Argumentation and Debate Critical Thinking for Reasoned Decision Making
✵
Argumentation and Debate
Critical Thinking for Reasoned
Decision Making
TWELFTH EDITION
AUSTIN J. FREELEY
Late, John Carroll University
DAVID L. STEINBERG
University of Miami
Australia • Brazil • Japan • Korea • Mexico • Singapore • Spain • United Kingdom • United States
Argumentation and Debate:
Critical Thinking for Reasoned
Decision Making, Twelfth
Edition
Austin J. Freeley, Late
David L. Steinberg
Publisher: Lyn Uhl
Executive Editor: Monica Eckman
Assistant Editor: Kimberly Gengler
© 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.
Editorial Assistant: Kimberly
Apfelbaum
Associate Technology Project
Manager: Jessica Badiner
Marketing Manager: Erin Mitchell
Marketing Assistant: Mary Anne
Payumo
Associate Content Project Manager:
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
Jessica Rasile
Art Director: Linda Helcher
Library of Congress Control Number: 2007941012
Production Technology Analyst:
Jamison MacLachlan
Print Buyer: Susan Carroll
Permissions Editor: Mardell
Glinski-Schultz
Production Service: Newgen
Cover Designer: Ke Design
ISBN-13: 978-0-495-09590-3
ISBN-10: 0-495-09590-7
Wadsworth Cengage Learning
25 Thomson Place
Boston, MA 02210
USA
Cover Image: © Imagemore Co., Ltd.
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
Printed in the United States of America
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 12 11 10 09 08
✵
To Dr. Austin J. Freeley and Trudy.
David L. Steinberg
✵
Brief Contents
Chapter 1
Critical Thinking
1
Chapter 2
Applied and Academic Debate
Chapter 3
Stating the Controversy
Chapter 4
Analyzing the Controversy
60
Chapter 5
Exploring the Controversy
86
Chapter 6
Evidence
Chapter 7
Tests of Evidence
Chapter 8
The Structure of Reasoning
Chapter 9
Types of Reasoning
19
43
105
126
152
169
Chapter 10 Obstacles to Clear Thinking
Chapter 11 Requirements of the Case
188
204
Chapter 12 Building the Affirmative Case
Chapter 13 Building the Negative Case
Chapter 14 Refutation
261
iv
214
235
BRIEF CONTENTS
Chapter 15 Presenting the Case: Composition
Chapter 16 Presenting the Case: Delivery
Chapter 17 Evaluating the Debate
280
300
314
Chapter 18 Academic Debate Formats and CrossExamination 332
Chapter 19 Applied Parliamentary Debate
356
v
✵
Contents
PREFACE
xi
Chapter 1
Critical Thinking
I. Debate 6
II. Individual Decisions
III. Group Discussion
1
9
11
IV. Persuasion 12
V. Propaganda 13
VI. Coercion 14
VII. Combination of Methods
15
VIII. Ethical Decision Making
Exercises 17
16
Chapter 2 Applied and Academic Debate
I. Applied Debate 20
II. Academic Debate 24
III. Ethical Standards for Debate
Exercises
Chapter 3
38
41
Stating the Controversy
I. Defining the Controversy
43
45
II. Phrasing the Debate Proposition 45
III. Presumption and Burden of Proof 48
vi
19
CONTENTS
IV. Types of Debate Propositions
Exercises
Chapter 4
55
58
Analyzing the Controversy
I. The Importance of Defining Terms
II. Methods of Defining Terms 63
60
61
III. Issues 72
Exercises 84
Chapter 5 Exploring the Controversy
I. Brainstorming for Ideas 87
II. Locating Materials 88
III. Reading with a Purpose
IV. Reading Critically
86
98
99
V. Recording Materials 99
VI. Organizing Materials 102
Exercises
Chapter 6
104
Evidence
105
I. Sources of Evidence 108
II. Types of Evidence 112
III. The Probative Force of Evidence
Exercises 125
122
Chapter 7 Tests of Evidence 126
I. Uses of Tests of Evidence 126
II. Tests of Credible Evidence
129
III. Tests of Audience Acceptability
Exercises 150
Chapter 8
145
The Structure of Reasoning
I. The Classical Structures
152
152
II. The Elements of Any Argument 163
III. Extending the Elements of An Argument
Exercises
Chapter 9
168
Types of Reasoning
169
I. The Degree of Cogency 169
II. Tests of Reasoning and Their Uses
173
167
vii
viii
CONTENTS
III. General Tests of Reasoning
174
IV. Types of Reasoning and Tests for Each Type
Exercises 187
Chapter 10 Obstacles to Clear Thinking
I. Fallacies of Evidence 190
II. Fallacies of Reasoning
III. Fallacies of Language
188
191
193
IV. Fallacies of Pseudoarguments
Exercises
174
195
202
Chapter 11 Requirements of the Case 204
I. Requirement to Present a Prima Facie Case 205
II. General Case Requirements
Exercises
207
212
Chapter 12 Building the Affirmative Case
214
I. Objectives of the Affirmative Case 216
II. Proposition of Value Affirmative Cases 216
III. Proposition of Policy Affirmative Cases 219
IV. Building for Optimum Capability 231
V. Alternative Debate Approaches
Exercises 233
233
Chapter 13 Building the Negative Case
I. Objectives of the Negative Case 235
II. Proposition of Value Negative Cases
235
237
III. Proposition of Policy Negative Approaches
Exercises 260
Chapter 14 Refutation
261
I. Shifting the Burden of Rebuttal
261
II. Purpose and Place of Refutation
III. Preparing for Refutation 263
262
IV. Arranging Material for Refutation
V. Selecting Evidence and Reasoning
VI. The Structure of Refutation 271
VII. Methods of Refutation 278
Exercises
279
265
265
240
ix
CONTENTS
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
I. Methods of Delivery 300
300
II. Steps to Good Delivery 305
III. Nonverbal Communication 306
IV. Special Considerations: Tournament Debate Delivery
Exercises 313
Chapter 17 Evaluating the Debate
I. Functions of the Judge 314
II. Judging Philosophies
320
III. Functions of the Ballot 329
IV. Special Ballots for Special Purposes
Exercises
314
330
331
Chapter 18 Academic Debate Formats and CrossExamination 332
I. Formats of Debate 332
II. The Audience 350
III. Adapting the Debate to Communications Media
Exercises
355
Chapter 19 Applied Parliamentary Debate
I . Sources of Parliamentary Debate Rules
II. The Order of Business 358
III. Presentation of Motions 359
IV. Precedence of Motions 360
V. Purposes of Motions 360
VI. Unanimous Consent
Exercises 365
365
356
357
352
311
x
CONTENTS
APPENDIX A: A PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE
368
APPENDIX B: NATIONAL CHAMP IONSHI P D EBATE
404
APPENDIX C: NATIONAL INTERCOLLEGIATE DEBATE
P R O P O S I T I ON S ( N D T )
458
APPENDIX D: NATI ONAL INTERCOLLEGI ATE DEBATE
P R O P O S I T I ON S ( C E D A )
469
APPENDIX E: DEBATE BIBLIOGRAPHY
475
A P P E N D I X F : G L OS S A R Y O F T E R M S I N A R G U M E N T A T I O N A N D
DEBATE
503
INDEX
513
✵
Preface
N
ow more than ever, debate is popular. During the 2008 election cycle,
more than 40 televised debates involving the candidates for president and
vice president will help to inform the voting public about the policies and personalities of the competing debaters. Election campaigns at every level, from local to national offices, routinely involve formal debates. The Urban Debate
League movement has expanded local public school participation in competitive
debate, and international efforts have encouraged the growth of debate around
the globe. Academic debate on campuses is vibrant, and students get in line to
take debate courses.
The twelfth edition of Argumentation and Debate continues the features that
have led to its wide use by “generations” of students for over 50 years, while
reflecting the newest trends and knowledge in the practice and study of argumentation and debate. To that end, David L. Steinberg continues to build
upon the groundbreaking work of Austin J. Freeley, the author of the first nine
editions. Dr. Freeley passed away on January 14, 2005. His words form the foundation of this book and the inspiration for its evolution. Although the fundamental nature of educational debate was established in classical times by
Aristotle, Protagoras, and the scholars who followed them through the ages, contemporary 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 word
format)
■
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
xii
PREFACE
■
Explanation of performance as argumentation
■
Updated presidential debate (2004) and expanded discussion of political debates through the “YouTube” debates of 2007
■
Expanded links to debate resources
■
Expanded bibliography
■
“Flowcharts” identifying Speaker duties in Policy and Value Debate Formats
Most chapters provide a miniglossary of terms and conclude with a set of suggested exercises designed to provide experiential learning of the chapter’s concepts. Throughout the text many important materials are presented in insets
that 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 designed
for the undergraduate course in argumentation and debate. It is appropriate for
any course that empowers students as active citizens participating in the societal
demands 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 luminous
across 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 teach
them. 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 Johnny
Prieur. Johnny’s work inspired and informed the updates on research and evidence organization in Chapter 5.
He would also like to acknowledge his boys, Adam and John, who make
him very proud, and his supportive and caring wife, Victoria, with much love.
Steinberg is grateful to Dr. Freeley for giving him the opportunity to contribute 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 this
book a reality, including Kimberly Gengler, Monica Eckman, Jessica Rasile, and
Smitha Pillai, who are exceptionally patient, professional, and understanding.
Finally, thanks to the many students we have taught and judged over the
years, and those who will carry the tradition into the future. They are our inspiration, helping us refine our thinking and develop more cogent statements on
many matters, and have provided many of the examples found throughout this
text.
David L. Steinberg
1
✵
Critical Thinking
A
fter several days of intense debate, first the United States House of
Representatives and then the U.S. Senate voted to authorize President George
W. Bush to attack Iraq if Saddam Hussein refused to give up weapons of mass destruction as required by United Nations’s resolutions. Debate about a possible military action against Iraq continued in various governmental bodies and in the public
for six months, until President Bush ordered an attack on Baghdad, beginning
Operation Iraqi Freedom, the military campaign against the Iraqi regime of Saddam
Hussein. He did so despite the unwillingness of the U.N. Security Council to support the military action, and in the face of significant international opposition.
Meanwhile, and perhaps equally difficult for the parties involved, a young couple deliberated over whether they should purchase a large home to accommodate
their growing family or should sacrifice living space to reside in an area with better
public schools; elsewhere a college sophomore reconsidered his major and a senior
her choice of law school, graduate school, or a job. Each of these situations called
for decisions to be made. Each decision maker worked hard to make well-reasoned
decisions.
Decision making is a thoughtful process of choosing among a variety of options
for acting or thinking. It requires that the decider make a choice. Life demands decision making. We make countless individual decisions every day. To make some of
those decisions, we work hard to employ care and consideration; others seem to just
happen. Couples, families, groups of friends, and coworkers come together to make
choices, and decision-making bodies from committees to juries to the U.S. Congress
and the United Nations make decisions that impact us all. Every profession requires
effective and ethical decision making, as do our school, community, and social
organizations.
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 to
have for dinner, what candidate to vote for, paper or plastic, all present us with
choices. Should the president deal with an international crisis through military invasion or diplomacy? How should the U.S. Congress act to address illegal immigration?
1
2
CHAPTER 1
CRITICAL THINKING
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
or belief.
Debate The process of inquiry and advocacy; the seeking of a reasoned judgment on a proposition.
Deontological ethics An ethical approach that is process- or act-oriented, and is
based on the notion that actions have moral value.
Ethics A set of constructs that guide our decision making by providing standards of behavior telling us how we ought to act.
Good reasons Reasons that are psychologically compelling for a given audience, that make further inquiry both unnecessary and redundant—hence justifying a decision to affirm or reject a proposition.
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 organization) in a sustained, organized campaign using multiple media for the purpose
of influencing a mass audience.
Teleological ethics An ethical approach that is results oriented, and would focus on the good or bad consequences of an action or a decision.
Is the defendant guilty as accused? The Daily Show or the ball game? And upon what
information should I rely to make my decision?
Certainly some of these decisions are more consequential than others. Which
amendment 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 challenges. At our best, we seek out research and data to inform our decisions. Yet
even the choice of which information to attend to requires decision making. In
2006, TIME magazine named YOU its “Person of the Year.” Congratulations! Its
selection was based on the participation not of “great men” in the creation of history, but rather on the contributions of a community of anonymous participants in
the 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, but
how do we sort through it and select the best information for our needs?
CHAPTER 1
CRITICAL THINKING
3
The ability of every decision maker to make good, reasoned, and ethical decisions relies heavily upon their ability to think critically. Critical thinking enables one
to break argumentation down to its component parts in order to evaluate its relative
validity and strength. Critical thinkers are better users of information, as well as better advocates.
Colleges and universities expect their students to develop their critical thinking skills and may require students to take designated courses to that end. The importance and value of such study is widely recognized.
The executive order establishing California’s requirement states:
Instruction in critical thinking is designed to achieve an understanding of
the relationship of language to logic, which would lead to 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 or belief. The minimal competence to
be expected at the successful conclusion of instruction in critical thinking should be the ability to distinguish fact from judgment, belief from
knowledge, and skills in elementary inductive and deductive processes,
including an understanding of the formal and informal fallacies of language and thought.
Competency in critical thinking is a prerequisite to participating effectively in
human affairs, pursuing higher education, and succeeding in the highly competitive
world of business and the professions. Michael Scriven and Richard Paul for the
National Council for Excellence in Critical Thinking Instruction argued that the effective critical thinker:
■
raises vital questions and problems, formulating them clearly and precisely;
■
gathers and assesses relevant information, using abstract ideas to interpret it
effectively; comes to well-reasoned conclusions and solutions, testing them
against relevant criteria and standards;
■
thinks open-mindedly within alternative systems of thought, recognizing
and assessing, as need be, their assumptions, implications, and practical consequences; and
■
communicates effectively with others in figuring out solutions to complex
problems.
They also observed that critical thinking “entails effective communication and
problem solving abilities and a commitment to overcome our native egocentrism and
sociocentrism.”1 Debate as a classroom exercise and as a mode of thinking and behaving uniquely promotes development of each of these skill sets. Since classical
times, debate has been one of the best methods of learning and applying the
1. Michael Scriven and Richard Paul, “Defining Critical Thinking,” The Critical
Thinking Community, http://www.criticalthinking.org/aboutCT/definingCT.shtml.
4
CHAPTER 1
CRITICAL THINKING
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
principles of critical thinking. Contemporary research confirms the value of debate.
One study concluded:
The impact of public communication training on the critical thinking
ability of the participants is demonstrably positive. This summary of
existing research reaffirms what many ex-debaters and others in forensics, public speaking, mock trial, or argumentation would support: participation improves the thinking of those involved.2
In particular, debate education improves the ability to think critically. In a comprehensive review of the relevant research, Kent Colbert concluded, “The debate–critical
thinking literature provides presumptive proof favoring a positive debate–critical
thinking relationship.”3
Much of the most significant communication of our lives is conducted in the
form 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 they
may take place in interpersonal communications, in which we listen to arguments
intended to influence our decision or participate in exchanges to influence the decisions of others.
Our success or failure in life is largely determined by our ability to make wise
decisions for ourselves and to influence the decisions of others in ways that are beneficial to us. Much of our significant, purposeful activity is concerned with making
decisions. Whether to join a campus organization, go to graduate school, accept a
job offer, buy a car or house, move to another city, invest in a certain stock, or
vote for Garcia—these are just a few of the thousands of decisions we may have to
make. Often, intelligent self-interest or a sense of responsibility will require us to win
the support of others. We may want a scholarship or a particular job for ourselves, a
customer 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
Association, vol. 16 (1995), p. 69.
CHAPTER 1
CRITICAL THINKING
5
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
Some people make decisions by flipping a coin. Others act on a whim or respond unconsciously to “hidden persuaders.” If the problem is trivial—such as
whether 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 decision making. Decisions should be justified by good reasons based on accurate evidence and valid reasoning.
