The Classical Argumentative Technique-2021 Guide

The Classical Argumentative Technique is a debating format that has been used for millennia in political, religious and academic debate. This legit essay writing service can help you learn Classical Argumentative Technique. The purpose of the article below is to outline the basic tenets of this technique as it pertains to public policy debate. The Classical Argumentative Technique utilizes logic as its primary weapon against arguments or sources. This technique appeals only to reason (and evidence when available) as opposed to emotion or appeals based on some other ground. We use these principles in order to establish credibility from which an argument may be made, present our case, refute opponent claims/evidence, rebut negative cases, and close with a summary conclusion.

This article presents the basics of the methodology behind this style of argumentation: making your speech flow smoothly understanding how to develop and organize your argument being able to present evidence in a manner that is clear understanding the importance of refutation effectively executing the conclusion

It is best to think of yourself as a lawyer or an investigative reporter. You are presented with information from your sources. Your goal is to determine what this information proves, or what conclusions should be drawn from it, and then communicate those conclusions to your judge (in tournament speaking). Of course, you want to persuade your judge so that she votes for you; not the other team. But how do you go about doing this?

Your case should be organized into sections using the following division: Introduction/Framework (with warrants), Reasoning, Evidence/Warrants, Rebuttal/Rebuttals, and Conclusion. This will be further discussed below.

What is the role of warrants in this style of debating? The answer can be best describe by the best essay writing service in usa. A warrant can loosely be defined as a statement that gives credibility to your claim. For instance, if the judge asks you why she should accept Proposition X, your answer might say something like "Proposition X has been proven based on evidence #1-3 which shows that…" (at which point you would list the evidence in order). The word "evidence" suggests some sort of proof for a proposition. In reality, it is the burden of the team proposing some action or idea to provide good warrants for their arguments. It's also important to note that warrants need not necessarily be direct evidence; they can sometimes be other arguments that are proven to be true based on other warrants.

If you have read this far, you may have some idea of what the stages of a speech should be in order to use this technique effectively. For now, let's talk about each stage and when it would be appropriate for the judge to expect them from you. (Note: The method shown below is not necessarily the only way to structure any particular argument; often times specific cases or topics will require significant deviations in structure.) Once again, these stages are derived from politics and law (where public policy debate paralleled its development). "Argument" here means an attempt at persuasion which presents evidence and/or reasoning designed to prove/disprove some point or claim made by the other team. The Classical Argumentative Technique is used to show the judge how your evidence points (in this case) to a conclusion that Proposition X should be accepted over Proposition Y because Proposition Y has negative consequences, while Proposition X has positive consequences.

The Opening Statement should consist of an outline of your main arguments and sources in order to give the judge an idea of what you are going to talk about for the rest of your speech. It should also include warrants stating how we know those arguments prove our point over opponent arguments. You can get more information from this online essay writing service

A brief general statement explaining why you're arguing against the proposition(s). Timing does not matter much here; just state it early on if it's to fit in. The rest of the team's arguments/sources which you claim are not sound, or are weak enough to warrant a perfunctory rejection. This is where warrants come in: it's at this point that you should start listing the warrants for your two main contentions (the topic sentence and the impact). Propose an alternative in the form of Proposition X; this must be based on logic and evidence rather than emotion or opinion. No warrants here yet, just make sure there is a link between what you just said to why we would want to accept X over Y.

Useful Resources:

Process Essay Topics Tips and Tricks - 2021 Guide

Mental Health Problem Symptoms, Causes and Effects-2021 guide

Mental Health Problem , Causes and Effects -2021 guide