COMPILATIONS:
NUMBER 5:
MASTER LIST OF LOGICAL FALLACIES
The following is a list of all the fallacies that will be discussed in this course. Some are covered in the textbook and others will be introduced by the faculty member. It will be helpful to keep this page handy.
1. Ad hominem or ATTACKING THE PERSON. Attacking the arguer rather than his/her argument. Example: John's objections to capital punishment carry no weight since he is a convicted felon. Note: Saying something negative about someone is not automatically ad hominem. If a person (politician for example) is the issue, then it is not a fallacy to criticize him/her.
2. Ad ignorantium or APPEAL TO IGNORANCE. Arguing on the basis of what is not known and cannot be proven. (Sometimes called the "burden of proof" fallacy). If you can't prove that something is true then it must be false (and vice versa). Example: You can't prove there isn't a bampira like in Immortal, so there must be one.
3. Ad verecundiam or APPEAL TO AUTHORITY. This fallacy tries to convince the listener by appealing to the reputation of a famous or respected person. Oftentimes it is an authority in one field who is speaking out of his or her field of expertise. Example: Sports stars selling cars or hamburgers. Or, the actor on a TV commercial that says, "I'm not a doctor, but I play one on TV."
4. AFFIRMING THE CONSEQUENT. An invalid form of the conditional argument. In this case, the second premise affirms the consequent of the first premise and the conclusion affirms the antecedent. Example: If he wants to get that job, then he must know Spanish. He knows Spanish, so the job is his.
5. AMPHIBOLY. A fallacy of syntactical ambiguity where the position of words in a sentence or the juxtaposition of two sentences conveys a mistaken idea. This fallacy is like equivocation except that the ambiguity does not result from a shift in meaning of a single word or phrase, but is created by word placement.. Example: Jim said he saw Jenny walk her dog through the window. Ow! She should be reported for animal abuse.
6. APPEAL TO EMOTION. In this fallacy, the arguer uses emotional appeals rather than logical reasons to persuade the listener. The fallacy can appeal to various emotions including pride, pity, fear,
hate, vanity, or sympathy. Generally, the issue is oversimplified to the advantage of the arguer. Example: In 1972, there was a widely-printed advertisement printed by the Foulke Fur Co., which was in reaction to the frequent protests against the killing of Alaskan seals for the making of fancy furs. According to the advertisement, clubbing the seals was one of the great conservation stories of our history, a mere exercise in wildlife management, because "biologists believe a healthier colony is a controlled colony."
7. ARGUMENT FROM ANALOGY or FALSE ANALOGY. An unsound form of inductive argument in which an argument relies heavily on a weak analogy to prove its point. Example: This must be a great car, for, like the finest watches in the world, it was made in Switzerland.
8. BEGGING THE QUESTION. An argument in which the conclusion is implied or already assumed in the premises. Also said to be a circular argument. Example: Of course the Bible is the word of God. Why? Because God says so in the Bible.
9. SLIPPERY SLOPE. A line of reasoning that argues against taking a step because it assumes that if you take the first step, you will inevitably follow through to the last. This fallacy uses the valid form
of hypothetical syllogism, but uses guesswork for the premises. Example: We can't allow students any voice in decision making on campus; if we do, it won't be long before they are in total control.
10. COMMON BELIEF (Sometimes called the "bandwagon" fallacy or 'appeal to popularity"). This fallacy is committed when we assert a statement to be true on the evidence that many other people allegedly believe it. Being widely believed is not proof or evidence of the truth. Example: Of course Nixon was guilty in Watergate. Everybody knows that.
11. PAST BELIEF. A form of the COMMON BELIEF fallacy. The same error in reasoning is committed except the claim is for belief or support in the past. Example: We all know women should obey their husbands. After all, marriage vows contained those words for centuries.
12. CONTRARY TO FACT HYPOTHESIS. This fallacy is committed when we state with an unreasonable degree of certainty the results of an event that might have occurred but did not. Example: If President Bush had not gone into the Persian Gulf with military force when he did, Saddam Hussein would control the world's oil from Saudi Arabia today.
13. DENYING THE ANTECEDENT. An invalid form of the conditional argument. In this one, the second premise denies the antecedent of the first premise, and the conclusion denies the consequent. Often mistaken for modus tollens. Example: If she qualifies for a promotion, she must speak English. She doesn't qualify for the promotion, so she must not know how to speak English.
14. DIVISION. This fallacy is committed when we conclude that any part of a particular whole must have a characteristic because the whole has that characteristic. Example: I am sure that Karen plays the piano well, since her family is so musical.
15. COMPOSITION. This fallacy is committed when we conclude that a whole must have a characteristic because some part of it has that characteristic. Example: The Arroyo clan must be rolling in money, since GMA makes a lot from her presidency.
16. FAR-FETCHED HYPOTHESIS. A fallacy of inductive reasoning that is committed when we accept a particular hypothesis when a more acceptable hypothesis, or one more strongly based in fact, is available. Example: The African-American church was set afire after the civil rights meeting last night; therefore, it must have been done by the leader and the minister to cast suspicion on the local segregationists.
