Welcome to OWDA Smoking Forum

Ladies and Gentlemen, 

We are delighted that you have chosen to join us and hopefully contribute to our discussion on the proposed smoke-free Ohio Wesleyan campus. Nine members of the Ohio Wesleyan Debate Association have volunteered to each present one line of argument (please note that these were randomly assigned and are not the personal views of the team members). These arguments will be as follows:

A description of the philosophic Choice Framework, and

Arguments For: 

1)      Choice: Nonsmokers' Rights

2)      Health: Nonsmokers and Smokers 

3)      Litter Reduction and Environment 

4)      Health Care Costs in Tuition 

Arguments Against:

1)      Choice: Smokers’ Rights 

2)      Ostracization: Stigmatization and Transition Costs to Smokers 

3)      Impacts on Admission 

4)      Practicality: Enforcability and Possibility of Alternatives 

We ask you to comment on these with your opinions, viewpoints, and arguments, which will be taken and included in a policy briefing memo for the members of WCSA. We do retain the right to edit and delete any offensive, inappropriate, or generally un-classy posts. We hope you stay tuned in and keep the dialogue going! 

Even Better Website :)

http://debate.owu.edu

Fantastic Website

You guys should check this out - debates on everything imaginable. Some of them aren't that great because people just bring personal opinions, but most of them are actually really well structured and bring good LOAs.

http://www.debate.org

Equality doesn't exist yet.

The two definitions given below both suggest societal intervention in the humans struggle for "equality." One suggests that society will "level the playing field," so to speak, while the other essentially states that society renders the "outcome" of one's work equal to another's. The problem with both types of equality is that society's intervention always results in inequality. (I'm going to focus on the first one, as I don't really care for Europe and can't even pretend to know how Equality of Outcome actually works in society. )

As much as society ties to level the playing field, people will always fall through the cracks. There are simply too many people and it's too impractical to keep tabs on everyone to make sure they're granted the same opportunities. Take, for example, illegal aliens and the homeless. Is it practical, and even possible, to level the playing field for them? And would society even want to do that?And what about the homeless? They're virtually in a spiraling descent, not able to succeed because they don't have basic necessities and not able to obtain basic necessities because they aren't able to succeed.

Moreover, not all aspects of society desire that all individuals are given the same opportunities. This is the case with gays and Muslims today, women decades ago, and racial minorities before that. As human we thrive on the "other" and push them down on our way to success. Society most definitely does not want to lose its scapegoat. Take, for example, Blacks in the US. African-Americans pushed for civil rights and equality, ultimately gaining a repeal of segregation laws and obtaining a "level playing field" - or so they thought. Today, de facto segregation is stronger than de jure segregation under Jim Crow laws. While it's definitely beneficial for racist laws to be wiped clean from the law books, Blacks still don't have equality. The Civil Rights movement was less of a step forward and more of a step into a more difficult problem; and all because there are elements of American society that genuinely don't want African-Americans, for whatever reasons, to have the same playing field as the majority.

Logical Fallacies

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/

This has the most complete review of the most common fallacies on the internet that I've come across, in addition to its criticism of emotion-based techniques (appealing to fear, appealing to tradition, etc.)

When Debating Animal Topics....

Here's a link I found while I was looking for equality stuff. It deals with the concept of "speciesism" - the idea that humans have more rights than other species and can do whatever they want to other species. Difficult to argue, but this is a good tool to have for,say, when you're opening government on "THW ban the keeping of animals as pets" :(

http://www.morris.umn.edu/academic/philosophy/Collier/International%20Ethics/steinbock.pdf

Links on Equality

Here are some links that provide some insight into our topic of equality - I'll compile some information later, but for now this might be helpful. Don't forget your assignment for Sunday!

http://www.modernphilosophy.com/philosophy/equality.html
http://www.jesp.org/articles/download/EgalitarianismandtheValueofEquality.pdf
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/equality/ - Fantastic Source
http://www.rolandpierik.nl/theory/Downloads/Ideal.pdf

Logical Fallacies in Argumentation

Logical Fallacies in Argumentation

What are logical fallacies? Logical fallacies are flaws in argumentation or reasoning, which either distort or misrepresent the truth. (In debate it often considered rude or insulting to use them in rounds, and very frequently lead to muddy debates). Here are a few types and their explanations:

1) Straw Man-This is the name for twisting or misrepresenting an argument purposefully by making it seem weaker or harder to defend then it actually is (hence the name “straw”).

For example: if Person A were to say “a good society needs equality” and Person B were to reply that “ communism is bad for society” Person B has made a straw man argument by misrepresenting “equality” with a complete sharing of resources, or communism. Person B has not really addressed the argument brought by Person A, but has tried to made it appear so.