Argumentation is reason giving in communicative situations by people whose
purpose is the justification of acts, beliefs, attitudes, and values—a definition based on
language adopted at the National Developmental Conference on Forensics.4 British
philosopher Stephen Toulmin makes a similar point when he asks, “What kind of
justificatory activities must we engage in to convince our fellows that these beliefs are
based on ‘good reasons’?”5 Good reasons may be defined as “reasons which are
psychologically compelling for a given audience, which make further inquiry both
unnecessary and redundant—hence justifying a decision to affirm or reject a
proposition.”6
Note that what constitutes good reasons for one audience may not be good reasons for another. When Taslina Nasrin wrote her novella Lajja (Shame), she became a
target of Muslim fundamentalists. Their fury mounted when she was quoted—or
misquoted, she insists—as saying that the Koran should be “revised thoroughly” to
give equal rights to women. After all, Islam’s central article of faith is that the Koran
is the literal word of God and is thus above revision. 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 militant
faction threatened to loose thousands of poisonous snakes in the capital
unless 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 Non-Policy Argument,” in Perspectives on NonPolicy Argument, ed. Don Brownlee, sponsored by CEDA (privately published, 1980), p. 10.
7. Time, Aug. 15, 1994, p. 26.
6
CHAPTER 1
CRITICAL THINKING
This incident provides a dramatic example of cultural differences. To Muslim
fundamentalists in Bangladesh, even being suspected of calling for a revision of the
Koran is a “good reason” for execution.
In most of the world and for most Muslims, “blasphemy” is not perceived as a
good reason for death. In America, freedom of the press, enshrined in the First
Amendment to the Constitution, is perceived as a good reason for allowing an author to express just about any opinion. A debater needs to discover the justificatory
activities that the decision renderers will accept and to develop the good reasons that
will lead them to agree with the desired conclusion—or, of course, to reject the reasons advanced by an opponent.
First we will consider debate as a method of critical thinking and reasoned decision making. Then we will look at some other methods of decision making and see
how they relate to argumentation and debate.
I. DEBATE
Debate is the process of inquiry and advocacy, a way of arriving at a reasoned
judgment on a proposition. Individuals may use debate to reach a decision in
their own minds; alternatively, individuals or groups may use it to bring others
around to their way of thinking.
Debate provides reasoned arguments for and against a proposition. It requires
two competitive sides engaging in a bipolar clash of support for and against that
proposition. Because it requires that listeners and opposing advocates comparatively evaluate competing choices, debate demands critical thinking. Society, like
individuals, must have an effective method of making decisions. A free society is
structured 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 as
their means of reaching decisions. In fact, any organization that conducts its business 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 of
debate for both the individual and society. Plato, whose dialogues were an early
form of cross-examination debate, defined rhetoric as “a universal art of winning
the mind by arguments, which means not merely arguments in the courts of
justice, and all other sorts of public councils, but in private conference as well.”8
Aristotle listed four functions for rhetoric.9 First, it prevents the triumph of
fraud and injustice. Aristotle argued that truth and justice are by nature more
powerful than their opposites, so when poor decisions are made, speakers with
right on their side have only themselves to blame. Thus, it is not enough to
know the right decision ourselves; we also must be able to argue for that decision
before others.
8. Plato, Phaedrus, 261. Translators Cooper and Jowett use slightly different terms in interpreting this passage. This statement draws from both translations.
9. See Aristotle, Rhetoric, I, 1.
I. DEBATE
7
Second, rhetoric is a method of instruction for the public. Aristotle pointed
out that in some situations scientific arguments are useless; a speaker has to “educate” the audience by framing arguments with the help of common knowledge
and commonly accepted opinions. Congressional debates on health care or tax
policies are examples of this. The general public, and for that matter the majority
of Congress, is unable to follow highly sophisticated technical arguments. Skilled
partisans who have the expertise to understand the technical data must reformulate 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, we
become aware of all aspects of the case, and we will be prepared to refute our
opponents’ arguments.
Fourth, rhetoric is a means of defense. Often knowledge of argumentation
and debate will be necessary to protect ourselves and our interests. As Aristotle
stated: “If it is a disgrace to a man when he cannot defend himself in a bodily
way, it would be odd not to think him disgraced when he cannot defend himself
with 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 of
debate:
If even the Newtonian philosophy were not permitted to be questioned, mankind could not feel as complete assurance of its truth as
they now [in 1858] do. The beliefs which we have the most warrant
for, have no safeguard to rest on, but a standing invitation to the
whole world to prove them unfounded. If the challenge is not accepted, or is accepted and the attempt fails, we are far enough from
certainty still; but we have done the best that the existing state of
human reason admits of; we have neglected nothing that could give
the truth the chance of reaching us; if the lists are kept open, we
may hope that if there be a better truth, it will be found when the
human mind is capable of receiving it; and in the meantime we may
rely on having attained such approach to truth as is possible in our
day. This is the amount of certainty attainable by a fallible being,
and this is the sole way of attaining it.10
Half a century ago the United States Senate designated as Senate Immortals
five senators who had shaped the history of the country by their ability as debaters: Henry Clay, Daniel Webster, John C. Calhoun, Robert M. La Follette, Sr.,
and Robert A. Taft. The triumvirate of Webster, Clay, and Calhoun especially
towered over all the others and were the near-unanimous choices of senators and
scholars alike. As John F. Kennedy, then a freshman senator, pointed out, “For
over thirty years they dominated the Congress and the country, providing leadership and articulation on all the great issues of the growing nation.”11 For their
part 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.
11. John F. Kennedy, Senate speech, May 1, 1957, from a press release.
8
CHAPTER 1
CRITICAL THINKING
respectively, the progressive and the conservative movements in the twentieth
century. 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 applied
through debate as well. Today’s trial attorneys cite the famous dictum of attorney
Joseph 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 the
District Attorney prosecutes hard. Against him is the lawyer hired by the
defendant, or supplied by the court if the defendant is indigent. And the
defendant’s lawyer defends hard. We believe that truth is apt to emerge
from this crucible. It usually does.12
We need debate not only in the legislature and the courtroom but in every
other area of society as well. Most of our rights are directly or indirectly dependent on debate. As the influential journalist Walter Lippmann pointed out, one
of our most cherished rights—freedom of speech—can be maintained only by
creating 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 justifies it—that is to say, dialectic conducted according to logic and the
rules of evidence. If there is no effective debate, the unrestricted right to
speak will unloose so many propagandists, procurers, and panderers
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 of
reasons 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 is
overcome by the less rational, and the opinions that will prevail will be
those which are held most ardently by those with the most passionate
will. For that reason the freedom to speak can never be maintained by
objecting to interference with the liberty of the press, of printing, of
broadcasting, of the screen. It can be maintained only by promoting
debate.13
We need debate both to maintain freedom of speech and to provide a methodology for investigation of and judgment about contemporary problems. As
Chaim Perelman, the Belgian philosopher-rhetorician whose works in rhetoric
and argumentation are influential in argumentation and debate, pointed out:
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.
II. INDIVIDUAL DECISIONS
9
If we assume it to be possible without recourse to violence to reach
agreement on all the problems implied in the employment of the idea of
justice we are granting the possibility of formulating an ideal of man and
society, 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 in
the narrow sense of the term—but from argumentative techniques
which are not conclusive but which may tend to demonstrate the reasonable character of the conceptions put forward. It is this recourse to the
rational and reasonable for the realization of the ideal of universal communion that characterizes the age-long endeavor of all philosophies in
their aspiration for a city of man in which violence may progressively
give way to wisdom.15
Here we have touched on the long-standing concern of philosophers and political leaders with debate as an instrument for dealing with society’s problems. We
can now understand why debate is pervasive. Individuals benefit from knowing the
principles of argumentation and debate and from being able to apply these principles in making decisions and influencing the decisions of others. Society benefits if
debate is encouraged, because free and open debate protects the rights of individuals and offers the larger society a way of reaching optimal decisions.
II. INDIVIDUAL DECISIONS
Whenever an individual controls the dimensions of a problem, he or she can
solve the problem through a personal decision. For example, if the problem is
whether to go to the basketball game tonight, if tickets are not too expensive
and if transportation is available, the decision can be made individually. But if a
friend’s car is needed to get to the game, then that person’s decision to furnish
the transportation must be obtained.
