INDEX

Here are some helps in preparing for the debate. Our debate will probably be on June 6 or 8 (but it may change some because of make-up schedules). Pages 2-4 are helps for you. See especially page 3 for details on the debate process and what is good and helpful to prepare for the debate. See page 4 about fallacies.
We will probably have each group of 4 people debate and talk for about 12-18 minutes. MAKE SURE that each person is talking a good amount in the debate.
OPTIONAL Pages 6+ (On Debating) is helpful, but not required. It’s optional, but has some good ideas.
Good luck, do your best and have fun!

HOW TO DEBATE EFFECTIVELY & WIN--EASIER

On Debating--OPTIONAL

HOW TO DEBATE EFFECTIVELY & REALLY WIN--EASIER

Our modern world has become very globalized. In the past it took us months or years to contact people from different cultures and views. Now we can interact with them in real time all over the world. Partly due to this, there are many different views on many subjects. Because people have different views on subjects, they dialogue and debate on many topics including politics, medicine, economics, religion, ethics, marriage, health, parenting, justice and other areas.

Why do we debate? Some debate just to win and prove they are smarter. This may be fun, but debate has a higher purpose. The main purpose is for everyone to learn more about truth so that we can follow it better. For those who win, they learn better reasons to support the truth. For those who lose the debate, they learn what doesn’t work and sometimes change their views.Sometimes there is no right and wrong side or both sides are partly wrong and partly wrong. REMEMBER: If my side loses, but I am following truth, that’s a win for me.

When we find truth and follow it, it brings many advantages.Here are a few of them:

1)SAVES LIVES
a) James Kim was driving in the mountains. His car got stuck. He tried to hike out and find help. Tragically, he got lost and died. He didn’t realize that there was a camping lodge with food, blankets and a phone only about a mile away from his car. That truth could have saved his life.
b) For 2,000 years, doctors took out people’s blood. The truth is that life is in the blood as the Bible says (Leviticus 17:11). This truth saved millions of life.

2)IMPROVES HEALTH: Good health habits give you better energy, help you avoid diseases, improve quality of life andenergy, help you live longer and even help you save ~$2,000 a year (according to CNN).

3)SAVES MONEY: Truth can help you save money by finding cheaper products, avoiding waste & damage, etc.

It also helps in these areas and others:

4)Reduces stress

5)Saves time

6)Helps avoid accidents/mistakes.

7)Improve studying and grades.

8)Helps win games/sports.

9)Advances knowledge and technology

10)Improve communication and relationships.

11)Aids inventions and entertainment

Winning is good, but if truth wins, we all win.There are basically 3 kinds of people in most debates:
1) Believers are people who will believe views regardless of the evidence.
2) Skeptics are people who will discard views regardless of the evidence.
3) Inquirers are people who wait to judge until they have looked at evidence on both sides. They then try to follow the weight of evidence.Inquirers are the people in history who have helped bring the most advances in science, history,religion, technology, etc. Inquirers have the most fun and contribute the most benefits to society.

We need 4 things in a sincere search for truth:
1) Humility-If think we know everything, it will be impossible to learn new things, improve or advance.
2) Honesty- It’s very important to admit errors and mistakes. If the other side has good arguments, we should admit that. Don’t just fight facts. Follow them wherever they lead.

3) Calmness: Try to keep calm and avoid anger. Hot emotions make it difficult to think wisely and honestly.
4) Respect: Remember that you can’t and shouldn’t force others to think the same way you do. Also, be ready to say "WOW" if something is impressive.

DEBATE PROCESS

1)TEAM A & B INTRODUCTION--Explain your main argument and summarize very shortly your reasons that support the argument. It’s also good to use 1-2 of the attention getting techniques we learned about during our presentations (such as asking a question, telling an interesting story, quoting an opponent, making a surprising statement, etc. Review them in file #5 here:

2)TEAM A--EXPLAIN REASON #1—Talk about your evidence, reasons, stories, etc. that help your argument.
TEAM B—Ask questions, challenge, disagree and/oragree with good points.
TEAM A—Rebuttal (answer the questions/challenges or admit good points from your opponents).

