argumentation and debate critical thinking for reasoned decision making(1)

For your course and learning solutions, visit academic.cengage.com Purchase any of our products at your local college store or at our preferred online store www.ichapters.com Argumentati

AUSTIN J FREELEYLate, John Carroll UniversityDAVID L STEINBERGUniversity of Miami

Argumentation and Debate

Critical Thinking for Reasoned

Decision Making

T W E L F T H E D I T I O N

Australia • Brazil • Japan • Korea • Mexico • Singapore • Spain • United Kingdom • United States

✵

Printed in the United States of America

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 12 11 10 09 08

Publisher: Lyn Uhl

Executive Editor: Monica Eckman

Assistant Editor: Kimberly Gengler

Editorial Assistant: Kimberly

Apfelbaum

Associate Technology Project

Manager: Jessica Badiner

Marketing Manager: Erin Mitchell

Marketing Assistant: Mary Anne

Payumo

Associate Content Project Manager:

Jessica Rasile

Art Director: Linda Helcher

Production Technology Analyst:

Jamison MacLachlan

Print Buyer: Susan Carroll

Permissions Editor: Mardell

Glinski-Schultz

Production Service: Newgen

Cover Designer: Ke Design

Cover Image: © Imagemore Co., Ltd.

© 2009, 2005 Wadsworth Cengage Learning

ALL RIGHTS RESERVED No part of this work covered by the copyright herein may be reproduced, transmitted, stored,

or used in any form or by any means graphic, electronic, or mechanical, including but not limited to photocopying, recording, scanning, digitizing, taping, Web distribution, information networks, or information storage and retrieval systems, except as permitted under Section 107 or 108 of the

1976 United States Copyright Act, without the prior written permission of the publisher.

For product information and technology assistance,

contact us at Cengage Learning Academic Resource Center

1-800-423-0563 For permission to use material from this text or product,

submit all requests online at www.cengage.com/permissions.

Further permissions questions can be e-mailed to permissionrequest@cengage.com

Library of Congress Control Number: 2007941012

ISBN-13: 978-0-495-09590-3 ISBN-10: 0-495-09590-7

Wadsworth Cengage Learning

25 Thomson Place Boston, MA 02210 USA

Cengage Learning products are represented in Canada by Nelson Education, Ltd.

For your course and learning solutions, visit academic.cengage.com

Purchase any of our products at your local college store

or at our preferred online store www.ichapters.com

Argumentation and Debate:

Critical Thinking for Reasoned

Decision Making, Twelfth

Edition

Austin J Freeley, Late

David L Steinberg

To Dr Austin J Freeley and Trudy.David L Steinberg

✵

Brief Contents

Chapter 1 Critical Thinking 1

Chapter 2 Applied and Academic Debate 19Chapter 3 Stating the Controversy 43Chapter 4 Analyzing the Controversy 60Chapter 5 Exploring the Controversy 86Chapter 6 Evidence 105

Chapter 7 Tests of Evidence 126

Chapter 8 The Structure of Reasoning 152Chapter 9 Types of Reasoning 169

Chapter 10 Obstacles to Clear Thinking 188Chapter 11 Requirements of the Case 204Chapter 12 Building the Affirmative Case 214Chapter 13 Building the Negative Case 235Chapter 14 Refutation 261

iv

✵

Chapter 15 Presenting the Case: Composition 280

Chapter 16 Presenting the Case: Delivery 300

Chapter 17 Evaluating the Debate 314

Chapter 18 Academic Debate Formats and

Cross-Examination 332

Chapter 19 Applied Parliamentary Debate 356

B R I E F C O N T E N T S v

P R E F A C E x i

Chapter 1 Critical Thinking 1

I Debate 6

II Individual Decisions 9

III Group Discussion 11

IV Persuasion 12

V Propaganda 13

VI Coercion 14

VII Combination of Methods 15

VIII Ethical Decision Making 16

Exercises 17

Chapter 2 Applied and Academic Debate 19

I Applied Debate 20

II Academic Debate 24

III Ethical Standards for Debate 38

Exercises 41

Chapter 3 Stating the Controversy 43

I Defining the Controversy 45

II Phrasing the Debate Proposition 45

III Presumption and Burden of Proof 48

vi

✵

IV Types of Debate Propositions 55

Exercises 58

Chapter 4 Analyzing the Controversy 60

I The Importance of Defining Terms 61

II Methods of Defining Terms 63

III Issues 72

Exercises 84

Chapter 5 Exploring the Controversy 86

I Brainstorming for Ideas 87

II Locating Materials 88

III Reading with a Purpose 98

IV Reading Critically 99

II Types of Evidence 112

III The Probative Force of Evidence 122

Exercises 125

Chapter 7 Tests of Evidence 126

I Uses of Tests of Evidence 126

II Tests of Credible Evidence 129

III Tests of Audience Acceptability 145

Exercises 150

Chapter 8 The Structure of Reasoning 152

I The Classical Structures 152

II The Elements of Any Argument 163

III Extending the Elements of An Argument 167

Exercises 168

Chapter 9 Types of Reasoning 169

I The Degree of Cogency 169

II Tests of Reasoning and Their Uses 173

C O N T E N T S vii

III General Tests of Reasoning 174

IV Types of Reasoning and Tests for Each Type 174Exercises 187

Chapter 10 Obstacles to Clear Thinking 188

Chapter 11 Requirements of the Case 204

I Requirement to Present a Prima Facie Case 205

II General Case Requirements 207Exercises 212

Chapter 12 Building the Affirmative Case 214

I Objectives of the Affirmative Case 216

II Proposition of Value Affirmative Cases 216III Proposition of Policy Affirmative Cases 219

IV Building for Optimum Capability 231

V Alternative Debate Approaches 233Exercises 233

Chapter 13 Building the Negative Case 235

I Objectives of the Negative Case 235

II Proposition of Value Negative Cases 237III Proposition of Policy Negative Approaches 240Exercises 260

Chapter 14 Refutation 261

I Shifting the Burden of Rebuttal 261

II Purpose and Place of Refutation 262III Preparing for Refutation 263

IV Arranging Material for Refutation 265

V Selecting Evidence and Reasoning 265

VI The Structure of Refutation 271VII Methods of Refutation 278Exercises 279

viii C O N T E N T S

Chapter 15 Presenting the Case: Composition 280

I Analysis of the Audience 280

II Written and Oral Styles 285

III A Philosophy of Style 286

IV Factors of Style in Speech Composition 287

V Rhetorical Factors in Speech Composition 291

VI Editing 298

Exercises 299

Chapter 16 Presenting the Case: Delivery 300

I Methods of Delivery 300

II Steps to Good Delivery 305

III Nonverbal Communication 306

IV Special Considerations: Tournament Debate Delivery 311Exercises 313

Chapter 17 Evaluating the Debate 314

I Functions of the Judge 314

II Judging Philosophies 320

III Functions of the Ballot 329

IV Special Ballots for Special Purposes 330

Exercises 331

Chapter 18 Academic Debate Formats and

Cross-Examination 332

I Formats of Debate 332

II The Audience 350

III Adapting the Debate to Communications Media 352Exercises 355

Chapter 19 Applied Parliamentary Debate 356

I Sources of Parliamentary Debate Rules 357

II The Order of Business 358

III Presentation of Motions 359

IV Precedence of Motions 360

V Purposes of Motions 360

VI Unanimous Consent 365

Exercises 365

Now more than ever, debate is popular During the 2008 election cycle,more than 40 televised debates involving the candidates for president andvice president will help to inform the voting public about the policies and per-sonalities of the competing debaters Election campaigns at every level, from lo-cal to national offices, routinely involve formal debates The Urban DebateLeague movement has expanded local public school participation in competitivedebate, and international efforts have encouraged the growth of debate aroundthe globe Academic debate on campuses is vibrant, and students get in line totake debate courses

The twelfth edition of Argumentation and Debate continues the features thathave led to its wide use by “generations” of students for over 50 years, whilereflecting the newest trends and knowledge in the practice and study of argu-mentation and debate To that end, David L Steinberg continues to buildupon the groundbreaking work of Austin J Freeley, the author of the first nineeditions Dr Freeley passed away on January 14, 2005 His words form the foun-dation of this book and the inspiration for its evolution Although the funda-mental nature of educational debate was established in classical times byAristotle, Protagoras, and the scholars who followed them through the ages, con-temporary debate continues to change and evolve at an ever-increasing rate.Along with many updates and revisions, this edition provides timely material on:

■ Concept Boxes (key concepts set aside in boxes in bulleted lists or key wordformat)

