Guided Adjudication Example

ARGUMENTS, EVIDENCE AND COUNTER ARGUMENTS (An Example)

One of the more difficult concepts in debating is the difference between an argument and evidence. Both are necessary, but they are two different things. An argument without evidence is a mere assertion. Evidence without an argument has not relevancy. The following example will illustrate what judges are looking for in a debate.

RESOLUTION: The Leader of the Conservative Party of Canada should be fired.

GOVERNMENT		OPPOSITION
Argument	Evidence	Counterarguments	Evidence
The Leader is a liar. Deceit by political leaders undermines confidence in the political process. This is bad so the Leader should be fired.	Various examples of lies, broken election promises or other deception. Poll results, editorials, etc linking dishonesty with confidence.	The examples are isolated and not sufficient to establish a pattern. The examples are not factually correct. All politicians lie, other skills possessed by the Leader are more important and respected.	Counter-examples provided. Evidence disproving the examples. Examples of other effective yet lying politicians.
The Leader is incompetent. This is creating a real risk to Canada and Canadians. This cannot be tolerated.	Various examples of where the Leader has misjudged an issue or handled a situation poorly. Negative consequences of mismanagement.	The mistakes are isolated... The Govt does not understand the Leader's strategy in the examples cited and fails to appreciate her wisdom.	Counter-examples provided. Suggested strategy behind the Leader's choices.
The public no longer supports the Leader. Her unpopularity will result in the party losing the next election. This is bad.	Poll results. Anecdotal evidence of dislike.	The results are a blip. Other leaders even less popular so it is not clear that this will cost the election. It would be good if the party lost.	Other poll results favouring the Leader. Poll results of other leaders. Examples of the benefits of lost elections to the losing party.

Commentary

The trick in successful debating is judging what can be assumed and what needs to be proved. In the first argument, the Government clearly needs to prove that the Leader has been dishonest. If the Government does not back this argument up with at least one example of a lie, it is simply making an unproven assertion. How many examples of lies are needed? There is no sure answer.

While the Government clearly needs to present evidence to prove that the Leader is a liar, it is safer for the Government to assume other parts of the argument. For example, it is less controversial to say that deceit undermines confidence. Nevertheless, the Opposition could choose to rebut this part of the argument and the Government's Second Speaker would have to address this counterargument. Finally, it is probably safest to assume that undermining confidence is bad. Counterarguments are still possible, but not likely to be persuasive.

One guide to deciding what needs to be proved in an argument is to use the "does it follow" test. For example, if you cite a single example of deceit, "does it follow" that the individual is a liar? And if the Leader is a liar, "does it follow" that people will lose confidence in the political process. If you can imagine someone saying, "No, it does not follow." then you need to prove that part of your argument.

Turning to the third argument, this one is interesting for two different reasons. First, this argument appeals to a different persuasive element. Arguments #1 and #2 are idealistic arguments based on assumptions about the political process. Argument #3, on the other hand, is more of a pragmatic argument based on assumptions about the desirability of re-electing the Liberal party. Even more interesting, as the counter arguments illustrate, each of the parts of this argument are equally open to attack. As a matter of debating strategy, the Government could focus attention on proving that the Leader is down in the polls in a bid to distract the Opposition. If the Opposition failed to pick up on an obvious weakness in the argument, a judge could mark them down.

Scoring

There are obviously different ways to get a certain score. The following simply illustrates one way to receive a certain score:

If the Prime Minister simply said "The Leader is a liar so he should be fired," the argument would be unclear and only marginally relevant (at best). To score a "3" on Argumentation, the Prime Minister would need to completely develop one argument. If all three arguments were completely developed, the Prime Minister would score a "5." Scores above "5" are considered bonuses and would require more originality and interest than is in these three predictable arguments.

If the Prime Minister provided examples of lies, mismanagement and poll results, the Content would be scored a "3." To receive a "4" or "5," the Prime Minister would have to present numerous examples to convincingly demonstrate a pattern or content to prove some of the additional premises in the arguments. Again, scores above "5" are considered bonuses and would require extensive evidence relating to each part of all the arguments.

If the Leader of the Opposition addressed each of the Prime Minister's arguments and had a clear counter argument for one of them, the Rebuttal would be scored in the "2-3" range. Clear counter arguments for each argument would be required to score in the "4-5" range. If the Leader of the Opposition had counter arguments of each argument and, for example, completely dismantled the third argument by attacking each of its parts, the score would get up into the bonus range.

Resources and Further Reading

Please continue exploring Adjudication here: