Assertion and Proof

Hi Everyone. Is Jules here with a video about the battle between assertion and proof. This video is particularly relevant for kids in years 7 to 8, but its message remains important for all debaters. James and I agree that understanding the difference between assertion and proof is fundamental to good debating.

Now, guys, we've all had people claiming things are true. Whether consciously or not, we tend to evaluate such claims. Weighing up the evidence we have that proves or disproves them. So today we're going to look at claims and how they're proved. First, two key words assertion and proof. An assertion is a claim made but not established as fact. Proof is evidence provided to establish a claim. Providing proof for our arguments is absolutely essential in debating. This is particularly true because if you assert an argument in a debate without proving it, then any beneficial outcome or result you think you gained from that argument can't be real.

When we talk of the evidence for something, it's useful to think in terms of detective work. The police need to find evidence that helps prove who committed a crime like fingerprints or traces of DNA. We don't think it's reasonable to fine someone or put them in jail without proof that they actually broke the law. If we shouldn't decide someone is guilty without any proof, so too we shouldn't jump to conclusions in debates without explaining the evidence for them.

It might seem obvious then that the battle between assertion and proof should be easily settled once and for all. We can all understand that we need to find evidence to prove our arguments so they're not empty assertions. The problem, though, here, guys, is that in making arguments, we still often state things as though they are fact without explaining them, because their truth seems obvious to us or self-evident. It feels fair or right. We assume the adjudicator will simply recognise the truth of what we have said. Adjudication doesn't work that way though. Every idea has to be proved fit to carry weight in a debate.

So things can be really self-evident for us. For instance, the day follows night. We don't need to prove this because everyone knows it. So where's the line or marker between something that's self-evident and something that's not? The answer to that is pretty simple, actually. The marker occurs where we can't necessarily be sure others will agree with us. And in debating the other side rarely does agree with us. That's not just because they're being contrary. In debates, we're actually arguing about aspects of society that are contested or questioned.

So to just make this absolutely clear, we call any idea or argument an assertion until it is proved. To put it simply, in the prep room, your job first is to find the ideas or claims that are central to your case. Secondly, you need to give those claims argument headings that you will seek to prove. And thirdly, you need to find evidence that will prove those arguments, always being aware that if you don't step through that truth, your argument will remain an empty assertion that does nothing for your case.

A bit of a hot tip here, guys. The word “because”—it's very useful to you because it triggers in your head the necessity to explain your proofs. It reminds you that you have to do that. So the more you use because, the more likely you are to step through your proofs.

Now let's look at some examples of creating arguments so you can see how this is done in the year 5/6 debate That we should ban primary schools students from having phones, the negative team might come up with this idea: “Our first argument will show that primary kids need phones to keep them safe and secure.” On its own, this argument heading remains an assertion. But let's say the statement is followed by this explanation: “Our first proof is that because children walking home from school can be confronted by danger, they need a phone to be able to seek help quickly.” This is explanation may be simple, but it begins to give a reason why students need a phone for quick communication when in danger. So it's a good start.

Let's say the explanation instead went something like this: “Our first proof is that because most children walk home from school and can be confronted by a bushfire or tsunami, they are in serious danger if they are unable to call their parents.” This is an attempt to provide strong evidence to prove the argument. But it has several problems that are caused by exaggerating ideas to try to make them seem convincing. First, it assumes most crime school kids walk home from school on their own. Secondly, it uses very unlikely events like a bushfire or tsunami to prove that the kids are at risk. And thirdly, it assumes phoning their parents would provide a solution in time for the kids to avoid these disasters.

So guys, to turn an assertion into a strong argument, not only do you have to try to provide evidence, but it has to be evidence that is likely to be true. A better, more detailed explanation might be: “Our first proof is that having a phone is a valuable safeguard for many primary school kids who walk to and from school because it gives them the ability to contact their parents or in a real disaster, call 000. Even if most of the time nothing goes wrong. Having a phone is important because it gives young, vulnerable kids a sense of security. Also, however unusual, when something bad does happen, having a tool for rapid communication can help protect them.” This is a better attempt at proving the argument because it's more realistic and logical. It argues that many, not all, primary school kids walk home. It identifies the value of a sense of security for young, vulnerable kids. It doesn't exaggerate the level of danger for these kids, and it explains the value of having a phone for emergency communication. So we can see that being reasonable in trying to prove your arguments is far more convincing.

So let's look at another example, guys, one as a year 7/8 topic, That we should ban selective schools. The affirmative team might come up with this idea: “Our first argument will show that the opportunity of selective school education causes parents to put damaging pressure on their children.” Once again on its own this argument heading is an assertion until proven. But let's say the statement was followed by this explanation: “Our first proof is that parents high hopes for their kids creates unreasonable expectations that causing children stress.” Again, it's simple, but it begins to give a reason why the students feel pressure. So it's a reasonable start.

Let's say, though, that the explanation instead went like this. And I think you can get the idea that I'm going to exaggerate here to show you what not to do. “Our first proof is that parents high hopes for their kids create unrealistic expectations that cause their children stress. Parents get angry if their kids fail their entrance exams for selective schools. And this seriously damages their mental health, sending them into suicidal depression.” Again, guys, this attempt to provide evidence has several problems because it uses exaggeration to try to seem convincing. First, without evidence, it asserts that parents will get angry with their kids. Then it assumes such unproven actions will damage students mental health without explaining how or why. It then exaggerates the depressive effect on the students will actually make them suicidal. We call that sort of extreme argument a “slippery slope” argument where an effect drives the affected person to the worst possible outcome instead of more reasonable explanations of how it will affect them.

A better explanation might be: “Our first proof will show that most parents love their children to what the best outcomes for them. But unfortunately, this focus on their kids success exposes those kids too highly competitive situations like studying selective school entry. While this sort of pressure takes place inside people's private homes, we can see from reports of sideline abuse and aggression from parents at school age sporting events that parents do not always have a balanced approach to their children’s success. While inspired by love, misplaced ambition can have a powerful negative role in the mental well-being of children, increasing their anxiety and fear of failure because their parents are a dominant influence in their lives. Home is a place most of us expect to feel protected and the conflict between this expectation and an intense pressure to perform academically fundamentally undermines kids.”

This is a better attempt to prove the argument, because it's more realistic and logical. It tries to describe the relationship between parental love and ambition and to explain how that can become a negative force. It gives an analogous public example to prove a private harm. It tries to explain the central role of parents and their influence on kids’ lives, and it gives a balanced description of the effect of misplaced ambition, rather than reaching for extremes.

So, guys, from what we've looked at today, I hope you can see the importance of the battle between assertion and proof. I hope I've helped you understand that to become good debaters, you need to prove your arguments and not assert them. So that's it for today, guys. Until next time, Happy debating.