3)TEAM B--EXPLAIN REASON #1—Talk about your evidence, reasons, stories, etc. that help your argument.
TEAM A—Ask questions, challenge, disagree and/or agree with good points.
TEAM B—Rebuttal (answer the questions/challenges or admit good points from your opponents).
Repeat 2) and 3) for reasons #2, #3, etc.

4)AUDIENCE QUESTIONS-The audience can ask questions to either side.

5)FINAL SUMMARY—Summarize the best reasons for your side shortly and promote your side strongly.

WHAT EVIDENCE SHOULD YOU PREPARE?
When you are preparing a debate, try to find arguments, reasons, evidence, experiences

A)that support your point. AND B) that criticize your opponent’s points.

Also, find stories and humor to make your evidence and arguments more interesting, surprising and convincing.

WHAT IS GOOD EVIDENCE?
The best kind of evidence is when you have experts from different countries, political parties, religions or views agreeing about evidence. For example, if both Korean and Japanese historians agree that TokdoIsland is Korea’s, that is VERY strong evidence.

1)SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE:
a) Statistics, studies, surveys about things we can test and observe with the scientific method.
EX: A study by StanfordUniversity in 2003 studied kids and TV. When kids watched only 7 hours of TV per week for 20 weeks, their violence went down 50%.
b) Evidence from making predictions and finding confirmations.
EX: If North Korea attacked South Korea, we should find North Korean bombs & bullets in South
Korea. If we find that, it is evidence that North Korea attacked South Korea.

2)HISTORICAL EVIDENCE: Primary and secondary witnesses are good evidence. What are they?
Primary: Dr. Bob PalmerSAW demonstrations in Kwangju in 1980. He saw many people die there.
Secondary: Bryan Bissell heard Dr. Bob Palmer’s stories about his experience in Kwangju.

3)PRAGMATIC: This is evidencethat people can experience themselves. VERY GOOD & PERSUASIVE!
EX: If you sleep early at night, you will usually have more energy the next day. Try it!

4)LOGICAL EVIDENCE: Show that an idea is logical or that others are using fallacies (next page).
EX: John didn’t write that essay. I found the same essay on the internet.
EX: If milk causes bone problems and cancer, then it’s not healthy. (see

FALLACIES(HINT: Identify the principle. Try to use it in other situations.)
1) DOUBLE STANDARD: If a person uses one rule for ideas that he likes and then another rule for ideas he doesn’t like, this is a double standard. Also, if a person tells others to do something and then doesn’t follow that themselves, this is a double standard. These kinds of arguments and actions are usually wrong and false logic.

EXAMPLES:

  • My teacher told us not to eat candy between meals. She said it was very unhealthy. But, one day, we came into the school suddenly and found her eating candy between meals. She had a double standard.
  • Teacher: Is it OK for your boyfriend to meet other girls?
    University girl: No way! He has to be faithful and true to me.
    Teacher: Is it OK for you to meet other boys.
    University girl: Of course. That’s my freedom.
  • Atheist: Jesus isn’t real. He didn’t write any books & his friends wrote decades later. He’s just a myth.
    Christian: Well, nobody wrote about Spartacus when he was alive either. Is he just a myth? The Romans didn’t think so. Socrates didn’t write anything either. Is he just a myth? Double standard.

2) STRAW MAN: Long ago, soldiers practiced fighting against straw man. But it was not the real enemy. A straw man argument is not the real argument. It’s a weak misrepresentation of the real argument. It is a kind of ½ truth or lie.EXAMPLES:

  • Person A: I don't think children should run into the busy streets.
    Person B: I think that it would be foolish to lock children up all day.
    Person A: Did I say we should lock children up all day? NO! Straw man.
  • A: God hates pain, crime, abuse, violence and suffering. He will end all these terrible things in hell.
    B: So, God will have a party and barbecue people forever.
    A: NO! That’s a straw man. Hell is not forever. It’s short. It’s just justice and a way to stop all evil.