Complex problems, too, are subject to individual decision making.
American business offers many examples of small companies that grew into major
corporations while still under the individual control of the founder. Some computer companies that began in the 1970s as one-person operations burgeoned
into multimillion-dollar corporations with the original inventor still making all
the major decisions. And some of the multibillion-dollar leveraged buyouts of
the 1980s were put together by daring—some would say greedy—financiers
who 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 rhetorique (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.
10
CHAPTER 1
CRITICAL THINKING
When President George H. W. Bush launched Operation Desert Storm,
when President Bill Clinton sent troops into Somalia and Haiti and authorized
Operation Desert Fox, and when President George W. Bush authorized
Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan and Operation Iraqi Freedom in
Iraq, they each used different methods of decision making, but in each case the
ultimate decision was an individual one. In fact, many government decisions can
be made only by the president. As Walter Lippmann pointed out, debate is the
only satisfactory way the great issues can be decided:
A president, whoever he is, has to find a way of understanding the novel
and 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 to
argue 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 examined the evidence, after he has heard the debaters cross-examine one
another, after he has questioned them himself, he makes his decision.…
It is a much harder method in that it subjects the president to the
stress of feeling the full impact of conflicting views, and then to the
strain of making his decision, fully aware of how momentous it is. But
there is no other satisfactory way by which momentous and complex
issues can be decided.16
John F. Kennedy used Cabinet sessions and National Security Council meetings to provide debate to illuminate diverse points of view, expose errors, and
challenge assumptions before he reached decisions.17 As he gained experience
in office, he placed greater emphasis on debate. One historian points out: “One
reason 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 debate in advance of major decision.”18 All presidents, to varying degrees, encourage debate among their advisors.
We may never be called on to render the final decision on great issues of
national policy, but we are constantly concerned with decisions important to
ourselves for which debate can be applied in similar ways. That is, this debate
may 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 increasingly involved in the decisions of the campus, community, and society 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),
p. 215.
III. GROUP DISCUSSION
11
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
general, it is in our intelligent self-interest to reach these decisions through reasoned debate.
When we make an individual decision, we can put it into effect if we control the necessary conditions. If we need the consent or cooperation of others to
carry out our decision, we have to find a way of obtaining the appropriate response from them by debate—or by group discussion, persuasion, propaganda,
coercion, or a combination of methods.
III. GROUP DISCUSSION
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) have
compatible 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 relevant evidence and arguments are carefully weighed, group discussion is a reasoned means of decision making.
In February 1999, after the bitter and divisive House impeachment proceedings and subsequent Senate trial, President Bill Clinton was acquitted on two
articles of impeachment. The vote on impeachment in the House occurred on
straight party lines. Although there were some Republican defectors in the
Senate vote, partisan tensions were heightened by the trial, as were tensions between the legislative and executive branches of the government. Despite the
clash of personalities and the difficulties inherent in such partisan and interbranch
differences, House and Senate leaders and President Clinton pledged to work
together for the good of the country. Indeed a strength of American politics is
that skilled leaders in both parties traditionally have been able to override political differences and enact at least some important legislation on which both parties
could agree.
When a group has more than 15 or 20 members, productive discussion becomes difficult if not impossible. A group of senators can discuss a problem in
committee, but not on the floor of the Senate. The Senate is too large for discussion; there debate must be used. Of course, informal debate may take place
12
CHAPTER 1
CRITICAL THINKING
within the discussion process, and discussion may be a precursor of debate.19 If
the 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 problem
solving. The first step requires that group members define and analyze the problem they are to address. They should determine the nature of the problem and its
impacts, distinguishing causes from symptoms and measuring the relative importance of each. An important outcome of this step is an agreed upon statement of
the problem. Second, they should research the problem, gathering and evaluating available information relevant to the problem as defined. The third step is
perhaps the most important, and most often overlooked: establishing and prioritizing the criteria that will distinguish a successful solution. These criteria may be
given numerical value. Fourth, the group members should generate a list of possible solutions through a process of brainstorming; and fifth, they should apply
the criteria to the established list to select the best solution. Finally, the sixth
step is to implement and monitor the solution, leading to reevaluation and in
many situations, a return to step one.
Like an individual, a group may act on its decision only insofar as it has the
power to do so. If it needs the consent or cooperation of others to carry out a
particular plan, the group must use other means to secure their cooperation.
IV. PERSUASION
Purposeful persuasion is defined as communication intended to influence the acts, beliefs, attitudes, and values of others. Clearly, one method of persuasion is debate.
Persuasion is not, however, limited to seeking carefully reasoned judgments, as
is debate, nor does persuasion require logical arguments both for and against a
given 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 judgment
that one associates with debate.
Frequently the persuader hopes to dominate the stage and avoid situations in
which another side of the argument might be presented. Consider the cigarette
companies, which accepted the ban on TV advertising without the prolonged
court battle that many expected. The reason for this may have been that the
TV stations were required to give equal time to public service announcements
about the hazards of smoking. The tobacco companies apparently found it preferable to direct their advertising dollars to media that did not have an equal-time
requirement. President Hugo Chavez of Venezuela recently made international
headlines 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
Debate (New York: Macmillan, 1951), p. 67.
V. PROPAGANDA
13
Radio Caracas Television (RCTV), a popular television network, likely because
it had been critical of him, thus effectively eliminating local opposition to his
government.20
Persuaders select the type of persuasive appeals they believe to be best
adapted to their audience. These may include such diverse communications as a
picket line, a silent prayer vigil, a clever negative political commercial on TV, or
the stately formality of a debate before the Supreme Court. (Audience analysis is
considered in Chapter 15.)
Persuaders reach a decision on the problem before they begin the process of
persuasion. They continue the process of persuasion until they solve the problem
by persuading others to accept their decision or until they are convinced that
further efforts are pointless. In trying to influence others, they may find it necessary or advantageous (1) to join with other persuaders and become propagandists
or (2) to face the opposition and become debaters. Thus they must be familiar
with the principles of argumentation and debate. This knowledge is also a defense against the persuasion of others. If we subject their appeals to critical analysis, we increase our likelihood of making reasoned decisions. And if persuaders
advocate a decision we believe to be unsound, we may find it necessary to become 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 influenced by it—or when we unknowingly communicate to and influence others in
an unintended way.
V. PROPAGANDA
Propaganda is the use of persuasion by a group (often a closely knit organization) in a sustained, organized campaign using multiple media for the purpose of
influencing a mass audience. Historically propaganda has been associated with
religious, social, or political movements. Today the term has been expanded to
include commercial advertising campaigns. The term first came into common
use in 1622 when Pope Gregory XV established the Sacred Congregation for
Propagating the Faith. What, in the view of the faithful, could be more commendable than spreading the faith? In 1933, when Hitler appointed Dr. Joseph
Goebbels as his minister of propaganda, the word took on a different connotation. From the standpoint of non-Nazis, what could be more evil than spreading
Nazism? Even today propaganda often is perceived as a pejorative term. Imagine
an official of a women’s group saying:
We’ve been conducting an extensive educational campaign to inform
the public of the necessity of making abortion on demand available to
20. Christopher Toothaker, “Chavez Warns Foreign Critics,” The Miami Herald, July 23,
2007, p. 8A.
14
CHAPTER 1
CRITICAL THINKING
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 propagandize. Another example is President Chavez of Venezuela. He spoke to the
United Nations in 2007, referring to President George Bush as “the devil.”
Later Chavez threatened to deport international visitors from Venezuela who
were critical of him and his government.
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 evidence and valid reasoning. Examples of questionable methods may be found in
the Allied propaganda in the United States prior to America’s entry into World
War 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 Soviet
Union, which made extensive use of the technique of the “big lie.” During
Middle East crises both Israel and the Arab countries have conducted propaganda
campaigns 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 campaigns designed to get the public to drive safely, to recognize the symptoms of
cancer, and to practice safe sex; these examples are usually based on sound evidence and reasonable inference. Other examples include campaigns by churches
to persuade people to act in accordance with the Ten Commandments and by
charitable groups to raise funds for the homeless or for people with AIDS.
