Robert TRAPP, Joseph P.

ZOMPml, Jume MOTIEJUNAITE and WiUiam DRISCOU

INTERNATIONAL DEBATE EDUCATION ASSOCIATION

Robert TRAPP, Joseph P.ZOMPETTI, Jurate MOTIEJUNAITE and William DRISCOU

INTERNATIONAL DEBATE EDUCATION ASSOCIATION

..

l
·~..•
..
i
'
Discovering the world
through
DEBKAJE 1

A practical guide to EDUCATIONAL DEBATE

for debaters, coaches, and judges
TH I RD EDI! I OI;

Robert Trapp
Joseph P. Zompetti
Jurate Motiejunaite
and
William Driscoll

With the assistance of

Judith K. Bowker

-- IDEA Press Books

 I

Published by
the International Deba te Educatio n Associa tion

international debate education association

Copytight o 200s by
the International Debate Education Association
I
All ri ghu reserved. No p&n of this publication may
be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any
means, electronic or mechani cal. I ncluding pho ~
tocopy, or any In forma tion storage and retrieval
system, w ithout per mission from the publisher.

For permission to reproduce In whole or In part,

ple ase contact: ldeat?ldebate.org

Chapters 1·6 & 9 wri tten by Robert Trapp

Chapte rs 7 & 17 written by Joseph P. Zompettl a nd
Willi1m Dr iscoll
Chapu~r 8 & 10 wri tte n by J urett Motieju nalte a nd
Robert Trapp
Chapters 11· 15 written by Joseph P. Zompeni
Chapter 16 wri tten by Joseph P. Zompettl and Jurlte
MoHejunlit e

Ubr~ry of Cong ress Cat a loging-In -Publication Data

Discoveri ng the world th rough debate: a practical

g uide to educational debate for debaters, coaches
•nd ;udv•s I Robert Trapp ... (e t ai,J ; with the ush ·
lance of J udith K. Bowker.· · 3rd ed.
p. em.
Aev. ed. of: Discovering the world t hrou9t't debate :
a pra c1ical g uide t o ed u t~ t i onal d ebate fot debaters,
coach es, and judges I by William Driscoll and Joseph
P. Zompettl. Aev. and enl. ed. 2003.
JS8N 1·9327 16·06·8 (alk. paper)
1. Debates and debating. I. Trapp, Robert. II.
Driscoll, Wi lliam, 19SS· Dhcove rl nv the world
tt't rough debate.
PN4181.07S 2005
808.S'3··dc22
2 005010911

Desi gn by He rn ~n Bonomo

Printed in the USA

~ IDEA Press Books

 • Contents
PREfACE XI
INTRODUCTION XIII

PAl ll.ARGUJAOOAJlOJU.Ql.DEJAUR>-- - - - - - - - - -'0.1

~Pt' Dtbatt tnd ,., PubU( Splaere Ol

Debate in Personal, Technical, and Public Spheres 03
Debate in t he Public Sphere 04
Public Debate u a Cooperuive and Compccicive Enterprise 06
Jmponant Fc.arur« of Public Debate: 06
Audicn 06
E.td.n

Language: 09
Kul Popper Dcb::ue u a Form of Public Argument 10

E.vid

I lan aa c:
CondwUo>~~==:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::j~
lmporu.ru Concc:e~..._,in~C"'-"h~·~•'~·~•~1._______________..=1
2
II

I (hapttr 2: Tht Stru<tart of Argulltnt

The Elements of Ar umcnt
Srrucrurc: of an Argument
13
13
14
S imple Argu.mcnu 14
C o nvergent Argumc:nt.s 15
lndc-pc:ndcnc Argumc:nca 16
fmporu.nr Concc:pt.s in Chapter 2 18

Chapter 3: d airas and Propositioas 19

Ih~~c~L(~a~C~IA•ii<"--~c----------------_J~
Oitcinguithing CJ:aimt a.nd PropoaitioiU 20
Jypu of Cbims :tnd Proposhlons 21
Propositions of Oc:finirion 21
Proposiciona of Ducr iecion 2l
Proposirions o( JUI:u-ionship 24
Prop~itions of Evaluarion 25
l'ht Crnu:tlitr of Va1utt ln Claims a.nd Propositions 27
fmporunt Conccpu in C h:aptcr 3 29

Chap~
Eac.u.t•:•:4~
: E:•:'d:•:•':'::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::j3~1
Thr.or 36

I
Pr~um rlon1 37

Val ue. Hic.r.au:h iu 40

Value C:uc oriu 41
lmporr:tnf Concepts in C h:aprc.r 4 43

!
Conknts IV
O tpftr S: WJrriiiU 45
Ara:umenc b_y Sn n1~l c "
A~cnc by Analou .U
Arsumrnt by Cau•.a1hy .SO
Argumroc by Authoriry 52
Pr1nt'1plt> S
lncompaubiluy 57
Oiu.ociu:Jo..__
lm~ant CoM:cpu ia Chapcu S 61

CIIJptt-r 6: fM QnlltJ tf Af1.at•b 63

Criuria lof' Lo~a_l AuoJrnt1U of A.-pmtou 63
"nc Scudard of A«:r.pululicr 65
Tb.c..Suaclu:"-.o(R.dcuacc 66
llu Scudud of S~affic:kncy 67
Fallati~• ud Arsumuc Adt-quacr 61
Thrt.(...Jlu.k.Fa.l.l..uiu
P:roblutUtic..Pr«~a.Uu
lrrdu;aac...R.u.toa.
Hanr Conchu ion 13
Falladn Rclucd co LallJIUJe 75
lmporunc Conccpct i!\ Chapter 6 75

PAITJt CONSTlUOIMG ARGUMEfiS IJU.UUOmLDu.m 79

C'bptlf 1: fht Klrl Pt,tr Ottl•lt f t mlt 81

Introduction to K11rl Popper De-bate 81
Thc Sruiona of Karl Popper Oeb-a u~. 81
l11e Karl Popper Formllt 82
Tum Founat . _
T he Rolu of Team Mc:mbe:u 83
Prepllratlon Time 84
Important Conccpu in Clu.ptu? 85

Chaplet 1: Coftltructlvt AIIUIIIUI 00111 (llllllltf Clllst and lfft(t 87

Arguing ahaut C:ausc 11nd EITrcc V
Thtorrtkal Blcmrnu of C anal R.catonin 88
11m:e Part~ of .1 C auu l A~m~nt 88
Mcthodt Utcd to Suppon ud Rt.futc: Cu.W Rcuooir.g 89
Typct of C•uul Arsumcnc 92
Conmucting Araumuu to Support a Cau.ae.-ac.d·Efl'tct Rclacion.bip 94
E nmple One: Govunmut Partklp.alion 9-4:
Ducnblns Futuru of the: Caun 94
Dt>monuruin&lhe EfTr.n
Oc:monurarin_a .a Cauul Rr:lationahip 94
E.nmple Two: Puudpahon in the: Work Fon"c: 9S
Dc.IC'f'ibiftJ Future:• of the Ca.uu 9S
Otmonarntin.a the ES'c:~ 9S
Dunonnnting a Cau.ul Reb~toruhip 9S
E.a:amplt' Thr«t n,. WJ;.al Sraum 96
OucribhtJ Fut•ru of t!K Cute: 96
Dcmonnru lll&tM Elft:c:t 96
Dcmonttr.ulns • C.uual Rd.uiocu.h.ip "
CoascruC"Cii!IJA!Jumuu to Op~c • Cnlc•aacl•Eft'ecc Rc.luioub.ip 91
lmponnt Conur.!!.!!' Ch.aptu 8 100
 ,,., ' "u < V.Ju<
tnt
10

