Chapter 3

420 views

Published on

Powerpoint for Chapter Three of Critical Thinking Through Debate.

Published in: Sports, Technology
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
420
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
8
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
3
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Chapter 3

  1. 1. Critical Thinking Through Debate Chapter Three
  2. 2. First, a review <ul><li>In chapter one, the text discussed debate as a process – what did they mean by that? </li></ul><ul><li>What are the three means of persuasion according to Aristotle? Provide an example of each. </li></ul><ul><li>On the next page are a number of resolutions – identify them as fact, value or policy. </li></ul>
  3. 3. Fact, value or policy? <ul><li>The State of California should raise taxes in order to lower the deficit. </li></ul><ul><li>Extraterrestrials crashed in Roswell, New Mexico during the 1950s. </li></ul><ul><li>Movies made in America have more graphic violence and gratuitous sex than they did ten years ago. </li></ul><ul><li>The environment should be valued over energy production when evaluating new dam building. </li></ul>
  4. 4. A little more review <ul><li>What are three ways of defining terms in debate? </li></ul><ul><li>What are the stock issues identified by the text for policy debate? </li></ul>
  5. 5. An update on stock issues <ul><li>S. = Significance </li></ul><ul><li>H. = Harms </li></ul><ul><li>I. = Inherency </li></ul><ul><li>T. = Topicality </li></ul><ul><li>S. = Solvency </li></ul>
  6. 6. Chapter Three The Resolution: The Focus of Debate
  7. 7. <ul><li>RESOLVED </li></ul>
  8. 8. Resolutions – why have them? <ul><li>Provides judge with a guideline of what they are voting for/against at the end of the debate. </li></ul><ul><li>Used to limit the debate and provide for predictability of what the other side will talk about. </li></ul>
  9. 9. Presumption <ul><li>Consider law – what is “presumed” before a legal criminal case begins? </li></ul><ul><li>In debate, we “presume” that the status quo is innocent (or good enough) until proven guilty (or so bad we have to risk a change). </li></ul>
  10. 10. Burden of Proof <ul><li>If the status quo gets presumption , then who has the burden of proof? </li></ul>
  11. 11. Burden of Clash <ul><li>AKA – Burden of “rejoinder” </li></ul><ul><li>“ Silence means consent.” </li></ul><ul><li>Must respond at the first chance (next speech). </li></ul>
  12. 12. Standards of Proof <ul><li>Rule to live/debate by: </li></ul><ul><li>In debate, there is no truth with a capital T. Probability is the best we can hope for. </li></ul><ul><li>Possible: Not impossible, but not at all likely to happen. </li></ul><ul><li>Plausible: Possible, but more likely NOT to happen then to happen. </li></ul><ul><li>Probable: Not certain, but more likely to happen then not to happen. </li></ul><ul><li>Certain: Definitely will happen. </li></ul>
  13. 13. Standards of Proof for Policy Debate <ul><li>Must measure the following: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>RISK of the good or bad thing occurring – this is likelihood or probability . </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>MAGNITUDE of the good or bad thing – is it a HUGE positive or negative, or just a SMALL positive or negative? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>DIFFICULTY OF CORRECTING A MISCALCULATION. CAN it be corrected? How difficult would it be to correct? </li></ul></ul>

×