17. FALSE DILEMMA (often called the either/or fallacy or false dichotomy). This fallacy assumes that we must choose one of two alternatives instead of allowing for other possibilities; a false form
of disjunctive syllogism. Example: "Pinoys, love it or leave it." (The implication is, since you don't love it the only option is to leave it).
18.EQUIVOCATION. This fallacy is a product of semantic ambiguity. The arguer uses the ambiguous nature of a word or phrase to shift the meaning in such a way as to make the reason offered appear more convincing. Example: We realize that workers are idle during the period of lay-offs. But the government should never subsidize idleness, which has often been condemned as a vice. Therefore, payments to laid off workers are wrong.
19.HASTY GENERALIZATION. A generalization accepted on the support of a sample that is too small or biased to warrant it. Example: All men are rats! Just look at the louse that I married.
21.INCONSISTENCY. A discourse is inconsistent or self-contradicting if it contains, explicitly or implicitly, two assertions that are logically incompatible with each other. Inconsistency can also occur between words and actions. Example: A woman who represents herself as a feminist, yet doesn't believe women should run for Congress.
22.NON SEQUITUR. ("It does not follow.") In this fallacy the premises have no direct relationship to the conclusion. This fallacy appears in political speeches and advertising with great frequency. Example: A waterfall in the background and a beautiful girl in the foreground have nothing to do with an automobile's performance.
23.QUESTIONABLE CAUSE. (In Latin: non causa pro causa, "not the cause of that"). This form of the false cause fallacy occurs when the cause for an occurrence is identified on insufficient evidence. Example: I can't find the checkbook; I am sure that my husband hid it so I couldn't go shopping today.
24.RED HERRING. This fallacy introduces an irrelevant issue into a discussion as a diversionary tactic. It takes people off the issue at hand; it is beside the point. Example: Many people say that engineers need more practice in writing, but I would like to remind them how difficult it is to master all the math and drawing skills that an engineer requires.
25.SLANTING. A form of misrepresentation in which a true statement is made, but made in such a way as to suggest that something is not true or to give a false description through the manipulation of connotation. Example: I can't believe how much money is being poured into the Pantawid Pamapamilya Program (suggesting that 'poured' means heedless and unnecessary spending)
26.STRAW MAN. This fallacy occurs when we misrepresent an opponent's position to make it easier to attack, usually by distorting his or her views to ridiculous extremes. This can also take the form of attacking only the weak premises in an opposing argument while ignoring the strong ones. Example: Those who favor gun-control legislation just want to take all guns away from responsible citizens and put them into the hands of the criminals.
27.TWO WRONGS MAKE A RIGHT. This fallacy is committed when we try to justify an apparently wrong action by charges of a similar wrong. The underlying assumption is that if they do it, then we can do it too and are somehow justified. Example: Supporters of apartheid are often guilty of this error in reasoning. They point to U.S. practices of slavery to justify their system.
------------------------------------------------------------
2. SEND THE NONVERBAL MESSAGE THAT YOU ARE LISTENING. When someone is talking to you, do you maintain eye contact with that person? Do you show the speaker you are listening by nodding your head? Does your body language transmit the message that you are listening? Are you leaning forward and not using your hands to play with things? Most communication experts agree that nonverbal messages can be three times as powerful as verbal messages. Effective communication becomes difficult anytime you send a nonverbal message that you're not really listening.
3. AVOID EARLY EVALUATIONS. When listening, do you often make immediate judgments about what the speaker is saying? Do you assume or guess what the speaker is going to say next? Do you sometimes discover later that you failed to interpret correctly what the speaker was telling you? Because a listener can listen at a faster rate than most speakers talk, there is a tendency to evaluate too quickly. That tendency is perhaps the greatest barrier to effective listening. It is especially important to avoid early evaluations when listening to a person with whom you disagree. When listeners begin to disagree with a sender's message, they tend to misinterpret the remaining information and distort its intended meaning so that it is consistent with their own beliefs.
4. AVOID GETTING DEFENSIVE. Do you ever take what another person says personally when what her or she is saying is not meant to be personal? Do you ever become angry at what another person says? Careful listening does not mean that you will always agree with the other party's point of view, but it does mean that you will try to listen to what the other person is saying without becoming overly defensive. Too much time spent explaining, elaborating, and defending your decision or position is a sure sign that you are not listening. This is because your role has changed from one of listening to a role of convincing others they are wrong. After listening to a position or suggestion with which you disagree, simply respond with something like, "I understand your point. We just disagree on this one." Effective listeners can listen calmly to another person even when that person is offering unjust criticism.
5. PRACTICE PARAPHRASING. Paraphrasing is the art of putting into your own words what you thought you heard and saying it back to the sender. For example, a subordinate might say: "You have been unfair to rate me so low on my performance appraisal. You have rated me lower than Jim. I can do the job better than him, and I've been here longer." A paraphrased response might be: "I can see that you are upset about your rating. You think it was unfair for me to rate you as I did." Paraphrasing is a great technique for improving your listening and problem-solving skills. First, you have to listen very carefully if you are going to accurately paraphrase what you heard. Second, the paraphrasing response will clarify for the sender that his or her message was correctly received and encourage the sender to expand on what he or she is trying to communicate.
