1. Freedom of Choice

2. Uncertainty 

3. conflict/differences

4. Urgency 

inherently involve competing underlying values, paradoxes and tradeoff that can be solved by science with multiple ends

2. creates new problems

3. require adaptive changes

*cannot just be solved

1. human nature- assume we are right (egoism) as a result we are selective listeners and reasoners

2. our adversarial political system- opposing sides battling it out

3. our media system

4. low quality public communication

1. logical 

2. rhetorical

3. dialectical 

1. personal sphere 

2. technical sphere (law, economics, science)

3. public sphere

politics

public decisions

1. the art or practice of making public decisions

2. decisions that are made that impact the lives of broad range of people

1. adversarial 

2. administrative

3. deliberative 

relies on having opposing sides competitively make arguments and appeals, either to a broader audience or to institutional decision-makers, in support of their particular points of view.

primary form of politics

used within party politics, protest politics, interest group politics, and direct democracy

1. perspective on politics that focuses on experts deciding how best to make decisions and solve problems

*usually deals with technical sphere

*tough questions to be answered by rigorous research and analysis

1. is a perspective on politics that relies on citizens, not just experts or politicians, to be deeply involved in public decision making. 

work through tough decisions to inheret public issues to come to some conclusion for action in the form of a reasoned public judgement 

*CSU center for public deliberation

*take "impartial" perspective

1. decision makers- adversarial

2. experts- administrative

3. public- deliberative

1. inquiry 

2. debate

3. deliberation 

~ a seeking or request for truth, information, or knowledge; an investigation, the act of inquiring or seeking information by questioning

primary form of inquiry for experts that would consider themselves outside of politics

1. working within or for gov.

2. assume there are technical solutions to most public problems- through research or expertise

3. value free

4. focuses on description rather than proscription

5. often narrow

6. produces high quality but specific info

7. public seen as something to be dealt with not teammate 

 focused primarily on supporting an already chosen point of view and refuting opposing points of view

1."what evidence exists or what arguments can I develop to support my position

2.adversial politics

3.masters of "spin" or deception

4. focused on discovering evidence against opposing views instead of arguments to own perspective

5. dominate political landscape

1. focused on helping a community or organization collaborate and make better decisions and solve problems more effectively and democratically 

2. find info from all sides

3. make "maps" to make tuff decisions

4. takes info from experts, community leaders, advocacy groups, everday folks

5. best performed by impartial sources

1. electoral debate: focus on participants rather than issues

2. adversial: investment in winning

3. expert: knowledge

4. academic: students role playing

5. collaberative: mix of debate and deliberation

1. fact

2. value

3. policy

~ Conclusion based by what we believe to be true

1. proof can be provided

2. based on empirical phenomena (statistics, cause and effect relationship)

empirical~ derived from experiment or experience

*Definitional Claim: specific description of a concept which is often critical to making factual claims and supporting good debates

 Claims made that seek to establish worth, importance, or desirability

1. "should" or "ought"

2. go beyond true and false, examines feelings

*comparative: worth of something by comparing to something else

*non compartive: evaluation based on own merits

1. the object of evaluation (peanut butter, honey sandwiches)

2. the evaluative term (good, important, justified, gross)

1. critical to arguments

2. arguing on values is essence of democratic life

3. First rule: when considered abstractly and 1 at a time values are universally supported

4. value~ principle, standard or quality considered worthwhile just stacked differently to different people

value claims with only one relevant value that isn't specifically defined- no real choice.

ex. I am for families

I value freedom

I want efficient gov

1. how are values ranked relative to one another (value hierarchy)

2. how they are invoked and compete in specific situations (value dilemmas)

~ claims made supporting a proposed course of action, essentially take the form of an "X should do Y"

ex: we should tax junk food

1. involve facts and values

2. can be any new source of action (change in culture, individual behavior)

1. crucial yes or no

2. phrase in the direction of change

3. clear statement of the nature of change (appropriate degree of specificity)

4. only one central idea

5. the rule of fairness 

crucial yes or no

direction of change

must be phrased as a yes/no question 

1. should....

each side could say yes it could go either way

both sides clear on what is being argued

ex: "pull out" definition of what that means

one central idea 

(stock issues)

requires debaters to focus on one clear issue

no AND

rule of fairness 

(stock issues)

both sides agree with the wording of the central question

* dont advantage one side more

1. need 

is there problem significant enough for action

2. plan 

will the new plan solve the problem?

3. practicality 

advantages to new policy outweigh bad?

burden of proof- affirmative 

prsumption- negative

Affirmative to win must answer all 3 

negative no to 1 to win

contested: negative focuses

Conceeded: move past quickly 

Stock issue 

NEED

basis for the debate

1. affirmative must establish significant problems to warrant action

ex:  legal age 21 is unjust because the right to drink is the only right of adulthood delayed until 21

2. Negative: not really problems, not big enough for action, already getting better, cant blame policy

Need Stock

Inherency Arguments 

problems are clear

1. not caused by current policy

2. best addressed not related to policy

3. problem by how policy is being implemented 

5. minor flaws in policy that can be fixed

* arguments ususally use principle v. implmentation  arguments

Negative could use to claim

1. problems not caused by current policy

2. problems best addressed by means no related to policy

3. problem how its being implemented 

4. minor flaws in policy

focus to new proposed policy and ability to solve problems

1. must have details of plan!

2. how it will solve problems identified in need

Negative: why the plan wont work

Infeasibility arguments

(Plan Stock issue)

Works for negative side involves issues

1. unconstitutionally

2. inability of actually administering or monitoring the plan

3. political infeasibility 

Stock Issue 

Practicality 

focuses on remaining advantages and disadvantages to the new policy

1. negative initiates most practicality arg

most impt arg to entire debate

focus on

1. cost (cant afford)

2. intended or unintended negative consequences

3. opportunity cost: happened because used on this action instead of another

Claim: expressed conclusion or opinion arguer wants accepted

Evidence/grounds/data: grounds for that claim, information that the arguer assumes the audience agrees with or accepts

Warrant: the reasoning used to link the claim to the evidence

examples can be used in many ways. If examples are used to try to support a general rule, that is known as inductive reasoning.

* relies on sufficiency, representativeness, and consistency

statistics 

1. method 

2. format

3. interpretation 

refers to the expectation that all claims offered by debaters have evidence and or reasoning to support them

specifically: affirmative side inn a debate must prove all 3 stock issues to prove change is needed

structural flaw in the present system that can't be solved by doing more of the same or spending more money. 3 types:

1. existential

2. systemic

3. attitudinal