Challenges Faced in Preparing for the Debate Four challenges I faced in preparing for the debate were: 1) understanding the logic of my own argument—i.e., identifying the premise, assuring myself of its validity, and constructing my argument so that it logically followed from the premise to the conclusion; 2) identifying the counter-argument; 3) understanding the counter-argument’s logical fallacies and/or invalid premise; and 4) rebutting the counter-argument.

The first challenge for me—understanding my own argument, its premise and its logic—was difficult because it required a deep understanding of the subject and all the various sides and aspects of it. A superficial grasp of the subject would not do. I had to understand it fully in order to argue it, and I had to ensure that my argument was based on a valid premise. This was the first challenge, and I knew that my argument depended on doing the research, so I had to read up the subject very thoroughly.

The second challenge consisted of knowing what the counter-argument would be. I had to read contrary opinions and see where they were coming from—i.e., what premise they were starting from. This led to the third challenge, which was understanding the counter-argument and why it was faulty—i.e., how it was either based on a faulty premise or used faulty logic to reach its conclusion. Once I did this I faced the fourth challenge: using this understanding to develop a rebuttal for the counter-argument. By understanding how the counter-argument proceeded, I was able to see its weaknesses and prepare my rebuttal accordingly. I located the faulty premise and showed how it was based on a logical fallacy instead of on rational observation. That helped significantly in overcoming the challenge.

Four Ways I Would Have Prepared Differently for the Debate

Had I not had this class, I probably would have prepared differently for the debate by adopting more persuasive techniques than argumentative techniques. This most likely would have happened unconsciously. Arguments depend upon reason and research, whereas persuasion can be conducted by using all manner of appeals—such as emotional appeals or other means which are consistently rooted in logical fallacies. Many of my arguments would have more than likely been conceived in one sort of logical fallacy or another. I would have...

I see that there is a difference now between being argumentative and being persuasive. One can certainly argue persuasively without arguing logically. A logical argument cannot be countered by logical fallacies.
So I probably would have stumbled out of the gate, missing the entire point and purpose of the exercise. I also would have neglected to take consideration for the counter-argument. This is an important part of a debate and I more than likely would have wholly focused on my own end of the argument without realizing I needed to also consider my opponent’s.

With these things I mind, I would prepare little differently next time by planning for multiple counter-arguments and memorizing all the logical fallacies that we studied in class. Knowing all the logical fallacies and how they can be recognized in a debate can be very helpful at dismantling an opponent’s argument.

Class Lessons

Four class lessons that helped me during the debate were 1) to remember to stay on topic, 2) to read critically, 3) to try to identify the logical fallacy either in your own argument or in your opponent’s, and 4) to avoid contradicting yourself and your premise.

Each of these lessons was helpful in that I was able to better understand the approach to take in the debate. By staying on topic, I could focus on the subject and really use supporting evidence to reinforce the argument. It would have been easy to go off on tangents, but every tangent would have distracted from the actual point of the argument and thus made the argument less effective.

I also learned to read critically. This is an essential part of preparation, as John Chaffee shows in Thinking Critically. Asking questions and using a problem solving approach are all part of reading critically, as Chaffee states (76) and doing this helped me to form an effective approach to the argument.

I was also better able to analyze the issues and this helped me to identify logical fallacies that avoided the issues. The issues became clear the more critically one read and thought about the subject, and when an argument proceeded that deviated from the issues and launched into a separate idea that did not logically stem from…