Handout for PSA 101
(Argumentation and Debate)
Lesson 1: Introduction to Argumentation and
Debate
Argumentation - came from the classical
Latin word argumentum, which means “evidence
or proof.” It is defined as: “a reason or reasons why
you are for or against something.” Argumentation is
the process of forming and communicating claims
based on supporting information.
Debate - a formal discussion between people or
groups of people that is regulated. Debates are
considered based on ‘arguments,’ which are lines of
reasoning, support or evidence about a subject.
However, a debate has the feeling of a larger, longer
or more formal discussion. A formal debate may
even be judged by a person or a panel of people,
with one side winning the debate by providing the
best lines of reasoning or support for the issue.
Commonly Used Debate Formats:
1. Oregon-Oxford Debate – involves a debate
on a predetermined statement – also called a
“proposition” – from two opposing
perspectives. The two sides either argue
“for” or “against” the motion within a
formalized structure.
2. British Parliamentary Debate – the debate
is split into two opposing sides: the
proposition (or government), and the
opposition. Each side is then further divided
into ‘opening’ and ‘closing’ teams, all four
of which have two speakers. These are
named after their equivalent positions in the
British Parliament: (i) Prime Minister (PM),
(ii) Leader of the Opposition (LO), (iii)
Deputy Prime Minister (DPM), (iv) Deputy
Leader of the Opposition (DPO), (v)
Member of the Government (MG), (vi)
Member of the Opposition (MO), (vii)
Government Whip (GW), and (viii)
Opposition Whip (OW).
3. Asian Parliamentary Debate – the debate
is split into two opposing sides: the
Prepared by: Mr. Justin Paul D. Gallano
Faculty Member – College of Arts, T.I.P. Manila
PRELIM
proposition (or government), and the
opposition. Compared to the British
Parliamentary Debate, each side has three
members only. These are named: (i) Prime
Minister (PM), (ii) Leader of the Opposition
(LO), (iii) Member of the Government
(MG), (iv) Member of the Opposition (MO),
(v) Government Whip (GW), and (vi)
Opposition Whip (OW).
4. Lincoln-Douglas Debate – an open style of
debate, named for the famous series of
debates between U.S. Senate candidates
Abraham Lincoln and Stephen Douglas in
1858. Participants typically agree on time
limits and topics ahead of time.
5. Australasian Debate (Australs) – consists
of two teams who debate over an issue,
more commonly called a topic or
proposition. The issue, by convention, is
presented in the form of an affirmative
statement beginning with "That", for
example, "That cats are better than dogs," or
"This House," for example "This House
would establish a world government." The
subject of topics can vary from region to
region.
What Characteristics Do Good Debaters
Possess?
 Good knowledge of current issues.
 Ability to generate ideas.
 Ability to think critically and logically.
 Ability to present the ideas systematically.
 Ability to handle culturally diverse and
challenging situations with great ease and to
one’s their (own) enjoyment.
Benefits of Debating:
 Cultivates quick and multi-dimensional,
logical thinking.
1
© 2020 | NOT FOR SALE
Handout for PSA 101 PRELIM
(Argumentation and Debate)

 Enhances the ability to develop reasoned Cogency – is the extent to which an argument is
opinions. both sound and intellectually compelling because it
is well founded in fact, logic, or rationality.
 Gives a better understanding of the current
events and the world around us. 1. Certainty – associated with absolute truth.
If a conclusion is a certainty, then all
 Improves self-confidence, speaking style
competent observers agree.
and command of language.
2. Probability – is associated with a high
 Enriches your overall leadership qualities. degree of likelihood (but not certainty) that a
conclusion is true. As advocates we will
Debate Checklist (What to Prepare?): spend much of our time trying to prove that
our propositions have a high degree of
Essential Points: Questions to Answer: probability and are more probably true than
those of our opponents.
What am I trying to
3. Plausibility – is associated with a lesser
The Claim prove?
degree of likelihood that a proposition is
What is my thesis? true. Advocates will use arguments having
What is the evidence this degree of proof only when no better
The Support
(or data) for my claim?
arguments are available.
What is the reasoning
4. Possibility – is associated with a low degree
involved in my claim
The Warrant and its support? Are the of likelihood that a proposition is true. The
parts of my argument advocate has only limited use for proofs
logically connected? with this degree of cogency and will always
How certain is my seek proofs having greater logical force.
claim? When and
General Tests of Reasoning:
where should I use
The Qualifiers
qualifiers like mainly, Once a claim is advanced, we have to apply these
mostly, probably, in general tests to the supporting elements of the
many cases, etc.? argument. An affirmative answer to the following
What are the counter- test questions implies that the reasoning is sound; a
arguments? negative answer may imply the presence of a
The Reservations Can I be rebutted?
fallacy.
How, and in any
way(s)? 1. Are the grounds solid? Have good reasons
been given to establish the foundation of this
Lesson 2: The Art of Reasoning claim? Have reliable evidence and reasoning
been provided to establish grounds for the
Reasoning – the process of inferring conclusions claim?
from premises. The premises may be in the form of 2. Does the warrant justify the claim? Have
any of the various types of evidence; they may be sufficient evidence and reasoning been
stated as propositions; or they may be statements of given to provide good reasons justifying the
conclusions reached through prior reasoning. movement from grounds to claim in this
specific instance?