.. ~
"'"

I < o(' Cm l~, ,. 106

I
I ••
" 10

HO

I
j
••
e oC.
• io '.
Cm
.c...
1
I
I

' Cl" pttr 10: (ol structlvt Artumtt~ts for Clalm.s of Polley 117
Polk CJajma 117
Policy Claims in Everyday LJfe ll8
The Role of Values in Policy Cbims ll8
ConS-tructing Arguments about Simple PoUey Propositions:
A Nccd·Pla.n· Bc:nc:fic Stntc ll9
0
I bc Plan 120
The Benefits or Advantage• 121
Negative Srrauglca for Dtbatingabout Policic4 121
Defending the Status Q uo 122
Defending a Policy O ther r.han rhc Status Q uo 122
Atuddng rbc Plan 123

Il Summary of Arguing about a Simple Policy Proposition

Connnu:tin Ar mcnrs about C laims of Com ar:ativc Polic
Conwu<ring ~.,....to Suppon a Claim Comp...n,. ~
Stance.of rhc Affirm ·
125
125
125
I
Conupcuali:z.ing the Cue 126
Constructing t he Affirmui"c Plan 127
Conuruniog the Adva nugu 128
Coc!sauaing ArJumu1a again!! Proposirioaa ofComparative Polk~ 131
Stance of the Negative 131
Construcring the Negative Cue 131
Important Conccpu in Ch2pte-r 10 133

(l" pter 11: lefut•tlo• Jad llf"IIIUis 135

Refuution 135
RC"bun ah 136
S ummarizing Arguments 137
ldecuifring Viu.l luuu. 137
Making Choices 138
Weigh Jmpliution£ 139
fmporunt Conupu in Ch2ptcr 11 140
1
l f U U IJ: Q£BAIE S
l<lll>-- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ---"U
O a.pttr 12: Dtnloplng Reseudl Skills 143
The Imporu.nce of R~euch 143
Ihe..Rueuch PrO(:«• 144
The Stagea of the Rcaurch Proeeas
Phue 1: Genu-.al Knowledge 145
146

Contents rvu
Runrehi.ng fTom Source ~bten~l 147 •
Rc:(cnacc Works

Puiodi<-.ah IU
NcwsfM'!!! 14
Online Scni«• J49
Go<r«rnm...nt Documents 150
R1dio llrtd Tele•it ion Tr&nu:ripn 150
The l_luernet 150
Important C-onupts i.n Chaptc:r 12 151

O,ipltr 1): Crtu·Exi • l•ilM.ft 153

Ground Rules 153
Purpo&u or Crou· E,umin.uion 154
Ad•iu (or the Qu«uioncr 156
Ask Quesciorts; Don't Make Spee<hn 156
Suy in Control 156
Ask Qgcnions Tb,~t Punue SpecU'ic h'lformadon 156
Rtmain Fluibl« 156
Dir«t Q_uutton.s toward Spc:dflc: Go.~b 156
Muagc Tilhc Appropril-ccly 1,57
~rirrwu with New Approachu 157
AdY11CC for cb.c Respoadenc 157
Aaswer Q_uesriooa C. rc.lu.Ur lSI
151
Qu.alifr Auwua to Ludift& uod Uafur ~"'""'""'----~
151
Gcocnl A~::'~MofC':;:::.:~.:~~· ArPfO~pn=·:·:"::====±~
15.8
lmponut Coll.('epu in Ch.apur 13 159

stt~ Otll""':--~========m
161
<l!ptti u : •"••te•e•L
Arnns,cmcnt of Argumenu. ... 161
Arnng~~r.To,op~k~~-­ 161
Arflltlging by Timc/Hi11ory 162
Arnnging by Problcm•Soludon 162
Arranging br Relarionahip 162
Serle ud Dcli.,cry 163
Comportr:Au of Scylt: 163

lmporu_n,!c~~~~~i.n~~~;l~4;: :=-....:===========~
Jloldtt Rupoa~bilitia I69
focus oc the Dc:b.au 169

Male 10 lndc:ptndu
Uadc:ntud t DuiJioB
Crittria for Jud1ia1 ~~~~~~~~170~
170
E.r.,Wn DecWotu 171
or
Ma.iraraio. Ul Etbic&l Mnnt Oed.t:io" Ma.kins 171

lmeorunc UAder-tW Pcutlul Tu.kt

Concepu io Cb.aptt:r IS
171
17..
 Olipter 14: DeNting in •n lnter••llonal Setting 175

Debating in a Fore.ign Language 176

Reading in a Foreign Langwt c 177
Spu.king in a Foreign Luguase 177
Etiquette and CuuomJ 178
I Jmeorunt Conceeu in Chaetcr 16 179
I

! Chil!ltr 17: Tht DtNit Club In tht School Comll'lunl!l

The BucAts of Deb.ue as an Eduudon~ Auivitt:
The Come;o£irion of a Debate Club
181
181
182

l
Fosu-ri.na; a Sei.tic of JnduJion and Cooeerarion 182
Club SpaC-e 183
Club Mutings and Working St.stion.s 183
Club Leadership and O rg:anlz.ation 184
Rtcruicmtnt and Rcccncion 184
The Role of C.oachu and Teachers 185
The Role of P:arenu 186
The Debne Club in rhe Community of the School and Beyond 186
Important Conc.cpc• in Cha ter 17 187

AP.Hadia:l: S••P.It DeNte 188

!Jp:endia:l: lntrod•cton Dt Ntt fnrdsts 209

~P._~11tiii.J: A.rgu•eat Ftow·shett 242

tilosury 246

llldtl 251

Cont~u IIX
preface •

The Karl Popper Debate Program and

the International Debate Education Program

Karl Popper (1902-1994) was born in Austria and spcm much of his life ruching and
writing in England. A prolific writer, Popper believed. in che existence of absolute truth
b ur was suspicious of anyone who claimed to possess it. H e argued char knowledge pro~
gresses in increments and char conclusions are provisional. He believed rh:u rheses are
developed so that they may be di.sc:u.s&Cd; that critical thin.lcing is a collaborative process
of di2.logue and public discussion; ;and that knowledge prOgrcJSU by conjecture and
refutation- by the rigorous pubHc testing of ide:as and opinions. His writings include
Tbt Logic of Sc.irntific Discovery (1934), Thr Povrrty of Historicism {1944-45), and Tbt
Opt• Soritty ond Its EntmitJ (1945).

Educarion:al debate p uts Popper's ideu into practice. Students who p:trticipate in edu-
cational debate learn to think critieally and creatively about proble-ms and issues in the
politic:tl world :and in their everyd.:ty lives. They le2rn skills necesnry for :.etive partici·
p:trion in deliberative democnC)'·

The O~n Sociecy Institute (OSI) and the Necwork of Soros Found:arions esublished
the OSI Network Deb:..te Program in 1994 to encounge criric:..l thinking, personal
exprusion, :and toler:ance for differem- opinions. In 1999, the OSI Deb:ace network
est:ablished the Incern.:ttion.:tl Deb:ate Educuion Auoci.uion ( I DEA) in the Netherl:ands
and, in 2001.. in the United States. Sinu then, IDEA has helped introduce debate ro
thou.sands of students :and te:tcht:rs in high schools :and universities in d0%ens of eoun·
tries ranging fiom Alb:ani:t to Z imbabwe. P:uticip:ating students usually deb:ace in thti.r
n:ttive language-s, including minoricy languages in countries with signific:ant minority
popubrions.