■ Updated examples

■ References to new research about debate and argumentation

■ Addition of new and tested classroom exercises

■ Expanded discussion of ethical decision making

■ Description of the research process in the wired era

xi

✵

■ Explanation of performance as argumentation

■ Updated presidential debate (2004) and expanded discussion of political bates through the “YouTube” debates of 2007

de-■ Expanded links to debate resources

■ Expanded bibliography

■ “Flowcharts” identifying Speaker duties in Policy and Value Debate FormatsMost chapters provide a miniglossary of terms and conclude with a set of sug-gested exercises designed to provide experiential learning of the chapter’s con-cepts Throughout the text many important materials are presented in insetsthat we hope will prove helpful to the student

This book is designed for all who seek to improve their critical thinking,reasoned decision making, and advocacy skills In particular this text is designedfor the undergraduate course in argumentation and debate It is appropriate forany course that empowers students as active citizens participating in the societaldemands of democracy

Austin J Freeley recorded his thanks to his professors, mentors, and friends

in the first edition of this book The memory of their contributions is luminousacross the years

David L Steinberg would like to record his thanks to his debate mentors,David Thomas, Norma Cook, Jim Brooks, Warren Decker, and Brenda Logue,and his terrific assistant coaches for teaching him far more than he could teachthem His sincere thanks go to each of them, including Dan Leyton, Dale Reed,Ernie Quierido, David Cram-Helwich, Christopher Cooper, Nicole Colston,Gavin Williams, Matt Grindy, Nicole Richter, Kenny McCaffrey, and JohnnyPrieur Johnny’s work inspired and informed the updates on research and evi-dence organization in Chapter 5

He would also like to acknowledge his boys, Adam and John, who makehim very proud, and his supportive and caring wife, Victoria, with much love.Steinberg is grateful to Dr Freeley for giving him the opportunity to con-tribute to this project and, thus, to be a small part of his tremendous legacy.Thanks to all the wonderful people at Cengage who work hard to make thisbook a reality, including Kimberly Gengler, Monica Eckman, Jessica Rasile, andSmitha Pillai, who are exceptionally patient, professional, and understanding.Finally, thanks to the many students we have taught and judged over theyears, and those who will carry the tradition into the future They are our inspi-ration, helping us refine our thinking and develop more cogent statements onmany matters, and have provided many of the examples found throughout thistext

David L Steinbergxii P R E F A C E

de-Meanwhile, and perhaps equally difficult for the parties involved, a young ple deliberated over whether they should purchase a large home to accommodatetheir growing family or should sacrifice living space to reside in an area with betterpublic schools; elsewhere a college sophomore reconsidered his major and a seniorher choice of law school, graduate school, or a job Each of these situations calledfor decisions to be made Each decision maker worked hard to make well-reasoneddecisions.

cou-Decision making is a thoughtful process of choosing among a variety of optionsfor acting or thinking It requires that the decider make a choice Life demands de-cision making We make countless individual decisions every day To make some ofthose decisions, we work hard to employ care and consideration; others seem to justhappen Couples, families, groups of friends, and coworkers come together to makechoices, and decision-making bodies from committees to juries to the U.S Congressand the United Nations make decisions that impact us all Every profession requireseffective and ethical decision making, as do our school, community, and socialorganizations

We all make many decisions every day To refinance or sell one’s home, to buy

a high-performance SUV or an economical hybrid car, what major to select, what tohave for dinner, what candidate to vote for, paper or plastic, all present us withchoices Should the president deal with an international crisis through military inva-sion or diplomacy? How should the U.S Congress act to address illegal immigration?

1

✵

Is the defendant guilty as accused? The Daily Show or the ball game? And upon whatinformation should I rely to make my decision?

Certainly some of these decisions are more consequential than others Whichamendment to vote for, what television program to watch, what course to take,which phone plan to purchase, and which diet to pursue all present unique chal-lenges At our best, we seek out research and data to inform our decisions Yeteven the choice of which information to attend to requires decision making In

2006, TIME magazine named YOU its“Person of the Year.” Congratulations! Itsselection was based on the participation not of“great men” in the creation of his-tory, but rather on the contributions of a community of anonymous participants inthe evolution of information Through blogs, online networking, YouTube,Facebook, MySpace, Wikipedia, and many other“wikis,” knowledge and “truth”are created from the bottom up, bypassing the authoritarian control of newspeople,academics, and publishers We have access to infinite quantities of information, buthow do we sort through it and select the best information for our needs?

Miniglossary

Argumentation Reason giving in communicative situations by people whose purpose is the justification of acts, beliefs, attitudes, and values.

Coercion The threat or use of force.

Critical thinking The ability to analyze, criticize, and advocate ideas; to reason inductively and deductively; and to reach factual or judgmental conclusions based on sound inferences drawn from unambiguous statements of knowledge

audi-Persuasion Communication intended to influence the acts, beliefs, attitudes, and values of others.

Propaganda The use of persuasion by a group (often a closely knit tion) in a sustained, organized campaign using multiple media for the purpose

organiza-of influencing a mass audience.

Teleological ethics An ethical approach that is results oriented, and would cus on the good or bad consequences of an action or a decision.

fo-2 C H A P T E R 1 C R I T I C A L T H I N K I N G

The ability of every decision maker to make good, reasoned, and ethical sions relies heavily upon their ability to think critically Critical thinking enables one

deci-to break argumentation down deci-to its component parts in order deci-to evaluate its relativevalidity and strength Critical thinkers are better users of information, as well as bet-ter advocates

Colleges and universities expect their students to develop their critical ingskills and may require students to take designated courses to that end The im-portance and value of such study is widely recognized

think-The executive order establishing California’s requirement states:

Instruction in critical thinking is designed to achieve an understanding ofthe relationship of language to logic, which would lead to the ability toanalyze, criticize, and advocate ideas, to reason inductively and deductively, and

to reach factual or judgmental conclusions based on sound inferences drawn fromunambiguous statements of knowledge or belief The minimal competence to

be expected at the successful conclusion of instruction in critical ing should be the ability to distinguish fact from judgment, belief fromknowledge, and skills in elementary inductive and deductive processes,including an understanding of the formal and informal fallacies of lan-guage and thought

think-Competency in critical thinking is a prerequisite to participating effectively inhuman affairs, pursuing higher education, and succeeding in the highly competitiveworld of business and the professions Michael Scriven and Richard Paul for theNational Council for Excellence in Critical Thinking Instruction argued that the ef-fective critical thinker:

■ raises vital questions and problems, formulating them clearly and precisely;

■ gathers and assesses relevant information, using abstract ideas to interpret iteffectively; comes to well-reasoned conclusions and solutions, testing themagainst relevant criteria and standards;

■ thinks open-mindedly within alternative systems of thought, recognizingand assessing, as need be, their assumptions, implications, and practical con-sequences; and

■ communicates effectively with others in figuring out solutions to complexproblems

They also observed that critical thinking “entails effective communication andproblem solving abilities and a commitment to overcome our native egocentrism andsociocentrism.”1

Debate as a classroom exercise and as a mode of thinking and having uniquely promotes development of each of these skill sets Since classicaltimes, debate has been one of the best methods of learning and applying the

be-1 Michael Scriven and Richard Paul, “Defining Critical Thinking,” The Critical

C H A P T E R 1 C R I T I C A L T H I N K I N G 3

principles of critical thinking Contemporary research confirms the value of debate.One study concluded:

The impact of public communication training on the critical thinkingability of the participants is demonstrably positive This summary of

existing research reaffirms what many ex-debaters and others in sics, public speaking, mock trial, or argumentation would support: par-ticipation improves the thinking of those involved.2

foren-In particular, debate education improves the ability to think critically foren-In a sive review of the relevant research, Kent Colbert concluded,“The debate–criticalthinking literature provides presumptive proof favoring a positive debate–criticalthinking relationship.”3

comprehen-Much of the most significant communication of our lives is conducted in theform of debates These may take place in intrapersonal communications, in which

we weigh the pros and cons of an important decision in our own minds, or theymay take place in interpersonal communications, in which we listen to argumentsintended to influence our decision or participate in exchanges to influence the deci-sions of others

Our success or failure in life is largely determined by our ability to make wisedecisions for ourselves and to influence the decisions of others in ways that are ben-eficial to us Much of our significant, purposeful activity is concerned with makingdecisions Whether to join a campus organization, go to graduate school, accept ajob offer, buy a car or house, move to another city, invest in a certain stock, orvote for Garcia—these are just a few of the thousands of decisions we may have tomake Often, intelligent self-interest or a sense of responsibility will require us to winthe support of others We may want a scholarship or a particular job for ourselves, acustomer for our product, or a vote for our favored political candidate

2 Mike Allen, Sandra Berkowitz, Steve Hunt, and Allan Louden, “A Meta-Analysis of

the Impact of Forensics and Communication Education on Critical Thinking, ”

Communication Education, vol 48, no 1 (Jan 1999), p 28.