6. LISTEN (AND OBSERVE) FOR FEELINGS. When listening, do you concentrate just on the words that are being said, or do you also concentrate on the way they are being said? The way a speaker is standing, the tone of voice and inflection he or she is using, and what the speaker is doing with his or her hands are all part of the message that is being sent. A person who raises his or her voice is probably either angry or frustrated. A person looking down while speaking is probably either embarrassed or shy. Interruptions may suggest fear or lack of confidence. Persons who make eye contact and lean forward are likely exhibiting confidence. Arguments may reflect worry. Inappropriate silence may be a sign of aggression and be intended as punishment.
7. ASK QUESTIONS. Do you usually ask questions when listening to a message? Do you try to clarify what a person has said to you? Effective listeners make certain they have correctly heard the message that is being sent. Ask questions to clarify points or to obtain additional information. Open-ended questions are the best. They require the speaker to convey more information. Form your questions in a way that makes it clear you have not yet drawn any conclusions. This will assure the message sender that you are only interested in obtaining more and better information. And the more information that you as a listener have, the better you can respond to the sender's communication.
LISTEN ACTIVELY
Not everyone has to possess the same style of listening, active listening demands that the receiver of a message put aside the belief that listening is easy and that it happens naturally and realize that effective listening is hard work. The result of active listening is more efficient and effective communication.
The Listening Quiz
Are you an effective listener? Ask a friend that you communicate with regularly and who you know will answer honestly to respond "yes" or "no" to these 10 questions. Do not answer the questions yourself. We often view ourselves as great listeners when, in fact, others know that we are not.
1. During the past two weeks, can you recall an incident where you thought I was not listening to you?
2. When you are talking to me, do you feel relaxed at least 90 percent of the time?
3. When you are talking to me, do I maintain eye contact with you most of the time?
4. Do I get defensive when you tell me things with which I disagree?
5. When talking to me, do I often ask questions to clarify what you are saying?
6. In a conversation, do I sometimes overreact to information?
7. Do I ever jump in and finish what you are saying?
8. Do I often change my opinion after talking something over with you?
9. When you are trying to communicate something to me, do I often do too much of the talking?
10. When you are talking to me, do I often play with a pen, pencil, my keys, or something else like my cell phone?
Use your peer's answers to grade your listening skills. If you received nine or 10 correct answers, you are an excellent listener; seven or eight correct answers indicates a good listener; five or six correct answers means you possess average listening skills; and less than five correct answers is reflective of a poor listener.
NUMBER 3:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NUMBER 1:
Six fundamental rules for public speaking:
NUMBER 5:
MASTER LIST OF LOGICAL FALLACIES
The following is a list of all the fallacies that will be discussed in this course. Some are covered in the textbook and others will be introduced by the faculty member. It will be helpful to keep this page handy.
1. Ad hominem or ATTACKING THE PERSON. Attacking the arguer rather than his/her argument. Example: John's objections to capital punishment carry no weight since he is a convicted felon. Note: Saying something negative about someone is not automatically ad hominem. If a person (politician for example) is the issue, then it is not a fallacy to criticize him/her.
2. Ad ignorantium or APPEAL TO IGNORANCE. Arguing on the basis of what is not known and cannot be proven. (Sometimes called the "burden of proof" fallacy). If you can't prove that something is true then it must be false (and vice versa). Example: You can't prove there isn't a bampira like in Immortal, so there must be one.
3. Ad verecundiam or APPEAL TO AUTHORITY. This fallacy tries to convince the listener by appealing to the reputation of a famous or respected person. Oftentimes it is an authority in one field who is speaking out of his or her field of expertise. Example: Sports stars selling cars or hamburgers. Or, the actor on a TV commercial that says, "I'm not a doctor, but I play one on TV."
4. AFFIRMING THE CONSEQUENT. An invalid form of the conditional argument. In this case, the second premise affirms the consequent of the first premise and the conclusion affirms the antecedent. Example: If he wants to get that job, then he must know Spanish. He knows Spanish, so the job is his.
5. AMPHIBOLY. A fallacy of syntactical ambiguity where the position of words in a sentence or the juxtaposition of two sentences conveys a mistaken idea. This fallacy is like equivocation except that the ambiguity does not result from a shift in meaning of a single word or phrase, but is created by word placement.. Example: Jim said he saw Jenny walk her dog through the window. Ow! She should be reported for animal abuse.
6. APPEAL TO EMOTION. In this fallacy, the arguer uses emotional appeals rather than logical reasons to persuade the listener. The fallacy can appeal to various emotions including pride, pity, fear,
hate, vanity, or sympathy. Generally, the issue is oversimplified to the advantage of the arguer. Example: In 1972, there was a widely-printed advertisement printed by the Foulke Fur Co., which was in reaction to the frequent protests against the killing of Alaskan seals for the making of fancy furs. According to the advertisement, clubbing the seals was one of the great conservation stories of our history, a mere exercise in wildlife management, because "biologists believe a healthier colony is a controlled colony."
7. ARGUMENT FROM ANALOGY or FALSE ANALOGY. An unsound form of inductive argument in which an argument relies heavily on a weak analogy to prove its point. Example: This must be a great car, for, like the finest watches in the world, it was made in Switzerland.
8. BEGGING THE QUESTION. An argument in which the conclusion is implied or already assumed in the premises. Also said to be a circular argument. Example: Of course the Bible is the word of God. Why? Because God says so in the Bible.
