A Lesson from Policy Debate

Overview

• Topicality
• Logos

Topicality

I've been thinking how to explain the boundaries of ethos, pathos, and logos. One of the biggest hurdles seems to be mixing ethos and logos based on information or facts being persuasive. When readers consume a document or listeners hear a speach, the modes of persuasion mesh together to move the audience to a particular viewpoint or action. As higher-level learners engaged in critical literacy, it isn't enough to just know something persuades; you have to analyze HOW a document or speaker persuades.

So I got to thinking back to my policy debate days from high school. In policy debate, opposing terms argue whether or not the judge should accept the Affirmative team's plan or side with the Negative team that argues to stay with the status quo (the way things currently are). Also, there are rules to this arguing, and the rules have defined structures. In other words, teams argue within an agreed upon system much like football teams compete based on rules of play. No matter how ridiculous one player finds pass interference to be, he cannot simply have his way because his understanding of the rules is different. When we study defined modes of persuasion, we must adhere to proper definitions; otherwise, it's all relative.

In policy debate, the Affirmative team offers a plan to meet the year's resolution. For instance, the policy debate powers that be come up with a topic each year. A resolution from a while back was "Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially increase social services for persons living in poverty in the United States." The Affirmative team presents a plan and the negative team refutes the plan in two ways (there are more, but I'm limiting the example in order to limit possible confusion): 1) Argue disadvantages of the plan, attacking the plans merit or 2) Argue that the Affirmative team doesn't meet the burdens of significance, solvency, topicality, inherence, and harms. We'll look at Topicality for this discussion. Being topical means the Affirmative plan actually meets the resolution's requirements. For instance, using the above resolution, a team could not propose a plan to build houses for squirrels because the resolution states "persons" and not animals. A topical plan could be that the Federal Government will create a single-payer health care plan for people living under the poverty line. Of course, such a plan can be attacked on its merits, but the plan would be topical to most reasonable policy debate judges.

Bear with me a little bit longer as I go into another type of topicality argument. There's a negative argument called Effects Topicality: This means the Affirmative plan doesn't directly meet the resolution but meets the resolution indirectly because the non-Topical plan leads to a solution. For instance, using the above resolution, an Affirmative team might propose a plan to give huge tax breaks to businesses, which will increase profits and cause these businesses to create job training classes for people below the poverty line. Therefore, the effect of the plan is what increases social services. The Federal government is not creating social services directly; instead, it gives tax breaks and hopes that businesses increase social services--the businesses are not mandated to do so.

Logos

How do we get back to logos and our concerns? What many of you are doing is claiming something is logical to you and, therefore, means the document is credible. Logos and ethos come from the document. There can be false appeals, but the intent is key. For instance, a graph itself is an appeal to logos--it is a statement of fact (or appears to be...allegedly). Now, you, the reader, notice that graph and think, "this firm's mutal funds have increased 12% a year each year for over 10 years...I'm going to invest with them because I think I can trust them." Everything in quotations above is you--not the document. The only thing stated on that document is the graph, which is an appeal to logos. If you extrapolate that that means they're trustworthy or credible, that's your interpretation. People can easily draw the conclusion that the firm's track record is solid, so they can assume their money will grow also. However, if the document or speaker doesn't make that claim, it's not an appeal of ethos. Furthermore, just because you think it's logical to assume that an organization whose mutual funds increased 12% every year for 10 years means the firm should be trusted does not mean the document itself directly appeals that way. You may, of course, find a company that has a 12% profit increase to be credible, but you need to separate the two appeals.

How can it be an appeal to ethos? Ethos is the presentation of character or credibility--it exudes or attempts to, at least, from the document or speaker. Logos is also an appeal of the document or speaker--not an assumption of the reader per se. If the document has a graph showing that mutal funds have increased 12% every year for 10 years, that's logos. If the same document uses the graph and then claims, "Our graph shows we've increased 12% every year for 10 years; you can trust us with your money," that's an appeal to ethos--THE DOCUMENT MAKES THE APPEAL. The reader might think the firm is making bogus claims, but ethos and logos aren't concerned with the universality of the appeal--just that the appeal is made.

If you were analyzing a document like the one above, you would state that the graph is an appeal to logos because it represents a fact(s), and you would also say that the statement "Our graph shows we're good; you can trust us with your money" is an appeal to ethos. When the document states a fact or directly draws a conclusion, that's logos.

...