3 Kent Colbert, “Enhancing Critical Thinking Ability Through Academic Debate,”

Contemporary Argumentation and Debate: The Journal of the Cross Examination Debate

Critical Thinking

■ Life demands decision making

■ The ability to make reasoned decisions relies on critical thinking

■ Critical thinking enables analysis and evaluation of arguments

■ Critical thinking improves the use of information as well as advocacy

■ Teaching and learning critical thinking are important roles of education

■ Debate teaches critical thinking

4 C H A P T E R 1 C R I T I C A L T H I N K I N G

Some people make decisions by flipping a coin Others act on a whim or spond unconsciously to “hidden persuaders.” If the problem is trivial—such aswhether to go to a concert or a film—the particular method used is unimportant.For more crucial matters, however, mature adults require a reasoned means of deci-sion making Decisions should be justified by good reasons based on accurate evi-dence and valid reasoning.

re-Argumentationis reason giving in communicative situations by people whosepurpose is the justification of acts, beliefs, attitudes, and values—a definition based onlanguage adopted at the National Developmental Conference on Forensics.4 Britishphilosopher Stephen Toulmin makes a similar point when he asks,“What kind ofjustificatory activities must we engage in to convince our fellows that these beliefs arebased on ‘good reasons’?”5 Good reasons may be defined as “reasons which arepsychologically compelling for a given audience, which make further inquiry bothunnecessary and redundant—hence justifying a decision to affirm or reject aproposition.”6

Note that what constitutes good reasons for one audience may not be good sons for another When Taslina Nasrin wrote her novella Lajja (Shame), she became atarget of Muslim fundamentalists Their fury mounted when she was quoted—ormisquoted, she insists—as saying that the Koran should be “revised thoroughly” togive equal rights to women After all, Islam’s central article of faith is that the Koran

rea-is the literal word of God and rea-is thus above revrea-ision Nasrin’s challenge thus was seen

as blasphemy and prompted legal charges and Muslim fatwas, or religious decrees,calling for her death:

A crowd of 100,000 demonstrators gathered outside the Parliament

building in Dhaka to bay for her blood.… One particularly militantfaction threatened to loose thousands of poisonous snakes in the capitalunless she was executed.7

4 James H McBath, ed., Forensics as Communication (Skokie, Ill.: National Textbook,

1975), p 11.

5 Stephen Toulmin, Knowing and Acting (New York: Macmillan, 1976), p 138.

6 David Zarefsky, “Criteria for Evaluating Policy Argument,” in Perspectives on

Non-Policy Argument, ed Don Brownlee, sponsored by CEDA (privately published, 1980), p 10.

Good Reasons

■ Argumentation relies on good reasons

■ Good reasons are audience-based justifications for or against propositions

■ Good reasons differ by audience and are therefore, impacted by culture

■ Argumentation guides decision making

C H A P T E R 1 C R I T I C A L T H I N K I N G 5

This incident provides a dramatic example of cultural differences To Muslimfundamentalists in Bangladesh, even being suspected of calling for a revision of theKoran is a“good reason” for execution.

In most of the world and for most Muslims, “blasphemy” is not perceived as agood reason for death In America, freedom of the press, enshrined in the FirstAmendment to the Constitution, is perceived as a good reason for allowing an au-thor to express just about any opinion A debater needs to discover the justificatoryactivities that the decision renderers will accept and to develop the good reasons thatwill lead them to agree with the desired conclusion—or, of course, to reject the rea-sons advanced by an opponent

First we will consider debate as a method of critical thinking and reasoned sion making Then we will look at some other methods of decision making and seehow they relate to argumentation and debate

deci-I D E B A T E

Debate is the process of inquiry and advocacy, a way of arriving at a reasonedjudgment on a proposition Individuals may use debate to reach a decision intheir own minds; alternatively, individuals or groups may use it to bring othersaround to their way of thinking

Debate provides reasoned arguments for and against a proposition It requirestwo competitive sides engaging in a bipolar clash of support for and against thatproposition Because it requires that listeners and opposing advocates compara-tively evaluate competing choices, debate demands critical thinking Society, likeindividuals, must have an effective method of making decisions A free society isstructured in such a way that many of its decisions are arrived at through debate.For example, law courts and legislative bodies are designed to utilize debate astheir means of reaching decisions In fact, any organization that conducts its busi-ness according to parliamentary procedures has selected debate as its method.Debate pervades our society at decision-making levels

The ancient Greeks were among the first to recognize the importance ofdebate for both the individual and society Plato, whose dialogues were an earlyform of cross-examination debate, defined rhetoric as“a universal art of winningthe mind by arguments, which means not merely arguments in the courts ofjustice, and all other sorts of public councils, but in private conference as well.”8Aristotle listed four functions for rhetoric.9First, it prevents the triumph offraud and injustice Aristotle argued that truth and justice are by nature morepowerful than their opposites, so when poor decisions are made, speakers withright on their side have only themselves to blame Thus, it is not enough toknow the right decision ourselves; we also must be able to argue for that decisionbefore others

8 Plato, Phaedrus, 261 Translators Cooper and Jowett use slightly different terms in

in-terpreting this passage This statement draws from both translations.

6 C H A P T E R 1 C R I T I C A L T H I N K I N G

Second, rhetoric is a method of instruction for the public Aristotle pointedout that in some situations scientific arguments are useless; a speaker has to“ed-ucate” the audience by framing arguments with the help of common knowledgeand commonly accepted opinions Congressional debates on health care or taxpolicies are examples of this The general public, and for that matter the majority

of Congress, is unable to follow highly sophisticated technical arguments Skilledpartisans who have the expertise to understand the technical data must reformu-late their reasons in ways that both Congress and the public can grasp

Third, rhetoric makes us see both sides of a case By arguing both sides, webecome aware of all aspects of the case, and we will be prepared to refute ouropponents’ arguments

Fourth, rhetoric is a means of defense Often knowledge of argumentationand debate will be necessary to protect ourselves and our interests As Aristotlestated:“If it is a disgrace to a man when he cannot defend himself in a bodilyway, it would be odd not to think him disgraced when he cannot defend himselfwith reason Reason is more distinctive of man than is bodily effort.” Similarly,

in the nineteenth century, John Stuart Mill placed great emphasis on the value ofdebate:

If even the Newtonian philosophy were not permitted to be tioned, mankind could not feel as complete assurance of its truth asthey now [in 1858] do The beliefs which we have the most warrantfor, have no safeguard to rest on, but a standing invitation to thewhole world to prove them unfounded If the challenge is not ac-cepted, or is accepted and the attempt fails, we are far enough fromcertainty still; but we have done the best that the existing state ofhuman reason admits of; we have neglected nothing that could givethe truth the chance of reaching us; if the lists are kept open, wemay hope that if there be a better truth, it will be found when thehuman mind is capable of receiving it; and in the meantime we mayrely on having attained such approach to truth as is possible in ourday This is the amount of certainty attainable by a fallible being,and this is the sole way of attaining it.10

ques-Half a century ago the United States Senate designated as Senate Immortalsfive senators who had shaped the history of the country by their ability as deba-ters: Henry Clay, Daniel Webster, John C Calhoun, Robert M La Follette, Sr.,and Robert A Taft The triumvirate of Webster, Clay, and Calhoun especiallytowered over all the others and were the near-unanimous choices of senators andscholars alike As John F Kennedy, then a freshman senator, pointed out, “Forover thirty years they dominated the Congress and the country, providing lead-ership and articulation on all the great issues of the growing nation.”11

For theirpart La Follette and Taft were selected as the outstanding representatives of,

10 John Stuart Mill, On Liberty (New York: Burt, n.d.), pp 38 –39.

respectively, the progressive and the conservative movements in the twentiethcentury In honoring these“immortals,” the Senate recognized the importance

of debate in determining the course of American history

Our laws not only are made through the process of debate but are appliedthrough debate as well Today’s trial attorneys cite the famous dictum of attorneyJoseph N Welch as a guide for contemporary legal practices:

America believes in what lawyers call“the adversary system” in our

courtrooms, including our criminal courts It is our tradition that theDistrict Attorney prosecutes hard Against him is the lawyer hired by thedefendant, or supplied by the court if the defendant is indigent And thedefendant’s lawyer defends hard We believe that truth is apt to emergefrom this crucible It usually does.12

We need debate not only in the legislature and the courtroom but in everyother area of society as well Most of our rights are directly or indirectly depen-dent on debate As the influential journalist Walter Lippmann pointed out, one

of our most cherished rights—freedom of speech—can be maintained only bycreating and encouraging debate:

Yet when genuine debate is lacking, freedom of speech does not work

as it is meant to work It has lost the principle which regulates and tifies it—that is to say, dialectic conducted according to logic and therules of evidence If there is no effective debate, the unrestricted right tospeak will unloose so many propagandists, procurers, and panderers

jus-upon the public that sooner or later in self-defense the people will turn

to the censors to protect them It will be curtailed for all manner ofreasons and pretexts, and serve all kinds of good, foolish, or sinister ends.For in the absence of debate unrestricted utterance leads to the

degradation of opinion By a kind of Gresham’s law the more rational isovercome by the less rational, and the opinions that will prevail will bethose which are held most ardently by those with the most passionatewill For that reason the freedom to speak can never be maintained byobjecting to interference with the liberty of the press, of printing, ofbroadcasting, of the screen It can be maintained only by promotingdebate.13

We need debate both to maintain freedom of speech and to provide a odology for investigation of and judgment about contemporary problems AsChaim Perelman, the Belgian philosopher-rhetorician whose works in rhetoricand argumentation are influential in argumentation and debate, pointed out:

meth-12 Joseph N Welch, “Should a Lawyer Defend a Guilty Man?” This Week magazine,

Dec 6, 1959, p 11 Copyright 1959 by the United Newspapers Magazine Corporation.

13 Walter Lippmann, Essays in the Public Philosophy (Boston: Little, Brown, 1955),

pp 129 –130.

8 C H A P T E R 1 C R I T I C A L T H I N K I N G

If we assume it to be possible without recourse to violence to reachagreement on all the problems implied in the employment of the idea ofjustice we are granting the possibility of formulating an ideal of man andsociety, valid for all beings endowed with reason and accepted by what

we have called elsewhere the universal audience.14

I think that the only discursive methods available to us stem from

techniques that are not demonstrative—that is, conclusive and rational inthe narrow sense of the term—but from argumentative techniques

which are not conclusive but which may tend to demonstrate the sonable character of the conceptions put forward It is this recourse to therational and reasonable for the realization of the ideal of universal com-munion that characterizes the age-long endeavor of all philosophies intheir aspiration for a city of man in which violence may progressivelygive way to wisdom.15

rea-Here we have touched on the long-standing concern of philosophers and litical leaders with debate as an instrument for dealing with society’s problems Wecan now understand why debate is pervasive Individuals benefit from knowing theprinciples of argumentation and debate and from being able to apply these princi-ples in making decisions and influencing the decisions of others Society benefits ifdebate is encouraged, because free and open debate protects the rights of indivi-duals and offers the larger society a way of reaching optimal decisions

po-I po-I po-I N D po-I V po-I D U A L D E C po-I S po-I O N S

Whenever an individual controls the dimensions of a problem, he or she cansolve the problem through a personal decision For example, if the problem iswhether to go to the basketball game tonight, if tickets are not too expensiveand if transportation is available, the decision can be made individually But if afriend’s car is needed to get to the game, then that person’s decision to furnishthe transportation must be obtained

Complex problems, too, are subject to individual decision making.American business offers many examples of small companies that grew into majorcorporations while still under the individual control of the founder Some com-puter companies that began in the 1970s as one-person operations burgeonedinto multimillion-dollar corporations with the original inventor still making allthe major decisions And some of the multibillion-dollar leveraged buyouts ofthe 1980s were put together by daring—some would say greedy—financierswho made the day-to-day and even hour-to-hour decisions individually

14 Chaim Perelman and L Olbrechts-Tyteca, Traite de l ’argumentation, La nouvelle

rhetori-que (Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1958), sec 7.

15 Chaim Perelman, The Idea of Justice and the Problem of Argument, trans John Petrie

(New York: Humanities Press, 1963), pp 86 –87.

I I I N D I V I D U A L D E C I S I O N S 9

When President George H W Bush launched Operation Desert Storm,when President Bill Clinton sent troops into Somalia and Haiti and authorizedOperation Desert Fox, and when President George W Bush authorizedOperation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan and Operation Iraqi Freedom inIraq, they each used different methods of decision making, but in each case theultimate decision was an individual one In fact, many government decisions can

be made only by the president As Walter Lippmann pointed out, debate is theonly satisfactory way the great issues can be decided:

A president, whoever he is, has to find a way of understanding the noveland changing issues which he must, under the Constitution, decide.Broadly speaking… the president has two ways of making up his mind.The one is to turn to his subordinates—to his chiefs of staff and his

cabinet officers and undersecretaries and the like—and to direct them toargue out the issues and to bring him an agreed decision.…

The other way is to sit like a judge at a hearing where the issues to

be decided are debated After he has heard the debate, after he has amined the evidence, after he has heard the debaters cross-examine oneanother, after he has questioned them himself, he makes his decision.…

ex-It is a much harder method in that it subjects the president to thestress of feeling the full impact of conflicting views, and then to the

strain of making his decision, fully aware of how momentous it is Butthere is no other satisfactory way by which momentous and complexissues can be decided.16

John F Kennedy used Cabinet sessions and National Security Council ings to provide debate to illuminate diverse points of view, expose errors, andchallenge assumptions before he reached decisions.17 As he gained experience

meet-in office, he placed greater emphasis on debate One historian pomeet-ints out:“Onereason for the difference between the Bay of Pigs and the missile crisis was that[the Bay of Pigs] fiasco instructed Kennedy in the importance of uninhibited de-bate in advance of major decision.”18

All presidents, to varying degrees, age debate among their advisors

encour-We may never be called on to render the final decision on great issues ofnational policy, but we are constantly concerned with decisions important toourselves for which debate can be applied in similar ways That is, this debatemay take place in our minds as we weigh the pros and cons of the problem, or

we may arrange for others to debate the problem for us Because we all are creasingly involved in the decisions of the campus, community, and society in

in-16 Walter Lippmann, “How to Make Decisions,” New York Herald Tribune, Mar 3, 1960.

17 See Theodore C Sorensen, Decision-Making in the White House (New York: Columbia

University Press, 1963), p 59.

18 Arthur M Schlesinger, Jr., Imperial Presidency (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1973),

10 C H A P T E R 1 C R I T I C A L T H I N K I N G

general, it is in our intelligent self-interest to reach these decisions through soned debate.

rea-When we make an individual decision, we can put it into effect if we trol the necessary conditions If we need the consent or cooperation of others tocarry out our decision, we have to find a way of obtaining the appropriate re-sponse from them by debate—or by group discussion, persuasion, propaganda,coercion, or a combination of methods

con-I con-I con-I G R O U P D con-I S C U S S con-I O N

Decisions may be reached by group discussion when the members of the group(1) agree that a problem exists, (2) have compatible standards or values, (3) havecompatible purposes, (4) are willing to accept the consensus of the group, and (5)are relatively few in number When these conditions are met and when all rele-vant evidence and arguments are carefully weighed, group discussion is a rea-soned means of decision making

In February 1999, after the bitter and divisive House impeachment ings and subsequent Senate trial, President Bill Clinton was acquitted on twoarticles of impeachment The vote on impeachment in the House occurred onstraight party lines Although there were some Republican defectors in theSenate vote, partisan tensions were heightened by the trial, as were tensions be-tween the legislative and executive branches of the government Despite theclash of personalities and the difficulties inherent in such partisan and interbranchdifferences, House and Senate leaders and President Clinton pledged to worktogether for the good of the country Indeed a strength of American politics isthat skilled leaders in both parties traditionally have been able to override politi-cal differences and enact at least some important legislation on which both partiescould agree

proceed-When a group has more than 15 or 20 members, productive discussion comes difficult if not impossible A group of senators can discuss a problem incommittee, but not on the floor of the Senate The Senate is too large for dis-cussion; there debate must be used Of course, informal debate may take place

be-Standard Agenda for Group Decision Making

■ Define and analyze the problem

■ Research the problem

■ Establish criteria

■ Generate solutions

■ Select best solution

■ Implement and monitor solution

I I I G R O U P D I S C U S S I O N 11

within the discussion process, and discussion may be a precursor of debate.19Ifthe differences cannot be solved by discussion, debate is the logical alternative.

