, second speaker and summator.
4. Competitors shall be called upon to speak by the chairperson in the following
order:
1. opening proposition
 2. opening opposition
3. second proposition
4. second opposition
5. speakers from the floor
6. opposition summator
7. proposition summator

No competitor shall make more than one speech in a debate.

5. All members of the audience shall comprise the "floor", with the exception of the
adjudicators.
6. The task of the proposition is propose the topic with constructive arguments and
the use of supporting material; the opposing team must oppose the resolution, by
both rebutting the arguments of the proposition through the use of constructive
arguments and supporting material.
7. The debate organisers shall appoint a chairperson for each debate whose task is to
regulate the debate, to keep order, and to call upon competitors to speak. The
chairperson may call a speaker to order at any time. The Chairman is to be
addressed as Mr or Madame Chairman throughout the debate, and may be one of
the adjudicators.
8. An odd number of adjudicators (usually three) will be assigned to each debate by
the debate organisers.

3 Preparation Time

1. A team will be given a minimum of two weeks during which to prepare an

argument, except in the event of impromptu speaking in which case special
conditions set by the organisers will apply.
2. Any team that arrives more than 5 minutes late runs the risk of receiving zero
points. This decision shall be made by the chairperson.

4 Time limits of speeches

 1. The following time limits apply to each speaker:
1. opening proposition, 3 to 5 minutes
2. opening opposition, 3 to 5 minutes
3. second proposition, 5 to 7 minutes
4. second opposition, 5 to 7 minutes
5. speakers from the floor, each speaker is allowed not more than 30 seconds
6. opposing summator, 7 to 10 minutes
7. proposing summator, 7 to 10 minutes

These time limits are guidelines only and should not be strictly enforced. The
chairperson may at his or her discretion interrupt a speaker when a flagrant
violation of these limits occur. Timeliness is a criteria for evaluation.

5 Definitions

1. The first proposing speaker must define the topic, by setting out the subjects,
issues and terms of debate. Definitions should be reasonable, clear and reasonably
related to the terms of the topic. The first proposing speaker should not define a
topic in a manner that is unfair to the opposition, or that is not closely connected
to the letter and spirit of the topic. The proposition should also not propose a
definition that runs counter to the topic, or that is perverse or tautological (true by
definition).
2. "Squirreling" (that is, the defining of a topic in such a way that no clear logical
link exists between the terms of the topic and the definition), and "time-setting"
(the confining of the subject-matter of debate to a particular time and place) are
absolutely prohibited.
3. Subject to 2.2, no amendment or alteration of the topic is in any way permitted.
4. The opposition must in general accept the definition of a topic made by the first
proposition speaker; but the first opposing speaker shall have the option to
challenge a definition. A definition should only be challenged if it does not
conform to the rules set out above. If the opening opposing speaker does not
challenge it, the definition must be accepted by all speakers in the debate.
 5. A challenge to definitions must be made in the speech of the first speaker of the
opposing team. If such a challenge is made, then the challenger must redefine the
topic in a manner that conforms with the above rules.
6. Even if a definition that violates the rules set out here is not challenged, the
proposing team may still be penalised. When a challenge is made without just
cause, the opposition will be penalised.

6 Points From the Floor

1. Following the speech of the second speaker of the opposition the chairperson shall
open the debate to the floor. At this stage any member of the floor may raise
points, stating if proposing or opposing the topic. Control of the floor is at the sole
discretion of the chairperson and should as far as possible allow even
representation to both the proposing and opposing viewpoints. No speaker from
the floor may speak for more than 30 seconds and is entitled to raise only one
point at a time. Time should be given for fair argument, in the region of 10 to 15
minutes.
2. All points raised should be raised through the chairperson, direct addressing of
one floor member to another is prohibited.
3. If a floor member directs a comment to a specific speaker, that speaker may offer
a point of information in response to the comment, through the chairperson. A
speaker may only offer such a point of information where a point raised supports
the other side of the debate, is relevant to the debate and concerns that speaker's
speech.
4. Adjudicators will pay no attention to the points raised however the manner in
responding to the points by the two summators will be considered.