IDEA's largest annu:tl event is its Inrern:u:ional Youth Forum (JYF), where students
and teachers f'rom aroun d the world gather for two weeks of seminars and debating on
important contemporary topics. At the IYF, debate is presented :tS :a method of teaching
and critica.l thinking. The students :tnd ce2chen who attend the IYF return home :and
work to establish or maintain debate programs in local schools and communities.

Students who gudu:l.tt: from schools where dtbau programs h:avt been escabli!lhtd
arc encoura.ged to continue their involvement by acting as judges or co:tches. In e:ach
participating country, IDEA :also htJps co esablis.h a nongovemm~ncal org:anizarion co
organize, promote~ and sustain deb:..te: activities and also to coordinate instruction an d
competition.

Preface lXI
To promote rhe growth of deboue, IDEA hu undertaken a variety of iniriati\'es. It has
produced training videos and materials. It has established centers around the world
to provide acces.s to resurch materials, the Internet, and photocopit":rs. It ha.s created
debate lisrservs and a Website ( www.idebate.org) to offe-r access to curricula and links
to libr:uies .and fret": media. It also publishes a magazine, !DEBATE~ that offers addi~
tiona] training materials and acts as a forum fo r scudc.nts and te-achers to exchange ideas,
and an academic journal, Controvrrsia. [t ha1 esrablished a press that publishes books
on debate and curriculum development, as weiJ as soun:ebooks on contn:wersial issues.
finall}~ it has produced this textbook, which is intended to introduce concepts of argu·
mentation, explain methods of argument construction, and provide a practical guide to
debate for partieipanu and organi::ers.

XIII DiS«We~"ing the world lhroogh OESATE

 ntroduction e

l How to Use This Textbook

Discovering tbt \Vorld through Drb4tt is divided inro three pares. Part I suvr:s a.s an
introduction to argumentation theory. It d oe1 nor pretend co provide a comprehc:n.sive
survey of argumentation but foc-use5 on t hose concepts of argumentation most useful
tO debaters. Parr n then foc-uses o n constructing arguments in w:.ys appropriate for
i
l Karl Popper debate. It begins with a chapter explaining rhe Karl Popper format, chen
• moves through methods of supporting :and opposing propositions of c:ausc and efTecc,
value~ and policy. Final1r. Part III discunes a variety of debating skills ranging from
research, CrOSS•tnmination, scyle and delivet)'• judging, and internottional debating.

Although they overlap. the three p:arrs of chis book also are independent. A scudc-nr or
instructor could reasonably consider the rhree pares in che order prnenred or in some
ocher order :as rhey sec fk For inumce. many te-achers may want to begin with P:ur 11,
reaching their srudents rhe details of the Karl Popper debate format and the methods of
constructing cases for and ~gainst a prOposition. The)' might then move to Part I II C'O
refine their skiUs in various aspects of deb:ne and end wich Part I and a consideration of
how rhe theory of argumentation infonns argument construction :and debating skills.

This edition of Discovuing tbt World through Dtbau is a substantial revision of the
first rwo cd.irions. The firsr two editions of this text served the IDEA community wdl
during the first decade of its development. In recent years, IDEA has introduced more
complex kinds of resolutions so that students c.m learn more advanced forms of debate-.
This edition is designed to mee.t the needs of students who ace re:~dy co progress ro new
and more complex level$ of argumenu.tion and debate. All of Part I is e-ntirely new and
all but one chapter in Part II is new; che chapters in Part Ill are substantial revisions of
m:nerials pre-sented in the:- first and second editions.

I
.
'
I

IntrOduction JXIU
 PART I
'
\
ARGUMENTATION FOR DEBATERS

Discovering the World through Debate p repares debaters to engage in Karl Popper debate,
but it also provides a wider understanding of argumentation principles us.ed in othecr
debate formats. Part One provides a useful introduction to argumentation principles
cricica.l to all debaters and sets important foun dations fo r the skills p res-ented in Parr U
and Part JJJ.

Part One consists of six chapters. Chapter 1 siru:ues Karl Popper deb:ue s.quarely within
the public sphere. After brieAy discu ssing how rhe personal and rechnicaJ spheres
inform the public sphere, it describes important fe:uures of p ublic deb:atc and uplains
the relationship becwccn these fe:acures and Karl Popper debate.

Chapter 2 introduces the structure of argument using che concepts of claims. evidence.
warr4nt, and muuatio,.s-u:rms borrowed from British scholar Srcephcen Toulmin. 1
After introducing Toulmin's basic model of argument, we show how that model c.an be
modlSed using examples of simple, convergent, and independent argument structu.res.

Chapttr 3 focuses on claims and p ropositions.. We reject the tradition of dividing claims
into the f2 miliar categories o f fact, value, and policy and introduce a new category system
th:u is more weful for debaters: definicion, description, relationship, and evaluation.
Chapter 3 is concluded with a diseussion of how values are central ro all kinds of claims
and propo.sicions.

Chapter 4lays out our synem for c:negoriz:ing evidence. Co ntrary to the way "evidence"
has traditionally been used in deb:ue, we adopt a system that is more consistent with the
work of C haim Perelman and Lucie O lbrechts~Tyteca,2 two Belgian scholarS, who see
evidence (what rhey c:all the ·starting points of argument'") a.s including not only descrip...
cive or f.tau:al uidence b ut value,s as well. Following the concepts b ut not the language
of Perelman and Olbrechts~Tytet.a, we sort evidence into six groups: faces, theories, pre~
sumprions, v:alues, value hierarchies, and value categories.

Chapter 5 ex;amines the concept Toulmin labe-led "warrants."' We see warrants as the
means used by debaters to move from evidence to claim. Chapter 5 makes no p retense
of including all kind$ of warrants. Our d iscussion i.s limited to e.x:a.mple, :an:alogy. a usal·
ity, authoriry, pdneiple. incompatibility, and dis.soci:ation.

FinaJJy, Chapter 6 introduces the idea of the quality of arguments. While the previous
Ave chapters described various argument structu.res along with their components, chis
chapttr begins :a dlscu.ssion of how arguments ean be log:ie<1Uy auessed.In Chapter 6, we

Part 1/ A~don lOr Debater~ j1

present three criteria fo r the logicaJ assessment of arguments: acceptabHiry, relevance,
and sufficiency. Corresponding to each of these three criteria, we then present three
basic faJI.acics: problematic prt":mises, irrelevant reason, and hasty conclu$iOn. We also
brieAy define a few fallacies related to the debac·e r's use of language.

Much of our discussion thrOughout this text is based on argumentation theol)'· When
we say "argumentuion cheory,'" we me:an the ideas :and principles chat scholars have col·
lected and constructed over hundreds and eve-n thousands of years. These theories pro·
vide chc buis for making ef'f'ecrive choices about developing and prescncing argumt":nu .
These theories, then, underlie t.he skills debaters seek co devdop.

