Breaking Down Barriers: Ask Jim about Debate Return to the BDB List of Questions

You can submit questions too, just email Jim at hansonjb@whitman.edu

Hasty Generalization Arguments--How do you beat them?

In Policy debate, hasty generalization arguments are rarely considered strong arguments. In Lincoln-Douglas debate, hasty generalization arguments are important because judges expect affirmatives to support the resolution as a whole rather than by using a small example.

Affirmatives can respond in the following ways:

1. WE HAVE A REPRESENTATIVE EXAMPLE

Explain why it is broad, comprehensive, typical, salient, etc.

2. WE ADDRESS THE RESOLUTION SUFFICIENTLY

Explain how your plan/value is topical.

• Use a definition
• Read a piece of evidence
• Refer to an argument/evidence in the affirmative case
• Use logical reasoning

3. HASTY GENERALIZATION IS A BAD ARGUMENT

Argue the following:

The affirmative only needs to support an example of the topic. That is enough to support the resolution.

Hasty generalization forces affirmatives to defend unnecessary aspects of the topic that they do not want to advocate.

Hasty generalization allows only a few cases meaning debates will become boring and discourage research on specific cases.

Hasty generalization rewards shallow research because teams are not rewarded for finding more specific information and advocacy.

Hasty generalization depends on an arbitrary line between the typical and the atypical. What’s the difference and why should the affirmative be punished by this arbitrary requirement?

Jim

Thanks to xxx for this question.

Send Jim an e-mail if you have other tips