CHAPTER 2 Concepts of Argumentation Approaches of Rhetoric "he following section explains the underlying devices of rhetorical in introducing persuasion, and the obligations each debater shar logical argumentation. This passage includes the three approaches of persuading an audience, and the three core aspects to which every debate is expanded and revolved around. I'he Art of Persuasion Che instruction of competitive debate is rich with the practice of techniques used to form effective argumentation. All these methods of oratory are only tools in carrying out the goal of achieving persuasiveness. In the millennia of great minds to study and contribute to the advancement of the art of persuasion, perhaps the most influential figure of this development was that of the philosopher Aristotle. As the logician would put it, there are only two parts comprising an argument; making a statement- then proving it. This is both simple, yet complex. To take the first step in the long journey of mastering debate, the reader must first begin with the concept of rhetoric. Identified by Aristotle, rhetoric is the ability to understand what is considered persuasive in any given case. In practice, it is the specific features of texts, in this case spoken, that cause them to be meaningful, purposeful, and effective for listeners in a given situation.12 Concepts of Argumentation The philosopher’s understanding is broad, but is specified through his determination of three approaches comprising the essence of what it is to use rhetorical reasoning. These modes of persuasion are as follows: 1. Ethos 2. Pathos 3. Logos These ideas make up the underlying strategy and understanding of all intellectual conversation. For competitive purposes, the reader should address the message of each aspect in the order provided above. This will be expanded on in the passages to come. Components of basic argumentation are briefly addressed below, keep in mind each aspect of the following persuasion modes are explained in great detail throughout the entirety of the book. For now, these themes will be only very briefly addressed. Ethos To begin with ethos, this is the means to convince an audience of, in this case, the debater’s credibility or competence. In the greek, this term stands for “character”. At the end of the day the debater is communicating to a judge, a human with just as many flaws and imperfections as any other individual would have. In this instance, however, this individual must determine the decision of who has won and lost the debate. So, the competitors in every way they can, must give the judge the impression the information presented is credible and worth listening to. Potentially, the judge may not open up fully to the content of one’s logic unless he or she is first convinced of the debater’s ethos first. The Debate Handboook 13 Credibility and competence can be built by the debater in several ways. Initially, this is observed through the competitor's use of attire. he physical appearance of the debater should suggest seriousness and professionalism. This is not just achieved through clothing, but also confident and powerful body language. Furthermore, the debater should appear knowledgeable via the use of relevant facts, educated vocabulary, and compelling big picture narrative. In referencing the bigger picture, argumentation should be framed in the perspective of jepresenting the concerns of a larger group. This gives the impression the speaker argues for more than just their team and lifts the debate {rom an air of petty argument between students, to important real world significance. This incentivises the audience to more easily accept assertions of emotion and reasoning which leads to the next component of rhetoric. Pathos The second mode of persuasion, known as pathos, is the appeal to emotion. This is the means to which a debater persuades the judge by evoking an emotional response. Pathos, greck for “suffering” and “experience”, acts as the medium to influence the judge how to feel the way the debater wants them to feel. This is how the competitor convinces the judge of their good intentions from their arguments, which in turn, can help further the ethos aspect of the argument as well. This could also be used to take a step back and allow the judge to process the information of the round while still using time efficiently. Ultimately, pathos is used to identify the human aspect of the logic or reasoning of argumentation. When arguing in favor of or against a position, pathos can be developed through verbal and non verbal means. Emphasising language meaningful to emotional premises such as fluctuation of the14 Concepts of Argumentation voice or the tone of the content of the argument itself should be practiced. Use emotional examples of real world events or colloquial terms the judge may identify with. For example, the speaker may use the terms; sons, daughters, sisters, brothers, children, friends, neighbors, the innocent, or other speech aliken to this nature. Guide the audience through visualization of the argument. Compare the opponent’s world with another world where life is more desirable. Balance an emotional argument with the professional approach. Do not compromise ethos to the point where all that is left of the argument is an unreasonable sob story. Logos Logos is the appeal to logic. This is the attempt to persuade the audience through the use of logic and reasoning. In the greek, logos means “word”. This does not represent the complete notion of the idea unlike the other terms described previously. More correct, logos can be understood as, “the word or that by which the inward thought is expressed”. This is