7 New Points

1. The final two speakers of the debate, the third speaker of the opposition and the
third speaker of the proposition, are required to summarise the arguments
presented by the two other speakers on each side of the debate. The final speaker
 (proposing summator) may not comment on the previous summator unless new
points were introduced, in violation of 7.2
2. New matter - that is, arguments and issues that have not been previously
introduced during the debate - may not be introduced by the final two speakers of
the debate, unless it is introduced as a rebuttal or reply to arguments or material
previously introduced. The final two speakers, however, are encouraged and
expected to develop and expand on arguments already made during the course of
the debate.

8 The conduct of the debate

1. Competitors are expected to behave during a debate, and with respect to their
fellow competitors. Those who do not do so shall be penalised, and may be asked
to exit the debate if the chairperson so decides.
2. A debate is a formal affair and speakers should be dressed appropriately.
3. No "points of privilege" may be raised.
4. "Points of order" may only be made to the chairperson in extreme cases, when 8.1
is seriously abused. Personal abuse and obscenity are examples of such cases.
Points of order shall not be made when new matter is introduced in final speeches,
or when a speech is considered irrelevant. When such a point is made, it takes
priority over all other speeches and the debate is suspended until the chairperson
rules on the point. Misuse of the point of order shall be heavily penalised.
5. Subject to 6.3, "points of information" - that is short interjections used to give or
request information from the current speaker are prohibited. Points of information
may only be offered in rebuttal.

9 Adjudication

1. At the conclusion of a debate, the adjudicators shall leave the venue to confer and
arrive at a collective decision. If a consensus decision cannot be reached the
decision of the majority shall be effected.
 2. The main criterion for evaluating teams is the extent to which they were effective
in persuading the adjudicators of the validity of their case, in the context of the
debate. In doing this, adjudicators shall give equal weight to the matter, including
arguments presented and the manner in which this matter was presented.
Adjudicators may not reach a decision based on personal conviction in reference
to the topic.
3. A winning team will be decided and a best speaker, based on the score sheets of
the adjudicators will be decided.
4. Once a decision has been reached, the chairman will invite adjudicators to present
it. Constructive criticism is encouraged but not necessary.
5. Following the adjudication, the chairman will declare the debate over.

10 Misdebate

1. A misdebate can be declared by the chairman during the course of the debate or at
the end by the adjudicators. In this case the debate will be declared null and void
and any result discarded. This will only be done in EXTREME circumstances,
when the rules set out here are violated to such an extent that the spirit of debate
is lost.

11. Complaints

Any complaints or disputes concerning any debate should be communicated as soon as

possible to the debate organisers. The decision of the organisers in such a dispute will be
final

Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.comdis.wisc.edu/facstaff/mrchial/PMT%20pdfs/PMT%20Debate.pdf.
Page 1
RULES OF ENGAGEMENT FOR CLASSROOM DEBATES
Michael R. Chial, Ph.D. and Ann B. Riall, Ph.D.
1994
Introduction
Debate is an intellectual exercise in which two individuals or teams (one called
Affirmative, the other called Negative) argue the merits of a proposition.
The major purposes of debate are (1) to provide a focus for research on a
controversial topic, (2) to identify and clarify the issues that attend such topics, and (3) to
provide insight into effective and ineffective forms of argument.
Debate propositions allege the truth or falsity of a fact, advance a value, or advocate
a significant change in policy. A policy statement asserts what should be done, what
should be done differently, or what should not be done. Change is a departure from the
current state of affairs, i.e., the status quo. Some examples of policy propositions are:
Resolved: The federal government should require employers to test all employees
for AIDS.
Resolved: The elementary and secondary school year should be increased to twelve
months.
Resolved: The University should establish a policy such that no student shall
encounter an increase intuition while continuously enrolled for an academic degree.
Resolved: The State of Wisconsin should establish regulations allowing teachers in
the public schools to use corporal punishment.
This document discusses alternatives for organizing debates, guidelines for the
conduct of debates, principles of logic underlying cause-effect relations pertinent to
debate, and strategies and tactics of refutation.
Debate Formats
Several formats are used in formal debates. These differ in the number of turns
taken by the Affirmative and Negative teams, and the amount of audience participation.
Two formats are noted here.
 The first, modeled after the Lincoln-Douglas debates and courtroom procedures,
employs a single constructive presentation by each side. Teams consist of two members
each. Each constructive speech is followed by cross-examination by the opposing team.
In this format, there are three rebuttals: Affirmative, Negative, Affirmative. Constructive
speeches are allowed 10 minutes; cross-examination and rebuttals, 5 minutes each.
Ajudge determines the formal outcome of the exercise. This format is common in debate
contests.
A second format (here called the meeting-house debate) allows for audience
participation and is well-suited to classroom debates. Two constructive speeches are
presented, one for each team in the order Affirmative, then Negative. Following
constructive speeches, a moderator (the judge) directs a group discussion during which
the (Page 2) audience may ask questions of the debaters, or offer comments about the
cases offered up to this point. The moderator entertains questions so as to alternate
between Affirmative and Negative teams. After the discussion, the Negative presents a
single rebuttal speech, followed by a single Affirmative rebuttal. Each constructive
speech is allowed 15 minutes. Discussion is allotted 15 minutes; rebuttals are allowed 5
minutes each. Other variations include political campaign debates in which news
reporters represent the larger audience.
Time limits assigned to constructive speeches, rebuttals, cross-examination and
discussion are arbitrary. They can be modified, but should retain the feature of allowing
more time for constructive speeches than for rebuttals. It is important that allotted times
be enforced accurately and uniformly and that the Affirmative team is the last to speak.
General Guidelines and Terminology
This section presents technical terms (underlined) useful in describing debates and
what debaters do.
Guidelines are offered, not to curtail creativity, but to provide uniform expectations
and to facilitate productive argument.
1. The burden of proving the debate proposition rests with Affirmative. Proof, in debate
(as in law) need not be conclusive (i.e., beyond all doubt); it simply must be more
probable than not. Affirmative must, as a minimum, offer a prima facie case, which (on
the surface) appears to prove the Affirmative position. The prima facie case does not
require compelling support or proof. If Negative can show that Affirmative failed to offer
at least a prima facie case, then Negative should win.
2. Negative must refute Affirmative. Points of disagreement are called issues. If Negative
fails to disagree successfully, and if Affirmative has presented a prima facie case, then
Affirmative should win.
3. Both Affirmative and Negative presentations consist of contentions (claims) which
should be supported by evidence. Contentions are designated as major and minor. Minor
contentions support major contentions. Evidence consists of statements of fact (empirical