9. SLIPPERY SLOPE. A line of reasoning that argues against taking a step because it assumes that if you take the first step, you will inevitably follow through to the last. This fallacy uses the valid form
of hypothetical syllogism, but uses guesswork for the premises. Example: We can't allow students any voice in decision making on campus; if we do, it won't be long before they are in total control.
10. COMMON BELIEF (Sometimes called the "bandwagon" fallacy or 'appeal to popularity"). This fallacy is committed when we assert a statement to be true on the evidence that many other people allegedly believe it. Being widely believed is not proof or evidence of the truth. Example: Of course Nixon was guilty in Watergate. Everybody knows that.
11. PAST BELIEF. A form of the COMMON BELIEF fallacy. The same error in reasoning is committed except the claim is for belief or support in the past. Example: We all know women should obey their husbands. After all, marriage vows contained those words for centuries.
12. CONTRARY TO FACT HYPOTHESIS. This fallacy is committed when we state with an unreasonable degree of certainty the results of an event that might have occurred but did not. Example: If President Bush had not gone into the Persian Gulf with military force when he did, Saddam Hussein would control the world's oil from Saudi Arabia today.
13. DENYING THE ANTECEDENT. An invalid form of the conditional argument. In this one, the second premise denies the antecedent of the first premise, and the conclusion denies the consequent. Often mistaken for modus tollens. Example: If she qualifies for a promotion, she must speak English. She doesn't qualify for the promotion, so she must not know how to speak English.
14. DIVISION. This fallacy is committed when we conclude that any part of a particular whole must have a characteristic because the whole has that characteristic. Example: I am sure that Karen plays the piano well, since her family is so musical.
15. COMPOSITION. This fallacy is committed when we conclude that a whole must have a characteristic because some part of it has that characteristic. Example: The Arroyo clan must be rolling in money, since GMA makes a lot from her presidency.
16. FAR-FETCHED HYPOTHESIS. A fallacy of inductive reasoning that is committed when we accept a particular hypothesis when a more acceptable hypothesis, or one more strongly based in fact, is available. Example: The African-American church was set afire after the civil rights meeting last night; therefore, it must have been done by the leader and the minister to cast suspicion on the local segregationists.
17. FALSE DILEMMA (often called the either/or fallacy or false dichotomy). This fallacy assumes that we must choose one of two alternatives instead of allowing for other possibilities; a false form
of disjunctive syllogism. Example: "Pinoys, love it or leave it." (The implication is, since you don't love it the only option is to leave it).
18.EQUIVOCATION. This fallacy is a product of semantic ambiguity. The arguer uses the ambiguous nature of a word or phrase to shift the meaning in such a way as to make the reason offered appear more convincing. Example: We realize that workers are idle during the period of lay-offs. But the government should never subsidize idleness, which has often been condemned as a vice. Therefore, payments to laid off workers are wrong.
19.HASTY GENERALIZATION. A generalization accepted on the support of a sample that is too small or biased to warrant it. Example: All men are rats! Just look at the louse that I married.
20.POST HOC, ERGO PROPTER HOC. ("After this, therefore caused by this.") A form of the false cause fallacy in which it is inferred that because one event followed another it is necessarily caused by that event. Example: Mary joined our class and the next week we all did poorly on the quiz. It must be her fault.
21.INCONSISTENCY. A discourse is inconsistent or self-contradicting if it contains, explicitly or implicitly, two assertions that are logically incompatible with each other. Inconsistency can also occur between words and actions. Example: A woman who represents herself as a feminist, yet doesn't believe women should run for Congress.
22.NON SEQUITUR. ("It does not follow.") In this fallacy the premises have no direct relationship to the conclusion. This fallacy appears in political speeches and advertising with great frequency. Example: A waterfall in the background and a beautiful girl in the foreground have nothing to do with an automobile's performance.
23.QUESTIONABLE CAUSE. (In Latin: non causa pro causa, "not the cause of that"). This form of the false cause fallacy occurs when the cause for an occurrence is identified on insufficient evidence. Example: I can't find the checkbook; I am sure that my husband hid it so I couldn't go shopping today.
24.RED HERRING. This fallacy introduces an irrelevant issue into a discussion as a diversionary tactic. It takes people off the issue at hand; it is beside the point. Example: Many people say that engineers need more practice in writing, but I would like to remind them how difficult it is to master all the math and drawing skills that an engineer requires.
25.SLANTING. A form of misrepresentation in which a true statement is made, but made in such a way as to suggest that something is not true or to give a false description through the manipulation of connotation. Example: I can't believe how much money is being poured into the Pantawid Pamapamilya Program (suggesting that 'poured' means heedless and unnecessary spending)
26.STRAW MAN. This fallacy occurs when we misrepresent an opponent's position to make it easier to attack, usually by distorting his or her views to ridiculous extremes. This can also take the form of attacking only the weak premises in an opposing argument while ignoring the strong ones. Example: Those who favor gun-control legislation just want to take all guns away from responsible citizens and put them into the hands of the criminals.
