Objectives:

• Introduce ProjectFour and emphasize its continuity (shares a focus on stasis questions) and change (give students choice between two genres) with ProjectThree
• Execute second public debate thunderdome, focusing on mistakes and/or weaknesses of the first debate
• Relate the skills used in the debate to the ones that will be used in executing ProjectThree
• Note: the Good Reasons chapter assigned for today's lesson contains two example evaluation arguments (one by Michael Eric Dyson on gangsta rap and a student essay on military stop-loss polices), one or both of which could be used as examples during this session or the next (March 24 on our model wiki schedule)
• Note: this class precedes the Spring Break

Evaluations and Proposals: Life and Death Issues

Evaluation Arguments

ProjectFour

Arguments over evaluations occur whenever people disagree about the postive or negative qualities of a thing (a structure we'ver referred to before through the query: "Is X (not) as good Y?").

Much like definitional arguments ("Is X a Y?"), evaluations usually also involve a criteria-match structure structure, but in this case you are not providing the criteria that a thing must meet to be defined in a category, but the criteria it must meet to be evaluated as a "good" or "bad" instance of whatever category to which it already belongs. In other words, it follows the structure "X is (not) a good Y because it (fails to) meet(s) criteria Q, R, P."

Example from today's Topic in enthymeme form:

Claim: The death penalty is an effective form of criminal punishment.

Stated Reason: The death penalty deters criminal activity successfully.

Grounds: Evidence that criminals fear the death penalty more than other punishments, examples of states in which capital crimes have decreased after the introduction of the death penalty.

Warrant (Criterion): Deterrence of criminal acts is the most important purpose of criminal punishment

Backing: Explanations of why this is the case from, for instance, the history of crime and punishment, most people's definitions of criminal punishment, etc.

Conditions of Rebuttal: One might either attack the stated reasons and ground by arguing, for instance, that the death penalty does not, in fact, work (better than other punishments) as a deterrent to crime. Or, one might attack the warrant and backing by arguing that deterrance is not/should not be the fundamental purpose criminal punishment (perhaps by suggesting, for instance, that rehabilitation is the "true" purpose).

Proposal Arguments

Much like evaluations, proposals are created based on specific criteria and follow a basic structure: "We should (not) do X." Similarly, much like evaluations often include definitions within them, proposal also often include definitions and/or evaluations within them.

Proposals are typically arranged in a three part structure:

1. Convincing the audience that a problem exists

2. Showing the particulars of your proposal (your solution to the problem)

3. Justifying why your proposal should be enacted.

Dependent on the particulars of your topic, one or more of these items may be prioritized over the others. For instance, if you are proposing a fairly straightforward change that requires little detail - say, convincing an audience to ban stem cell research - you might spend the majority of its times on item one (convincing the audience that stem cell research is a problem), with items two (it should be banned entirely in the US) and three (negative consequences if the ban is not enacted) relegated to the final few paragraphs.

Common Tools for Proposals

Proposals often make use of both Categorical and Resemblance arguments. Both work by putting the item in question in relation to another item for which the audience already has strong feelings.

Proposals also almost always make use of Cause/Consequence arguments, as a rhetor needs to account for both the positive and negative consequences of a planned proposal.

For instance, a proposal to eliminate the Greek system (sororities and fraternities) at WSU could make use of both techniques.

Example from Categorical Arguments: "WSU should abolish fraternities and sororities because the Greek system is elitist."

Example from Resemblance: "WSU should abolish fraternities and sororities because other schools that have eliminated the Greek system have produced good results."

Example from Cause/Consequence: "WSU should abolish fraternities and sororities because eliminating the Greek system would improve our school's academic reputation."

The Commonplace vs. the Ideal

Very often evaluations and propsals have to negotiate between what is "common" and what is "ideal." For instance, ideally there would be no need for the death penalty because capital crimes would not be common, but they are common, so we must consider the use of the death penalty. Or, one might argue that ideally there would be no need to perform controversial issues such as distributing condoms in middle schools (ideally minors would not be having sex), or clean needles to drug addicts (ideally they would not be using IV drugs), or legal abortion procedures (ideally all pregnancies would be planned). However, in arguing in reference to the commonplace, one must consider the less than ideal factors that result from these common behaviors (sexually-transmitted diseases, unwanted pregnancies, the spread of HIV and hepatitus through infected needles, potentially lethal "illegal" abortions, etc.).

Return of the 1020 Public Debate Thunderdome!!!

Theme

In War and Battle, We Must Proceed Like This, So-crates..

1. The class will be divided into three categories: two debating "teams" and a panel of judges.

2. A coin toss will decide which of the two debating teams gets to decide which perspective (pro/con) to argue on the proposal to reinstate the death penalty in Michigan.

2. The two teams will then be given 20 minutes to prepare their opening statements.

3. Five minute arguments will be made by a representative (or representatives) of each group

4. After ten more minutes of prep time, a different spokesman for each team will rebut the opposing teams initial argument.

5. Afterwards, the panel of judges will convene privately to decide which team won the debate. Members of the winning team will receive a bonus point (one percentage point) appended to their final grade.

Fighting Tipz

I. Form a Coherent Introduction: Many of the negative comments given by jurors have referred to a lack of direction, summation, or structure in opening statements. If you can begin with a simple statement of the points you are going to argue ("We feel that Proposition 2 will have a positive effect on Michigan for three primary reasons...") this will give the jury a "map" to follow as they listen to the rest of your statement. It wouldn't be a bad idea to summarize major points at the end of opening statements/rebuttals as well.

II. Criteria-Match/Counter-argument: As these are evaluative arguments ("Proposition 2 will be good/bad for Michigan because..."), you need to provide some number of criteria through which to evaluate the legislation (i.e., economic, social, ethical criteria). Explicit use of criteria will not only make for a powerful evaluation overall, but help you structure the individual moves/strategies of your opening statement. Similarly, when rebutting your opponents' arguments,

III. Make Sure the Rebuttal is a "Real" Response: On a related note, many jurors have been concerned about the lack of precision in some team's rebuttals; i.e., they have felt that the rebuttals sometimes act as a simple restatement of the team's opening statement rather than a focused response to the opposing team's opening statement.