the arguments
SPECIFIC WEAKNESSES
There are a number of potential weaknesses with arguments that are sufficiently common to receive specific mention. Of course, this is by no means an exhaustive list of the potential problems with arguments, but it is certainly a list worth watching out for!
Inconsistency
Quite obviously, arguments must be consistent with each other and with your team’s theme. A direct and relevant contradiction will almost certainly cause a team to lose, because it erodes so much of a team’s credibility.
Direct and relevant contradictions are, thankfully, fairly easy to identify in preparation.
However, subtle inconsistencies between arguments can also erode a team’s credibility (although not to the same degree, of course), but can often be difficult to spot in preparation.
For example, in the debate about AIDS drugs discussed earlier, the negative team (opposition) was arguing that generic drugs are not very good, and hence are not a viable substitute for actual ‘AIDS drugs’. One opposition speaker took the line that
‘AIDS drugs’ were as bad as generics, which were very bad. Another speaker on the same team argued that generic drugs were so bad that they were worse than actual
‘AIDS drugs’. This example shows just how subtle some inconsistencies can be.
Here, both speakers were arguing that generic drugs were of poor quality, and hence inadequate substitutes. However, their understanding was nonetheless inconsistent.
While this inconsistency certainly did not lose the debate (in fact, the team won), it was certainly not helpful to the team’s credibility. For this reason, it is always important when developing arguments to ensure that every speaker of the team understands the argument in the same way.
Preparation: The Arguments
Insignificance
Remember, it is usually necessary to show that your side of the topic is generally true.
It is possible to present arguments or examples that are logically relevant, and well argued, but which nonetheless do not show your side of the topic to be true in general.
For example, consider the topic “THAT WE SHOULD REGRET THE 20th CENTURY”. In this case, the negative team must provide arguments and examples to show the benefits or the gains from the 20th century. Almost inevitably, an inexperienced team will discuss the Internet as one of the key benefits of the 20th century. However, this is logically and strategically very weak! Why? Because the Internet was widely relevant only really in the last five years of the 20th century. Even then, it has been regularly used by only a few per cent of the world’s population.
Although the Internet can definitely be portrayed as a ‘gain’ of the 20th century, it is simply not significant enough to use in the case – particularly given the extraordinary political, social and economic changes that occurred over the course of the century.
The Internet will surely pale against the opposition’s examples, which would likely include two World Wars, numerous other conflicts, widespread genocide and mass starvation!
A simple ‘rule of thumb’ may help here. It is not enough to ask, “Is this argument relevant?”, or “Does this help our side of the topic?”. You should also ask, “Will this argument or example really stand up against the biggest and most significant arguments and examples presented by our opposition?”.
Arguments that are too general
Quite obviously, the objective of a debate is to argue about an issue. Therefore, your arguments must relate to the issue of debate, and do so directly.
This principle seems self-evident, but can often be overlooked. For example, one debate at the 2001 World Schools Debating Championships in Johannesburg was on the issue of whether gay couples should be allowed to adopt children. The affirmative team (the proposition) was arguing in favour of allowing such adoption, and started with the argument that “discrimination is always wrong”, giving the example of the unacceptability of anti-Semitism. This argument, however, was too general, and merely begged the crucial question – the affirmative team was arguing, “Distinctions should not be drawn without good reason”, but was not discussing whether or not good reason did exist, in this case. The principle here should be clear: either you should be arguing directly on the issue at hand, or you should be drawing an analogy and explaining its relevance. If you find yourself stating general propositions in the abstract, your argument is probably not specific enough.
Preparation: The Arguments
Irrelevance
Some arguments are not so much weak as invalid – they are irrelevant to what your team needs to show. That is, even if they are well substantiated and well argued, some arguments simply do not assist your side of the topic. For that reason, quite obviously, you should never use them!
The simplest form of irrelevant argument is an argument that does not prove what your team set out to show. Although this sounds obvious, it is surprising how often debaters can become so enthused by an argument that they completely fail to realise its irrelevance! This is often caused by misunderstanding the underlying assumptions of the debate.
Let’s consider an example. Suppose the topic was “THAT WE SHOULD SUPPORT GLOBALISATION”. The negative team may argue something along these lines: “We should not support globalisation. We live in a democracy, and our government is obliged to respect public opinions. Massive anti-globalisation protests around the world, as well as numerous opinion polls, prove that the majority of our society is opposed to globalisation. Therefore, our government has a moral duty to oppose it.”
The problem with this argument should be clear: it confuses the notions of ‘we’ and
‘our government’. The underlying assumption of a debate like this is that ‘we’
(whoever ‘we’ are) are required to decide whether we support globalisation. Merely showing that many other people oppose globalisation is utterly irrelevant to whether
‘we’ should support it. This principle should seem obvious – and the argument is quite bizarre and illogical – but this kind of approach can sometimes occur. Like so many traps in debating, this trap can be avoided by debating the clear issue required by the topic: in our case, the merits and demerits of globalisation.
Dependent arguments
One special form of invalid argument is a dependent argument – an argument whose effectiveness depends entirely upon the success of another argument, and is therefore not a distinct reason in support of the topic.
This, too, is best explained with an example. One debate at the 1999 World Schools Debating Championships was on the topic “THAT WE SHOULD SUPPORT VOLUNTARY EUTHANASIA”. The affirmative team argued on two fronts. First, the team argued, “Terminally ill patients in extraordinary pain should have a right to die, and allowing those patients to receive voluntary euthanasia is a good thing.” (Of course, the argument was more sophisticated than this, but this was its essence.) Secondly, the team argued, “Palliative care is extremely costly, and a significant drain on our society’s resources. Of course, we wouldn’t support killing people simply to save money, but given that terminally ill patients should have a right to die, and given
Preparation: The Arguments
that a specific patient exercises that right, society will receive economic benefits by not having to support that patient’s palliative care.”
The main clash between the cases is, understandably, over whether or not a terminally ill patient has a right to die. The affirmative team is essentially arguing, “If a patient has a right to die, then there is an additional benefit by our economic cost argument.
But if a patient has no right to die, the economic cost does not itself justify voluntary euthanasia.” Therefore, the economic cost argument does not contribute to any clash between the cases, because its value is dependent entirely on the success of another argument (the ‘right to die’ argument). It therefore does not assist the affirmative case, and should have been omitted.
Consider one further example: a debate on the topic “THAT WE SHOULD SUPPORT A HEROIN TRIAL”. The affirmative team had proposed a trial to make heroin available to a limited number of addicts in a limited part of Australia (namely, the Australian Capital Territory). One affirmative speaker then proceeded to argue, “We should support a heroin trial because of the numerous benefits that it can bring to the nation as a whole. Once a heroin trial is successful in the ACT – as we know it will be – it can be extended to the entire nation!”. The problem with this approach should be clear: the entire argument was dependent on whether a heroin trial would indeed be successful in the ACT. This was (or should have been) the issue of debate.
No doubt, it can be difficult to spot dependent arguments such as this, which do not arise very often (although they tend to arise most in debates of a particularly ‘moral’
nature). However, the underlying principle should be clear: where a debate concerns a fundamental issue, your arguments must address that issue. Merely pointing to additional benefits will not generally strengthen your arguments on the main issue of debate.
Preparation: The Arguments