27.TWO WRONGS MAKE A RIGHT. This fallacy is committed when we try to justify an apparently wrong action by charges of a similar wrong. The underlying assumption is that if they do it, then we can do it too and are somehow justified. Example: Supporters of apartheid are often guilty of this error in reasoning. They point to U.S. practices of slavery to justify their system.
NUMBER 4:
7 tips for effective listening
1. CONCENTRATE ON WHAT OTHERS ARE SAYING. When listening to someone, do you often find yourself thinking about a job or task that is nearing deadline or an important family matter? In the middle of a conversation, do you sometimes realize that you haven't heard a word the other person has said? Most individuals speak at the rate of 175 to 200 words per minute. However, research suggests that we are very capable of listening and processing words at the rate of 600 to 1,000 words per minute. This unused brainpower can be a barrier to effective listening, causing the uas to miss or misinterpret what others are saying. It is important for us to actively concentrate on what others are saying so that effective communication can occur.2. SEND THE NONVERBAL MESSAGE THAT YOU ARE LISTENING. When someone is talking to you, do you maintain eye contact with that person? Do you show the speaker you are listening by nodding your head? Does your body language transmit the message that you are listening? Are you leaning forward and not using your hands to play with things? Most communication experts agree that nonverbal messages can be three times as powerful as verbal messages. Effective communication becomes difficult anytime you send a nonverbal message that you're not really listening.
3. AVOID EARLY EVALUATIONS. When listening, do you often make immediate judgments about what the speaker is saying? Do you assume or guess what the speaker is going to say next? Do you sometimes discover later that you failed to interpret correctly what the speaker was telling you? Because a listener can listen at a faster rate than most speakers talk, there is a tendency to evaluate too quickly. That tendency is perhaps the greatest barrier to effective listening. It is especially important to avoid early evaluations when listening to a person with whom you disagree. When listeners begin to disagree with a sender's message, they tend to misinterpret the remaining information and distort its intended meaning so that it is consistent with their own beliefs.
4. AVOID GETTING DEFENSIVE. Do you ever take what another person says personally when what her or she is saying is not meant to be personal? Do you ever become angry at what another person says? Careful listening does not mean that you will always agree with the other party's point of view, but it does mean that you will try to listen to what the other person is saying without becoming overly defensive. Too much time spent explaining, elaborating, and defending your decision or position is a sure sign that you are not listening. This is because your role has changed from one of listening to a role of convincing others they are wrong. After listening to a position or suggestion with which you disagree, simply respond with something like, "I understand your point. We just disagree on this one." Effective listeners can listen calmly to another person even when that person is offering unjust criticism.
5. PRACTICE PARAPHRASING. Paraphrasing is the art of putting into your own words what you thought you heard and saying it back to the sender. For example, a subordinate might say: "You have been unfair to rate me so low on my performance appraisal. You have rated me lower than Jim. I can do the job better than him, and I've been here longer." A paraphrased response might be: "I can see that you are upset about your rating. You think it was unfair for me to rate you as I did." Paraphrasing is a great technique for improving your listening and problem-solving skills. First, you have to listen very carefully if you are going to accurately paraphrase what you heard. Second, the paraphrasing response will clarify for the sender that his or her message was correctly received and encourage the sender to expand on what he or she is trying to communicate.
6. LISTEN (AND OBSERVE) FOR FEELINGS. When listening, do you concentrate just on the words that are being said, or do you also concentrate on the way they are being said? The way a speaker is standing, the tone of voice and inflection he or she is using, and what the speaker is doing with his or her hands are all part of the message that is being sent. A person who raises his or her voice is probably either angry or frustrated. A person looking down while speaking is probably either embarrassed or shy. Interruptions may suggest fear or lack of confidence. Persons who make eye contact and lean forward are likely exhibiting confidence. Arguments may reflect worry. Inappropriate silence may be a sign of aggression and be intended as punishment.
7. ASK QUESTIONS. Do you usually ask questions when listening to a message? Do you try to clarify what a person has said to you? Effective listeners make certain they have correctly heard the message that is being sent. Ask questions to clarify points or to obtain additional information. Open-ended questions are the best. They require the speaker to convey more information. Form your questions in a way that makes it clear you have not yet drawn any conclusions. This will assure the message sender that you are only interested in obtaining more and better information. And the more information that you as a listener have, the better you can respond to the sender's communication.
LISTEN ACTIVELY
Not everyone has to possess the same style of listening, active listening demands that the receiver of a message put aside the belief that listening is easy and that it happens naturally and realize that effective listening is hard work. The result of active listening is more efficient and effective communication.
The Listening Quiz
Are you an effective listener? Ask a friend that you communicate with regularly and who you know will answer honestly to respond "yes" or "no" to these 10 questions. Do not answer the questions yourself. We often view ourselves as great listeners when, in fact, others know that we are not.
1. During the past two weeks, can you recall an incident where you thought I was not listening to you?
2. When you are talking to me, do you feel relaxed at least 90 percent of the time?
3. When you are talking to me, do I maintain eye contact with you most of the time?
4. Do I get defensive when you tell me things with which I disagree?
5. When talking to me, do I often ask questions to clarify what you are saying?
6. In a conversation, do I sometimes overreact to information?
7. Do I ever jump in and finish what you are saying?
8. Do I often change my opinion after talking something over with you?
9. When you are trying to communicate something to me, do I often do too much of the talking?
10. When you are talking to me, do I often play with a pen, pencil, my keys, or something else like my cell phone?
Use your peer's answers to grade your listening skills. If you received nine or 10 correct answers, you are an excellent listener; seven or eight correct answers indicates a good listener; five or six correct answers means you possess average listening skills; and less than five correct answers is reflective of a poor listener.