The Degrees of Cogency (Modal Qualification):

2
Prepared by: Mr. Justin Paul D. Gallano
Faculty Member – College of Arts, T.I.P. Manila © 2020 | NOT FOR SALE
Handout for PSA 101
(Argumentation and Debate)
3. Is the backing adequate? In many cases
the warrant or rebuttal is not sufficient to
stand alone. Have additional evidence and
reasoning been provided to establish
adequate backing?
4. Has the rebuttal been properly
evaluated? Almost any argument is subject
to rebuttal. Have sufficient evidence and
reasoning been provided to offset or
minimize the rebuttal? Has the rebuttal been
properly evaluated?
5. Has the degree of cogency (modal
qualification) been properly determined?
Has the degree of cogency assigned to this
particular claim been established accurately
and precisely?
Types of Reasoning:
Reasoning is often classified as deductive or
inductive.
 Deductive reasoning moves from general to
specific. Deductive reasoning claims to
establish the certainty of a conclusion.
o For example, if all men are mortal
(broad generalization or premise),
and Socrates is a man (more
specific); then, Socrates is mortal
(most specific).
 Inductive reasoning moves from specific
cases to generalizations. Inductive reasoning
claims to establish a lesser degree of
cogency for its conclusion.
o For example, “I had Pad Thai at the
new Thai Restaurant last night and it
was very good” (one specific case of
my meal at the new restaurant); “I
can therefore safely conclude that
this is an excellent restaurant” (refers
to a broader number of cases), and in
fact, “I would have to say that Thai
food is excellent!” (even broader).
Prepared by: Mr. Justin Paul D. Gallano
Faculty Member – College of Arts, T.I.P. Manila
PRELIM
1. Reasoning by Example – consists of
inferring conclusions from specific cases.
Reasoning by example is a form of inductive
reasoning and involves either cause or sign
reasoning, because the advocate is trying to
show that the examples or cases are a cause
or a sign of the conclusion presented.
Sometimes a single case may be used to
establish the conclusion or generalization.
More often a number of cases will be
offered as the basis for the conclusion. This
process may be represented as follows:
Case1
Case2
Case3 Conclusion
Casen
2. Reasoning by Analogy – consists of
making a comparison between two similar
cases and inferring that what is true in one
case is true in the other. Reasoning by
analogy is a form of inductive reasoning, in
which the advocate seeks to show that the
factors in his or her analogy are either a
cause or a sign of the conclusion presented.
This process can be represented as follows:
A C
Bb Bx
o A, B, b, and C are known while x is
unknown.
o The solid lines represent a known
relationship
o The dashed line represents an
unknown relationship.
3
© 2020 | NOT FOR SALE
Handout for PSA 101
(Argumentation and Debate)
3. Causal Reasoning – one infers that a
certain factor (a cause) is a force that
produces something else (an effect). Causal
reasoning, whether cause-to-effect or effect-
to-cause, usually involves generalization.
o This process can be represented as
follows:
C (inferred)
o The same process can be used in
reverse. That is, if an effect is known
to exist, it may be reasoned that it
was produced by a cause. This
process may be represented as
follows:
C (inferred)
4. Reasoning by Sign – consists of inferring
relationships or correlations between two
variables. Here one argues that two variables
are so closely related that the presence or
absence of one may be taken as an
indication of the presence or absence of the
other. Reasoning by sign involves reasoning
by analogy, by example, or from effect to
effect as the advocate seeks to show that a
proposition is valid. If one variable may be
taken as a sign of another, the relationship
between the variables is reciprocal. The
relationship between the variables is
nonreciprocal when one variable may be
taken as a sign of the other, but the second
variable is not a reliable sign of the first.
Lesson 3: Evidence
Evidence – the raw material of argumentation. It
consists of facts, opinions, and objects that are used
Prepared by: Mr. Justin Paul D. Gallano
Faculty Member – College of Arts, T.I.P. Manila
PRELIM
to generate proof. The advocate brings together the
raw materials and, by the process of reasoning,
produces new conclusions.
Sources of Evidence:
Evidence is introduced into an argument from
various sources. By understanding the uses and
limitations of the sources of evidence, we will be
more discerning in reaching our own decisions and
in developing arguments for the decisions of others.
E (known)
1. Judicial Notice – the quickest, simplest, and
easiest way of introducing evidence into an
argument. The process whereby certain
evidence may be introduced into an
argument without the necessity of
substantiation; it is assumed to be so well
known that it does not require
substantiation.
2. Public Records – include all documents
E (known) compiled or issued by or with the approval
of any governmental agency. In this
category are such diverse materials as the
Congressional Record, national statute
books, birth certificates, deeds, reports of
congressional hearings, and the minutes of a
town meeting.
3. Public Writings – include all written
material, other than public records, made
available to the general public.
4. Private Writings – include all written
material prepared for private rather than
public use. Some private writings are
designed to become public records at a later
date.
