THE ARGUMENT PAPER __________(DATE) -----------------------(NAME) ________(PERIOD) A. There are two steps in planning an argumentative paper: (1) stating the thesis and (2) writing the brief B. The topic of an argument is called a THESIS or proposition. There are two kinds of propositions: (1) a truth thesis and (2) an action thesis A truth thesis states that a thing is or is not so. An action thesis states that something should or should not be done. =========================================================== QUIZ: On a separate piece of paper indicate which of the following are action theses and which are truth theses. Use a capital letter "A" for action thesis; use a capital "T" for truth thesis. 1. God exists. 2. Americans do not love money. 3. Puerto Rico should be admitted as the next state. 4. Spiro Agnew (or Richard Nixon) was a victim of circumstances. 5. The sale of cigarettes should be banned. ============================================================ ##### The first step in planning an argument is to write out your thesis. Make sure that your thesis does not commit you to prove more than you have to prove, more than you should, or more than you can. Many good arguments have been lost in an attempt to prove too much ("biting off more than you can chew"). For example, if your purpose were simply to clear a friend being charged with incompetence in office, the following theses would NOT be advisable: Jack Jones has performed the duties of treasurer in a competent manner and is, in fact, the most capable and honest member of this organization. If you fail to prove that he is the most capable and honest member of the organization, that failure of yours may reflect on your proof of his competence, which might more easily have been proven. Your thesis, therefore, must be sufficiently narrowed to cover only one topic. Moreover, your thesis should be written clearly and concisely. If you are vague about what you are going to prove, or if your audience (reader) is confused about what you are trying to do, you will probably present a weak argument or, at the very least, lose credibility with the reader. If your thesis rambles, it will be impossible to convince others that you are right in what you say or that you know what you are talking about. =========================================================== QUIZ: Consider the following theses. Which one(s) are defective and why? Write your answers on a separate sheet of paper. 6. We must do something to keep the freshmen from weakening our school's traditions. 7. Paul VI is a great pope; indeed, he is the greatest of all popes since St. Peter. 8. Machines will someday be able to out-think men. 9. The major cause of the Civil War was economics. 10. Of all the illegal substances, marijuana is the least harmful; thus, it should be legalized. ============================================================ ##### The second step in planning an argument is to write an outline of your argument. The outline is called a brief. Since it has a different purpose from the outline of an expository (informational) paper or the plot or plan of a narrative story, it also has a different form. A brief has three principal parts: (1) the introduction (2) the proof (3) the conclusion The INTRODUCTION states the thesis and explains any terms that have more than one meaning or that may be mis- understood; it gives any explanation or background necessary for the reader to understand the argument; it states the issues of the argument. The ISSUES are the major points on which the truth or falsity of the thesis depends. It is of utmost importance that the writer and his reader understand and agree on what the issues are. The following is an example of the outline introduction to a brief (note particularly the format of the outline): I. Introduction A. Thesis: P.Z. Smithson is guilty of plagiarism. B. Definition: "Plagiarism" is the passing off as one's own the stolen writing of another. C. Explanation: The victim of the plagiar -ism is L.G. Kleppin. D. Issues: The case will be proven by es- tablishing the following issues: 1. The two stories are identical. 2. Kleppin's story was written three months before Smithson's. 3. Smithson had access to Kleppin's story on numerous occasion. 4. Smithson made use of Kleppin's story. The PROOF once again states each issue and follows it with the word because and reasons. Note the following example: II. Proof A. The two stories are identical because 1. Mr. Jones, a literary authority, has stated them to be so. 2. Your own eyes will prove them so. B. Kleppin's story was written three months before Smithson's story because 1. Three expert witnesses will testify that they read the story in ques- tion on July 4, 1950. 2. Smithson's own testimony and the printed evidence in Story mag- azine show that his story was not published before September 1990. C. Smithson had access to Kleppin's story because Kleppin had given it to him on June 17, 1950, for criticism. D. Smithson made use of Kleppin's story because 1. There is no other reasonable way to explain why the stories are iden- tical. 2. Smithson admitted to reliable witnesses that he had copied the story and published it as his own. The CONCLUSION restates the thesis and summarizes the issues as briefly as possible. III. Conclusion: Since the stories are identical, since Kleppin's story was written before Smithson's, since Smithson had access to Kleppin's story, and since Smithson made use of Kleppin's story, therefore P.Z. Smith- son is guilty of plagiarism. ---------- Case formats for policy debate Comparative Advantage Case Format-A case that advocates a policy because it is the most beneficial one to have. SOLUTION Plan 1. 2. 3. I. Statment of Advantage A. Statement that the advantage does not exist. PROBLEM/SIGNIFICANCE B. Statement of inherency 1. Incictment of the present system. CAUSE Evidence 2. Incictment of the present system. Evidence SOLUTION C. Statement of Plan Effectiveness Need/Plan Case Format-A case that argues that the ills (problems) cannot be cured by the present system (status quo), but they can be cured by the affirmative's plan. SOLUTION Plan 1. 2. 3. I. Statement of Problem A. Problem exists Evidence PROBLEM/SIGNIFICANCE B. Problem is significant Evidence II. Statement of inherency A. Indictment of Present System Evidence CAUSE B. Indictment of Present System Evidence C. Indictment of Present System Evidence SOLVENCY III. Statement of Plans Effectiveness Evidence Goals/Criteria Case Format-A case that presents a significant goal and centers argument around a comparison of systems attempting to achieve the goal. I. Statement of Goals A. Statement of Goal #1 Evidence B. Statement of Goal #2 Evidence Plan: 1. 2. 3. I. Statement of Plan's superiority in Meeting the goals. A. Statement that goals are not being met. PROBLEMS/SIGNIFICANCE Evidence B. Statement of inherency (Present system cannot meet the goals) 1. Indictment of the present CAUSE system. Evidence 2. Indictment of the present system. Evidence SOLUTION C. Statment of plan effectiveness Evidence ---------- Negative Case Formats for Policy (CX) Debate #1 Refutation-(Needs Case) I. There is no need for a new system. A. The ills are insignificant. 1. They affect very few people. 2. They do not diminish the quality of life. 3. The argument is fallacious. B. There is no blame. 1. The present system is already moving to solve the problem. 2. The plan has already been passed. 3. There is no attitudinal obstruction. II. The plan of action is faulty. A. There is no mandate specified. B. There are costs to the proposal. 1. It will hurt social programs. 2. It will diminish the quality of life. C. The plan will not cure the ill. III. There are no significant benefits to the plan of action. A. Benefit 1 will not occur. 1. It is exaggerated. 2. The plan of action does not get this benefit. B. Benefit 2 will not occur. #2 Defense of the present policy system (any case) I. There is no significant ill. A. Present policies reduce the significance of the ills. B. The blame does not prevent present policies from being effective. II. Current programs eliminate the need for the proposal. A. The present system achieves the proposal's benefits. B. The present system is achieving additional benefits. III. There are many costs associated with the proposal that the present system does not have. A. Cost 1. B. Cost 2. #3 Defense of present policies with minor repairs (example: Goals Case) I. The goal is important. II. The failure of the present system to meet the goal is not an intrinsic failure in the system. A. The blamse isolated are easily overcome with minor additions to the present system. B. More resources could help achieve the goal. 1. We can spend more money in this area. 2. We can redistribute staffing and support personnel. III. The present system with minor repairs can reach the goal as effectively as the proposed plan. A. Spending more money is all that is needed. B. Redistributing resources will help achieve the goal. IV. Retaining the present system with minor repairs avoids significant costs. A. The costs of the new policy are substantial. B. Minor repairs to existing policies have fewer costs. #4 Counterproposals I. The needs and blame analysis presented in the case are essentially correct. A. There is a significant ill. B. The present system is precluded from action. II. The proposal presented is inadequate. A. It will not be able to reduce the ill. B. It cannot overcome the blame. III. Therefore, I will offer a counterproposal. A. The agent is... B. The mandate is... IV. The counterproposal will accrue benefits that the proposal cannot accrue. A. Benefit 1. B. Benefit 2. C. Benefit 3. #5 The affirmative case plan (proposal) Workability-This term is related directly to the feasibility of the affirmative plan. Plan 1. 2. 3. Address the following in your plan: 1. Funding 2. Personnel 3. Other means needed to implement the plan. Consider who (or what agency) will enforce the plan. The affirmative team is not required to prove absolutely that its plan will work. However, it should be able to present a plan that seems reasonable and practical. ---------- End of Document