evidence) or opinion (authoritative evidence) invoked to support contentions. To be
persuasive, evidence must be relevant to the proposition, valid, and credible. Argument is
the act of linking evidence to contentions through inference or deduction. Arguments
should have probativevalue (proving, or tending to prove) and persuasive value (instilling
belief). A debate case is the aggregate of arguments, evidence, and contentions offered by
a team. Affirmative should have a case; Negative need not have a case in the same sense
as Affirmative.
4. To promote full consideration of issues, and to avoid wasting time on insoluble
matters, constitutionality is not a legitimate issue in debate.
5. Most forms of debate assign specific responsibilities to each team. The Affirmative
team normally has the responsibility to do the following during the constructive speech.
a. Define important terms.
b. Identify common objectives.
c. Clearly state the contentions of the Affirmative.
d. Show the evils of the status quo(need argument).
e. Show that the causes of these evils are inherent in the status quo and, thus, that the
status quocannot meet the need posed by common objectives (change is needed).
f. Explain the Affirmative plan to meet the need.
g. Explain how the Affirmative plan will meet the need.
6. The Negative team has the responsibility to respond to the Affirmative case by doing
one or more of the following.
a. Dispute definitions of important terms and show the implications of disputed
definitions; define additional important terms and concepts.
b. Dispute common objectives offered by Affirmative; introduce alternative or
supplemental objectives. (Page 3 ) c. Clearly state the contentions of the Negative.
d. Minimize alleged evils of the status quo(need argument), perhaps showing that
relatively minor changes in the status quocould resolve important needs.
e. Identify causes for remaining evils not inherent in the status quo, or those not
addressed by Affirmatives need argument.
f. Attack the evidence and reasoning of the Affirmatives need argument.
h. Attack the practicality and workability of the Affirmative Plan (ability of that plan to
meet the need).
g. Identify undesirable features of the Affirmative plan, independent of the ability of the
plan to meet the need, showing how these features may worsen the status quo,
compromise common objectives, or create significant new evils. The Negative team has
the option to offer an alternative to meet the need, in which case Negative essentially
concedes the need issue and emphasizes the relative merits of their plan vs. that offered
by the Affirmative.
7. Constructive speeches by the two teams cover the items noted above. Rebuttal
presentations seek to refute the opponents case (see below) and to reinforce matters
raised during constructive presentations. No new issues may be raised during rebuttals.
New evidence can be introduced, however.
8. Good debate propositions are complex enough to confound simple right answers.
Because propositions are complex, the evidence and arguments offered in debate vary in
probative and persuasive value. Debates are won or lost on the balance of proof (evidence
and argument) given to support cases.
9. Because debate presentations are oral, speakers should make liberal use of initial
summaries (forecasts) and terminal summaries. Illustrations, narratives, examples, and
quotations can add interest and variety to evidence. So can a lively and engaging
speaking style. Language (word choice, grammar, sentence length) should be oral
in style. Except for definitions, quotations, and the like, presentations should not be read
to the audience. Indeed, the structure of debate requires extemporaneous presentation.
Debate emphasizes the importance of logical proof and de-emphasizes the role of
emotional appeals and speaker credibility. Therefore, debate requires strong listening
skills, the ability to distinguish among arguments in terms of their importance, the ability
to analyze and adapt to arguments as they are offered, fairness, composure, and the ability
to separate personalities from issues. In particular, members of the Negative team must be
adaptable because it is seldom possible to predict all of the contentions of the Affirmative
team.
Causality
Many issues in debate involve claims about the presence or lack of cause-effect
relations among events-whether two factors are related such that one causes the other. For
example, the Affirmative typically tries to show that the evils of the status quoare caused
by factors which, if changed through the Affirmative plan, will result in some larger
benefit or good. Negative may argue that Affirmatives claims of causality are invalid, or
that the Affirmative plan will cause additional problems.
Assertion and proof are, of course, not the same. Thus, evidence is required to
