| Term | Definition |
|---|
| inductive reasoning | reasoning that moves from the particular to the general – makes a generalization about a specific set of experiences. Child burns self on stove three times = "stoves burn." |
| deductive reasoning | reasoning that moves from the general to the specific – starts with a generalization then concludes with applying to a new situation. Can often be expressed as a syllogism. Deductive reasoning does not use a logical leap; instead, it relies on the reasoning process under the condition that the reasoning is valid |
| syllogism | : a piece of deductive reasoning contains a major premise, minor premise, and conclusion. |
| fallacy | a flaw in reasoning or inappropriate emotional appeal – often the basis for invalid assumptions. (Make the speaker sound ignorant and/or stupid) |
| hasty generalization | leaps to include ALL instances when at best only SOME instances provide evidence (example: stereotypes) |
| oversimplification | inductive conclusion that ignores complexities in the evidence that undermine/provide alternates to the conclusion. |
| begging the question | assumes a conclusion in the statement of a premise, asking the audience to accept the conclusion before it is proved. |
| ignoring the question | offering an emotional appeal as a premise in a logical argument (shifting the argument away from the real question) |
| Ad hominem | a form of ignoring the question by attacking the opponents instead of the opponents' arguments |
| either-or | requiring that the audience chooses between two interpretations/actions when in fact the choices are more numerous |
| non sequitur | conclusion derived illogically/erroneously from stated or implied premises ("crazy talk"). |
| post hoc | assuming that because one thing preceded another, it must have caused the other. |
| Lincoln-Douglas debate | . In a Lincoln-Douglas debate, the competitors try to convince the judges that they have a clear moral victory. |
| value | A standard applied by people to judge something right or wrong, good or bad. (ex. freedom of speech, the right to a fair trial, individual liberty, justice, equality of opportunity, democracy) |
| value premise | The value decided upon by the debater for their resolution. It provides a standard of judgment to evaluate whether the resolution is true. Your goal is to show that your value premise is more important than your opponent's value premise. |
| resolution | What is being debated; a proposition which involves philosophical, ethical or moral judgments. These are the basis for Lincoln-Douglas debates. |
| status quo | The current state of affairs; what is now the case for an issue. |
| affirmative | The side in the debate which upholds the resolution; the side which agrees with the resolution and wants to prove it is true. |
| negative | The side in the debate which does NOT uphold the resolution; the side disagrees with the resolution and wants to prove that it is NOT true. |
| ought | refers to a moral obligation based on a sense of duty. What things ought to be and how things actually exist are two different things. |
| clash | Making your arguments directly conflict with your opponent's. This is a desirable goal. You clash with your opponent by refuting their argument(s), by showing how their arguments are flawed. The first clash in a debate should occur in the 1 NC. |
| crystallizing | Choosing the most important arguments and linking them back to the values presented in the round; in other words, telling the judges the major issues that have been presented and why your value in superior. |
| sign-posting | This is a helpful tool to let the judges and audience know which part of the speech you are giving, i.e.: "Argument #1, #2, #3... Evidence #1, #2, #3." |
Combine with other sets
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace
!