Part One of the text is simultaneously the most b:asic :and rbe most adv:anced sec.r:ion.'
It provides basic information needed to understand che rest of the book. particularly the
information about argument construction in Part Two. At the s.ame time, the informa~
cion in Part O ne and the remainder of rhe book is intended to provoke more advanced
debaters to move beyond the information presented here toward de\·eloping their own
kinds of argument structure-s and, more importantly, coward developing their own voices
as effective and e-thical debaters in the public sphere.

I. Suphen Toulmin, Uu-J cfAtplll(nt. (Cambri¥ambri9 UniYCTSiry Pras. 1958).

1. ~ Ntw IU.~tU>f'it: A T n11rUt "" ArJwrltllt.JJ,;,,, Tu.uu••John WitkituOn. .uad l'u«dl \V(~r. (N01.tt O<UQC',
Jrnl.IN: Uni•~ity "f NOt« O.mw: Prm. 1969}.
,. The: •I.e ckaptm In P.ur I rdy hdvily on chrcc fUrticulu JOUnlal or :lrpmtnucion thtory. l1w. Ant IOUro:'
i£ me :~.rgummt:ni~ penp«ri't'e or S1epbm Toulmin. Toulmin's work wu or:ipnaDy publ.Uixd In 19S8 in wbat lw
b«Mne .l very inautnti.ll wod: in tbc Add or .ltJW'1C'fltltion: Tbt Um c1 AIJimlttlloHa wad; h:u b«n u.p<bttd in I
vuitry or other SOUEU$ (Sttphtn Tuulm.in. Rkhtrd R,Wb-, and Allan Jtnik. An ImrodliU!'Oit 10 R.ttl$11.11&,g (New York:
MJcmillan. 1979)}. Toulmin's work pn1vidu dw b.uk muc:turc: o( :~~·\un.(nt tlw nQI: only {n{o)nt'l) Ch:aptcr l, bur
Ch:~ptm ;, 4, a•iod S n wdl. A '«Qnd "-"'""" we lind Q)fltpkmenury to 1'oultnin'' work i£ dl:~r ol Ch.um Padnun
a,nli i......:IC: Olbrll(hi.I·Tyu.:a,. Pl.lbllsbcd u rhc umc rime u Toulmin'J Lila of AIJif-I'Jf, cbe Ntw ltbtu.ria A TrNJtiJt
"'' A-ra~mmi.U•'o" pnwldu ll'ltJ(b fnOC'C ckfail abom $11Ch ekmcnu u eviden.:t.. Wll'fVIU. :md d Jinu. Perdm:.n 1nd
Olbr«bu.-Tyttal; work is upt"ci.Uiy itn.pon~c 10 C~pu;n ). 4, and 5, FinaU~ in Cha.-r 6, - bom>w.:d qujre heavily
&om Un..d.i.ua philowplwn Ralph H. joh.ru110n wd J. Ar11.l10ny BJalr (J..Tc'al StfDtjtffJC' INew Y0rl: M<Gnw HlU.
I994 J). J...,ht~M~n ::.nd Bb.ir ::.~ unong .l group or Cu.adU.n »~d Amcrir.tt~ phil.uopbcn •flo h.n~ been especi.ally inftu..
end::.! i.fl dW; uudy or inlomul k!Jio: 1nd pr·lrriallltJ"ment. We lind me~ app«~.b m me q.Wity ol upmenu ;uwl
f.Ul,adcJ to~ IJ,\Iil e ~o~KI\al fOr dcba1m.

21 Oisc~ing thC\'o'Ofld throvgh DEBATE

 chapter 1 •

I
J \ Karl Popper Debate and the PublicSphere*

Discovering the World tl1rough Otbatt is an introduction ro educ:arion:tl

debate, particularly to Karl Popper debate, dte form most common in mem~
ber cou ntries of the lntc::rnation.aJ Debate Education Association. This text
serves as a practical guide for chose wanting ro learn to debare as well as for
te:tchers of debate in educational settings. To better understand education:~ I
debare-ics functions, practices, and value-we begin by dist inguishing three
argument spheres: the personal, public, and technical. An ..argument sphere"
is a community wherein arguments are heard. We first distinguish the ·public
sphere" from the personal and technical spheres. Ntxt, we define and exam ~
ine debate in the public !phere, which is ce1trr:tl to educ.:t.tion::al deb::are. L::asc,
we examine how debate can be taught in educational settings in ways that
emphasize the best of debate in the public sphere.
Debate is nor only an ;activity of the public sphere. Debate also rakes place
in personal and technic:al spheres. By briefly considering how deb:ate functions in
these spheres, we can better undersr;and how it works in public :aren;as.

DBBATB IB PBBSOBAL , TB CBBICAL, ABD PUBLIC 8PBBBB8

Debate is a decision.-m:akjng tool used in :a variety of :argumc:nurive sec ..
tings. We group these setrings into three spheres or communities: rhe personal~
the technical. and the public. These communities have different srandotrds for
djstinguishing good arguments from poor ones, for deciding which debating
techniques are appropriate or in:lppropri:tte, 2nd for deciding accepuble or unac..
ceprable norms of conduct.
Debates in personal settings include arguments between husbands and wives~
puenrs and children, roommates, and the like. We use debotte in these personotl
spheres to negotiate our way duough disagreements that a.rise in everyday life.
Husba.nds and wives argue: :about issues in their reb.rionship, :about personal
finances, or about how to r:tise their children. Parents :lrgue with their children
abour topics ranging from fin:tnces to rhe amoum of freedom the children should
have,, The processes of critical 2nd creative thinking th;ar debate reache-s help us
:act in ethic:tl and ~f'fecrjve ways in these petso1ul diugrecmei\U.
Debate also functions in :a technical sphere. Arguments in tc.chnica1 com~
munities involve participants who share common areas of expertise. For instance,

Owlpt~r 1/ Kurl Popper ~<' ;md the Public $ph('lt' 13

arguments occur between and among individuals in the legal profc.ssion1 among
scientists, among physicians, and among engineers. To have a voice in debates in
these cecbnic:..l communides, the participants must share extensive knowledge
about their subjecu as well as a precise vocabulary necessary to communicate
about technical concepu.
Individuals engaged in sciencific fields are frequently embroiled in cechni·
cal arguments ranging from che elements of string theory to rhe causes of global
warming. In some cases, the issue may be important only to the particular scien ..
rifle communit)' involved; in otht<r instances, the argument may have importance
to the larger social community. For example, arguments about the finer points of
string theory are more interesting co quantum physicists than to our society at
large. Other issue.s raised in a technical community become so important that the
public community muse address rhem. The causes and consequet'lces of global
warming, for instance, are such is.s ues. Arguments about global warming have
moved from the scientific community to the public sphere.
In each of these spheres- pers.onal and technical-the debates engage a lim ..
ired audieoce. ln the personal sphere only a limited number of people know the 'I
•
issues or are invested in the debate. In the technical sphere only the limited tech~
nic:al community is engaged. O ur interests lie in che public sphere where a much
larger :audience may be involved .