justify claims about cause- effect relations. Justification typically takes the form of
statements about possible causes (antecedent factors or events) and effects (consequent
factors or events). Causality is a complex issue, as much logical as empirical. Even
when two factors are causally related, it may be difficult or impossible to determine
which is the cause and which is the effect. Part of this difficulty is epistemological, i.e.,
related to how we gain knowledge about events. Even so, several important
generalizations are possible about the nature of causality and about statements which
assert cause- effect relationships.
1. Causes always precede effects, even if the time interval is very short. This is not the
same as saying that if one factor precedes a second, the second was caused by the first
(not all antecedent events are causes). Maybe it was, or perhaps both factors were caused
by some other, unexamined event.
2. Causal relationships are presumably invariant (constant) in time and space. Assuming
no significant change in conditions, if a cause produces an effect at one time, or in one
place, it will do the same at other times and in other places. This is not the same as saying
that a consistent relationship between two factors alone constitutes a cause-effect
relationship. As above, both factors could have been caused by some other event.
Page 4
3. For a statement about a cause-effect relationship to be logically valid, the antecedent
must be sufficient to produce the consequent. In other words, no additional factors (other
than the antecedent) are needed to produce the consequent. For example, if you strike
your thumb with a hammer, you will feel pain.
4. For a statement about a cause-effect relationship to be logically valid, the consequent
can occur only if the antecedent occurs. In other words, the antecedent is necessary for
the consequent. For example, the engine of an
automobile can operate only if it has fuel.
5. A statement about a cause-effect relationship need not be both necessary and sufficient
for the statement to be valid. For example, taking poison may be sufficient to cause death,
but other factors can produce the same result (poison is not necessary for death).
Similarly, although food is necessary to sustain life, other conditions must exist for life to
continue (food is not sufficient).
6. Some cause-effect relationships are, in fact, both sufficient and necessary. These
relations usually are described with the phrase if and only if as in You will go to jail
after committing a crime, if and only if you get caught, are found guilty and sentenced.
The consequent (going to jail) will occur only if the antecedent (committing a crime,
getting caught, being found guilty, and being sentenced) occurs. In this example, the
antecedent is compound (four separable events). If the antecedent occurs, the consequent
must follow (the relationship is necessary); no conditions other than those given in the
antecedent are required for the consequent (the relationship is sufficient).
7. Given several candidate causes for a given effect, the simplest is the most likely to be
true. This is known as the principle of parsimony. The British philosopher John Stuart
Mill formulated a set of principles or methods by which cause-effect relations can be
discovered. These are the methods of agreement, difference, concomitant variations, and
stabilization. All embrace the assumption that while a cause may consist of several
factors which combine in simple or interactive ways, it can be treated as a unitary event.
Using the terminology above (antecedent for possible cause and consequent for
effect), Mills methods are summarized below. These differ in the certainty with which
causes can be known.
1. Method of Agreement
a. Positive: If each and every time an antecedent is introduced, the consequent occurs,
then that antecedent probably is the cause of the consequent.
b. Negative: If the consequent occurs in the absence of an antecedent, then that
antecedent cannot be the cause of the consequent.
2. Method of Difference
a. Positive: If a single antecedent is the only difference between a situation in which the
consequent occurs and another in which it does not, then that antecedent probably is the
cause of the consequent.
b. Negative: If an antecedent is present and the consequent fails to appear then that
antecedent cannot be the cause of the consequent.
3. Method of Concomitant Variations
a. Positive: If variation (increase or decrease) in the amount of an antecedent is associated
with variation (direct or inverse) in a consequent, then that antecedent may be the cause
of the consequent.
b. Negative: If variation in the amount of an antecedent fails to produce associated
variation in the consequent, then that antecedent is unlikely to be the cause of the
consequent.
4. Method of Stabilization

