| Term | Definition |
|---|
| Lincoln-Douglas Debate | A type of formal debate made famous in 1857. Today's debates are different in structure, but their emphasis on intellect, strategy, use of evidence and speaking ability remain crucial to the success of the debater. Competitors try to convince the judges that they have a clear moral victory. |
| Value | Standard applied by people to judge something right or wrong, good or bad. It's a Concept, not a document or court ruling. Examples are right to fair trial, individual liberty |
| Value Premise | The Value decided upon by the debater for their resolution, providing standard of judgment to evaluate whether the resolution is true. "Statement" or Resolution |
| Resolution | What is being debated; a proposition which involves philosophical, ethical or moral judgments |
| Status Quo | The current state of affairs; what is now the case for an issue |
| Affirmative | The side in debate which upholds the resolution; wanting to prove its true |
| Negative | Side in debate which does NOT uphold resolution; disagreeing with resolution |
| Ought | Refers to ideal. "how you think things SHOULD be", regardless of how they actually are now. Refers to a moral obligation based on a sense of duty. |
| Clash | Making arguments directly conflict with opponent's. By refuting their arguments and showing that their arguments are flawed |
| Crystallizing | Choosing the most important arguments and linking them back to values presented in round. Concentrated into "one statement" |
| Sign-posting | Helpful tool that allows judges to know which part of speech you are giving |
| Inductive Reasoning | Reasoning that moves from particular to general |
| Deductive Reasoning | Reasoning that moves from general to the specific-concludes with applying to new situation. Relies on reasoning process under the condition that it's valid. |
| Syllogism | piece of deductive reasoning containing major, minor and conclusion |
| Major Premise | Generalization derived from induction |
| Minor Premise | specific assertion about some element of the major premise |
| Conclusion | Assertion of logical connection between two premises |
| Fallacy | Flaw in reasoning or inappropriate emotional appeal-basis for invalid assumptions |
| Hasty Generalization | leaps to all instances when only some instances apply |
| Oversimplification | Inductive conclusion that ignores complexities in evidence that undermine/provide alternates to conclusion. "More complicated than it really is" |
| Begging the question | assumes a conclusion in statement of premise before it is even proved |
| Ignoring the question | offering an emotional appeal as premise in logical argument |
| Ad hominem | form of ignoring the question by attacking opponents instead of opponents' arguments |
| Either-or | requiring audience to choose between two interpretations/actions when in fact choices are more numerous |
| Non sequitur | conclusion derived illogically/erroneously from stated or implied premises |
| Post hoc | assuming that because one thing preceded another, it must have caused the other |
Combine with other sets
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace