1705132970
1705132971
· Recount at least one role of argumentation and social debate in ancient and modern Western societies.
1705132972
1705132973
· How did educational debate emerge in Western societies?
1705132974
1705132975
· Describe the recent developments of educational debate in China.
1705132976
1705132977
· Explain the problems inherent in viewing debate from any single perspective.
1705132978
1705132979
· Demonstrate at least one example where generative debate would be beneficial.
1705132980
1705132981
1705132982
1705132983
1705132985
思辨精英：英语辩论-构筑全球视角 Chapter 2Ethical Considerations in Debate
1705132986
1705132987
Robert Trapp
1705132988
1705132989
Chapter Outline
1705132990
1705132991
2.1 The Ethical Debater
1705132992
1705132993
2.2 Four Features of Debate
1705132994
1705132995
2.3 Some Guidelines for Developing a Code of Ethics in Debate
1705132996
1705132997
2.4 Summary
1705132998
1705132999
2.5 Terms and Concepts from Chapter 2
1705133000
1705133001
2.6 Discussion Questions for Chapter 2
1705133002
1705133004
2.1 The Ethical Debater
1705133005
1705133006
To debate well means to debate ethically. Throughout the centuries, philosophers, speakers and thinkers from both China and the United States have unequivocally declared that any excellent speaker cannot, by definition, be exceptional without operating from a high moral character adhering to an enduring, ethical code of conduct.
1705133007
1705133008
For example, Chinese philosopher Mencius, who was himself an excellent speaker dismayed by the trickery and manipulation used by traveling advisors to the kings, declared that sincere speech(chengyan) was “the most effective, moral, and humane mode of expression to accomplish persuasion” (Lu, 1998: 175). Similarly, Roman orator Marcus Fabius Quintilian explicitly taught that while the orator must have knowledge of how to speak well and must achieve an artistic excellence in those skills, “the orator in Quintilian’s view must, above all, be a good man [or woman]” (Kennedy, 1999: 101). As debaters grapple with disputations, they are charged with a vital social responsibility for delineating the best arguments for and against essential civic issues. That social responsibility demands highly ethical practices to ensure the prosperity, growth, and sustenance of a society.
1705133009
1705133010
Acting in ethical ways as a speaker and using ethical speech not only fulfills a social responsibility but also inherently supports an arguer’s purpose to persuade. Aristotle, an ancient Greek philosopher, names ethos as the character of the speaker, a character making the speaker “worthy of belief; for as a rule we trust men [and women] of probity more, and more quickly…”(Cooper, 1960: 8). Similarly, “according to The Analects,” one of Confucius’s four components of curriculum was xing, the practice and conducts of morality (Lu, 1998: 166).
1705133011
1705133012
Xing Lu writes, “For Mencius, chengyan referred not only to sincere and honest speech, but also to an innate moral quality out of which sincere and honest speech naturally and powerfully arise in our efforts to influence one another… Therefore, [Mencius’s] understanding of chengyan was similar to Aristotle’s notion of ethos, in that chengyan is an indication of ethos and serves as the most effective means of persuasion” (Lu, 1998: 175). Exhortations that arguers practice morality and ethics can be found across both Eastern and Western traditions.
1705133013
1705133014
Since ethics is a philosophy or system of morality and good conduct, arguers strive to improve their debating skills by developing habits to practice principles of ethical debating. Debaters can examine their own behavioral choices to discover unethical patterns they recognize and replace those practices with more ethical ones. Toward reducing unethical actions, debaters may usefully conceptualize debate as both making argumentation choices and making choices about how to communicate with others.
1705133015
1705133016
One key to constructing and delivering an ethical argument lies in the distinction between 1) the topics and arguments constituting the debate and 2) the persons participating in the debate. Arguing the merits of one position or the discrepancies in another’s argument differs sharply from arguing to discredit or demean another speaker or another debate participant. Often these particular unethical and destructive practices occur because the offending speaker or team is not well prepared or does not yet possess the skill to squarely address the topics. An ethical debater can provide a spirited and animated argument, case, or rebuttal regarding the topic without debasing other individuals in the debate.
1705133017
1705133018
In the next section, the authors describe some of the essential features of debate and discuss the moral purposes of those features.
1705133019
[
上一页 ]
[ :1.70513297e+09 ]
[
下一页 ]