Page 5
a. Positive: If constraint of variation in the amount of an antecedent reduces variation in
the consequent, then that antecedent may be the cause of the consequent.
b. Negative: If constraint of variation in the amount of an antecedent fails to reduce
variation in the consequent, then that antecedent is unlikely to be the cause of the
consequent. The methods of agreement and difference are, together, the essence of
contemporary empirical methods in which the outcomes of experimental conditions
(antecedent present) are compared to control conditions (antecedent absent). Of the four
approaches noted above, these two are the most powerful. They are commonly used in
medical research intended to determine whether a particular drug or other treatment is
effective in combating a disease. Such work often employs placebos (e.g., substances or
actions known to have no effect, i.e., controls), single-blind methods (the patient is not
told whether a drug or a placebo was administered), and double-blind methods (neither
the patient nor the physician is told whether the patient received a drug or a placebo).
The methods of concomitant variations and stabilization are the basis of correlation and
regression research methods, including much medical research on epidemiology.
Additional applications of the mehods of concomitant variations and stabilization include
studies of the effects of marketing campaigns, voter attitudes about political candidates,
economic studies of the effects of (say) raising or lowering interests rates, and other
issues for which experimental controls such as placebos and blind experiments are
impossible, illegal, unethical or impractical. Although these two methods may reveal
cause-effect relations, they are generally less effective than the first two at
unambiguously identifying causes. Refutation: Strategies Refutation is the process of
attacking the case offered by the opposition. Two goals underpin refutation:
(1) to identify flaws in the opponents argument, and (2) by counter-argument, to show
that the contentions, evidence, or arguments of the opponent untrue or unimportant.
Strategies of refutation include the following.
Direct attack on evidence: showing that an opponents evidence is outdated,
oversimplified, distorted, misstated, misquoted, exaggerated, inconsistent or otherwise
flawed. Direct attack on argument: showing that an opponents argument (the use of
evidence to support a contention) is irrelevant, insignificant, inconsistent, insufficient,
unnecessary, based upon false assumptions, or otherwise flawed.
Reducto ad absurdium: showing that an opponents argument is based upon a false
underlying premise which, if applied in other areas, would be patently absurd, foolish,
wrong, or harmful. This is a form of argument by analogy.
Skewer on the horns of a dilemma: showing that an opponents contention
necessarily leads to one or the other of two outcomes, each of which is undesirable. This
is a form of argument by analogy.
Admitting the opponents argument: conceding a contention of the opponent, then
going on to show that contention was insignificant, irrelevant, or inconsistent with other
arguments offered by that opponent.
This is an indirect attack.
 Attacks on the opponents case are based upon analyses of evidence and arguments
(reasoning). Some arguments are field-free, i.e., the merit of the argument depends not
upon subject matter, but upon formal structure (e.g., syllogistic deductive reasoning and
statistical deducto-inferential reasoning). Other arguments appear to be field-specific, i.e.,
the information content of the issue in part determines which lines of argument are
probative and persuasive.
Refutation: Tactics
Examples of weak or false evidence, and of flawed arguments are given below. Many of
these are classical, well recognized by logicians for thousands of years. These examples
form the basis for tactics by which strategies of refutation may be pursued. Note that the
examples are not mutually consistent or mutually exclusive. Determining whether they
apply in a particular situation depends upon the lines of argument followed in a particular
debate and upon the analytic skills of the debaters.
Page 6
Ad hominem argument: against the man; pertaining to authoritative evidence; an
irrelevant argument asserting that a persons opinion is false because of the reputation,
character, or demographic status of that person. Such an argument does not prove or
disprove anything. A classic fallacy.
Ad ignorantiam argument: an irrelevant argument of the form, A is true because it has
not been (or cannot be) proven false. Another example is, Your plan cant work because
you havent shown that it has worked. A classic fallacy.
Ad populum argument: a form of irrelevancy that appeals to strong emotion (fear, pride,
sympathy, pity) through use of imagery or emotional language. A classic fallacy.
Analogy offered as proof: in many cases, analogies (alone) cannot prove very much
because of differences in details between the analogy and its referent. See over-
generalization.
Argument of the beard: arguing the lack of difference between two situations by showing
that because no sharp line can be drawn, no line can be drawn at all. Argument based on a
false assumption. A classic fallacy.
Begging the question: using emotionally loaded words or a biased style of phrasing
instead of more valid evidence. See ad populum argument.
Biased source: (pertaining to authoritative evidence) a source motivated by clear self-
interest, e.g., paid testimonials endorsing commercial products. A form of weak or false
evidence.
Black-or-white argument: arbitrarily assuming that sharp distinctions can be drawn
between two seeming opposites, when they really constitute differences of degree, e.g.,
bald vs. not bald; liberal vs. conservative. Argument based on a false assumption.
Circular argument: an irrelevant argument in which a conclusion is used to prove itself.
For example, We need new businesses because more businesses would produce more
taxes. More taxes will let us develop supportive policies for business. And we need such
supportive policies because we need more new businesses.
Diversionary argument: a tactical error in which material irrelevancies are intentionally
introduced in an effort to obscure major issues. A form of false argument.
Error of the mean: ignoring dispersion; assuming that the arithmetic (or some other)
average sufficiently describes and/or predicts reality. Argument based upon a false
assumption.
False alternatives: confusing different with opposite; erroneously assuming that two
alternatives are sufficient and that they are mutually exclusive. Argument based on a false
assumption.
Gratuitous compromise: falsely assuming that the middle position between two extremes
is always the best course of action. Argument based on a false assumption. See error of
the mean.
Improperly defined terms: errors arising from inaccurate, imprecise, or incomplete
definitions; also an error arising from using multiple meanings for the same words
without acknowledging that multiple usage.
Inconsistency: a tactical error in which a debater separately asserts two (or more)
contentions which are mutually incompatible.
Man of straw argument: a tactical error in which a false or weak argument is attributed to
the opponent, then refuted for the purpose of discrediting the opponent or the opponents
position. A form of false argument.
Non sequitur: an argument in which the relation between evidence and conclusion is so
remote to be irrelevant, even though both may be true. For example, He would make a
good president; hes very good looking.
Over-generalization: inappropriately applying a generalization to cases not included in
the set that originally
formed the basis for the generalization.
Overlooking significant factors: ignoring material facts which, if presented, would
change the meaning of the evidence cited. Also referred to as an error of sufficiency. A
form of false evidence.
Passive credibility: (pertaining to authoritative evidence) assigning credibility to a source
because of membership in an arbitrarily defined demographic category in the absence of
qualifications--experience, education, ability, or accomplishment--relevant to the issue; in
the obverse, denying credibility because of a lack of such membership in the presence of
relevant qualifications. A form of weak or false evidence.
See and stereotyping and ad hominem argument.
Poisoning the well: discrediting a source before it is used. A combination of ad hominem
and man of straw arguments.