DusATE IN THB PuBLIC SPH.tiRB

Debate in public arenas occurs among citi%ens and among those selected to
go\'ern. As such, debate is an essential acti\•ity in democratic socie-ties. Citizens
coming together to :ugue in a v:ariecy of venues are the essence of a democracic
society. In some cases, citizens argue directly- for instance, when they write let ..
ters to newspapers advocating an action or when they call on their rcpresen ..
radves co enact a specific policy. For several centuries in Western democratic
culnzres, public argumenc has occurred ln various government bodies, including
legislatures, councils, and town hall meetings.
More than 2,000 ft<'lrS ago. when democracy firSt.arose and took root in Athens,
male citizens met regularly in public assemblies; their votes determined the policies
.II
\

and actions of their state. Nor only did a group of teachers, called "'sophists; educate
Greek ciri%ens about che impor~ce of ad\•ocacy to rhe city·sute, they also taught
practical skills of advocacy. Athenians used these skills to determine if Athens should
go to war, and, if so, how it should figh t; rhey also used these skills to decide which
laws to enact and what pollcies should control the course of daily life. These votes
were always preceded by deb2te: citizens a.nd leaders argued about what w:u morally
and legally right; they argued about the best way to achieve desired outcomes; they
argued about what was possible and what was prude.nt. All voices we.re important in
:arriving ott rbe best choice through social discourse.
Borrowing from tht< Greeks, the ancient Romans also use.d debate and advo,
c.acy to weigh the merits and df':lwbacks of issues affecting them. Thus, the Greeks
and Romans laid the: foundation for the modern democr.aric process pr-acticed in
a variety of forms around the globe.
 Today, dcbue is still essential to democracy. The democratic process has
changed-modern countries are demographically and geog~phio.lly larger than
ancient Athens. Nevertheless, debates continue about how people making up
those democracies should bc:st handle issue.s affecting them. Some debottes are
conducted in lt"gislative assemblies; some are held in lecture ha.lls and public are·
nas; some are presented in schools and universities; some may be read in magazine
and newspaper columns or heard on radio or television. Like their predeces&ors,
citizens argue about what is best for their societies, and through these debates
citizens help to shape the coune of law, policy, and action.
By learning and thinking about othc:r kinds of politiCal systems, we can bet..
rer understand the relationshjp of debate to democracy. In some societies, power
shapes the course of the state. Those who have power run the government as they
see fit. That powt.r may reside in absolutt mon~uchs, theocrats, dictators, miliury
juntots, or totalitarian governmenu. Those in power do as they wish regardless of
the opinions or desires of the citizens. Popular debate has no meaningful role in
such a socie.ty.
According to democratic theory, power belongs to the people. [n John Locke's
famou.s formulation, govemmenu derive their legitimate power from the consent
of the governtd. Citizens direct the course of the state, but they do nor always
agrte. Citizens may havt conftkring interests; they may have different ways of
understanding a common problem. They may have different priorities and diHer,
ent ideas ;about wh;at is most import:mt. Citizens may have different understand·
ings of what is right. Debate is the means fo r airing and consider-ing all these
differences as decisions are m;ade.
Debate is essential and vital in a democracy. Debate is not simply a form of
expression; rather, it is a form of persuasion. Debaters hope ro change others'
minds; they hope their listeners will come-to see things their way. Dtbate-does
not produce immediate unanimity, but over time ir can produce consensus and a
changed understanding of what is right and what is prudent.
The evolving view of slavery illustr.ttes how debate can produce constnsus. In
ancient Greece and Rome, slavery was nor a debaublc proposition. Aristotle, for
example, thought slavtry was a natural rtsulr of racial or social superiority. Two
thousand yurs later in the United St.ates, however, slavery was body debated.
Some people saw it as a violation of a human being's natural right to liberty, while
others argued for the primacy of a citizen's right to own and manage private prop·
erty without government interference. Today, of course, Americans would not
debate the issue of slavery because they regard it as a categorically unacceptable
violation of human rights. Bur that recognition- that common consensus-is the
product of centuries of deb:ue.
In other instances. debares have nor produced a public consensus. In many
countries, for example, people continue to debate the morality as well :u rhc l~g:tl
status of abortion, with those: on both side& of the issue: trying to convince one
another and government officials that their view is reasonable.

Choptetl/ Karl f'Op!X'J Otbate and tht PubliC Sphc!fe 15

Pusuc DIIBATII AS A CooPIIRATrvs ANO CoMPBTITrvs ENTBRPRJSB

In public arenas, arguments and debates serve as tools of democratic gov ~

crn:ance. These arguments and debare.s are both cooperative and compe-t itive
underrakings. Sometime.s citizens argue cooperatively to de.c ide the most
appropriate policie-s . For example, a group of citizens interested in the ceo·
nomic developmem of their community may argue about which poHcies best
stimulate rhe economy. At other t imes, groups of citizens with clashing inter·
esu engage in more competitive debates. For instance, citizens' groups who
('0\vor urban development may engage in debates with groups who f:avor envt ..
ronmental protection. ·
Citizens :also participate in cooperative and competitive debates before and
wirh public offici:a.ls. In some case.-;, cirizen advocates appe::.r ar hearings ro present
their opinions to their elected represenr:acives. In ocher cases, different groups of
citizens debate one :mother before government officials. For instance, a group con·
cerned about law enforcement may debate against ~mother interested in protecting
civil liberty. One group would argue for the pa$.S:.ge and enJorcement of more b.ws
while the other would make a case for fewer restrictions on individuals.
Public officials also debate between :.nd among themselve$. Legislator~ from
rhe same polirical p:tny may argue cooperatively abour how best to frame policies
they all suppon:. Because cooperative arguments gener:ue a multirude of variations
on a particular issue, they help legislators improve their ideas about critical aspects
of their policies. After these legislators argue among rhem.sc1ves and formulate their
proposals, they may then engage in cooper.nive or competitive debates with legis~
lacors from different political parties about the merits of their ideas. Cooperative
and com~ritive debates serve different but equally vital fun ctions in a democratic
proces$, so an engaged, proactive citizenry must be skilled in both.

IIIPOB'!'.Ali'T ....&~or PVBLIO DaaA.or.

This text features a form of educational debate, Karl Popper deb;;are, chat seeks
co incorporate t he very best of both cooperative and competitive public debate.
What are the fc.aru res of public debate that Karl Popper debate seeks to develop~
Key conct'pts include audience, evidence, reason, and language. One way to describe
how tht"se features fun ction in public debate is to determine how they differ in the
public sphere from the technical sphere.