3) AD HOMINEM ARGUMENTS/CHARACTER ASSASINATION: Someone doesn’t like person As idea or argument.But they don’t attack the argument. They attack the person & their character. This is wrong reasoning because it’s not the real idea & even a bad person might be right.EXAMPLES:

  • You are against abortion, but you are uneducated and poor. So, you are wrong.
  • Politician Jane Jones' proposal to improve schools is ridiculous. She cheated on her taxes in 2003.

4) GUILT BY ASSOCIATION FALLACY: This is VERY common. Person A talks about an idea. Person B shows that bad people like that idea or that Person A is friends with some dangerous people and so the idea is dangerous. But, people don’t always agree with their friends or relatives & we all have friends who did wrong things. Judging people by their friends is wrong.

EXAMPLES:

  • You say there are too many poor people&we should tax the rich. But communists also say this. So, you are a communist.
  • Pro-life people are against abortion. Hitler was also against abortion. So, pro-life people are like Hitler.
  • One of Obama’s teachers made a bomb when he was young. So, Obama agrees that terrorism is good.

5) ANECDOTAL EVIDENCE: Anecdotal evidence is using a very stories or people to prove a point when there is much evidence against their argument. It is often used in in advertising or promotion of a product, service, or idea. EXAMPLES:

  • Smoking isn't harmful. My grandmother smoked a pack a day and lived to be 92. (First, much research shows that smoking is harmful. Second, maybe she would have lived past 100 if she had not smoked.)
  • I'm never wearing a seat belt. Ida crashed into the river. If she had worn a seat belt, she would have died.

On Debating--OPTIONAL


If we don't want to live in a dictatorship, we must be vigilant to preserve our freedoms. If we wish to preserve our freedoms, we must be informed on the issues. Being informed on the issues requires that we become acquainted with alternative points of view. The history of the development of civilization can be seen as the history of debates on issues. In democratic societies, there must be public debating. Newspapers have served this purpose and still do to some extent in this country. However, we seem to have lost awareness of the importance of debating since the days of Thomas Paine. The sixty-second sound bite has created the illusion that the important issues are all brief and cut-and-dried. The importance of debating issues is fading from the public consciousness. One principle aim of The Truth Tree is to increase awareness of the importance of rational debating. But constructive debating is an art. With all this in mind, the following suggestions are offered.

Clarity:Avoid use of terms which can be interpreted differently by different readers. When we are talking to people who substantially agree with us we can use such terms as "rednecks" or "liberals" and feel reasonably sure that we will be understood. But in a debate, we are talking to people who substantially disagree with us and they are likely to put a different interpretation on such words.

Evidence:Quoting an authority is not evidence. Quoting a majority opinion is not evidence. Any argument that starts with, "According to Einstein..." is not based on objective evidence. Any argument that starts with, "Most biologists believe..." is not based on objective evidence. Saying, "The Bible says..." is not evidence. Authorities and majorities can be wrong and frequently have been.

Emotionalism: Avoid emotionally charged words--words that are likely to produce more heat than light. Certainly the racial, ethnic, or religious hate words have no place in rational debating. Likewise, avoid argumentum ad hominem. Personal attacks on your opponent are an admission of intellectual bankruptcy. Also, slurs directed at groups with whom your opponent is identified are usually nonproductive. Try to keep attention centered on the objective problem itself. There is a special problem when debating social, psychological, political, or religious ideas because a person's theories about these matters presumably have some effect on his own life style. It is unlikely that in an argument over the existence of quarks an opponent's sexual behavior would be brought up and it would be easier to keep attention centered on the problem itself than if the argument was about the importance of the family or whether a liberal or conservative position was preferrable in a political debate. A suggested solution is to make a general statement rather than one referring specifically to the opponent. In other words, rather than saying "and that's why you are such an undisciplined wreck" say, "a person adopting your position is, I believe, likely to become an undisciplined wreck because ..."