NUMBER 3:
DEBATE SPEECHES WITH SUGGESTED TIME LIMITS
First Affirmative Constructive Speech 5 minutes
Cross examination by Second Negative Constructive Speaker l minute
First Negative Constructive Speech 5 minutes
Cross examination by First Affirmative Constructive Speaker l minute
Second Affirmative Constructive Speech 5 minutes
Cross Examination by First Negative Constructive Speaker l minute
Second Negative Constructive Speech 5 minutes
Cross Examination by Second Affirmative Constructive Speaker l minute
First Negative Rebuttal Speech 2 minutes
First Affirmative Rebuttal Speech 2 minutes
Second Negative Rebuttal Speech 2 minutes
Second Affirmative Rebuttal Speech 2 minutes
DUTIES OF DEBATE SPEAKERS
First Affirmative Constructive Speech
-Read the resolution
-Define terms
-State reasons for a change
-Present a plan to accomplish the change
-Present advantages which occur with the adoption of the affirmative plan
Cross examination
The purpose of all cross examination is to clarify misunderstanding first and
foremost. Then the questioner should ask questions designed to set up his
partner's speech.
First Negative Constructive Speech
-Argue with definition of terms, if necessary.
-Explain why the affirmative reasons for a change are invalid.
Second Affirmative Constructive Speech
-Explain why affirmative definitions are best, if necessary.
-Rebuild the reasons for a change.
-Answer all negative arguments relating to those reasons for a change.
Second Negative Constructive Speech
-Establish why the affirmative plan will not work.
-Present disadvantages to a change in policy.
First Negative Rebuttal Speech
-Summarize the negative position with focus on the need for a change area.
Second Affirmative Rebuttal Speech
-Rebuild the affirmative plan.
-Show why the disadvantages do not apply
-Re-estabish the affirmative advantages
Second Negative Rebuttal Speech
-Summarize the negative position in total
-Ask for a negative ballot in the debate
Second Affirmative Rebuttal Speech
-Summarize the affirmative position in the debate
-Ask for an affirmative ballot in the debate
SAMPLE FIRST AFFIRMATIVE CONSTRUCTIVE SPEECH
NOTE: The first affirmative constructive speech is the basis for the entire debate. It is imperative therefore that it contains all the essential elements necessary to set up a good debate. The following is designed merely to be a model for students to work from, it is encouraged to cite sources of evidence and label points more clearly than this sample.
Marijuana has been used in the United States for years. The affirmative is here happy to be here today to debate this topic: Resolved: That marijuana should be legalized.
Marijuana is defined as a drug obtained from the dried leaves and flowering tops of a hamp plant, and it is smoked in cigarettes for the intoxicating effect. If this substance were legalized it would mean that a person could purchase this substance and use it without fear of arrest.
We've all heard a lot about marijuana. Is it harmful or isn't it? Some scientists say it is and some say it isn't. It has been compared to alcohol. Some experts say that it isn't as bad as alcohol. Some say it is worse. What can we believe?
The affirmative side is not here today to prove or disprove all the things you have heard about marijuana. We are here for one purpose and that is to explain to you why marijuana should be legalized.
The first reason for legalization is simple. The use of marijuana is widespread. Reports claim that between 27,000,000 and 34,000,000 Americans have smoked marijuana at least once. Exact figures are not available because people won't admit they have smoked marijuana because it is against the law.
The use of this drug is so widespread that it became an issue in the l992 Presidential Election when President Bill Clinton admited to having smoked (but not inhaled) marijuana. Breaking the laws dealing with marijuana can have serious effects on the lives of young people. They may find their education interrupted and their future shadowed by having a policy record. An arrest or conviction for a felony can complicate a person's life. Indiviuals with apolicy record are very often not given responsible positions in business and other professions. Does this sound serious? It can be. And it is far too serious for the crime that has been committed.
Young people are curious about the world aroundthem, and they are curious about drugs. Goverment statistics say that two out of every three teenagers experiment with marijuana. Most of them just want to see how they feel if they puff a joint. Because of this curiosity should they be treated like common criminals? We, the affirmative, say no. We should legalize marijuana and thereby gain control over the substance.
The second reason we believe marijuana should be legalized is simple. The effects of marijuana usage are less harmful than alcohol which is a controlled and legalized substance. The use of marijuana has not been shown to be harmful. In fact, most experts estimate that marijuana usage is less detrimental than alcohol usage. Because marijuana use is widespread and because it has few, if any, harmful effects, we propose that the drug made legal. This will be accomplished by the passage of a law by the federal government. Access to the drug will be through cigarettes sold to those persons over the age of l8. Tax revenue will go to the state and local government.
This plan will provide for control of marijuana. At this time we hear reports of users of marijuana getting other drugs dusted on their marijuana. Our plan will protect users from getting anything but a quality product.This plan will also have the advantage of making money for the federal government and the state government. Just as we collect tax revenue on cigarettes we will now have additional money from the sale of marijuana. This money can be used fund those programs which currently are cut out of the budget due to a lack of funds.