AuoJENCS
Audience is central to debate and argumentation in all irs forms. Wichour an
audience, debater-s would have little reason to construct an argument, much less
co participate in a debate. The kind of audience to whom debaters 2ppul is one
of rhc features that distinguishes one argument sphere from another.
T he audience.s for technical argument are. composed of insiders. American
physici:ms advocating the approval of a new AJDS drug. for example, present
cheir arguments to units of 1he Food and Drug Administration, groups com·
prising largely or even exclusively ocher physicians who understand both the
conrenl and process of medic.al rese-arch. Cosmologists supporting par-ticular

61 Disc~ thewotk:t through DEBATE

theories about the beginning of che universe ordinarily direct their arguments
to other cosmologists because the arguments arc so techn ical that a general
audience c-a nnot understand them. Stephen Hawking's Brief History of Timt is
perhaps t he exception that proves the rule. Hawking·'s deci sion to present his
arguments to a public audience, made in part bec.ause of his need to finance his
children's education, was not a decision the community of physicists supported.
They believed Hawking's explanations were insufficient- in part because he
spoke ro a gener;al audience and therefore abandoned. the technical bnguage
necesury to precisely and accurately c-apture rhe complexity of the scientific
arguments. Cosmologists' responses co Hawking's public.atiOI\S demonstrate che
limited scope of debate in che technical sphere.
The audience for public deb:ne is a general r-:tther than technical one. This
general audience is one of democratic decision making wherein politici;a_ns must
appeal to their conscicuencies for various causes as well as for their own reelection.
At cheir worse, political appeals are based on and directed toward selfish intert:-sts,
advocating for the needs of spedaJ interest groups or chose who have the deepest
fin:mcial pockets. Ac their beu, chese appeals seek co discover and promote com-
mon interests and v:tluc:s of the electorate:, that is. the univc:rnl audience.
Excellei\Ce in public debate is achieved by speaking co a universal audience. A
universal audience is not one chat appreciates only chose values cherished. by all
or chose advoc-ated by specialized. groups; a universal audience: is conceptualized
as composed of ..reasonable and competent people."' Although chis definicion
is useful, it doesn't cell us what constitutes "re:asonable and competent people.•
\Vho defines ..reasonable"~ What does "'competent'" mean~ Debaters continually
ask these questions and provide their own best answers as chC)' const ruct their
arguments. Those who engage in public debate have :ar least a gener-al sense t hat
more people than nor arc "'reasonable :md competent" and. that democratic dis·
course assumes reasonable people have the right co a \'oice in che decisions that
affect rheir lives.
The d-anger of embracing public debate is che risk of addressing arguments co
nonspecialists. Even reasonable and competent cicizens may not possess rhe know)..
edge needed to judge all elements of technical questions involved in energy, the
environment, defense, med_icine, ere. just as d:mgerous, citi:ens may believe they do
have specialized knowledge and may be persuaded b)' specious arguments. These
dangers are che costs citizens of democracies incur co avoid t urning decisions over
ro diccacors. Public debarers must keep such issues in mind when making decisions
about how to adapt and present their arguments co general audie1tces.

EvJOBNCB
Evidence is the starting point of argument. To convince :m audience to accept
their posicion on an issue (which we will call a claim), debaters begin with evi·
denc:e that the audience finds acceptable. They can che-n crc:3C<' a link between
that evidence and the claim being made in an attempt to convince che audience
co believe in che claim as well. Because e\•idence is t:he sr.arting poinr of any argu·
ment, ir is an essential parr of argumentation 3nd debate.
In public arenas, evidence begins with the audience's knowledge. The debater
uses ic as a scarring point and then moves to che posirion or a claim that she

Ch3pter 1/ Kilrl Popper Debate and the Public Sphere 17

is advancing. Thus, she might btgin with details about the NATO bombing of
Belgr-ade to create an argument abotn rhe value of inrernaciostal organiz.arions
using military intervention. She is using the knowledge rhe audience already
:..ccepts to create an argument to move the audience to accept her claim.
Although public:. argumencs must by their narure begin with public knowl~
edge, 2t their best th ey do not end there. One of the gre-atest "'.:dues of public
debate is th:at debaters offer audiences new information and new perspecrives char
aud_ience members then add to their own knowledgt-. Debattrs learn as much as
they can about the subject they are debating, and much of what they learn they
communicate to the audience, which becomes more educated and more disce rn ~
ing as a result. While a debater might use the audience's general knowledge about
NATO's bombing of Belgrade co convince chem chat milit:ary intervention is an
appropri:ue cool, a better deb:ater will conduce exccnsi\le rese.arch to learn more
about that example and others co improve his :ability to persuade the audience of
the claim. Even if audience members do nor change their positions, public debates
inform and educate democratic societies :and t hereby deepen :and make more
knowledge:a.ble subsequent citizen decisions.
Although a debat e may begin with public knowledge~ arguments rna}' become
increasingly more techniGJ.I as they proceed. Debaters may cross the line between
the public :and technical spheres, mo\ling from inform:arion more f.tmili2r co :a uni ·
versal audie1tce coward information usually shared only in technical arenas. The goal
of argument in these technical aren:a.s, especially in the sciences and social science-s,
i.s the c.re:acion of knowledge, which requires in·depth :and precise understanding
of scientific conceprs, theories1 and processes. These requirements often re.s ulr in
.u guments that c:m be understood only by expens, who often use a specialized
vocabubry. Thus1 rec.hniol :.rgumenc tends ro isolate arguers within their respec~
rive fields. A public debate may mean using rhe knowledge created in technical
fields as evidence for public :argument. For innance., t he technical, scientific com·
munity created knowledge about the causes of global warming th:.r subsequenrl}'
became evidence supporting argumenr:s in the pubtic aren:a. Oeb:ners must learn to
incorporate different information and deliver it from one sphere ro another.
In summary, C\lidence in public argumenr consisu of knowledge generally
available to t he public plus knowledge produced by rechnical fields. A skilled
debater starts with knowledge alre-ady a\lailable to rhe audience, then supple-
menu chat public knowledge wirh inform:ttion gle-aned from more tec hnical
or scientific source:S. An excellent debater must accurattly rranslare technical
information into forms underst-andable to gt>ncral audiences without losing the
me2ning of char information. S killed public debaters muse also make the efforr
not only to understand c\lidencc created in specialized communities bur also to
meticulously and fairly translate th at eviden« into words and concepts a more
general (public) audienct" can understand.

RBASON

If evidence is the starring poinr of argument, reasoning is the process a debar..

er uses to connect evidence ro a claim. The debater starts with select ed evidenc-e
and rhen uses a process of reasoning to connect the t\lidence co a claim. in chis
manner, she attempts to convince the audience to belie"'e in rhe claim ro the same

81 OiSCO'Yeflng the wofld through DEBATE

dcgrt-e they believe in the evidence. Thus, rc:uoning, like evidence, is essential to
the process of argument.
Reasoning in technical argument comes in specialized and fre.quendy pre~
scribed forms. The scientific method, for example~ is a process all scientists must
use ;~s :a test of the findings they a.ssert to be true. This method dictates the nee ..
es.s.ary condifions for the proper form of re:asoning in certain scientific and social ..
scientific arguments. Some sciencific fields, including medical re.seuch, focus
mainly on cause·and·effect reasoning. Medical rcse:arch, for example, requires
doubfe .. blind, placebo nudies to support a claim that 2 particular drug is effective
in treating a ceruin disease. Knowing chat people who rake a cen.1in drug recover
more frequendy chan people who do not is insufficient according to acceptable
re.se;;lirch procedures. The rese;archer must also determine chat people who rook
an inert substance: (placebo) did not recover as frequently as people taking the
actual drug. This example is just one char illusrrares how a technical field pre·
scribes a ceruin form of re;.soning as the best or only acceptable form of reason~
ing to answer questions within that field.
Rather chan requiring speci:tlized forms of reasoning. public argument uses
a var-iety of argument forms, including informal logic, analogy. principle, meta ..
phor, otnd notrrative, as well as a variety of other argument for-ms. These argu~
ment forms, although nor unheard of in the rechnic:a.l sphere, are more common
:tnd more accepted in the public sphere. Thus, public debates sometimes include
forms of reouoning that are used in technical arenas, but frequently use reasoning
processes rh:tr usually lie outside rechnic:tl :trgumem.s.