Or if the group, such as a Senate subcommittee, reaches a decision by discussion,

it may be necessary to debate it on the floor to carry the Senate as a whole.Group decision making is best guided by a systematic procedure for problemsolving The first step requires that group members define and analyze the prob-lem they are to address They should determine the nature of the problem and itsimpacts, distinguishing causes from symptoms and measuring the relative impor-tance of each An important outcome of this step is an agreed upon statement ofthe problem Second, they should research the problem, gathering and evaluat-ing available information relevant to the problem as defined The third step isperhaps the most important, and most often overlooked: establishing and priori-tizing the criteria that will distinguish a successful solution These criteria may begiven numerical value Fourth, the group members should generate a list of pos-sible solutions through a process of brainstorming; and fifth, they should applythe criteria to the established list to select the best solution Finally, the sixthstep is to implement and monitor the solution, leading to reevaluation and inmany situations, a return to step one

Like an individual, a group may act on its decision only insofar as it has thepower to do so If it needs the consent or cooperation of others to carry out aparticular plan, the group must use other means to secure their cooperation

I V P E R S U A S I O N

Purposeful persuasion is defined as communication intended to influence the acts, liefs, attitudes, and values of others Clearly, one method of persuasion is debate.Persuasion is not, however, limited to seeking carefully reasoned judgments, as

be-is debate, nor does persuasion require logical arguments both for and against agiven proposition The “Marlboro Man” advertising campaign, for example,must have been judged as highly effective persuasion by the company that ran

it for many years, but it did not seek the kind of carefully thought-out judgmentthat one associates with debate

Frequently the persuader hopes to dominate the stage and avoid situations inwhich another side of the argument might be presented Consider the cigarettecompanies, which accepted the ban on TV advertising without the prolongedcourt battle that many expected The reason for this may have been that the

TV stations were required to give equal time to public service announcementsabout the hazards of smoking The tobacco companies apparently found it pref-erable to direct their advertising dollars to media that did not have an equal-timerequirement President Hugo Chavez of Venezuela recently made internationalheadlines and prompted national protests when he failed to renew the license of

19 See James H McBurney, James M O ’Neill, and Glen E Mills, Argumentation and

12 C H A P T E R 1 C R I T I C A L T H I N K I N G

Radio Caracas Television (RCTV), a popular television network, likely because

it had been critical of him, thus effectively eliminating local opposition to hisgovernment.20

Persuaders select the type of persuasive appeals they believe to be bestadapted to their audience These may include such diverse communications as apicket line, a silent prayer vigil, a clever negative political commercial on TV, orthe stately formality of a debate before the Supreme Court (Audience analysis isconsidered in Chapter 15.)

Persuaders reach a decision on the problem before they begin the process ofpersuasion They continue the process of persuasion until they solve the problem

by persuading others to accept their decision or until they are convinced thatfurther efforts are pointless In trying to influence others, they may find it neces-sary or advantageous (1) to join with other persuaders and become propagandists

or (2) to face the opposition and become debaters Thus they must be familiarwith the principles of argumentation and debate This knowledge is also a de-fense against the persuasion of others If we subject their appeals to critical anal-ysis, we increase our likelihood of making reasoned decisions And if persuadersadvocate a decision we believe to be unsound, we may find it necessary to be-come debaters and advocate the conclusion we favor

Unintended persuasion occurs when we receive a message not intended for

us—for example, we overhear a private conversation in an elevator and are enced by it—or when we unknowingly communicate to and influence others in

influ-an unintended way

V P R O P A G A N D A

Propagandais the use of persuasion by a group (often a closely knit tion) in a sustained, organized campaign using multiple media for the purpose ofinfluencing a mass audience Historically propaganda has been associated withreligious, social, or political movements Today the term has been expanded toinclude commercial advertising campaigns The term first came into commonuse in 1622 when Pope Gregory XV established the Sacred Congregation forPropagating the Faith What, in the view of the faithful, could be more com-mendable than spreading the faith? In 1933, when Hitler appointed Dr JosephGoebbels as his minister of propaganda, the word took on a different connota-tion From the standpoint of non-Nazis, what could be more evil than spreadingNazism? Even today propaganda often is perceived as a pejorative term Imagine

organiza-an official of a women’s group saying:

We’ve been conducting an extensive educational campaign to informthe public of the necessity of making abortion on demand available to

20 Christopher Toothaker, “Chavez Warns Foreign Critics,” The Miami Herald, July 23,

V P R O P A G A N D A 13

women on welfare It was going very well until the churches unleashed

a bunch of propagandists to work against us

Thus, in everyday language, we educate or give information, while they gandize Another example is President Chavez of Venezuela He spoke to theUnited Nations in 2007, referring to President George Bush as “the devil.”Later Chavez threatened to deport international visitors from Venezuela whowere critical of him and his government

propa-Of course, the end does not justify the means Propaganda, like persuasion,may be viewed as good or bad only to the degree that it is based on true evi-dence and valid reasoning Examples of questionable methods may be found inthe Allied propaganda in the United States prior to America’s entry into WorldWar I At that time extensive use was made of distorted or false atrocity stories.Other examples may be found in communist propaganda from the former SovietUnion, which made extensive use of the technique of the “big lie.” DuringMiddle East crises both Israel and the Arab countries have conducted propagandacampaigns in the United States designed to sway public opinion in their favor.Each side obviously thinks of theirs as good and the other’s as bad

Examples of propaganda used for good purposes include the various paigns designed to get the public to drive safely, to recognize the symptoms ofcancer, and to practice safe sex; these examples are usually based on sound evi-dence and reasonable inference Other examples include campaigns by churches

cam-to persuade people cam-to act in accordance with the Ten Commandments and bycharitable groups to raise funds for the homeless or for people with AIDS.Propagandists reach a decision on a problem before they begin the process ofpropaganda They continue their campaign until they solve the problem by per-suading others to accept their decision or are convinced that further efforts arepointless In their efforts to influence others, propagandists may find it necessary

or advantageous to confront their opponents and become debaters In such casesthey need knowledge of argumentation and debate If their evidence is accurate,their reasoning valid, and their appeals chosen carefully, the campaign will havethe greatest opportunity for success If any of the conditions is lacking, however,the chances for success are diminished

Similarly, knowledge of argumentation and debate is an important defenseagainst the propaganda campaigns we constantly confront Unless we subjectpropaganda to critical analysis, we will be unable to distinguish the good fromthe bad We will lose our ability to make reasonable decisions and may fallprey to“hidden persuaders.”

V I C O E R C I O N

Coercionis defined as the threat or use of force Parents employ coercion whenthey take a box of matches from a baby; society employs coercion when it con-fines criminals to prison; the nation employs coercion when it goes to war Ademocratic society places many restrictions on the exercise of coercion Parents

14 C H A P T E R 1 C R I T I C A L T H I N K I N G

may not physically or mentally abuse their children; criminals may be sentenced

to prison only after they have an opportunity to defend themselves in court; theUnited States may declare war only after the advocates of war win consent inCongress President Bush found it prudent to obtain congressional approvalfor the use of force in Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan andOperation Iraqi Freedom In a democratic society coercion as a method of solv-ing problems—by private individuals or the state—is generally prohibited except

in special cases in which it has been found necessary after debate A totalitariansociety, by contrast, is characterized by sharply limited debate and by almost om-nipresent coercion.21

Coercion may be employed to influence a decision The coercive powers ofthe state represent a strong logical appeal against a decision to commit a crime,and for some individuals it may be the only effective appeal In arguing in favor

of policy propositions, affirmative debaters often provide for coercion in the plan

of action they advocate They may include an “enforcement plank” providingfor fines, imprisonment, or some other penalty for those who do not obey orwho try to circumvent the requirements of the plan Alternatively they may ad-vocate enforcement of the plan through existing legal structures

A decision to employ coercion is likely to be socially acceptable and tive when that decision is made after full and fair debate Baron Karl vonClausewitz’s classic definition of war as the “continuation of diplomacy by othermeans” suggests that war—the ultimate form of coercion—is a method of prob-lem solving to be selected after a careful debate on the possible risks and benefits

effec-V I I C O M B I N A T I O N O F M E T H O D S

It is often necessary to use a combination of methods in making a decision Thesocial context will determine the most suitable methods in a particular case.The solution to a problem requiring the consent or cooperation of othersmay extend over a considerable period of time and may warrant use of all the

Methods of Decision Making

methods of decision making For example, through individual decision a personmight determine that nonrefundable beverage containers cause unacceptable lit-ter and should be prohibited.