5. Testimony of Witnesses – testimony in
court or before a governmental body is
usually given under oath and is subject to
penalties for perjury or contempt. Testimony
outside the courtroom or hearing room is not
subject to the same legal restrictions and is
usually more informal.
4
© 2020 | NOT FOR SALE
Handout for PSA 101
(Argumentation and Debate)
6. Personal Inspection – something is
presented for examination to the persons
rendering the decision.
Types of Evidence:
1. Judicial or Extrajudicial Evidence:
A. Judicial Evidence – also known as
“legal” or “competent” evidence, is
evidence that is admissible in court.
Such evidence must satisfy not only
the usual tests of evidence but also
the various technical rules of legal
evidence.
B. Extrajudicial Evidence – also
known as “extralegal” or
“incompetent” evidence. The word
incompetent has no negative
connotation when used in this sense,
but merely means “not admissible in
court”; such evidence may be used
outside the court. Such evidence is
used to satisfy persons about the
facts requiring proof in any situation
other than a legal proceeding and is
subject only to the usual tests of
evidence.
2. Primary or Secondary Evidence:
A. Primary Evidence – the best
evidence that the circumstances
admit. It affords the greatest
certainty of the matter in question,
and it is original or firsthand
evidence. Primary evidence is
stronger than secondary evidence
because there is less possibility of
error.
B. Secondary Evidence – is evidence
that falls short of this standard,
because by its nature it suggests
there is better evidence of the matter
in question. Secondary evidence is
weaker than primary evidence
because it does not derive its value
Prepared by: Mr. Justin Paul D. Gallano
Faculty Member – College of Arts, T.I.P. Manila
PRELIM
solely from the credibility of the
witness, but rests largely on the
veracity and competence of others.
3. Written or Unwritten Evidence:
A. Written Evidence – is evidence
supplied by writings of all kinds:
books, newspapers, and magazines,
as well as less frequently used types
of writing, such as Roman numerals
carved on the cornerstone of a
building. In arguments outside the
courtroom, written evidence
generally is given greater weight
than oral or unwritten evidence,
because it is easier to substantiate.
B. Unwritten Evidence – includes both
oral testimony and objects offered
for personal inspection.
4. Real or Personal Evidence:
A. Real Evidence – furnished by
objects placed on view or under
inspection. In the courtroom real
evidence may consist of fingerprints,
scars, or weapons.
B. Personal Evidence – evidence
furnished by persons, and it may be
in the form of oral or written
testimony. The credibility we attach
to personal evidence depends in
large part on the competence and
honesty we attribute to the person
providing the testimony.
5. Lay or Expert Evidence:
A. Lay Evidence – provided by persons
without any special training,
knowledge, or experience in the
matter under consideration. Such
evidence is useful in areas that do
not require special qualifications.
B. Expert Evidence – evidence
provided by persons with special
training, knowledge, or experience in
the matter under consideration.
5
© 2020 | NOT FOR SALE
Handout for PSA 101 PRELIM
(Argumentation and Debate)

6. Prearranged or Causal Evidence: conclusively in the minds of those who render the
A. Prearranged Evidence – created for decision.
the specific purpose of recording
1. Partial Proof – used to establish a detached
certain information for possible
fact in a series of facts tending to support the
future reference. Prearranged
issue in dispute. In debating the proposition
evidence is valuable because it is
of “guaranteed annual wages,” affirmative
usually created near the time that the
debaters sometimes sought to introduce
event in question took place; also,
evidence of seasonal fluctuations in
because it is intended for future
employment as partial evidence in support
reference, it is usually prepared with
of their need issue.
care.
2. Corroborative Proof – also known as
B. Causal Evidence – created without
“cumulative” or “additional” proof, is
any effort being made to create it and
strengthening or confirming evidence of a
is not designed for possible future
different character in support of the same
reference. Casual evidence is
fact or proposition.
valuable because the party concerned
3. Indispensable Proof – evidence without
did nothing to create the evidence.
which a particular issue cannot be proved.
7. Negative Evidence – the absence of
4. Conclusive Proof – evidence that is
evidence that might reasonably be expected
incontrovertible, either because the law will
to be found were the issue in question true.
not permit it to be contradicted or because it
Negative evidence must be introduced into
is strong and convincing enough to override
the argument with care. Advocates should
all evidence to the contrary and to establish
claim negative evidence only when they are
the proposition beyond reasonable doubt.
certain there is an absence of the evidence in
question.
8. Evidence Aliunde – also known as
“extraneous” or “adminicular” evidence,
explains or clarifies other evidence. Often
the meaning or significance of evidence is
not apparent on the presentation of the
evidence per se; therefore, that evidence
must be explained by the presentation of
other evidence.
9. Alternative Forms of Evidence – if the
development of argumentation is considered
outside the traditional logical construct,
importance of emotional content and
alternative viewpoints may become relevant.
The Probative Force of Evidence:
Evidence may only partially substantiate an issue,
or it may be strong enough to justify the claim

6
Prepared by: Mr. Justin Paul D. Gallano
Faculty Member – College of Arts, T.I.P. Manila © 2020 | NOT FOR SALE