LANGUAGE

Although all kinds of :trgument-personal, rechnical1 2nd public-m:ty occa~

sionally have 1tonverbal dimensions. language is the medium whereby mos.t argu~
ments are communicated to audiences. M:tny technical fields have a precise language
necessary for efficient communic.:arion berween otnd among technicians. Frequently
the language of a technic-al field is so obscure that persons ourside of the field can ..
not understand it. As a result, the language of technical argument furthe r insulate&
the members of the field from the generotl public. To :ttcempc to use che bnguage of
some tech1tical fields co communicate with general audie1tces would be Hke crying
to speak to the audience in a language ocher than its native tongue.
Unlike technic,;tl argument where participants engage one another using a very
precise vocotbulary, in public argument settings ordinary citizens engage: one: another
and their government representatives using ordinary l:tnguage. Language in public
deb:tte must be inclusive. The public debater must speak a language that a general
:tudience can undersr.and and that seems narurotl. giving her the role of an insider
rather chan an outsider. Even using language associated with more technical forms
of deb:tte is coumerproducdve co debate i1\ public forums.2 Used in a public forum,
debate j:trgon is exdusionotry and distances rhe deb:tter from the audience.
Thus, some of the important features of public debate include :tudience,
evidence, reasoning. and language. Excellen[ debuers !urn co undernand rhe
relationships among these featu res and devdop skills for proper use of evidence,
reason, and language to make persuasive: claims to public :mdience.s.

Chapter 1/Karl Popl)ef Debate and the Public Sphere t9

XABL POPPBB DBBATB AS A J'OBM OJ' P'UBL IO ABO'UMBWT
In D is(overillg thr World tiJrougJ, Dtbatt we focus on rhe education;~.) fornt
of debate known as K:ul Popper deb:ne. We primarily discuss public ;~.rgumenr
because we are interested in reaching skills ro improve your abilities to argue: as
cid:zens, including the skills of cooper-:ative :argument for engaging in teamwork
to build or cre:ne ;as well as skills of rigorous argument to support values and
policies char incorporate chose values. Y.le also focus on skills needed ro presenr
;arguments in the competitive marketplace of ideas . [n combination. chc skills of
cooperative and competitive debate 01re imporunr cools of dci:zenship; you can
le:arn these skills rhrough studying and practicing Karl Popper debate.
You can develop the cooperative skills of crc.aring arguments both as an indi ..
vidual and as a pur of a team. Karl Popper debate provides students wirh oppor..
runicies ro work ;u a part of te:ml, cooper:tring wich their tcamnures ro construct
intelligent, coherent, and reasonable arguments. With your tnmmatcs and on
your own, you will learn resc:a rch, argument consrrucrion. and internal negoria·
cion among ream members as well <~.s other cooper-ative scrategies.
Public debates are naturally competitive events. Public debaters develop the
ability to frame arguments so they have the best chance of surviving in :t competi ..
dve arena. Each advoc.ue or group of advocates attempts to frame arguments in a
logical and a pcnou:asivc m;~nncr £0 they will be most appe:tling co their audiences.
Skills such as effective public spuking, insightful cross ..examination, and pointed
refutation allow debaters ro present and defend arguments in compecicive arenas.
T he Karl Popper debate formn was created with rhe ideal of public debate
in mind. Ic recognizes that public debate, while a viral parr of d emocratic tradi ..
dons, does nor always function as well as it should. ln some instances. public
debaters use "sound hires" r:trher th;an extended and wc:J( .. devcloped arguments .
Sometimes they <~.re nor weiJ.. jnformed debaters. In othe r instances. public
debaters appc:al to t heir audience's misconceptions and prejudices. Karl Popper
debate seeks to emulate the best of public debate while avoiding iu most ob\'i*
ous problems. An examination of the four features of public debate better
explains how Karl Popper de-bate does this.

AUOIBNCB

Karl Popper debates ordinarily are judged by a single :~.djudicaror or, at most,
a panel of t hree persons. This audience is, of course, not the same as a public
audience. Nevertheless, debaters in the Karl Popper format should be trained ro
debate as if their judges were inteUigenr and well-informed members of rhe com-
munity. Deb:trers should not de bare or be t r:aincd to debate as if their judges wtre
evaluating them primarily in the technical dimensions of :~.rgumenr:~.rion and
debate. ln keeping with this philosophy, judges need to score ;as c.xcellcnr those
debaters who have designed their arguments to appeal to a universal audience.

EviDENCE

Audiences should accept argumenrs only when they ;arc based on solid evi ..
dence. Karl Popper debaters should learn co conduct research ro discover such
evidence and incorporate it into their <~.rgumenrs. E\•idence in K:ul Popper debate

10 IDiscovering the\\'Oftd thfOU9h DeBATE

should begin with informacion char is a part of the shared knowledge of deb:uer
and audience, bur debuers' e\•idence must nor scop there. Karl Poppet debaters
must engage in research to discover information produced by rhc: technical com.-
munity- info rmation relevant to the dc.bace copic. T hen, the deb:ucrs must learn
ro explain such information accurately and intelligibly to a general audience. The
process of rc:surching evidence :md using it in debates is one of the ways Karl
Popper debaters increase not only their knowledge about cite debate topic but
also rhe knowledge of their audience.

REASON
Evidenc.:e is rhe st:arcing point of an argument. Karl Popper debaters understand
char solid argu ments begin with but do not end with evidence. Debouers begin with
evidence and chen reason their way from evidence to the thesis t hey wa.n t chc :audi-
ence to accept . Unlike debucrs in che technical sphere, Karl Popper deb~.rers are
nor consrrajned by particular forms of reasoning. Many forms-fo r instance, rea ..
soning by example, by analog)'• and by causality-are legitimate forms of argument
in the public sphere. However, when debaters choose a form of reason.ing. they are
expected to use char form jn a rigorous and :..cceptable manner. You wllllearn stan·
dards for good reasoning practices in each of che forms you might select .

LANGUAGE
Karl Popper debarers will srarc with evidence and use effective reasoning to
convince their audiences co accept their claims. You should present your argu"
ments in langu age readily understood b)' audiences in the public sphere. T hus,
you should avoid unnecessary technical jargon as well as jargon developed by
other fo rms of debate. The goal of debate in the public sphere is co engage citi.-
zens in effective democratic processes, thus you muse use language that all par#
ties readil)1 undersra.nd. Because jargon separ.tces chose who know h from chose
who do not, it docs not suppor-t che most important aim of de.bate. Karl Popper
debate seeks ro be inclusive, co include debaters and ::audiences from a v:..riecy of
walks of life and from a variety of cultures. To make debates as inclusive as pos.-
sible, you and your teammates should use lang-uage common co as wide a variety
of people as possible:.

COJfCLli'SI OJf
T he form and philosophy of Karl Popper debate emerges from the ideal
democrat-ic process of debate in the public sphere. Achieving chis ide:..l is difficult
because public debates so often are drawn away from cooperative and competitive
attempts to engage ideas and art drawn toward self.. sen•ing agendas for aggregat..
ing power and personal gai n. Freque.ntly controlled by politician s who are more
interested in election or reelection than in helping citizens undersr.and issues,
debate recently has been characterized by sound bites, by verbal attacks, by de.Jib#
erate misconstruing of the words and deeds of others, and by t hinly cloaked
anempts to mislead ilJ.-informed audiences.

