[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page
Re: Titsworth and solvancy
At 03:15 PM 5/14/96 -0700, you wrote:
>Hi Scott! Sorry dude, you are flat wrong on this one.
Josh, the heat and sun in Arizona combined with a striking lack of hair on
your head has deluded your facilities. Explanation to follow.
> It is patently
>unreasonable to assume because x is true and y is true that xy is true.
>That is the textbook definition of a falacy of equivication. The argument
>that Jim and I have made is that the affirmative has NO evidence that
>supports XY and therefore has NO SOLVANCY EVIDENCE FOR THE PLAN!
Gee, I can throw around fallacy names also. How about the irrelevant reason
fallacy? The fact that a wholisitc author for the plan does not exist is an
irrelevant reason to reject the truthfulness of the plan.
Second, I do not know what textbook you use for your definition, but, the
definition that I have for False Equivocation is: "A word or group of words
in an argument being used more than once with different meanings each
time...for example, 'the trend to the political right is justified because
most people belive in right over wrong.(Potter, _Academic Debating_)" Now I
know that this example is silly, but you must be assuming a different
fallacy than equivocation.
Third, the fallacy of negaitve instances (AKA Straw Person). Joshprovides
some examples as to the multiple mechanism - no author - no solvency
position. These few instances do not deny the truth that in MOST CASES, if
mechanism 1 works, mechanism 2 works, and mechanism 3 works, then the three
will also work in combination. Sure, there are exceptions, but the
excepetions do not disprove the rule.
Fourth, Fallacy of assumed connection (non sequitor). Josh assumes that a
combination of the mechanisms will cause negative effects. However, he
cannot explain a general cause to effect relationship that explains why this
would be tru in most cases (that is because there is no such explanation).
Until he can provide such crisp reasoning, he incorrectly assumes a causal
relationship between multiple mechanisms that had negative consequences.
Fifth, circular reasoning. Notice the sentence in Josh's explanation where
he states that, "the affirmative has NO evidence that supports XY and
therefore has NO SOLVANCY EVIDENCE FOR THE PLAN!" I dunno, it may be a
stretch on my part to claim this, so you judge for yourself.
Sixth, (the most obvious) Appeal to Authority. Josh and Jim both say that
you have no proof unless you have a card. Now I certainly don't think that
we shouldn't use evidence, but Josh's position takes this fallacy to the
Seventh, Appeal to ignorance. Josh's position is that the plan as a whole
doesn't solve because you don't know that the plan will solve (still
circular). The aff has at least argued that independent mechanisms will
solve. You shouldn't use your ignorance of how those mechanisms will work
together to deny solvency.
Now, having made several counter claims, let me try and re-frame Josh's
position. What I think he is really saying is that my position is guilty of
the fallacy of false synthesis. (False equivocation deals with the meaning
of words, false synthesis deals with the relationship of parts.) An example
of false synthesis is, "This baseball team should be unbeatable because
every person on the team is a star player." Or, from Josh's perspective, it
is a fallacy to say that the plan will solve because the parts solve. The
problem with this attack is that the fallacy on the part of the affirmative
cannot be assumed because that position is equally guilty of other
fallacies. Thus the crux of my criticism. It is the negative's burden to
advance reasons why the combination of solvency mechanisms is
disadvantageous. Think about other aspects of the affirmative case.
Multiple impact scenarios are assumed to be related to a causal factor.
Josh's position would also dictate that a single author talk about all
impact scenarios or it is guilty of false synthesis. I was taught by
ZANDAR, the debate GOD, that the negative had to disprove such things.
>plan is what you adopt not the solvancy evidence hence the affirmative ought
>lose the debate because no solvancy exists for the plan.
This is a repeated assertion (also a fallacy by the way). The judge adopts
the plan on the assumption that the planks of the plan are good ideas. One
way to determine whether the plan is a good idea is to look at evidence
supporting the individual planks. We agree that it would be good to have a
card that says "this plan as worded is an awesome idea and should be adopted
because it works." However, it does not mean that no solvency exists if
such a card is not found.
Let me turn the position around and pose a question. Assume that the aff
has three mechanisms and also has a card which assumes the combination of
the three. It says something like "the combination of the three mechanisms
X, Y, and Z will solve the problem of ________ for the following reasons:
(it lists some)." Now, this meets your burden as I understand it. Let's
assume that the negative has researched the cease and has on-point solvency
turns against all of the three mechanisms. However, none of the negative
turns assume the combination of mechanisms as does the aff wholistic card.
Now your justification of the solvency problem says that you can't assume
that what is true of the parts is true of the whole. In my scenario, would
the negative lose because their individual attacks are answered by the one
aff card assuming the combination? What if the aff card gave no reasons why
the combination would solve?
> In addition, such
>reasonable thoughts create things like adverse drug reactions - both of these
>drugs solve allergies, I have allergies, therefore taking both would be a
A good example, however it does not prove the rule. Additionally, it seems
to me that the negative would have to prove this and not just assert it in a
solvency problem overview. Using your example, drugs are used in
combination all the time that have not been necessarily tested in
combination. The presumption is that the drugs will not have a negative
> In addition, the reasonable combination by reasonible judges and
>competitors contributes to a potentially unethical use of evidence, in that,
>the author did not say it would solve in combination, rather, the author said
>that it would solve alone.....Josh
>Joshua B. Hoe
We agree that people should not use evidence in an un-ethical manner. Seems
to me that this is a cogent negative argument here. However, I think that
it is silly to require the aff to have a wholisitc card. If they are guilty
of false composition, the negative can point that out, however the negative
must have reasons to back the claim, they can't just assert it.
I will be back on-line within a couple of weeks. I'll let you know when I'm
back. I look foward to your scintilating response. Take care bud.
Soon to be Cornhusker
Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (email@example.com)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page