Debate Primer

Crucial skills for winning arguments

What is an argument?

Not a good rejoinder

So, what is an argument?

• Arguments are about providing reasons.

​

• The reasons might turn out to be true or false.

​

• The reasons might, even if true, not justify the main idea.

​

• But an argument provides reasons that, if agreed to, might persuade a rational person to change their mind.

​

Example: Capital punishment is a good policy because it reduces crime.

​

Does capital punishment actually reduce crime?

​

​

Even if it does reduce crime, is it worth it?

​

​

If it does reduce crime, maybe it is a good policy. This might change my opinion.

Arguments are relevant and debatable

Explanation: Capital punishment is a good policy because the Puritans brought it over.

Motive: Capital punishment is a good policy because the governor is tough on crime.

Preference: Capital punishment is a good policy because the American people want it.

Argument: Capital punishment is a good policy because it reduces crime.

​

Not relevant: What worked in the Puritans’ time may or may not work today.

Not relevant: We don’t need to evaluate the governor’s personal character.

Not relevant: Just because people want it doesn’t make it right or wrong.

Relevant: This would be a reason to consider capital punishment. Debatable: Are the facts true? Is preventing crime the most important consideration?

Parts of an argument: CLAIM

​

​

​

Example: Capital punishment is a good policy.

Parts of an argument: DATA

​

​

​

​

Example: Crime rates in states with capital punishment are lower than crime rates in states without capital punishment.

Parts of an argument: WARRANTS

​

​

​

​

​

​

Example: Lower crime rates in some states happen primarily due to the fact that these states have capital punishment.

Parts of an argument: RELEVANCE

​

​

​

​

Example: If capital punishment reduces crime, then it is an option governors should consider to keep their citizens safe.

Let’s practice! Identify the right data to complete the argument:

Identify the right claim:

Identify the right warrant:

Your turn. Let’s generate a list of possible claims in favor or against legal immigration:

​

​

​

Let’s read the articles. Underline good data (you can skip low-quality or repetitive facts). Circle good warrants.

​

​

​

Present a complete argument to a partner:

• You may have to infer the claim or the relevance
• Make sure you provide the data
• Explain the warrant. Why is this author’s opinion the most likely way to interpret the data?

​

Your partner should listen, then critique the argument:

• Is it complete? Claim, data, warrants, relevance?
• Do the parts go together coherently and make sense?
• Is the warrant the most reasonable way to interpret the data? Are other interpretations possible?

Asking questions is the way we undermine arguments

​

​

Asking great follow-up questions is an important skill. Keep at them till they answer!

Cue to 15:40

John Dickerson on The Gist