A (Short) List of emotionally charged words and phrases:

  • Liberal!
  • Tax and spend!
  • Conservative!
  • Politically correct!
  • (The opponent) is spouting! his (whatever)!
  • All pejorative names for races, sexual preference, ethnic groups, or religions
  • Baby killer!
  • Socialist!
  • Hippy!
  • Fascist!
  • Saying that your opponent "trots out" his argument

Causality: Avoid the blunder of asserting a causal relationship with the popular fallacy of post hoc ergo propter hoc which declares that because some event A happened and immediately afterward event B happened that event A was the cause of event B. (I knew someone whose car stalled on the way to work. She would get out and open the hood and slam it and then the car would start. Singing a song would have been just as effective to allow time for a vapor lock to dissipate!) Also avoid the popular fallacy that correlation proves causation. People who own Cadillacs, on average, have higher incomes than people who don't. This does not mean that if we provided people with Cadillacs that they would have higher incomes.

Innuendo: Innuendo is saying something pejorative about your opponent without coming right out and saying it but by making more or less veiled allusions to some circumstance, rumor, or popular belief. If you want to see some excellent examples of innuendo, watch Rush Limbaugh. Politicians are, unfortunately, frequently guilty of using innuendo. It is an easy way to capitalize on popular prejudices without having to make explicit statements which might be difficult or impossible to defend against rational attack.

Be sure of your facts.What is the source of your information? If it is a newspaper or a magazine, are you sure that the information hasn't been "slanted" to agree with that publication's political bias? Where crucial facts are concerned, it is best to check with more than one source. Often international publications will give you a different perspective than your hometown newspaper. Check to see whether the book you are using was published by a regular publishing company or whether it was published by some special interest group like the John Birch Society or a religious organization. These books cannot be trusted to present unbiased evidence since their motivation for publishing is not truth but rather the furtherance of some political or religious view.

Understand your opponents' arguments. It is good practice to argue with a friend and take a position with which you do not agree. In this way you may discover some of the assumptions your opponents are making which will help you in the debate. Remember that everybody thinks that his position is the right one, and everybody has his reasons for thinking so.

Do not impute ridiculous or malevolent ideas to your opponent. An example of this is the rhetorical statement, "Have you stopped beating your wife?" This imputes or presupposes that your opponent has beaten his wife. One frequently sees references by conservative speakers and writers to the idea that gay activists want "special privileges." This would be ridiculous if it were true. It isn't true, but speaking as if it were true and well known to all is egregiously unfair to listeners or readers who may not be well informed. It is probably always wise to treat your opponent with respect, even if he doesn't deserve it. If he doesn't deserve respect, this will probably soon become obvious enough. There are all sorts of subtle ways to express hostility toward your opponent and it is almost always unwise to give in to them. That doesn't mean that you can't vividly and saliently present your criticisms of your opponent's beliefs or behavior. But beware of phraseology which simply makes him look ridiculous. An example of this came up recently. I was criticizing Pat Robertson's apparent belief that God punishes people who do not behave as he wants them to by sending storms or natural disasters of various kinds or even terrorists. I do think this is a childish and obviously invalid belief. Saying so is not a violation of any of the principles enumerated here. But I found myself saying that Pat Robertson's "Big Friend in the Sky" would do such and so. This is objectionable because it ridicules. It isn't as straightforward as simply saying that in my opinion Pat Robertson's belief is ridiculous. Another example is to say that nudists "prance around" in the nude. Of course it's inaccurate, but it ridicules and denigrates as well and shouldn't be allowed in a rational debate.