Propagandists reach a decision on a problem before they begin th
Argumentation and Debate
Critical Thinking for Reasoned
Decision Making
TWELFTH EDITION
AUSTIN J. FREELEY
Late, John Carroll University
DAVID L. STEINBERG
University of Miami
Australia • Brazil • Japan • Korea • Mexico • Singapore • Spain • United Kingdom • United States
Argumentation and Debate:
Critical Thinking for Reasoned
Decision Making, Twelfth
Edition
Austin J. Freeley, Late
David L. Steinberg
Publisher: Lyn Uhl
Executive Editor: Monica Eckman
Assistant Editor: Kimberly Gengler
© 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.
Editorial Assistant: Kimberly
Apfelbaum
Associate Technology Project
Manager: Jessica Badiner
Marketing Manager: Erin Mitchell
Marketing Assistant: Mary Anne
Payumo
Associate Content Project Manager:
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
Jessica Rasile
Art Director: Linda Helcher
Library of Congress Control Number: 2007941012
Production Technology Analyst:
Jamison MacLachlan
Print Buyer: Susan Carroll
Permissions Editor: Mardell
Glinski-Schultz
Production Service: Newgen
Cover Designer: Ke Design
ISBN-13: 978-0-495-09590-3
ISBN-10: 0-495-09590-7
Wadsworth Cengage Learning
25 Thomson Place
Boston, MA 02210
USA
Cover Image: © Imagemore Co., Ltd.
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
Printed in the United States of America
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 12 11 10 09 08
✵
To Dr. Austin J. Freeley and Trudy.
David L. Steinberg
✵
Brief Contents
Chapter 1
Critical Thinking
1
Chapter 2
Applied and Academic Debate
Chapter 3
Stating the Controversy
Chapter 4
Analyzing the Controversy
60
Chapter 5
Exploring the Controversy
86
Chapter 6
Evidence
Chapter 7
Tests of Evidence
Chapter 8
The Structure of Reasoning
Chapter 9
Types of Reasoning
19
43
105
126
152
169
Chapter 10 Obstacles to Clear Thinking
Chapter 11 Requirements of the Case
188
204
Chapter 12 Building the Affirmative Case
Chapter 13 Building the Negative Case
Chapter 14 Refutation
261
iv
214
235
BRIEF CONTENTS
Chapter 15 Presenting the Case: Composition
Chapter 16 Presenting the Case: Delivery
Chapter 17 Evaluating the Debate
280
300
314
Chapter 18 Academic Debate Formats and CrossExamination 332
Chapter 19 Applied Parliamentary Debate
356
v
✵
Contents
PREFACE
xi
Chapter 1
Critical Thinking
I. Debate 6
II. Individual Decisions
III. Group Discussion
1
9
11
IV. Persuasion 12
V. Propaganda 13
VI. Coercion 14
VII. Combination of Methods
15
VIII. Ethical Decision Making
Exercises 17
16
Chapter 2 Applied and Academic Debate
I. Applied Debate 20
II. Academic Debate 24
III. Ethical Standards for Debate
Exercises
Chapter 3
38
41
Stating the Controversy
I. Defining the Controversy
43
45
II. Phrasing the Debate Proposition 45
III. Presumption and Burden of Proof 48
vi
19
CONTENTS
IV. Types of Debate Propositions
Exercises
Chapter 4
55
58
Analyzing the Controversy
I. The Importance of Defining Terms
II. Methods of Defining Terms 63
60
61
III. Issues 72
Exercises 84
Chapter 5 Exploring the Controversy
I. Brainstorming for Ideas 87
II. Locating Materials 88
III. Reading with a Purpose
IV. Reading Critically
86
98
99
V. Recording Materials 99
VI. Organizing Materials 102
Exercises
Chapter 6
104
Evidence
105
I. Sources of Evidence 108
II. Types of Evidence 112
III. The Probative Force of Evidence
Exercises 125
122
Chapter 7 Tests of Evidence 126
I. Uses of Tests of Evidence 126
II. Tests of Credible Evidence
129
III. Tests of Audience Acceptability
Exercises 150
Chapter 8
145
The Structure of Reasoning
I. The Classical Structures
152
152
II. The Elements of Any Argument 163
III. Extending the Elements of An Argument
Exercises
Chapter 9
168
Types of Reasoning
169
I. The Degree of Cogency 169
II. Tests of Reasoning and Their Uses
173
167
vii
viii
CONTENTS
III. General Tests of Reasoning
174
IV. Types of Reasoning and Tests for Each Type
Exercises 187
Chapter 10 Obstacles to Clear Thinking
I. Fallacies of Evidence 190
II. Fallacies of Reasoning
III. Fallacies of Language
188
191
193
IV. Fallacies of Pseudoarguments
Exercises
174
195
202
Chapter 11 Requirements of the Case 204
I. Requirement to Present a Prima Facie Case 205
II. General Case Requirements
Exercises
207
212
Chapter 12 Building the Affirmative Case
214
I. Objectives of the Affirmative Case 216
II. Proposition of Value Affirmative Cases 216
III. Proposition of Policy Affirmative Cases 219
IV. Building for Optimum Capability 231
V. Alternative Debate Approaches
Exercises 233
233
Chapter 13 Building the Negative Case
I. Objectives of the Negative Case 235
II. Proposition of Value Negative Cases
235
237
III. Proposition of Policy Negative Approaches
Exercises 260
Chapter 14 Refutation
261
I. Shifting the Burden of Rebuttal
261
II. Purpose and Place of Refutation
III. Preparing for Refutation 263
262
IV. Arranging Material for Refutation
V. Selecting Evidence and Reasoning
VI. The Structure of Refutation 271
VII. Methods of Refutation 278
Exercises
279
265
265
240
ix
CONTENTS
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
I. Methods of Delivery 300
300
II. Steps to Good Delivery 305
III. Nonverbal Communication 306
IV. Special Considerations: Tournament Debate Delivery
Exercises 313
Chapter 17 Evaluating the Debate
I. Functions of the Judge 314
II. Judging Philosophies
320
III. Functions of the Ballot 329
IV. Special Ballots for Special Purposes
Exercises
314
330
331
Chapter 18 Academic Debate Formats and CrossExamination 332
I. Formats of Debate 332
II. The Audience 350
III. Adapting the Debate to Communications Media
Exercises
355
Chapter 19 Applied Parliamentary Debate
I . Sources of Parliamentary Debate Rules
II. The Order of Business 358
III. Presentation of Motions 359
IV. Precedence of Motions 360
V. Purposes of Motions 360
VI. Unanimous Consent
Exercises 365
365
356
357
352
311
x
CONTENTS
APPENDIX A: A PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE
368
APPENDIX B: NATIONAL CHAMP IONSHI P D EBATE
404
APPENDIX C: NATIONAL INTERCOLLEGIATE DEBATE
P R O P O S I T I ON S ( N D T )
458
APPENDIX D: NATI ONAL INTERCOLLEGI ATE DEBATE
P R O P O S I T I ON S ( C E D A )
469
APPENDIX E: DEBATE BIBLIOGRAPHY
475
A P P E N D I X F : G L OS S A R Y O F T E R M S I N A R G U M E N T A T I O N A N D
DEBATE
503
INDEX
513
✵
Preface
N
ow more than ever, debate is popular. During the 2008 election cycle,
more than 40 televised debates involving the candidates for president and
vice president will help to inform the voting public about the policies and personalities of the competing debaters. Election campaigns at every level, from local to national offices, routinely involve formal debates. The Urban Debate
League movement has expanded local public school participation in competitive
debate, and international efforts have encouraged the growth of debate around
the globe. Academic debate on campuses is vibrant, and students get in line to
take debate courses.
