Course Outline Parliamentary Debate

Argument Theory and Applications and World School Debating Championship Style

 Introduction to Argument Theory

 Crafting an Effective Argument
 Rebuttal and Fallacies
 Points of Information
 Speaker Roles
 Case Construction
 Team Style and Strategy
 Definition Challenge

First Principles of Parliamentary Debate

 Introduction to First Principles

 Government Intervention and Individual Freedom
 Advancing Social Change
 Criminal Justice
 Morality and Ethical Arguments
 Process Vs. Outcomes
 International Relations

Economic Systems

 Capitalism
 Mixed
 Socialism
 Evolutionary
 Internet, Religious etc.

Political Systems

 State and its Elements

 Theory of Social Contract
 Constitution and law
 Legislature, Judiciary and Executive
 Media and Journalism
 Elections and Voting
 Political Parties and Interest Groups
 Democracy, Civil Rights and liberties
 Alliances and Diplomacy
International Relations and History

 British India 1857-1947

 Pakistan 1947-2007
 European 1847-1945
 World 1945-2015
 P5

Themes

 Terrorism
 Science and Technology
 Entertainment and Film Industry
 Sports and Gaming
 Healthcare
 Politics of Pakistan

Political Ideologies

 Introduction to political ideologies

 Anarchism
 Communism
 Socialism
 Liberalism
 Conservatism
 Nationalism
 Environmentalism
 Gender Equality
 Religious

Theories of Ethics

 Introduction to Theories of Ethics

 Egoism
 Hedonism
 Naturalism and virtue theory
 Existentialism
 Kantianism
 Utilitarianism
 Contractualism
 Religious

Teaching Methodology (3 days a week for two hours each)

  Lectures (Theory followed by Application and Exercises)
 Reading sessions (Discourse, Cross questioning and Notes Making)
 Case making sessions (Group and Individual)
 Critical Thinking sessions (Brainstorm, Logic and problem solving)
 Current Affair sessions (Discussions and Cross questioning)
 Guest Speaker sessions (Lectures, experience sharing, guidance and advice)
 Media sessions (World School and University debate videos)
 Mock Debates (Prepared and Impromptu (Internal))
 Friendly Debates (First year university students, A levels and O levels students)
 Speaking and Thinking Exercises ( Word cycles, War of masses, Parliamentary Speech)
 Declamations
 Presentations
 Essay writing

U-17 Nationals Selection Criteria

 Performance at the U-19, U-17 circuit and Internal Camps (Speaker points, critiques,
achievements, regularity, knowledge, attitude, discipline and character)
 Team will be announced two weeks prior to Nationals

Sources for reading

 Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

 The Guardian
 The Herald
 The Economist
 New York Times
 Express Tribune
 Daily Times
 Times of India
 The Sun

Course Outline MUN

Rules of Procedure

Research Methodology

Formal Documentation (Position Papers, Working Papers and Draft Resolutions)

Presentation and Diplomacy Skills (Personality Grooming and Delegate Advice)

Posdcorb

Policy Making

UN History and Structure

International Relations and History (same as Parliamentary)

Teaching Methodology (2 days a week for 2 hours each)

 Lectures
 Policy Discussions
 Trial sessions
 Mock sessions
 Crisis sessions
 Friendly sessions
 Speaking Exercises
 Declamations
 Presentations
 Essay writing
 Position Paper writing

MUN selection criteria

 Performance internally and externally including MUN trial, regularity, discipline, attitude and
character
 Team will be announced at least one week before an MUN

Sources for reading (same as Parliamentary)

Appeal to force. This fallacy occurs when you tell someone that some kind of misfortune will happen to
them if they don’t agree with you, e.g., “If you don’t believe that our utopia is ideal, then I guess we’ll
have to release the hounds.”

Appeal to the crowd. Sometimes called the “bandwagon,” or “ad populum,” this fallacy occurs when the
arguer contends you will be left out of the crowd if you don’t agree: “All of the cool kids smoke
cigarettes these days.”

Appeal to ignorance. When an argument has not been disproven, it does not therefore follow that it is
true. Yet the appeal to ignorance works a surprisingly large amount of the time, particularly in
conspiracy theories and their ilk: “No one has yet proven that aliens have not landed on Earth;
therefore, our theory about ongoing colonization should be taken seriously.”

Appeal to emotions. This fallacy is what it sounds like. Speakers routinely try to play on the emotions of
the crowd in lieu of making real arguments. “I know this national missile defense plan has its detractors,
but won’t someone please think of the children?”

Appeal to tradition. Often a substitute for actual argument, the appeal to tradition happens when a
speaker tries to justify her arguments by reference to aggregated habits, e.g., “We should continue to
discriminate against the poor because that’s what we’ve always done.”

Appeal to authority. While it is often appropriate and even necessary to cite credible sources to prove a
point, the appeal to authority becomes fallacious when it is a substitute for reasoning or when the cited
authority’s credibility is dubious.

Ad hominem. Sometimes, arguers will attack the person making the argument rather than the argument
itself. This is an ad hominem (Latin for “to the man”) attack, e.g., “I don’t know how my opponent found
the time to research this issue, since plainly he doesn’t even have time to bathe.”

Begging the question. Begging the question occurs when the conclusion assumes what it tries to prove:
“Of course he tried to fix the boxing match, since he was one of the people who stood to gain by fixing
the boxing match.”

Red herring. An old favorite, the red herring happens when the arguer diverts attention to another issue
and draws a conclu

sion based on that diversion. “The candidate has a weak stand on education. Just look at what she says
about foreign policy.”

Hasty generalization. This fallacy occurs when a conclusion is drawn based on a non-representative
sample, e.g., “Most Americans oppose the war. Just ask these three peace demonstrators.”

False cause, or “post hoc, ergo propter hoc.” This fallacy is just what it sounds like. In the English, at
least. Sometimes, speakers will draw a faulty link between premises and a conclusion such that the link
depends upon a causal connection that probably does not exist: “The sun rises every time I get out of
bed. Therefore, by getting out of bed, I make the sun rise.” It is important to remember that correlation
does not imply causality, and neither does chronology imply causality.

Equivocation. In this fallacy, the meaning of a critical term is changed through the course of an
argument. Lewis Carroll in Alice’s Adventures Through the Looking Glass: “’You couldn’t have it if you did
want it,’ the Queen said. ’The rule is jam tomorrow and jam yesterday - but never Jam today’ ‘It must
come sometimes to Jam today,’ Alice objected. ‘No, it can’t,’ said the Queen. ‘It’s jam every other day:
today isn’t every other day, you know.’”

Slippery slope. One of the more popular logical fallacies, particularly in political circles, the slippery slope
argument contends that an event will set off an uncontrollable chain reaction when there is no real
reason to expect that reaction to occur. “If we start regulating carbon dioxide, the next thing you know
the proposition team will be telling you what to eat for breakfast.”

Weak analogy. While argument by analogy is a very strong, common form of argumentation, the weak
analogy fallacy occurs when an argument’s conclusion rests on a nonexistent similarity between two
examples, e.g., “Well, if it worked in a college term paper, it’ll work in American foreign policy.”

False dichotomy. This fallacy occurs when the premise of an argument is a disjunctive statement that
presents two alternatives as if they were mutually exclusive, e.g., “It’s either free school lunches or
nuclear war;” “Either you let me go to the concert or my life will be ruined.”

Fallacy of composition. This fallacy happens when the conclusion of an argument depends on the
erroneous transference of a characteristic from the parts to the whole: “Jake likes fish. He also likes
chocolate. Therefore, he would like chocolate covered fish.”

Fallacy of division. The opposite of the fallacy of composition, the fallacy of division occurs when the
conclusion of an argument depends on the faulty attribution of a characteristic from the whole to its
parts: “The average American family has 2.3 children. The Jones family is an average American family.
Therefore, the Jones family has 2.3 children.”

Complex question. Used in questioning periods, this fallacy occurs when a single question is really two or
more questions: “Do you still cheat on your tests?;” “How long have you been smoking banana leaves?”

Scarecrow. Formerly called the “straw man” fallacy, this kind of argument is a diversionary tactic
whereby an arguer exaggerates or mischaracterizes his or her opponent’s position and then proceeds to
represent this caricatured. This is a common tactic used in advertising campaigns: “Worried about your
family getting critically ill? Better use our disinfectant.” In some circles, this fallacy is known as the
“fallacy of refutation,” though nobody really uses this terminology anymore.

Scapegoating. This fallacy is similar to the scarecrow fallacy.

The term “scapegoating” comes to us from the Judeo-Christian tradition. In the Old Testament book of
Leviticus, Aaron confessed the sins of his people over a goat and sent the goat away, thereby absolving
the sins of his community. In contemporary rhetorical theory, we say someone is scapegoating when he
or she attributes a current situation to a group of people who may or may not be responsible for the
problem. Politicians are notorious for scapegoating minority groups for broad social problems. In
America, for example, illegal immigrants are often convenient scapegoats for budget or social services
problems.

Non sequiturs. This is not so much a fallacy, per se, as a failure of reasoning. The Latin phrase non
sequitur means “does not follow.” Thus, reasoning that is non sequitur is composed of arguments that
are irrelevant to the topic. As a debater, you should insist that your opponents’ reasoning stick strictly to
the topic(s) at hand.

Common cause. Often, two things will occur together so regularly that you are tempted to assume that
they are cause and effect. However, sometimes those two events are the cause of a third factor, which
must be taken into consideration to make the reasoning complete. For example, noticing that there are
many dead fish in a river and that the river’s water is undrinkable, you might conclude that the dead fish
caused the undrinkable water. However, in so doing you might miss that an industry’s dumping into the
water caused both pollutants.