Because that person is powerless to implement such a decision alone, he orshe must use persuasion to influence friends to join in the effort They may usethe process of group discussion to decide how to proceed toward their objective.They might find it necessary to organize a group for raising funds and to worktogether for a period of months or years conducting a propaganda campaign di-rected toward the voters of the state During this campaign many individualsmight play a role in persuading or debating Eventually a bill might be introducedinto the state legislature

After discussion in committee hearings and a number of debates on the floor ofthe legislature, a final debate determines the disposition of the bill If the bill isenacted into law, coercion will be provided to ensure compliance The validity

of the law probably will be tested by debates in the courts to determine its tutionality When the law is violated, coercion can be applied only as the result ofdebates in the courts

consti-V I I I E T H I C A L D E C I S I O N M A K I N G

In addition to making well-reasoned decisions, it is important to make decisionsthat are ethical The consequences of a failure to consider ethical constructs whenmaking decisions range from business failures (ENRON) to incarceration(Scooter Libbey), to the destruction of personal relationships Ethics are a set

of constructs that guide our decision making by providing standards of behaviortelling us how we ought to act While ethics may be based on or reflected inlaws, they are not the same as laws Similarly, we learn value systems and thusstandards for ethical behavior from our communities and cultures, but that a be-havior is a cultural standard or norm does not make it ethical

According to Thomas White, there are two broad philosophical approaches

to understanding ethical choices: teleological and deontological The logical approach is results oriented, and would focus on the good or bad conse-quences of an action or a decision The deontological ethic is process or act ori-ented, and is based on the notion that actions have moral value.22Scholars at theMarkkula Center for Applied Ethics at Santa Clara University have suggestedthat in making ethical decisions one ought to follow a framework through thefollowing steps:

teleo-■ Recognize an ethical issue

■ Get the facts

22 Thomas White, “Philosophical Ethics,”

http://www.ethicsandbusiness.org/pdf/strat-egy.pdf Adapted from Thomas White, “Ethics,” in Business Ethics: A Philosophical Reader

16 C H A P T E R 1 C R I T I C A L T H I N K I N G

■ Evaluate alternative actions from various ethical perspectives

■ Make a decision and test it

■ Act, then reflect on the decision later23

Debate offers the ideal tool for examining the ethical implications of anydecision, and critical thinking should also be ethical thinking

How do we reach a decision on any matters of importance? We are underconstant pressure to make unreasoned decisions, and we often make decisionscarelessly But which method is most likely to lead to wise decisions? To makewise judgments, we should rely on critical thinking In many situations argumen-tation’s emphasis on reasoned considerations and debate’s confrontation of op-posing sides give us our best, and perhaps only, opportunity to reach reasonedconclusions In any case it is in the public interest to promote debate, and it is

in our own intelligent self-interest to know the principles of argumentation and

to be able to apply critical thinking in debate

E X E R C I S E S

1 Individual decisions For one week, keep a journal of decisions you make.Separate them into trivial, somewhat important and very important deci-sions How did you make your decisions? Upon what did you base yourdecisions? Can you identify a pattern based on level of importance?

2 SPAR debates (SPontaneous ARgumentation) This is a classic introductorydebate exercise

Format

Affirmative (Pro side) opening speech

Cross-Examination by Negative (Con side)

Negative opening speech

Cross-Examination by Affirmative

Affirmative closing speech

Negative closing speech

Debaters step to the front of the room in pairs One debater calls a coinflip The winner may either choose the topic (from a list posted on theboard) or the side they will defend After two minutes of preparation timethe debate begins Each debater has a total one minute additional prepa-ration time to be used during the debate There should always be an on-deck pair of debaters preparing their arguments

E X E R C I S E S 1 7

23 Manuel Velasquez, Dennis Moberg, Michael J Meyer, Thomas Shanks, Margaret R.

McLean, David DeCosse, Claire André, and Kirk O Hanson, “A Framework for

Thinking Ethically, ” Markkula Center for Applied Ethics, http://www.scu.edu/ethics/

practicing/decision/framework.html (downloaded July 20, 2007) This article appeared

Possible topics

Honesty is always the best policy

Slavery still exists today

True love really does exist

Violence is a necessary means to settle disputes

Police are necessary for safety

People should not eat meat

The drinking age should be lowered to 18

Smoking should be banned in all public places

There is no such thing as Homeland Security

Marijuana should be legalized

3 Group discussion Students should form groups of five to seven and using thestandard agenda for group problem solving, complete the following exercise

As the most outstanding and well-respected students in your Ethics inCommunication course, your professor has asked you to formulate a recom-mendation to her concerning a problem in the class

It has come to the attention of Professor Young that one of the students

in the class plagiarized on an assigned paper Sue M Moral turned in a per, more than half of which was actually written by her good friend BenThere Ben had written the original paper for the same course two yearsago, and suggested to Sue that she use his paper for her assignment SinceProfessor Old had taught the course (since retired) when Ben took thecourse, Professor Young would be unlikely to recognize the work Bendid not know that Professor Old had been so impressed with his paperthat he had given it to Professor Young as a sample paper for her to keep

pa-on file Professor Young also found out that Sue’s roommate, Bye Stander,also a student in Ethics in Communication, knew about Sue’s plagiarism,but did not inform Professor Young In fact, Bye had agreed to photocopyBen’s paper for Sue, since she was making a trip to Kinko’s for other rea-sons The assignment counts 10 percent of the course grade Sue has a “B”average on all other work in the class Bye has an “A” average Ben is still amajor in the department His“A” on the paper barely enabled him an “A”

in Ethics in Communication He hopes to graduate next semester with a

“C” average

What, if any, action do you recommend Professor Young take?

4 Persuasion Prepare a two-minute impromptu speech in support of your claimthat“People should do ” or “People should NOT do ”Offer three reasons in support of your claim

5 Ethics Identify an ethical dilemma for decision making Follow the work suggested in the chapter to make a decision resolving the dilemma.Identify your ethical approach as teleological or deontological An excellentsource of hypothetical case studies is available at http://www.uvsc.edu/ethics/casestudies/

frame-18 C H A P T E R 1 C R I T I C A L T H I N K I N G

Applied and Academic Debate

On his first day of class in argumentation and debate, his professor asked Charleswhy he had chosen the course Charles responded that“I always argue with myparents and friends In fact, I often call my favorite radio sports-talk show to arguewith the host My mother is an attorney, and she sometimes practices her openingsand summations for me And I practically live online, defending myself on theListserv I belong to and networking with my friends on the net So I know all aboutargumentation and debate, and I’m good at it!” Charles correctly recognized that theprinciples of debate are important across many different fields of practical arguing.But he was not yet aware of the richness and diversity of debate practice

Debate can be classified into two broad categories: applied and educational.Applied debate is conducted on propositions, questions, and topics in which theadvocates have a special interest, and the debate is presented before a judge or anaudience with the power to render a binding decision on the proposition or respond

to the question or topic in a real way Academic debate is conducted on tions in which the advocates have an academic interest, and the debate typically ispresented before a teacher, judge or audience without direct power to render a de-cision on the proposition Of course the audience in an academic debate does formopinions about the subject matter of the debate, and that personal transformationmay ultimately lead to meaningful action However, the direct impact of the audi-ence decision in an academic debate is personal, and the decision made by the judge

proposi-is limited to identification of the winner of the debate In fact, in academic debatethe judge may be advised to disregard the merits of the proposition and to render herwin/loss decision only on the merits of the support as presented in the debate itself.The most important identifying characteristic of an academic debate is that the pur-pose of the debate is to provide educational opportunities for the participants

19

✵

I A P P L I E D D E B A T E

Applied debate may be classified as special debate, judicial debate, parliamentarydebate, or nonformal debate After discussing each of these classifications of de-bate briefly, we will consider academic debate in more detail

A Special Debate

Special debate is conducted under special rules drafted for a specific occasion,such as political campaign debates Examples include the Lincoln–Douglas de-bates of 1858, the Kennedy–Nixon debates of 1960, the Bush–Clinton–Perot

Miniglossary

Academic debate Debate conducted under the direction of an educational stitution for the purpose of providing educational opportunities for its students Applied debate Debate presented before a judge or audience with the power

in-to render a binding decision on the proposition.

CEDA Cross Examination Debate Association.

Ethical Being in accordance with the accepted principles of right and wrong that govern the conduct of a profession or community.