The twelfth edition of Argumentation and Debate continues the features that
have led to its wide use by “generations” of students for over 50 years, while
reflecting the newest trends and knowledge in the practice and study of argumentation and debate. To that end, David L. Steinberg continues to build
upon the groundbreaking work of Austin J. Freeley, the author of the first nine
editions. Dr. Freeley passed away on January 14, 2005. His words form the foundation of this book and the inspiration for its evolution. Although the fundamental nature of educational debate was established in classical times by
Aristotle, Protagoras, and the scholars who followed them through the ages, contemporary 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 word
format)
■
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
xii
PREFACE
■
Explanation of performance as argumentation
■
Updated presidential debate (2004) and expanded discussion of political debates through the “YouTube” debates of 2007
■
Expanded links to debate resources
■
Expanded bibliography
■
“Flowcharts” identifying Speaker duties in Policy and Value Debate Formats
Most chapters provide a miniglossary of terms and conclude with a set of suggested exercises designed to provide experiential learning of the chapter’s concepts. Throughout the text many important materials are presented in insets
that 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 designed
for the undergraduate course in argumentation and debate. It is appropriate for
any course that empowers students as active citizens participating in the societal
demands 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 luminous
across 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 teach
them. 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 Johnny
Prieur. Johnny’s work inspired and informed the updates on research and evidence organization in Chapter 5.
He would also like to acknowledge his boys, Adam and John, who make
him very proud, and his supportive and caring wife, Victoria, with much love.
Steinberg is grateful to Dr. Freeley for giving him the opportunity to contribute 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 this
book a reality, including Kimberly Gengler, Monica Eckman, Jessica Rasile, and
Smitha Pillai, who are exceptionally patient, professional, and understanding.
Finally, thanks to the many students we have taught and judged over the
years, and those who will carry the tradition into the future. They are our inspiration, helping us refine our thinking and develop more cogent statements on
many matters, and have provided many of the examples found throughout this
text.
David L. Steinberg
1
✵
Critical Thinking
A
fter several days of intense debate, first the United States House of
Representatives and then the U.S. Senate voted to authorize President George
W. Bush to attack Iraq if Saddam Hussein refused to give up weapons of mass destruction as required by United Nations’s resolutions. Debate about a possible military action against Iraq continued in various governmental bodies and in the public
for six months, until President Bush ordered an attack on Baghdad, beginning
Operation Iraqi Freedom, the military campaign against the Iraqi regime of Saddam
Hussein. He did so despite the unwillingness of the U.N. Security Council to support the military action, and in the face of significant international opposition.
Meanwhile, and perhaps equally difficult for the parties involved, a young couple deliberated over whether they should purchase a large home to accommodate
their growing family or should sacrifice living space to reside in an area with better
public schools; elsewhere a college sophomore reconsidered his major and a senior
her choice of law school, graduate school, or a job. Each of these situations called
for decisions to be made. Each decision maker worked hard to make well-reasoned
decisions.
Decision making is a thoughtful process of choosing among a variety of options
for acting or thinking. It requires that the decider make a choice. Life demands decision making. We make countless individual decisions every day. To make some of
those decisions, we work hard to employ care and consideration; others seem to just
happen. Couples, families, groups of friends, and coworkers come together to make
choices, and decision-making bodies from committees to juries to the U.S. Congress
and the United Nations make decisions that impact us all. Every profession requires
effective and ethical decision making, as do our school, community, and social
organizations.
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 to
have for dinner, what candidate to vote for, paper or plastic, all present us with
choices. Should the president deal with an international crisis through military invasion or diplomacy? How should the U.S. Congress act to address illegal immigration?
1
2
CHAPTER 1
CRITICAL THINKING
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
or belief.
Debate The process of inquiry and advocacy; the seeking of a reasoned judgment on a proposition.
Deontological ethics An ethical approach that is process- or act-oriented, and is
based on the notion that actions have moral value.
Ethics A set of constructs that guide our decision making by providing standards of behavior telling us how we ought to act.
Good reasons Reasons that are psychologically compelling for a given audience, that make further inquiry both unnecessary and redundant—hence justifying a decision to affirm or reject a proposition.
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 organization) in a sustained, organized campaign using multiple media for the purpose
of influencing a mass audience.
Teleological ethics An ethical approach that is results oriented, and would focus on the good or bad consequences of an action or a decision.
Is the defendant guilty as accused? The Daily Show or the ball game? And upon what
information should I rely to make my decision?
Certainly some of these decisions are more consequential than others. Which
amendment 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 challenges. At our best, we seek out research and data to inform our decisions. Yet
even the choice of which information to attend to requires decision making. In
2006, TIME magazine named YOU its “Person of the Year.” Congratulations! Its
selection was based on the participation not of “great men” in the creation of history, but rather on the contributions of a community of anonymous participants in
the 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, but
how do we sort through it and select the best information for our needs?
CHAPTER 1
CRITICAL THINKING
3
The ability of every decision maker to make good, reasoned, and ethical decisions relies heavily upon their ability to think critically. Critical thinking enables one
to break argumentation down to its component parts in order to evaluate its relative
validity and strength. Critical thinkers are better users of information, as well as better advocates.
Colleges and universities expect their students to develop their critical thinking skills and may require students to take designated courses to that end. The importance and value of such study is widely recognized.
The executive order establishing California’s requirement states:
Instruction in critical thinking is designed to achieve an understanding of
the relationship of language to logic, which would lead to 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 or belief. The minimal competence to
be expected at the successful conclusion of instruction in critical thinking should be the ability to distinguish fact from judgment, belief from
knowledge, and skills in elementary inductive and deductive processes,
including an understanding of the formal and informal fallacies of language and thought.
Competency in critical thinking is a prerequisite to participating effectively in
human affairs, pursuing higher education, and succeeding in the highly competitive
world of business and the professions. Michael Scriven and Richard Paul for the
National Council for Excellence in Critical Thinking Instruction argued that the effective critical thinker:
■
raises vital questions and problems, formulating them clearly and precisely;
■
gathers and assesses relevant information, using abstract ideas to interpret it
effectively; comes to well-reasoned conclusions and solutions, testing them
against relevant criteria and standards;
■
thinks open-mindedly within alternative systems of thought, recognizing
and assessing, as need be, their assumptions, implications, and practical consequences; and
■
communicates effectively with others in figuring out solutions to complex
problems.
They also observed that critical thinking “entails effective communication and
problem solving abilities and a commitment to overcome our native egocentrism and
sociocentrism.”1 Debate as a classroom exercise and as a mode of thinking and behaving uniquely promotes development of each of these skill sets. Since classical
times, debate has been one of the best methods of learning and applying the
1. Michael Scriven and Richard Paul, “Defining Critical Thinking,” The Critical
Thinking Community, http://www.criticalthinking.org/aboutCT/definingCT.shtml.
4
CHAPTER 1
CRITICAL THINKING
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
principles of critical thinking. Contemporary research confirms the value of debate.
One study concluded:
The impact of public communication training on the critical thinking
ability of the participants is demonstrably positive. This summary of
existing research reaffirms what many ex-debaters and others in forensics, public speaking, mock trial, or argumentation would support: participation improves the thinking of those involved.2
In particular, debate education improves the ability to think critically. In a comprehensive review of the relevant research, Kent Colbert concluded, “The debate–critical
thinking literature provides presumptive proof favoring a positive debate–critical
thinking relationship.”3
Much of the most significant communication of our lives is conducted in the
form 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 they
may take place in interpersonal communications, in which we listen to arguments
intended to influence our decision or participate in exchanges to influence the decisions of others.
Our success or failure in life is largely determined by our ability to make wise
decisions for ourselves and to influence the decisions of others in ways that are beneficial to us. Much of our significant, purposeful activity is concerned with making
decisions. Whether to join a campus organization, go to graduate school, accept a
job offer, buy a car or house, move to another city, invest in a certain stock, or
vote for Garcia—these are just a few of the thousands of decisions we may have to
make. Often, intelligent self-interest or a sense of responsibility will require us to win
the support of others. We may want a scholarship or a particular job for ourselves, a
customer 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
Association, vol. 16 (1995), p. 69.
CHAPTER 1
CRITICAL THINKING
5
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
Some people make decisions by flipping a coin. Others act on a whim or respond unconsciously to “hidden persuaders.” If the problem is trivial—such as
whether 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 decision making. Decisions should be justified by good reasons based on accurate evidence and valid reasoning.