Page 7
Populist argument: confusing commonalty or popularity with desirability. Examples
include everybody else is doing it, nine out of ten physicians agree . . ., and the
ploys you used as a teenager to get the family car. A contemporary variation reverses the
argument by asserting that if a position is popular, it must be undesirable. Argument
based on a false assumption.
Post hoc ergo propter hoc reasoning: after this, therefore, because of this; confusing
causality with time sequence; assuming that because A preceded B, A must have caused
B. A common form of the post hoc error is to present correlation data as evidence of
causality. A classic fallacy of logic. Quoting out of context: conveying a meaning not
specifically intended by the original source, often by omitting conditional statements or
qualifying terms. A form of false evidence.
Relativistic argument: given two (or more) categorically unacceptable actions, arguing
that one is, in fact, acceptable because it is less onerous than the other. Argument based
on a false assumption.
Simple inaccuracy: using evidence that does not reflect facts; often results from use of
outdated information (i.e., more than a year old). A form of false evidence.
Stereotyping: confusing part-whole relationships; claiming that individual members of an
arbitrarily defined group or category share attributes or characteristics other than those
used to formally define the group.
For example, Blacks have better rhythm than whites, and Women are better cooks
than men. Also called the sociologists error. Argument based on a false assumption.
Tautology: a statement which is always true, but which may be irrelevant because it does
not depend upon facts, e.g., It is either Tuesday or some other day of the week; a
logical proposition whose subject and predicate are equivalent, as in A is true because A
is true. Moralistic arguments often are tautologies.
A classic fallacy of logic. See circular argument.
Undistributed middle term: in formal deductive reasoning, failing to distribute or quantify
(e.g., all, none) a statement that appears in the middle expression, but does not
appear in the conclusion. For example, in the syllogism, All horses are mammals; all
cows are mammals; therefore, all cows are horses, the middle term (mammals) does
not appear in the conclusion and is not quantified. Thus, the syllogism is false for
structural reasons. A classic fallacy of logic.
Unqualified source: (pertaining to authoritative evidence) a source whose lack of
qualifications--education, experience, ability, or accomplishment--renders the sources
opinions suspect or valueless; also, a source whose inconsistency renders that sources
opinions suspect or valueless. A form of weak or false evidence.
Unsupported assertion: except for prima facie evidence, assertions offered without
evidence or reasoning.
Unsupported assertions frequently are supported through repetition (more of the same)
restatement (more of the same, but stated another way), or shouting (more of the same,
but louder).
January, 1994
Xxxxxxxxxxxxx
EXEMPLU DE DEZBATERE din pacate nu am unul strict pe o tema de psihologie dar
se schimba tema si se pastreaza structura:
http://www.albany.edu/~yhuang/Debate2_Immigration_NoGroupDiscussion.doc