Forensics An educational activity primarily concerned with using an tative perspective in examining problems and communicating with people Judicial debate Debate conducted in the courts or before quasi-judicial bodies Mock trial debate A form of academic debate that emulates trial court

argumen-debating.

Moot court debate An academic form of judicial debate used by law schools to prepare students for courtroom debate.

NDT National Debate Tournament.

Nonformal debate Debate that occurs in various contexts without formal or prearranged procedural rules.

Parliamentary debate Debate conducted under the rules of parliamentary cedure (see Chapter 19) Also a form of competitive academic debate practiced under the auspices of organizations like the National Parliamentary Debate Association and the American Parliamentary Debate Association.

pro-Special debate Debate conducted under special rules drafted for a specific casion —for example, presidential debates.

oc-20 C H A P T E R 2 A P P L I E D A N D A C A D E M I C D E B A T E

debates of 1992, the Bush–Gore debates of 2000, Bush–Kerry in 2004, and theseries of debates involving the candidates for the Democratic and RepublicanPartys’ nominations during the 2007–2008 campaigns These were formal de-bates, yet they were neither judicial nor parliamentary; they were conducted un-der special rules agreed on by the debaters In an article published in the SeattleTimes, Paul Farhi and Mike Allen described the process that led to the specialrules for the Bush–Kerry debates in 2004:

After weeks of private and reportedly heated negotiations, tives of President Bush and Sen John Kerry agreed earlier this week tothree televised debates, with another for Vice President Cheney andSen John Edwards The first presidential debate takes place Thursday atthe University of Miami

representa-And now, with the release of a 32-page‘memorandum of standing,’ we understand why it took so long The document is

under-crammed with sections and subsections spelling out almost every inable rule of engagement and detail about how the debates will look

imag-Or will be prohibited from looking

In its precision and seeming fussiness, in its attempt at control, itoften reads like an agreement between a concert promoter and a par-ticularly demanding pop diva.…

While the most important part of such agreements certainly has to do withthe details governing the format and nature of questions or topics addressed, alldetails are considered The authors continued,

The agreement, for example, spells out the exact dimensions of thelectern to be used (50 inches high on the side facing the audience, 48inches on the side facing the candidates) in the first and third debates,and how far apart those lecterns will be (10 feet, as measured from‘theleft-right center’ of one ‘to the left-right center of the other’) It spe-cifies the type of stools (identical, of equal height, with backs and

footrests) that Bush and Kerry will sit on for the second, town-hall-styledebate, as well as the arrangement (in a horseshoe) and nature of theaudience It specifies that it will consist of an equal number of ‘likelyvoters who are“soft” Bush supporters or “soft” Kerry supporters,’ softbeing a polling term for people who might be willing to change theirminds There are details about the type of warning lights to be used if acandidate runs over his allotted time, about the moderators’ conduct,about the coin flip that will be used to determine who goes first (thetype of coin or number of flips isn’t specified) There’s even a codicilthat might be called‘the perspiration clause,’ since it alludes to everycandidate’s worst fear: an outbreak of Nixon-style flop sweat The

clause commits the nonpartisan producer, the Commission on

Presidential Debates, to use its ‘best efforts to maintain an appropriatetemperature according to industry standards for the entire debate,’

I A P P L I E D D E B A T E 21

although it’s unclear what ‘industry standard’ temperature is, or evenwhat industry the agreement is referring to.1

Debates between presidential candidates are now well established in theAmerican political scene, and similar debates are often held between candidates

in elections at all levels, from student government president to mayor to vicepresident While the formats of these debates may leave much to be desired,they at least bring the candidates together and give voters a better opportunity

to compare the candidates than they would otherwise have Although this type

of debate is most often associated with political figures and campaign issues, itmay be used by anyone on any proposition or set of questions or topics.Opposing advocates merely have to agree to come together under the provisions

of a special set of rules drafted for the occasion

Judicial debate may be observed in any court from the Supreme Court ofthe United States to a local court In its academic form, judicial debate is known

as moot court debate and is used by law schools to prepare students for room debate The impeachment trial of President Clinton during the winter of

court-1999 is a rare example of judicial debate held before the United States Congressunder special rules establishing the Senate as a jury and presided over by the chiefjustice of the Supreme Court

The principles of argumentation and debate apply to judicial debate Becausejudicial debate is also concerned with sometimes highly technical rules of proce-dure—which may vary from federal to state courts, from one state to another,and from one type of court to another within a given state—the specific meth-ods of judicial debate are not considered here Mock trial debate, which emu-lates the form of trial court debating but without the emphasis on rules of pro-cedure and admissibility, is considered in Chapter 18 Of course, moot court andmock trial debates are academic and not applied, as their judges do not renderbinding decisions on formal cases

C Parliamentary Debate

Parliamentary debateis conducted under the rules of parliamentary procedure.Its purpose is the passage, amendment, or defeat of motions and resolutions that

1 Paul Farhi and Mike Allen, “Rules of Engagement: Presidential Debate Details” The

Seattle Times, Sept 28, 2004; page updated 02:22 P M , http://seattletimes.nwsource

22 C H A P T E R 2 A P P L I E D A N D A C A D E M I C D E B A T E

come before a parliamentary assembly The practice of parliamentary debate may

be observed in the Senate or House of Representatives, state legislatures, citycouncils, and town governing bodies, and at the business meetings of variousorganizations, such as the national convention of a major political party or ameeting of a local fraternity chapter C-SPAN allows television viewers access

to parliamentary debate in Congress, and local public television stations and radiostations may offer city or county government and school board meetings forpublic consumption

In its educational or academic form parliamentary debate may be known as amodel congress, a model state legislature, a model United Nations assembly, or amock political convention Intercollegiate debaters also compete in parliamentarydebate tournaments, adapting the rules of procedure to the tournament context,with two-person teams competing Of course, these simulations are not applieddebate

The principles of argumentation and debate apply to parliamentary debate.The special provisions of parliamentary procedure that also apply to this type ofdebate are discussed in Chapter 19

D Nonformal Debate

Nonformal debateis conducted without the formal rules found in special, dicial, parliamentary, and academic debate This is the type of debate to whichnewspapers and television commentators typically are referring when they speak

ju-of the“abortion debate,” the “immigration debate,” and other controversies thatarouse public interest The term nonformal has no reference to the formality orinformality of the occasion on which the debate takes place A president’s state-of-the-union address—a highly formal speech—may be a part of a nonformaldebate A rap session in a college dormitory—a very informal situation—mayalso be part of a nonformal debate

Examples of nonformal debate can be found in national political campaigns,

in community hearings or town hall meetings about water pollution or newschool bond issues, in business meetings about corporate policy, in college con-ferences on matters of educational policy or the allocation of funds, and in elec-tion campaigns for student body officers Nonformal debates occur in scientificand research realms, as in the debate over the ethics and implications of cloning.Talk radio and television provide forums for nonformal debate over issues rang-ing from lifestyle choice to sports, and many individuals participate in nonformaldebate through Internet lists, networks, and chatrooms, including YouTube,Facebook, MySpace, and countless blogs and communities For an example of

a Listserv facilitating nonformal debate involving intercollegiate debaters and sues, visit http://www.ndtceda.com/ For nonformal debate about political cam-paign debates, visit http://www.debatescoop.org/

is-At the family level nonformal debates may revolve around issues includingthe choice of a college or whether grown children should move back into thefamily home

I A P P L I E D D E B A T E 23

I I A C A D E M I C D E B A T E

As noted previously, academic debate is conducted under the direction of an ucational institution to provide educational opportunities for students Manyschools and colleges conduct programs of academic debate The issue here isnot whether we will participate in debate—our participation is inevitable, be-cause, sooner or later, most educated people will take part in some form of de-bate The issue is whether our participation will be effective Academic debatecan teach us to become effective in this essential art

ed-A The Background of Academic Debate

A history of academic debate would fill many volumes, but a few salient factsshould be mentioned here The origins of debate are lost in the remote reaches

of history, but we know that people were debating at least 4,000 years ago Forexample, Egyptian princes debated agricultural policy at the pharaoh’s court(2080 B.C.) Chinese scholars conducted important philosophical debates duringthe Chou Dynasty (1122–255 B.C.) Homer’s epic poems the Iliad and theOdyssey (900 B.C.) contain speeches—which the Roman rhetorician Quintiliancited as examples of the arts of legal pleading and deliberation—that may be re-garded as embryonic debates Aristotle’s Rhetoric (384–322 B.C.) laid the founda-tion of argumentation and debate and is influential even today

Although debate exists all over the world, it thrives in the context of cratic Western civilization Former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger noted thatAmerican foreign policy that encourages the spread of democracy faces dauntingproblems in some cultures, such as Confucianism:

demo-Unlike democratic theory, which views truth as emerging from the

clash of ideas, Confucianism maintains that truth is objective and canonly be discerned by assiduous study and education of which only a rarefew are thought to be capable Its quest for truth does not treat con-flicting ideas as having equal merit, the way democratic theory does.Since there is only one truth, that which is not true can have no stand-ing or be enhanced through competition Confucianism is essentiallyhierarchical and elitist, emphasizing loyalty to family, institutions, andauthority None of the societies it has influenced has yet produced afunctioning pluralistic system (with Taiwan in the 1990s coming theclosest).2

Of course, Confucianism is not the only culture to put stringent limits ondebate As we saw earlier, Muslim fundamentalists in Bangladesh favor executinganyone who debates the Koran

Academic debate began at least 2,400 years ago when the scholar Protagoras

of Abdera (481–411 B.C.), known as the father of debate, conducted debates

24 C H A P T E R 2 A P P L I E D A N D A C A D E M I C D E B A T E

among his students in Athens Corax and Tisias founded one of the earliestschools of rhetoric, specializing in teaching debate so that students could pleadtheir own cases in the law courts of ancient Sicily.