Argumentation is reason giving in communicative situations by people whose
purpose is the justification of acts, beliefs, attitudes, and values—a definition based on
language adopted at the National Developmental Conference on Forensics.4 British
philosopher Stephen Toulmin makes a similar point when he asks, “What kind of
justificatory activities must we engage in to convince our fellows that these beliefs are
based on ‘good reasons’?”5 Good reasons may be defined as “reasons which are
psychologically compelling for a given audience, which make further inquiry both
unnecessary and redundant—hence justifying a decision to affirm or reject a
proposition.”6
Note that what constitutes good reasons for one audience may not be good reasons for another. When Taslina Nasrin wrote her novella Lajja (Shame), she became a
target of Muslim fundamentalists. Their fury mounted when she was quoted—or
misquoted, she insists—as saying that the Koran should be “revised thoroughly” to
give equal rights to women. After all, Islam’s central article of faith is that the Koran
is the literal word of God and is thus above revision. 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 militant
faction threatened to loose thousands of poisonous snakes in the capital
unless 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 Non-Policy Argument,” in Perspectives on NonPolicy Argument, ed. Don Brownlee, sponsored by CEDA (privately published, 1980), p. 10.
7. Time, Aug. 15, 1994, p. 26.
6
CHAPTER 1
CRITICAL THINKING
This incident provides a dramatic example of cultural differences. To Muslim
fundamentalists in Bangladesh, even being suspected of calling for a revision of the
Koran is a “good reason” for execution.
In most of the world and for most Muslims, “blasphemy” is not perceived as a
good reason for death. In America, freedom of the press, enshrined in the First
Amendment to the Constitution, is perceived as a good reason for allowing an author to express just about any opinion. A debater needs to discover the justificatory
activities that the decision renderers will accept and to develop the good reasons that
will lead them to agree with the desired conclusion—or, of course, to reject the reasons advanced by an opponent.
First we will consider debate as a method of critical thinking and reasoned decision making. Then we will look at some other methods of decision making and see
how they relate to argumentation and debate.
I. DEBATE
Debate is the process of inquiry and advocacy, a way of arriving at a reasoned
judgment on a proposition. Individuals may use debate to reach a decision in
their own minds; alternatively, individuals or groups may use it to bring others
around to their way of thinking.
Debate provides reasoned arguments for and against a proposition. It requires
two competitive sides engaging in a bipolar clash of support for and against that
proposition. Because it requires that listeners and opposing advocates comparatively evaluate competing choices, debate demands critical thinking. Society, like
individuals, must have an effective method of making decisions. A free society is
structured 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 as
their means of reaching decisions. In fact, any organization that conducts its business 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 of
debate for both the individual and society. Plato, whose dialogues were an early
form of cross-examination debate, defined rhetoric as “a universal art of winning
the mind by arguments, which means not merely arguments in the courts of
justice, and all other sorts of public councils, but in private conference as well.”8
Aristotle listed four functions for rhetoric.9 First, it prevents the triumph of
fraud and injustice. Aristotle argued that truth and justice are by nature more
powerful than their opposites, so when poor decisions are made, speakers with
right on their side have only themselves to blame. Thus, it is not enough to
know the right decision ourselves; we also must be able to argue for that decision
before others.
8. Plato, Phaedrus, 261. Translators Cooper and Jowett use slightly different terms in interpreting this passage. This statement draws from both translations.
9. See Aristotle, Rhetoric, I, 1.
I. DEBATE
7
Second, rhetoric is a method of instruction for the public. Aristotle pointed
out that in some situations scientific arguments are useless; a speaker has to “educate” the audience by framing arguments with the help of common knowledge
and commonly accepted opinions. Congressional debates on health care or tax
policies are examples of this. The general public, and for that matter the majority
of Congress, is unable to follow highly sophisticated technical arguments. Skilled
partisans who have the expertise to understand the technical data must reformulate 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, we
become aware of all aspects of the case, and we will be prepared to refute our
opponents’ arguments.
Fourth, rhetoric is a means of defense. Often knowledge of argumentation
and debate will be necessary to protect ourselves and our interests. As Aristotle
stated: “If it is a disgrace to a man when he cannot defend himself in a bodily
way, it would be odd not to think him disgraced when he cannot defend himself
with 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 of
debate:
If even the Newtonian philosophy were not permitted to be questioned, mankind could not feel as complete assurance of its truth as
they now [in 1858] do. The beliefs which we have the most warrant
for, have no safeguard to rest on, but a standing invitation to the
whole world to prove them unfounded. If the challenge is not accepted, or is accepted and the attempt fails, we are far enough from
certainty still; but we have done the best that the existing state of
human reason admits of; we have neglected nothing that could give
the truth the chance of reaching us; if the lists are kept open, we
may hope that if there be a better truth, it will be found when the
human mind is capable of receiving it; and in the meantime we may
rely on having attained such approach to truth as is possible in our
day. This is the amount of certainty attainable by a fallible being,
and this is the sole way of attaining it.10
Half a century ago the United States Senate designated as Senate Immortals
five senators who had shaped the history of the country by their ability as debaters: Henry Clay, Daniel Webster, John C. Calhoun, Robert M. La Follette, Sr.,
and Robert A. Taft. The triumvirate of Webster, Clay, and Calhoun especially
towered over all the others and were the near-unanimous choices of senators and
scholars alike. As John F. Kennedy, then a freshman senator, pointed out, “For
over thirty years they dominated the Congress and the country, providing leadership and articulation on all the great issues of the growing nation.”11 For their
part 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.
11. John F. Kennedy, Senate speech, May 1, 1957, from a press release.
8
CHAPTER 1
CRITICAL THINKING
respectively, the progressive and the conservative movements in the twentieth
century. 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 applied
through debate as well. Today’s trial attorneys cite the famous dictum of attorney
Joseph 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 the
District Attorney prosecutes hard. Against him is the lawyer hired by the
defendant, or supplied by the court if the defendant is indigent. And the
defendant’s lawyer defends hard. We believe that truth is apt to emerge
from this crucible. It usually does.12
We need debate not only in the legislature and the courtroom but in every
other area of society as well. Most of our rights are directly or indirectly dependent on debate. As the influential journalist Walter Lippmann pointed out, one
of our most cherished rights—freedom of speech—can be maintained only by
creating 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 justifies it—that is to say, dialectic conducted according to logic and the
rules of evidence. If there is no effective debate, the unrestricted right to
speak will unloose so many propagandists, procurers, and panderers
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 of
reasons 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 is
overcome by the less rational, and the opinions that will prevail will be
those which are held most ardently by those with the most passionate
will. For that reason the freedom to speak can never be maintained by
objecting to interference with the liberty of the press, of printing, of
broadcasting, of the screen. It can be maintained only by promoting
debate.13
We need debate both to maintain freedom of speech and to provide a methodology for investigation of and judgment about contemporary problems. As
Chaim Perelman, the Belgian philosopher-rhetorician whose works in rhetoric
and argumentation are influential in argumentation and debate, pointed out:
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.
II. INDIVIDUAL DECISIONS
9
If we assume it to be possible without recourse to violence to reach
agreement on all the problems implied in the employment of the idea of
justice we are granting the possibility of formulating an ideal of man and
society, 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 in
the narrow sense of the term—but from argumentative techniques
which are not conclusive but which may tend to demonstrate the reasonable character of the conceptions put forward. It is this recourse to the
rational and reasonable for the realization of the ideal of universal communion that characterizes the age-long endeavor of all philosophies in
their aspiration for a city of man in which violence may progressively
give way to wisdom.15
Here we have touched on the long-standing concern of philosophers and political leaders with debate as an instrument for dealing with society’s problems. We
can now understand why debate is pervasive. Individuals benefit from knowing the
principles of argumentation and debate and from being able to apply these principles in making decisions and influencing the decisions of others. Society benefits if
debate is encouraged, because free and open debate protects the rights of individuals and offers the larger society a way of reaching optimal decisions.
II. INDIVIDUAL DECISIONS
Whenever an individual controls the dimensions of a problem, he or she can
solve the problem through a personal decision. For example, if the problem is
whether to go to the basketball game tonight, if tickets are not too expensive
and if transportation is available, the decision can be made individually. But if a
friend’s car is needed to get to the game, then that person’s decision to furnish
the transportation must be obtained.