Debate #2: U.S. Immigration Policy

Goals:

You will debate in front of a panel of US policy makers regarding immigration policy in
the U.S. The panel will decide whether to implement a more restrictive or lenient
immigration policy based on the merit of your arguments. Specifically, the debate will
address the following questions: 1) Should the U. S. have a tighter control over
immigration, or not? What are the demographic, economic and political reasons for the
change? 2) Should the U.S. have different policies for legal and illegal immigration? 3)
What kind of criteria should be used to choose immigrants, if we decide to be selective?
4) Can immigrants have the same access to social services and welfare benefits as
citizens? Group members are encouraged to meet before the debate, and discuss their
group opening statements.

The structure of debate is as follows:

1. Group opening statements from both camps (2 minutes each) 4 minutes

4. Individual statements and rebuttals from Camp 1 and questions from Camp 2 35
minutes

5. Individual statements and rebuttals from Camp 2 and questions from Camp 1 35
minutes

6. Final decision is reached by panelists through voting and explanations are offered - 3-
5 minutes
Roles:

You choose one role from either of the two camps, and your job is to role-play, instead of
to be a SUNY Albany student. You need to do research for your arguments and
supporting materials. Both the Internet and the university library are good sources. A
keyword search on immigration, immigration policy can give you many citations. In
addition to the suggested readings and websites of interest listed in the textbook at the
end of Chapter 7, here are some additional references that may be helpful to you.

Immigration: Shaping and Reshaping American, by Philip Martin and Elizabeth

Midgley (link on the course website)

Legal U.S. Immigration: Influence on Gender, Age, and Skill, by Michael

Greenwood and John McDowell

Friends or Strangers: The Impact of Immigrants on the U.S. Economy, by George

Borjas.

Making Americans, Remaking America: Immigration and Immigrant Policy, by

Louis DeSipio and Rodolfo O. de la Garza

Immigration and Ethnicity: the Integration of Americas Newest Arrivals, by

Barry Edmonston and Jeffrey S. Passel

Panelists:

If you are the head panelist you will be expected to provide an introduction to the debate,
run the debate and keep time. All panelists should turn in at least five thought provoking
questions and your answers to the questions. You may use some or all questions during
the debate.
Grading:

You will be graded on your ability to make well reasoned, well researched arguments
which fit into the themes of the course. Arguments that are only emotional in nature and
not backed up with factual information will receive low grades. You are also expected to
turn in your arguments and supporting materials for the debate in a position paper (3
pages double space, typed). Students who do not actively participate in the discussion
will not be graded.

Assigned Roles

Head Panelist (Legislator)

Panelist (Demographer)

Panelist (INS official)

Camp 1: For a restrictive immigration policy

Second-generation immigrant with few skills

"Average American Taxpayer"

Union Leader

Legal resident with only a high school education and no specialized training

Former Republican Presidential Candidate Patrick Buchanan

President of the Sierra Club

Victim of the 9.11 tragedy

CIA agent in the anti-terrorism unit

Immigrant trafficker

San Diego Border Patrol official

INS official

Garrett Hardin

Attorney General John Ashcroft

Camp 2: For a lenient immigration policy

Garment industry owner in NYC

Bill Gates

Orchard owner in central valley of California

Rich Beverly Hills homeowner

Software engineer from India

Illegal immigrant doing temporary, low-wage work

Refugee from Somali

Mexican contract worker who works in the central valley in California

Entrepreneur from Hong Kong

Government official from Philippines

U.S. citizen with parents as illegal immigrants

Mexican immigrant with his wife and son in Mexico

Head of U.S.-MEXICO BORDER PROGRAM

San Diego Border Patrol official