TYPES OF DEBATE ARGUMENTS

I.                    PSYCHOLOGICAL

A.      Fear:    intimidation, threats
B. violence

B. Bribes
C.  Sympathetic
D.  Incite Rebellion
E.   Empathetic
F.   Reverse Psychology
G.   Brainwashing
H.  Flattery

II.                 LOGICAL

A.      Facts

B.       Cause and Effect

C.       Research

D.     Historical (Happened before)




 

III.               OPINIONATED

A.      Moral

B.     Not fact-based; no research

 

 

 

 

IV.              PRECEDENT

A. Historical

B. Previous cases and their rulings

C. Common Practice

 

 

 

 

V.                 ANECDOTAL

A.      Empathy/putting opposition in opposing shoes (Imagine if you...)

B.  Story: first or third person

C. Analogy

D. Metaphor

VI.              BETTER WAY

A.      Options/other ways; change

B.     Improvements to plan



 

 

 

VII. LAW

A. Constitution

B. State and Local Law

C. Federal Statutes

D. Treaties, Charters, Declarations, etc.

E. Rules and Regulations of a school, company, club, or organization

VIII. THEORY

a. Philosophy

b. Ideas

 

 

 

IX. LEGAL PRECEDENT

A. Prior court case rulings

"Relevant statutes, regulations, and prior court decisions interpreting the statutes and regulations. In each case, judge is required to follow the precedence established by the statutes, regulations and prior court decisions. Drawing comparisons between the pending case and prior cases is an effective way to demonstrate the applicability of precedent to the case at hand. However, since no two cases have exactly the same facts, what is really important is the underlying 'law of the case,' i.e. legal precedent" (Mr. Alan Parlee, attorney, 12 Dec. 01. email correspondence).

 

ADVANCED ARGUMENTS

1.      Slippery Slope: One thing leads to another which leads to disaster

 

2.        Topicality: Your proposal is either relevant to the topic or your opponent’s is irrelevant to the topic

 

3.      Significance:  Proves there is a problem with what’s going on now

 

4.      Inherency:  present situation /status quo will not change/fix the problem

 

5.      Solvency:  shows your plan will solve the problem

 

6.      No Disad: your policy won’t cause new problems


ARGUMENTS FOR A PLAN OF CHANGE

1.        Brinks:  we are on the verge of a problem...
A brink is like being at the edge of a cliff.  The present system is on the verge of falling and the plan might push us over that brink

 

2.        Slippery Slope:  If the affirmative case is put into affect then such and such will happen and that will cause such and such...etc....and that leads to a nuclear holocaust and we will all be destroyed (or some other cataclysmic event)

 

3.        Links:  The plan will cause a problem

 

4.      Uniqueness:  The present system will not cause the problem (only the plan will)


5.    Impacts:  The problem will cause harms:  wars, deaths, poverty, etc.