Debate flourished in the academies of the ancient world and in the medievaluniversities, where rhetoric was installed as one of the seven liberal arts Whatmay have been the first intercollegiate debate in the English-speaking worldtook place in the early 1400s at Cambridge University between students fromOxford and Cambridge The debating programs at British universities, whichutilize a parliamentary format, have long been a training ground for future mem-bers of Parliament

Debating has always been an important part of the American educationalscene as well Debating flourished in the colonial colleges; disputations were arequired part of the curriculum, and debates were often a featured part of com-mencement ceremonies Almost all the leaders of the American Revolution andthe early national period were able debaters who had studied argumentation inthe colonial colleges or in the community debating“societies,” “lyceums,” and

“bees” that flourished throughout the country: “From the Spy Club at Harvard

in 1722 to the Young Ladies Association, the first women’s debating society, atOberlin in 1835, the one common thread in literary societies was student interest

in debating important issues.”3

Intercollegiate debating began in the late 1800s, and interscholastic debatingsoon followed In the early 1900s, however, intercollegiate debates were rela-tively rare Normally a college would schedule only a few intercollegiate debatesduring an academic year, and large audiences would assemble to watch the fewstudents who were privileged to participate in these unusual events

Recognition of the value and importance of academic debate increasedsteadily during the twentieth century Tournament debating was introduced inthe 1920s, and by 1936 some educators were concerned about its increasing pop-ularity.4 But tournament debating did not become predominant until the late1940s From the 1920s to the 1940s, contract debating prevailed A college de-bating team would send out contracts to other teams specifying details such aswhich team would argue which side of the proposition, how judges would beselected, and where the visiting team would be housed, and offering to recipro-cate as host on some future occasion When a sufficient number of signed con-tracts had been returned, teams would depart by car, bus, or train for a few days

or a week or two of debating Usually the schedule called for one debate a day,although in major cities like Boston, New York, Washington, and Chicago, twodebates a day might be scheduled On rare occasions teams traveled coast to coast

in private railroad cars A yearlong resolution was selected and announced to cilitate debaters’ preparation, although individual tournaments might or mightnot adhere to the national resolution

fa-3 Charles DeLancey and Halford Ryan, “Intercollegiate Audience Debating: Quo Vadis,”

Argumentation and Advocacy, vol 27 (1990), p 49.

4 Alfred Westfall, “Can We Have Too Much of a Good Thing?” The Forensic of Pi Kappa

I I A C A D E M I C D E B A T E 25

In the post–World War II era, tournament debate became the predominantmode of debating In 1947 the U.S Military Academy began the National DebateTournament (NDT) at West Point Tournament debating proliferated, and teamssoon could choose among many tournaments at nearby or distant colleges on almostany weekend between October and April Swing tournaments evolved in whichtwo colleges relatively close to each other would schedule back-to-back tourna-ments during the winter break so that, instead of one or two debates a day, teamscould attend two tournaments in a week A tournament would offer as many astwelve or more debate rounds in a single tournament The NDT committee served

to select and announce the yearlong topic in the summer

In 1967 the American Forensic Association assumed responsibility for theNDT, which has been hosted by a different college each year since then By 1967the NDT had become the dominant force in intercollegiate debating, and virtuallyall teams geared their programs to winning a place in the NDT or emulated thepractices of teams that were successful in the NDT Debaters hoping to participate

in the NDT debated a proposition announced in the summer before the academicdebate season began As in the NCAA basketball tournament, only a select number

of teams are selected to participate in the National Debate Tournament

In 1971 the Cross Examination Debate Association (CEDA) was established

to provide an alternative to NDT debating—in part to meet a perceived need byplacing greater emphasis on communication (The use of cross-examination de-bating is no longer a distinguishing feature between the two approaches; since1974–1975 the NDT has used the cross-examination format.) CEDA, which ini-tially employed non-NDT policy propositions, started using value propositions

in 1975 Two propositions per year—one for each academic semester—were bated CEDA also established a sweepstakes system, which recognized the topdebate programs in each region and in the nation A point system was developed

de-to reward successful debaters, both novice and experienced (The NDT lateradopted a similar point system with sweepstakes awards.) In 1986 CEDA estab-lished a national championship tournament open to any CEDA member After amodest start as the Southwest Debate Association, CEDA emerged as the mostwidely used mode of intercollegiate debating

In 1996 the fall CEDA topic was reselected as the spring CEDA topic,thereby creating a yearlong proposition, as was used by NDT In addition, de-spite the nonpolicy or quasi-policy nature of the CEDA propositions from 1975until 1996, by the mid-1990s most CEDA debates involved discussion of poli-cies These debates were very similar in content to those occurring amongschools debating the NDT topic Because CEDA debates had also adopted thestylistic characteristics common to NDT debates, the two debate groups differedlittle in debate practice During their respective national tournaments in 1996,the NDT leadership communicated to CEDA that if CEDA adopted a yearlongpolicy proposition announced in the summer, NDT would adopt that proposi-tion as well, creating a shared topic CEDA did so, and thus the “merger” ofCEDA and NDT occurred CEDA and NDT maintain their separate rankingsystems; however, teams now compete in tournaments previously closed tothem by style, topic, and membership Some teams and a majority of member

26 C H A P T E R 2 A P P L I E D A N D A C A D E M I C D E B A T E

schools in each organization compete in both the National Debate Tournamentand the CEDA National Championship Participation in the NDT is selective:Teams must qualify through a system of open bids and district competition TheCEDA tournament is open to any team representing a member school (remem-ber that CEDA is an organization while NDT is a tournament).

Other debate organizations sponsoring team debates coexist with CEDAand NDT The American Debate Association (ADA) was established in 1985 tofoster the growth of“reasonable” rule-based policy debate.5

ADA was concernedwith keeping debate accessible to new debaters and new debate programs whilemaintaining academic integrity in its top-level debating ADA has always debatedwithin the NDT structure and utilized the NDT proposition The NationalEducational Debate Association (NEDA) promotes debate with a focus on com-munication style and educational practice NEDA selects its own propositions.The National Parliamentary Debate Association (NPDA) and the AmericanParliamentary Debate Association (APDA) sponsor competitive intercollegiatedebate using a modified parliamentary format and featuring propositions chosenfor individual debates or debate rounds Lincoln–Douglas, or one-on-one, de-bate is organized through the National Forensic Association The InternationalDebate Education Association (IDEA) and the International Public DebateAssociation (IPDA) also work to promote academic debate 1997 CEDA estab-lished an additional debate format called “public sphere debate,” designed toprovide competitive audience-style debate evaluated by nontraditional debatejudges The topic for public sphere debate was a narrowed or alternate version

of the CEDA/NDT proposition In 1999 CEDA eliminated the public sphereproposition and replaced it with a nonpolicy proposition (see Chapter 3) Thenonpolicy proposition never gained much popularity and was abandoned in the

B The Organization of Academic Debate

Academic debate is by no means limited to the classroom and the tion course As the previous discussion outlines, many colleges conduct pro-grams of academic debate by organizing debating teams, which give students

argumenta-5 For a more detailed consideration of NDT, CEDA, ADA, and other debate formats,

see “Special Issue: A Variety of Formats for the Debate Experience,” Argumentation and

I I A C A D E M I C D E B A T E 27