Chapter 1/Karl Popper Debate and the Publk Sphere Ill

 In learning, reaching, a nd engaging in Karl Popper deb:ue, scudenu and
instructors should replace current, self~aggrandizing debate trends with this more
ideal and more democratically useful public deb:ate form. They should use solid
evidence :and rigorous reasoning not only co convince audiences of arguments but
also co educate audiences about the topics being debated and the uses of effective
methods co accomplish those public, democr:acic, :and cduc:acional debates.

JJIPOBTA.T CO.CBPTS 1• CHAPTBB 1

I
rl"" . Debate and argumentation occur in three distinct yet overtapping
spheres: the personal, the technical, and the public.

\..•..J • Important features of debate in the public sphere include audience,

evidence, reason, and language.

• Karl Popper debate seeks to emulate the Ideal of debate In the public
sphere.

"'"""
1. Ouim Padman and LoOt Olbredus•Tyt~ 1M New st.ht'larit: A 'rrtlltiJt 4111 AfJI(me~~tlltill". ~nru. jolln
\Vdkiruon and Pu:rcdl Wu.rtr (Nocre Oamr. lnd.: Un.ivmity or Noc:r( ~ Prm. 1969), 31-35.
2. Some: dtbace fi.wwtu, ~Y ln .dtoW lonCI ~· ln the Un.iced Sl~u. ba-.1: b«on• 10 t« h•11cd dille
they bne do:....doptd tbdr own id.iosyna'Wc: langcugc. A1tbough thb l:.ngwge is ndtfler u preciu noor u cechn.ial
u dm: uad ba 110me tdmtU'Jt' fl(lcb. It emplop <tnain tcrm~ chat IW'C meaning only wkhln d.e (Ofttina. o( (fe)&S•
a:ami.Mdon &batt. AU5tin J. mdy .and O.tvid L. Scdnbe!J's popular d.:but tatbook includes "Ulo5Ntf of Terms ill
Arp.mmwion J.l'ld (}d)at~: Many o( the ttrma lnd\Jdcd In dtc g)~ apcdaDy those rddcd 10 <rou-~rud<ln
deb.m-. h.tvo:. link munill& ro die g.cntn1 poblic.. •itik odlcn h.tvo:. mun.inp difkn-n1 &om cb01$C tlw ~ncn.l pubiK
wou.Jd dill~ Scc.l'or illiDIKe. thdr do:_f'inirioJU or lltrit.tJdhl11f illhm-llty, h!sni, UlrJ, U$1 IIIMI. Qft"S~. Jio~t, off~, pt'f•
II!IIICI!ticm, sob~IKY• '"6.1. nuil, timt s11cl. topi«<(itJ> 1111111 wopMII tQiftrtp(llll. ArpMtltoliltic" -"J Dtt.ttr: Critit.J Tbi...l:u'f
for lkiiSII"td D«i1ic" Af£1ci~ lOch cd. ( Belmonr. C:~~li(.: W.~o.i.liWOr'Ch, 2000), 4)6• 464.

12 I DiSC'M!Wlg tilt WOfld through DEBATE

c h apte r 2 •

The Structure of Argument*

We defute argumenrario11 as the process whenby humans use rc:ason to com.-

munic:~re claims ro one another. T he foc us on re.uon become-s rhe feature that
disrin_guishes :argumentation from orher modes of rberoric. When people ugue
with one another, not only do they assert dainu. they aJso as.serr reasons char they
believe che claims to be: plausible or probable.. Argumencacion is a primary mol
of debate, buc ic serves other activities u welL Argumcnurlon is, for in s-eance, 2n
importa.nt tool in negotiation, conflict resolution, and persuasion. Debate is an
2crivicy that could not exist without :argumennuion.
Argumentation is c-r-irical in acdvir:ies like negotiation and conflict resolu .-
tion. becaun: it is thc primary me:ans people c'J.n u.sc to help fi nd ways to resolve
their differences. But in some of c-hc:.se siru:nions, differences c;~;nnor be resolved
internally and an ourside adjud.icator mus.t be employed. These are the situations
we call dehace. According to this view, de.bate is defined as rh e process of arguing
about cb.ints in sicuac-lons where ;an ;adjudic;aror musr decide the outcome.
T his int roduction foc uses on those d ements of argumentation centr21 ro
dcbare. The.sc: include:: evidence, re;~soning, claims, and reservations.' These
demenu arc chose that philosopher Stephen Toulmin introduced in 1958 and
revised 30 years later.

'l'BB BLBIIBW'l'S 01' .&BGUIIBB'l'

The model we have chosen is only a rough approximation of the dements
and their relarionships to one another. lt is nor intended as a descriptive diagram
of ;~crual argumc.nu fo r a variety of re.asons. First, che modd describes only t ho5e
elemenu of :an argument related co rc-.asoning. It does not dtscribe other impot..
u nt dements such as expressions of feelings or emodons unless these 2.re directly
related ro reasoning. Second, th e modc.l describes only the linguistic d ements
of reasoning. It does nor cover significant nonverbal elemcnu of an argument.
Third, the model applies only to the simplesr argumenrs. Tf 2n 2rgument is com·
posed of a variety of warrants or a cluster of evidence related t.o the claim in dif..
fe rent w:tys, rhe model may not apply wdl. if at all. Despite these shortGOming$,
r:his model has provct\ itself useful for describing some of che key elemenrs of

• By Robert Trtpp

9lillllrll ll'f Wture~ Argull'j!nt Ill

I argumenu and how they function cogecher. The diagrams show1\ on the follow ..
ing pages illustrate the Toulmin Model.
The Toulmin Model identifies four basic elements of argument: daim, evi ..
d ence, 2 warrant, and reservation. We an expl.ain it by this era vel an alog>•: Evidence
is the argument's starting poim. The claim is the arguer's destination. The warrant
is r.he means of travel, :a.nd the reservation involves questions or concerns t he arguer
may have about the arrival at the destination. Toulm.i1t's model can be used co dia ..
gram and then understand the structure of relacivdy simple arguments.

8TBUC'rUBB 01' A. ABGUMB.T

S JMPLB ARGOMBNT

A simple argument consists of a single claim leading from a single piece of

evidence following along a single war-ram and accompanied by perhaps (bur nor
always) a single reserv:arion. T he following shows Toulmin's di:agr:am of a s imple
arguznent:

Warrant

Evidence Claim

Reservation

I
Toulmin illustrates this di:agram using a simple argument claim that Harry
is a British cidz:en because he was born in Bermuda. Here is how Toulmin dia-
grammed the Structure of that argumcm:

Simple Argument

Warrant
1
Persons born in
Bermuda generally are 1

British citizens. j

Evidence 1
Harry was born I Claim
Harry is a British citizen. j

...
in Bermuda.
~ J ,
Reserv•tion
Unless Harry's parents were
U.S. citizens. j

Although this diagram dearly illustrates how an argumenr moves from evi-
dence to a claim via a warrant. very few arguments are ever this simple. For this

141 OiSCOYtring h: world through DEBATE

•• ••
• ' '

" "
I I ;.,
''

.' ' '

' '

..