Finally, this plan will help decrease organized crime. At this time marijuana sales and consequently revenue are in the hands of those individuals who select to break the law and grow or sell the drug. Now these activities will be legal and criminal elements will not be able to profit from the sale of the drug.
For all these reasons the affirmative team asks that you adopt the resolution and legalize marijuana.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NUMBER 2:
Definitions
Logical Fallacies
The Perfect Solution Fallacy: a logical fallacy that occurs when an argument assumes that a perfect solution should exist and/or that a solution should be rejected because some part of the problem would still exist after it was implemented.
Package Deal: assuming that things often grouped together by tradition or culture must always be grouped that way.
Example: "My opponent is a conservative who voted against higher taxes and welfare, therefore he will also oppose gun control and abortion."
Example: "My opponent is a conservative who voted against higher taxes and welfare, therefore he will also oppose gun control and abortion."
Appeal to Probability: because something could happen, it is inevitable that it will happen. This is the premise on which Murphy's Law is based.
Straw Man Argument: presenting a misrepresentation of the opponent's position and then refuting it, thus giving the appearance that the opponent's actual position has been refuted. Oversimplifying an opponent's argument, then attacking the simplified version.
Example: "Evolution is false! How could a mouse evolve into an elephant?"
Example: "Evolution is false! How could a mouse evolve into an elephant?"
Argument from Fallacy: assuming that if an argument is fallacious, then the conclusion must necessarily be false.
False Dilemma: where two alternative statements are held to be the only possible options, when in reality there are several.
Example: You're either for me or against me.
Example: You're either for me or against me.
Ad Hominem Argument: replying to an argument by attacking the person making the argument, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument. The process of proving or disproving the claim is thereby subverted, and the argumentum ad hominem works to change the subject.
Example: "Of course you're opposed to abortion, you're a priest."
Example: "Of course you're opposed to abortion, you're a priest."
Begging the Question (Circular Reasoning): assuming the conclusion to prove the conclusion.
Example:
Suppose Paul is not lying when he speaks.
Paul is speaking.
Therefore, Paul is telling the truth.
Example:
Suppose Paul is not lying when he speaks.
Paul is speaking.
Therefore, Paul is telling the truth.
Equivocation: occurs in a logical chain of reasoning where a term is used two or more times, but giving the term a different meaning each time.
Example:
A feather is light.
What is light cannot be dark.
Therefore, a feather cannot be dark.
Example:
A feather is light.
What is light cannot be dark.
Therefore, a feather cannot be dark.
Proof by Verbosity: tries to persuade by overwhelming those considering an argument with such a volume of material that the argument sounds plausible, superficially appears to be well-researched, and that is so laborious to untangle and check supporting facts that the argument is allowed to slide by unchallenged.
False Analogy: An argument where two objects are similar in some way, therefore are assumed to share other similarities.
Hasty Generalization: A broad conclusion based on insufficient data.
Appeal to Authority: an assertion is deemed true because of the position or authority of the person asserting it.
Cherry Picking: the act of pointing at individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position, while ignoring a significant portion of related cases or data that may contradict that position.
Red Herring (Irrelevant Conclusion): presenting an argument that may in itself be valid, but doesn't address the issue in question.
Slippery Slope: suggests that an action will initiate a chain of events culminating in an undesirable event later. The slippery slope can be valid or fallacious. These arguments may indeed have validity, but they require some independent justification of the connection between their terms: otherwise the argument (as a logical tool) remains fallacious.
Other Debate Definitions
Constructive speech: a speech that presents the debater's basic arguments for (Affirmative Round) or against (Negative Round) the resolution. One of the first four speeches of a debate round. In high school, constructive speeches are 8 minutes long, in college, they are 9 minutes.
Extemporaneous debate: a style involving no planning in advance. Research material is provided the teams along with the resolution shortly before the debate.
Lincoln-Douglas debate: named after the Abraham Lincoln and Stephen A. Douglas Debates of 1858, has two participants who compete against each other over a set resolution focused mainly on philosophical values.
Parliamentary debate: a competition of individuals in a multi-person setting. It is conducted under rules derived from British parliamentary procedure.
Policy proposition: a proposition usually calling for a change of policy by some form of government.
Prepared debate: a style where teams prepare their material weeks in advance of the debate. The resolution is agreed upon in advance.
Rebuttal Speech: one of the last four speeches of a round. Rebuttal speeches are not followed by cross-examination. In high school, rebuttals are 5 minutes long, in college they are 6 minutes long.
Resolution: a normative statement that which the Affirmative Team affirms and the Negative Team negates.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Six fundamental rules for public speaking:
COMPILED BY: JUNE RADI
Rule Number One: No matter how inadequate your speaking skills, don't tell your audience. It will be seen, not as an act of humility, but foolishness.
Rule Number Two: Write out what you intend to say. Don't trust your spontaneity to see you through. It won't. You may be glib, but don't go to the rostrum without a speech in hand. If you have Bill Clinton's photographic memory, you won't need your written speech, but the likelihood is you lack Clinton's gift.
Rule Number Three: Limit your speech to 20-25 minutes.