2) Ad Hominem-This logical fallacy is also called a personal attack. In short, when trying to refute an argument by Person A, Person B instead attacks Person A’s character in an attempt to discredit them and dismiss the argument, or insults the nature of the argument itself.

For example: Person A says “a good society needs equality” to which Person B responds either “you’re stupid for saying that” or “that argument is stupid” both of these statements by person B would be Ad Hominem attacks.

3) Red Herring-this form of fallacy is a distraction designed to drive attention away from an argument.

For example: Person A says “a good society needs equality” (in case you can’t tell by now person A is very stuck on this idea) to which Person B could reply any number of things such as “look up in the sky!” or perhaps something like “ you’re face is equal!” (If Person B happens to be John).

4) The Slippery Slope- this is where the impact of an argument id extrapolated to the point of being ridiculous

For example: Person A says ““a good society needs equality” (they really need to come up something new to say) and Person B could say “ but equality would lead to a complete lack of individuality creating a society of drones and leading to the devaluation of human life and nuclear war”. This is an example of a slippery slope as the conclusion that Person B draws is ridiculous.

5) Circular Logic-this is where someone justifies their argument or opinion with the same idea or opinion

For example: If someone says, “Only smart students can be debaters because all of the students on the debate are smart”. This is an example of circular logic because the rather then offering actual backing or analysis for the argument the speaker justifies it by reflecting the original statement. (Although in this case it is true that all debaters are smart)

There are other forms of logical fallacies besides these but these are the most basic and well known.

On Arguing Abuse (within a system or model)

On Arguing Abuse (within a system or model)

As we all know abuse is the idea of someone(s) or something(s) exploiting the model or system in question. This form of argumentation is typically used to say that the system of model being debated is flawed or bad.

The issue/idea of abuse can be argued both ways in a debate. In the case of this issue and so many others the case can really be made for either side, and must be evaluated by weighing the status quo and the alternative in a series of cost benefit analyses.

Regardless here are some ideas:

Reasons why Abuse of a system is not a reason to prove the model is bad/flawed

-The potential for abuse exists in everyman made system, as human are not perfect

-We don’t/shouldn’t apply this form of logic to ideas and constructs in society now.

-For example, just because the existence for say a corrupt police officer is possible doesn’t mean we should abolish all police forces. (The potential for police forces to do good far out weights the potential harm of a few officers who abuse the system)

Reasons why potential abuse is a reason to prove the is bad/flawed

-If the model for some reason or other increases the abuse or makes the impact of it on the society worse

-If the model fails to make any change on the level of abuse in the system

-If the model increases the power of the abuser (i.e. allowing the black market to make a higher profit)

For example, when the U.S. outlawed alcohol consumption, but failed to actually affect alcohol consumption because of the presence of speakeasies. Thus the black market gained power because more people’s demand remained the same while the supply of alcohol decreased.

Notes from Practice 11/1/10

Notes from Debate Practice

November 1, 2010

Equality

-Two types, equality of opportunity and equality of outcome

Equality of Opportunity-everyone in a society is provided with the same means to achieve goals etc. (starting line is the same).

Equality of Outcome-everyone in a society is provided with the same result for their efforts, i.e. for one hour of work everyone would receive sum a, for two hours of work everyone would receive sum b etc.

Which form of equality people want depends on their society or cultural values. For example in the US people desire equality of opportunity, where as in Sweden, and most of Europe equality of outcome is more desirable.

Equality of Opportunity-

- Creates a meritocracy

- Allows everyone to fully achieve or discover their talents

- Distributes resources on individual basis

-Resources distributed based on an individuals talent and drive

-Would this disadvantage those individuals with less talent?

-Can talent be developed over time?

-Would the subjective values of society still create a two-tiered system of “can and cannot”?

-Two kinds of dividing factors:

“Real” Factors- i.e. talent, merit, work ethic these factors would affect distribution of resources.

“Unreal” Factors- i.e. gender, race, education etc these factors would not affect the distribution of resources

-The goal of equality of opportunity is social mobility

Equality of Outcome-

-Prevent arbitrary evaluation of human worth

-Would varying efforts still receive the same resources?

- Not necessarily, society can ascribe a set result for a standardized outcome, i.e. one hour of work (see above)

- How would inheritance be addressed? (If parents passed on resources to their children they would no longer be equal)

-Possible solution of 100% death tax

Operational

Alright - It should be working now. You just have to accept the invitation I sent to your OWU email account and  create a profile and it will allow you to publish to the blog. In practice tonight we will talk about how we are going to be using this blog

Purpose Of This Blog

Hey team! I'm still working out a few things - like how to allow you to post, for example - but this blog will be a new practice forum. I may or may not end up posting practice motions and teams, but the main purpose is for you to post findings from homework assignments. You will be given a topic and asked to do some research and post it along with whatever we discuss in practice. Batiste's research assistant will also be posting notes from Friday discussions here.