where most analyzing of truth apart from the emotional element of an argument lies, Identifying the main inquiry of the debate is determined through a logos approach as well. Logos is achieved through critical thinking applied to the construction and refutation of arguments. Argumentation should always contain an assertion, some type of reasoning, and evidence to appeal to logic. Identifying the main clash of the opponent’s major arguments, as well as the specific arguments is a key proponent of the logos approach. To make the integrity of the debate as sensible as possible, clear organization of argumentation is necessary to comply with a logical theme. All of these strategies, and much more, will be explained as the book continues. The Debate Handboook 15 | he following illustrates Aristotle’s modes of persuasion: LOGOS Logie/Reason PATHOS Emotions/Feelings ETHOS Credibility‘Competence Ip, 2.1. The Rhetorical Triangle Each persuasive technique is necessary when in need of convincing a diverse audience, or almost every audience for that matter. This is the making of a complete position. Each of these devices underlie all strategy and technique to follow for competitive debate. Knowing these modes are one thing, having the skill of balancing and mastering their delivery is another entirely.16 Concepts of Argumentation Burdens There are three burdens each debater must fulfill regardless of speaking time, role, or type of round. Ifa competitor fails to uphold any one of these three general duties, their case will be missing a core logical component and will certainly lose them the round. Any action a debater does during the course of a round will fall under one of these general obligations. The three burdens are as follows: 1. Proof 2. Rebuttal 3. Communication Proof: The burden of proof is the primary obligation of any debater. Within the context of debate, proof can simply be defined as anything that creates belief. If the debater does not meet their burden of proof, he or she has failed to advocate their stance on the topic given to debate. Regardless of how well the debater refutes their opponent’s position, or how eloquently they communicate ideas, if there is no reason as to why the debater’s case is inherently beneficial the judge will not have any inclination to give him or her the round. ‘ Rebuttal: The second most important obligation of every debater is the burden of rebuttal. Rebuttals can be considered anything that creates disbelief. Logically speaking, if an argument goes unrefuted. it is either because the debater failed to hear the argument, or the debater is avoiding the argument all together. Even if a debater The Debate Handboook — 17 constructs a powerful argument supporting their own position, lack of refutation against the opponent may leave the judge to assume the ‘lebater concedes with the opponent’s position. A rule of thumb for debate is to consider silence is concession since there is no way of knowing the intent of why a debater failed to refute opposing \vguments. For these reasons, a lack of sufficient rebuttal will almost certainly guarantee a loss. Communication: ‘The last general duty of any given debater is the burden of ‘ommunication. This implies every debater has the obligation to articulate strategy, issues, ideas, terms, structure, arguments, evidence, or any other aspect of interest brought up in the process of a debate. If debaters refuse to explain vague concepts, arbitrary strategy, or specific jargon, they fail to communicate clearly with the audience. Uhe debaters may as well only speak amongst themselves; little good is done. This burden also applies to the style in which a speaker presents their case. All speeches should be presented in a speed and tone a debater’s audience could reasonably understand. If this burden is violated, all rhetoric no matter how well developed, may go misunderstood thus significantly hurting the debater’s chance of winning.Tinpacts Outside of the topicality, the only way to win the round is by convincing the judge the debater’s case preserves the criterion the most. Impacts serve as the warrant between the debater’s established connections and the criterion itself. An impact is the specific affect the assertion will have on the life of the individual. This explains the reason why any argument matters at all. The worth of an argument is based on the real world benefits it will have on everyday people. If there is no tangible positive result in the quality of life for an individual, then no reason has been proven to value that argument. Impacts should answer the; “who”, “what”, “when”, “where”, and “why” when it comes to the final result of what actually happened to42 Constructing Arguments the individual. This can take the form of either benefits, or harms, The reader may already have an adequate understanding of what these two concepts are, but to ensure the reader has the best understanding for competitive purposes, benefits can be defined as anything considered desirable happening to individuals. In contrast, harms can be associated as anything considered undesirable happening to individuals. Both harms and benefits can be either actually happening currently in the context of the debate conflict, or at a future time after the resolution has either been affirmed or negated. Regardless of whether or not the impacts take the form of benefits or harms, every impact should not be a single statement of what supposedly happened, but instead, the step by step specifics of what the group or entity affected actually experienced; what they felt, how they felt it, what they will feel, how they will feel it. The more vivid a description- the better. Paint the picture for the judge, evoke an emotional response. No matter how logical an argument may be, or how well the opponent’s case is refuted, the case means nothing unless it improves the standard of living for society indicated through the use of impacts. It is good practice for a debater to think of an impact in terms of its quality, quantity, and probability. The severity and overall importance of an impact is determined by these three aspects. If an impact has a significant quality, the impact proves to be very influential to the individual when it occurs. If the impact is a harm, it greatly harms the individual, likewise, if it is a benefit, it greatly benefits the individual. The quantity of an impact is pretty straightforward. It is measured by the number of people the impact will affect. Even if an impact is very severe in quality, if it only affects one person, or a very small number of people, policy change is usually unnecessary to address the issue. Finally, the probability of an impact The Debate Handboook 43 | \inples of Impacts: Tax hikes eS Decreases Increases wument: taxpayer | “— | money taken eo earnings from taxpayers Less money Less consumer OO available for spending taxpayers to spend Less individual spending e on education, Ripa: commodities, and necessities a ES Less materials to | | Harder to afford satisfy our wants | | housing, food, and desires Less understanding of the world, reduced readiness for adult life clothing, healthcare, and energy a ay Reduced quality of life big. 3.2. The Process of Impacts44 Constructing Arguments is its likelihood of occuring at all, or in how many intervals it will occur again and again. This is important to address considering if 1 impact has a high quality and quantity, but a 0.0001% chance o/ occuring, it may be unnecessary to address the issue at all consideriny it probably will never happen. Ideally, impacts should be integrated within every argument. This improves the debater’s ability to communicate efficiently and enhances the persuasiveness of the assertion itself. This may not come naturally to the novice debater. For now, a beginning debater should focus on_ specifically stating the impacts associated with their arguments as if it was a component of contention structure. For Example: Contention : Tagline a. Sub-Contention i. Evidence ii. Impact(s) b. Sub-Contention i. Evidence ii. Impact(s) c. Sub-Contention i. Evidence ii. Impact(s) By specifically stating the impacts, the debater directly informs the judge of the link between each contention and the criterion. This practice develops a habit for the debater to associate their arguments with the impacts of the debate. After debating with this impact method, referencing the importance of each assertion becomes natural. This will eventually lead the debater to integrate their i The Debate Handboook 45 iy with the arguments themselves and achieve the ideal jwetn vition. (iin It All Together i i 's of constructing a (po this point of Chapter 3, six general element: ; sine ig ie have been introduced to the reader. The relationship between \/ove components can be simplified into: |, The resolution sets the foundation for the scope and format of the debate round. , ), Contentions are developed to determine a stance on the resolution. 3, Sub-contentions explain the established general arguments. Evidence is presented to support the assertions made by the sub-contentions. i 5. Impacts explain the specific affect the sub-contentions wi have on the individual. z 6. The criterion is the universal standard accessed throug! impacts and ultimately determines the outcome of the debate round. ‘These six aspects make up all the core components for the system of a debate. These are found in every round regardless of which team (Affirmation or Negation) may be debating and what type of round (fact, value, or policy) the resolution calls for. The ways to naa what type of round the debate is and the additional features cack debate will have will be discussed in full in Section I; Round Specific Strategy.46 Constructing Arguments Parliamentary Debate has very few established rules. The “rulebook” speaking times and roles which was exp lained in part during Chapter 1. Note, however, none of the above core components of debate (aside from the resolution) are explained in the rules of Parliamentary Debate. The reason why debate as a whole is comprised of “ contentions”, “sub-contentions”, “definitions”, “impacts” or a “criterion” is not to comply with a rulebook, but instead, to address principles in completing a logical argument. Each component exists for a logical purpose, if one major component is missing from a case, the entire argument lacks a vital element to prove a stance on the to be debated. Each section until now has expanded on the steps needed to construct the main features of an argument. The reader has been informed on how to logically prove their assertions and ultimately fulfill their burden of proof. The next chapter begins to explain the basics in refutation, eventually accomplishing the debater’s burden of rebuttal. pic given to itself only explains the procedure and structure of The Debate Handboook 47 {\ Components can be visually represented here: Resolution Contention Contention Contention mention Sub-Cont Sub-Contention B Sub-Contention C Sub-Contention A Sub-Contention B Sub-Contention C Sub-Contention A Sub-Contention B Sub-Contention C Evidence i.| | Evidence i. . o . Evidence ii. | Evidence i. eis My Byidence th sreaced. Evidence iii. INA \X NX Impacts Impacts Impacts | Evidence i. | Evidence i, | Evidence i. I vidence i. lvidence ii. Criterion lig, 3.3. Components of Debate