Rule Number Four: Never give a speech without citations from history or literature, and, from time-to-time, a line or two from poetry. You may dazzle as a speaker, but you will dazzle even more if you drop in quotes from various writers.
Moreover, as it relates to Rule Four, with the advent of the Web, you cannot possibly get away with giving a speech bereft of historical and literary references. It's all there. You don't have to go to the library. You don't need to pull a volume or two down from the bookshelf. Wonderful, fabulous material is right there in front of your face, and it's just a click away! It is so good, so rich, so incredible, so mind-expanding, that there are times when I can barely contain myself. Given that incontrovertible fact - the Internet is history's greatest support system - to give a speech consisting wholly of your own thoughts is borderline criminal - if not a felony than a serious misdemeanor. And violators WILL GET A 5.
Rule Number Five: Know your material! Never, ever, begin a sentence by saying, "As I understand", or, "As I believe." If you are not certain of your facts, then in the name of all that's rational and right, say nothing. Do not call attention to your ignorance. When someone does that, says, "As I understand", it tells me that person doesn't understand. It's unforgivable to do this. If you think it will get your audience's sympathy, you're wrong. It isn't their sympathy you will earn; it's their contempt (see Rule One).
Rule Number Six: If the audience is large enough and a microphone is required, make certain:
A) it works;
B) that you stay in front of it (directional mikes are death for most speakers), and
C) keep the sound technician close by.
Remember Rule Six and never forget it: If you can't be heard then the reason for the meeting, for your speech, is a monumental waste of time. It hasn't happened very often at the public forums I run, but every time it does I think either the sound person should be banished or the hotel should invest in a new sound system - or both.
Elliot's Thirty-Three Basic Rules of Public Speaking
1. Less is more. (Don't try to cram too much into your speech. Leave room to improvise and repeat.)
2. Some things work and some things don't. (You can only learn what works in front of an audience by trying it out for real.)
3. You only have one enemy. (The audience only knows what you tell them. They cannot see into your brain. Your habit of criticizing yourself makes you your main enemy.)
4. Give them something to hold onto in the first minute of your speech. (Give tangible value.)
5. You are your own model as a public speaker. (Develop your own style; don't try to copy anyone else.)
6. Content comes first; delivery makes it stick. (Yes, learn delivery techniques, but make sure you have something to say they want to hear. Give value.)
7. Speaking is not acting, teaching, talking or preaching; it is an art in itself. (Learn public speaking techniques by going out and speaking.)
8. Word-for-word doesn't work. (Do plan, but plan to ad lib and improvise.)
9. Don't expect real time feedback and audience validation. (Believe in yourself and stand your ground in your speech.)
10. Total honesty; respect for your audience. (If you cannot speak sincerely on your subject, go back and revise what you're going to say until you can.)
11. Turn your vulnerability into your strength. (There is no personal failing that cannot be turned into a public speaking tool. Make fun of yourself readily.)
12. As a leader, spell out and maintain the context. (Give their brains a chance, which means sometimes explaining the obvious, just to give them more time to follow what you're saying.)
13. Part of our hard-won political right to speak is a duty to do so. (Freedom of speech is recent in world history, and still not widespread geographically; public speakers are on the front lines of liberty.)
14. We have a need to achieve and account for ourselves. (Public speaking makes this happen.)
15. Shyness is a self-serving indulgence. (Get out of the apology habit.)
16. Isolate fear; don't confuse fear with nervousness or excitement. (Most nervousness doesn't show.)
17. Put fear in perspective; most fears never happen. (The audience cannot see inside your head; they only know what you choose to tell them.)
18. Don't care if you live or die. (Silence the self critic for the duration of the speech.)
19. Speak anywhere, everywhere, to any audience. (There is no substitute for broad experience in front of all kinds of audiences.)
20. Do not expect immediate payback; spread ideas; sow seeds. (Network one-to-one before and after; have handouts, business cards, brochures, resource aids available.)
21. Use your experience to develop your own effective message and delivery system. (Remember, do it your way, not the way you've seen others do it, though you can learn from them.)
22. Make fun of yourself to build a bridge; use everyday foibles, failings and frustrations. (Strive to add humor everyone can relate to.)
23. Make sure the humorous story or joke relates to the mission of your speech. (This takes practice, especially if you are good at being funny.)
24. Be appropriate, clean and non-controversial. (Never single out or comment about an individual in the audience unless that person relates directly to the speech.)
25. Avoid using visuals unless absolutely necessary, then use them sparingly. (Use visuals when you need to show something visual.)
26. You are the main visual, even though your body is not perfect. (Learn how not to hide your body from the audience; stand proud and hold your ground.)
27. Use visuals to accent yourself, not the other way around; don't get tied up in your visuals. (Learn to recognize how visuals can function as a crutch.)
28. You usually have to speak louder than you think you need to just to seem normal.
29. You usually have to exaggerate gestures just to seem normal.
30. Pauses always seem longer than they actually are; hold your ground and pause. (Pause an extra moment to focus your thoughts; your audience will focus with you.)
31. You make progress as a speaker every time you volunteer to speak.
32. You always have something to learn as a speaker and presenter.
33. When you least expect it, you will make sudden, dramatic improvement as a speaker.