Complex problems, too, are subject to individual decision making.
American business offers many examples of small companies that grew into major
corporations while still under the individual control of the founder. Some computer companies that began in the 1970s as one-person operations burgeoned
into multimillion-dollar corporations with the original inventor still making all
the major decisions. And some of the multibillion-dollar leveraged buyouts of
the 1980s were put together by daring—some would say greedy—financiers
who 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 rhetorique (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.
10
CHAPTER 1
CRITICAL THINKING
When President George H. W. Bush launched Operation Desert Storm,
when President Bill Clinton sent troops into Somalia and Haiti and authorized
Operation Desert Fox, and when President George W. Bush authorized
Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan and Operation Iraqi Freedom in
Iraq, they each used different methods of decision making, but in each case the
ultimate decision was an individual one. In fact, many government decisions can
be made only by the president. As Walter Lippmann pointed out, debate is the
only satisfactory way the great issues can be decided:
A president, whoever he is, has to find a way of understanding the novel
and 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 to
argue 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 examined the evidence, after he has heard the debaters cross-examine one
another, after he has questioned them himself, he makes his decision.…
It is a much harder method in that it subjects the president to the
stress of feeling the full impact of conflicting views, and then to the
strain of making his decision, fully aware of how momentous it is. But
there is no other satisfactory way by which momentous and complex
issues can be decided.16
John F. Kennedy used Cabinet sessions and National Security Council meetings to provide debate to illuminate diverse points of view, expose errors, and
challenge assumptions before he reached decisions.17 As he gained experience
in office, he placed greater emphasis on debate. One historian points out: “One
reason 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 debate in advance of major decision.”18 All presidents, to varying degrees, encourage debate among their advisors.
We may never be called on to render the final decision on great issues of
national policy, but we are constantly concerned with decisions important to
ourselves for which debate can be applied in similar ways. That is, this debate
may 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 increasingly involved in the decisions of the campus, community, and society 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),
p. 215.
III. GROUP DISCUSSION
11
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
general, it is in our intelligent self-interest to reach these decisions through reasoned debate.
When we make an individual decision, we can put it into effect if we control the necessary conditions. If we need the consent or cooperation of others to
carry out our decision, we have to find a way of obtaining the appropriate response from them by debate—or by group discussion, persuasion, propaganda,
coercion, or a combination of methods.
III. GROUP DISCUSSION
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) have
compatible 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 relevant evidence and arguments are carefully weighed, group discussion is a reasoned means of decision making.
In February 1999, after the bitter and divisive House impeachment proceedings and subsequent Senate trial, President Bill Clinton was acquitted on two
articles of impeachment. The vote on impeachment in the House occurred on
straight party lines. Although there were some Republican defectors in the
Senate vote, partisan tensions were heightened by the trial, as were tensions between the legislative and executive branches of the government. Despite the
clash of personalities and the difficulties inherent in such partisan and interbranch
differences, House and Senate leaders and President Clinton pledged to work
together for the good of the country. Indeed a strength of American politics is
that skilled leaders in both parties traditionally have been able to override political differences and enact at least some important legislation on which both parties
could agree.
When a group has more than 15 or 20 members, productive discussion becomes difficult if not impossible. A group of senators can discuss a problem in
committee, but not on the floor of the Senate. The Senate is too large for discussion; there debate must be used. Of course, informal debate may take place
12
CHAPTER 1
CRITICAL THINKING
within the discussion process, and discussion may be a precursor of debate.19 If
the 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 problem
solving. The first step requires that group members define and analyze the problem they are to address. They should determine the nature of the problem and its
impacts, distinguishing causes from symptoms and measuring the relative importance of each. An important outcome of this step is an agreed upon statement of
the problem. Second, they should research the problem, gathering and evaluating available information relevant to the problem as defined. The third step is
perhaps the most important, and most often overlooked: establishing and prioritizing the criteria that will distinguish a successful solution. These criteria may be
given numerical value. Fourth, the group members should generate a list of possible solutions through a process of brainstorming; and fifth, they should apply
the criteria to the established list to select the best solution. Finally, the sixth
step is to implement and monitor the solution, leading to reevaluation and in
many situations, a return to step one.
Like an individual, a group may act on its decision only insofar as it has the
power to do so. If it needs the consent or cooperation of others to carry out a
particular plan, the group must use other means to secure their cooperation.
IV. PERSUASION
Purposeful persuasion is defined as communication intended to influence the acts, beliefs, attitudes, and values of others. Clearly, one method of persuasion is debate.
Persuasion is not, however, limited to seeking carefully reasoned judgments, as
is debate, nor does persuasion require logical arguments both for and against a
given 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 judgment
that one associates with debate.
Frequently the persuader hopes to dominate the stage and avoid situations in
which another side of the argument might be presented. Consider the cigarette
companies, which accepted the ban on TV advertising without the prolonged
court battle that many expected. The reason for this may have been that the
TV stations were required to give equal time to public service announcements
about the hazards of smoking. The tobacco companies apparently found it preferable to direct their advertising dollars to media that did not have an equal-time
requirement. President Hugo Chavez of Venezuela recently made international
headlines 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
Debate (New York: Macmillan, 1951), p. 67.
V. PROPAGANDA
13
Radio Caracas Television (RCTV), a popular television network, likely because
it had been critical of him, thus effectively eliminating local opposition to his
government.20
Persuaders select the type of persuasive appeals they believe to be best
adapted to their audience. These may include such diverse communications as a
picket line, a silent prayer vigil, a clever negative political commercial on TV, or
the stately formality of a debate before the Supreme Court. (Audience analysis is
considered in Chapter 15.)
Persuaders reach a decision on the problem before they begin the process of
persuasion. They continue the process of persuasion until they solve the problem
by persuading others to accept their decision or until they are convinced that
further efforts are pointless. In trying to influence others, they may find it necessary or advantageous (1) to join with other persuaders and become propagandists
or (2) to face the opposition and become debaters. Thus they must be familiar
with the principles of argumentation and debate. This knowledge is also a defense against the persuasion of others. If we subject their appeals to critical analysis, we increase our likelihood of making reasoned decisions. And if persuaders
advocate a decision we believe to be unsound, we may find it necessary to become 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 influenced by it—or when we unknowingly communicate to and influence others in
an unintended way.
V. PROPAGANDA
Propaganda is the use of persuasion by a group (often a closely knit organization) in a sustained, organized campaign using multiple media for the purpose of
influencing a mass audience. Historically propaganda has been associated with
religious, social, or political movements. Today the term has been expanded to
include commercial advertising campaigns. The term first came into common
use in 1622 when Pope Gregory XV established the Sacred Congregation for
Propagating the Faith. What, in the view of the faithful, could be more commendable than spreading the faith? In 1933, when Hitler appointed Dr. Joseph
Goebbels as his minister of propaganda, the word took on a different connotation. From the standpoint of non-Nazis, what could be more evil than spreading
Nazism? Even today propaganda often is perceived as a pejorative term. Imagine
an official of a women’s group saying:
We’ve been conducting an extensive educational campaign to inform
the public of the necessity of making abortion on demand available to
20. Christopher Toothaker, “Chavez Warns Foreign Critics,” The Miami Herald, July 23,
2007, p. 8A.
14
CHAPTER 1
CRITICAL THINKING
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 propagandize. Another example is President Chavez of Venezuela. He spoke to the
United Nations in 2007, referring to President George Bush as “the devil.”
Later Chavez threatened to deport international visitors from Venezuela who
were critical of him and his government.
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 evidence and valid reasoning. Examples of questionable methods may be found in
the Allied propaganda in the United States prior to America’s entry into World
War 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 Soviet
Union, which made extensive use of the technique of the “big lie.” During
Middle East crises both Israel and the Arab countries have conducted propaganda
campaigns 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 campaigns designed to get the public to drive safely, to recognize the symptoms of
cancer, and to practice safe sex; these examples are usually based on sound evidence and reasonable inference. Other examples include campaigns by churches
to persuade people to act in accordance with the Ten Commandments and by
charitable groups to raise funds for the homeless or for people with AIDS.
Propagandists reach a decision on a problem before they begin th