1705132914 A second quality in competitive, educational debate—the use of adjudicators—can turn students’perspectives into “win/lose” dichotomies. For educational purposes, the use of adjudicators helps students experience a simulation of legal or governmental environments, environments students may enter when they choose careers. For example, judges make decisions in large and small court cases, often after hearing arguments on both sides of a case. Using judges in collegiate debate tournaments helps students learn the process of arguing in front of a third party who will make a decision if the disputants cannot come to a decision with one another.

1705132915

1705132916 Adjudicators also are important to educational debate because they provide feedback to students’performances. Judges write ballots for each debate or even converse with debaters after the round has ended. Students learn why the adjudicator came to a particular decision or how students might have more effectively presented their positions. While students may agree or disagree with advice given by adjudicators, the experience of talking to an adjudicator about a decision provides students with invaluable information about how different people make decisions. In these ways, students learn from the adjudicators how these particular issues were decided in this case.

1705132917

1705132918 Since adjudicators decide who wins the debate and since those who win the most debates earn the tournament trophy, the negative side of using adjudicators in collegiate debate appears when students lose sight of the critical nature of the topic, turning the primary focus of their efforts to winning. Generative debaters often have “gone through the stages” of debating just to win, but as they mature, they redirect their efforts toward the topics themselves. Faced with grave global challenges such as water availability, food shortages, terrorism, drug abuse, ethnic cleansing, territorial disputes, global climate questions, human trafficking, genocide, economic failure, natural catastrophes, or disease epidemics, for example, generative debaters learn to sidestep the temptation to “debate to win.” These experienced debaters take seriously their global citizenry and turn their efforts toward informing themselves thoroughly about international issues, listening closely during debates to learn from debaters presenting the opposing side of the issue, and then grappling with possibilities and combinations of all the relevant data toward nonviolently solving international problems.

1705132919

1705132920 Generative debaters on both sides of the issue strongly rely on one another to bring to the debate the most important problems as seen from each side of the issue and the most valid evidence regarding those problems. Generative debaters then continue to argue based on a concatenation of all presented information. A generative debater might find value in some combination of points from each side of the issue. Members from both sides of the question also may be searching continually to generate a new alternative not suggested by either side.

1705132921

1705132922 In short, generative debaters invest in explicating the issues on both sides of the question thoroughly, comprehensively, and with an eye for implications and consequences of the decision rather than investing energy into a plan for “winning” the debate by “defeating” the other side. In generative debate, possibilities for a collaborative solution underlie the very necessary rankling through the clashes of opposing ideas or values, clashes not only expected but necessary to the process of decision making. Argument and debate act as unique, human means for new discoveries of substance or process. During the conclusion of generative debates, parties take time to trace the dynamic shifting of ideas that occurred during the debate to ensure both that all participants reconcile the critical needs initially identified and also that all participants understand the anatomy of the decision.

1705132923

1705132924 The intercollegiate debate competitions and debate curricula explained in this textbook teach students to participate in competitive debates inside and outside of the arena of intercollegiate debate tournaments. Following too closely to the competitive model raises many ethical issues, several of which will be discussed in the next chapter. Students of competitive debate will gain some skills useful in generative debate situations, but students should be wary of trying to apply all of the competitive debate skills to generative debate. An arguer who uses a strident, competitive manner during interactions within personal relationships or during some community or civil situations can interfere with or even damage interpersonal relationships, often “losing” the debate as well.

1705132925

1705132926 Although this textbook has used the categories of competitive debate and generative debate, these are only gross categories and do not exhaust all of the various forms of debate that exist. For instance, legislative debate is usually more competitive than generative but still is different from debate with an outside adjudicator. In legislative debate, members of a legislative or deliberative body argue with one another and in the end must make a collective judgment even if only by a majority vote. Legislators must argue and collaborate with one another repeatedly during their terms as officials; therefore, issues of personal relationships among members are much more important than they might be between an advocate and an arbitrator who are not likely to be engaged in an ongoing relationship.

1705132927

1705132928 In interpersonal arguments some competitive debate conduct not only is inappropriate but can be destructive. Debaters using certain, competitive debate manners during interpersonal argument risk sending messages of superiority or exclusion to partners during a personal encounter. Since the competitive stance focuses only on the topic and purposely avoids including the character of the speaker in its scope, debaters risk using powerful, nonverbal messages to their partners that the debater’s points and not the partner are the most important features of the conversation. Certain competitive debate skills may not only fail to reach the debater’s goal, but could harm the relationships the debater intended to maintain and improve.

1705132929

1705132930 思辨精英：英语辩论-构筑全球视角 [:1705132296]

1705132931 1.6 Summary

1705132932

1705132933 This chapter presented reasons to study debate, the most important of which is to develop thoughtful, reasoned, informed global citizens. Studying debate also promotes effective decision making at local, national, and international levels. Debate teaches students to examine problems and work toward solutions rather than work toward winning at any cost. Debate helps societies explicate difficult issues and helps individuals, communities, and nations achieve desired goals.

1705132934

1705132935 The chapter also provided an historical look at argument and debate in China and in the United States, pointing out key developments in each nation’s history where scholars and philosophers encouraged the interchange of ideas through debate. Also reviewed were the histories of educational debate in both nations. Educational debate is the form presently in place in curricula across the world training students through instruction and also through application at debate tournaments.

1705132936

1705132937 Finally, the chapter introduced the most advanced, productive, and ethical form of debate—generative debate. The ultimate goal of this book is to teach debaters methods of educational debate so that they may develop into excellent debaters capable of participating in generative debate for the benefit of themselves and their societies.

1705132938

1705132939 在这一章节中，作者首先探讨了学习辩论的意义。辩论可以培养有思想深度、懂得说理、见多识广的全球公民。此外，还可以改进地方、国家和国际层面上的决策制定。辩论的真谛是让学生们学会探讨问题并寻求解决方案，而不是不计代价地获取胜利。辩论能够帮助社会认清难点问题，从而使得个人、集体和国家都实现其目标。

1705132940

1705132941 此外，本章还以历史作为切入点，介绍了议论与辩论在中国和美国的发展历程，特别指出了两国历史中，学者和哲学家鼓励通过辩论交流思想的重要时期。与此同时，也梳理了教学性辩论在两国的发展。目前，教学性辩论已经被全球众多国家列为课程之一，主要通过课堂指导以及辩论赛上的实际应用来提高学生水平。

1705132942

1705132943 最后，作者还谈及了更高一层次、更具建设性、更关注伦理道德的辩论类型——生成性辩论。本书的终极目标，是让辩手们首先掌握教学性辩论的方法，提高辩论水平，从而有能力参加生成性辩论，在促进个人发展的同时为社会进步做出贡献。

1705132944

1705132945 思辨精英：英语辩论-构筑全球视角 [:1705132297]

1705132946 1.7 Terms and Concepts from Chapter 1

1705132947

1705132948 Check your memory and comprehension by describing or defining these key terms and concepts:

1705132949

1705132950 · Greco-Roman argument and debate

1705132951

1705132952 · Chinese argument and debate

1705132953

1705132954 · Two ways to conceptualize argument

1705132955

1705132956 · Argumentation

1705132957

1705132958 · Reasons to study debate

1705132959

1705132960 · Educational debate

1705132961

1705132962 · Problems confronting international debate styles

1705132963

[ 上一页 ]  [ :1.705132914e+09 ]  [ 下一页 ]