1705133083
1705133084
Effective debate depends on creating arguments from solid evidence but also focuses on logical reasoning. Good reasoning involves making sound arguments from evidence presented to support claims. Sometimes well-meaning debaters use fallacious reasoning, a topic to be dealt with at length in Chapter 21, but sometimes debaters intentionally use unethical reasoning. For example, fallacious reasoning may occur when a speaker draws inferences from inadequate or insufficient evidence, or when a speaker incorrectly or unknowingly draws inferences that do not relate to the evidence.
1705133085
1705133086
Unethical reasoning, on the other hand, occurs when the speaker first chooses a goal—for example, wishing to persuade the audience to use a certain type of toothpaste—and then goes about gathering and arranging any bits of evidence in any configuration to accomplish that persuasion. Suppose Acme Toothpaste, for instance, argues that nine out of ten dentists agreed their brand would reduce cavities for people who used it when the evidence supporting their claim was that nine out of ten dentists agreed toothpastes containing fluoride would reduce cavities for users. Since Acme’s brand contained fluoride, the toothpaste company unethically construed the evidence to apply only to their brand, thereby convincing consumers their brand reduced cavities more than any other brand. Acme did not alter the evidence, but constructed a reasoning pattern to draw customers to a false conclusion. The company’s actions would be unethical because they made the conscious choice to elevate the needs of the company—to make money—over the needs of consumers—to know they could have healthy teeth by using any one of many different toothpastes containing fluoride, even a brand that might be less expensive. A debater trying to judge whether his or her own reasoning is or is not ethical will need to look farther than merely testing the veracity of the claim or evidence.
1705133087
1705133088
Unscrupulous arguers often use the argument that the evidence is “true” or the claim is “valid” as a way to justify their actions. To assess whether reasoning is ethical, a debater must question whether or not the reasoning arose organically from the evidence to the inference rather than having the reasoning concocted so it would connect selected facets of the evidence to an outcome advantageous to the arguer. Was the evidence gathered or arranged so it would serve a particular conclusion that served the individual arguer or did the conclusion arise from the nature of the evidence and thereby serve the civil good? Was the argument or reasoning selected to insure the audience would arrive at a conclusion beneficial to the debater but not necessarily encompassing all the audience might know? Is the audience offered appropriate information in the reasoning to allow them to critically address the issue or has the debater offered only information favorable to the arguer?
1705133089
1705133090
Debaters also use unethical argument and reasoning in other ways, such as a means of evading the central clash in a debate. If a topic arises that debaters have not prepared for or feel uncertain about, speakers may resort to extended and sometimes meaningless haggling over definitions or terms to avoid addressing issues they find daunting. Ethical debaters do not demean their opponents in these cases, but simply continue to address the key elements to raise the debate to the highest interaction possible. Applying an ethical code to debate means elevating each argument and each reasoning pattern to a high standard.
1705133091
1705133093
2.3.3 Implement Mutual Equality
1705133094
1705133095
Mutual equality calls for debaters to consider teammates, opponents, adjudicators, audience members, and other interlocutors as equal participants in the discourse. Sometimes debaters develop attitudes of superiority that causes them to honor their own thoughts and conclusions over those of others. Recognizing that each individual in the debate or exchange will experience the conversation from a different viewpoint, ethical debaters recognize and assume that each other person thinks, reasons, experiences, and verbalizes in a different way—even from within a different cultural or political paradigm—and that each way of processing exudes integrity and value: different, but equally substantive in its basic, inherent position in a clash of ideas.
1705133096
1705133097
Opposing debaters who function with this code of ethics also practice mutual equality. They create supportive communication environments where hearing both sides of the issue and arguing the relative merits of one side or the other are more important than oppressing the other side and eradicating their opportunities to respond.
1705133098
1705133099
A presumption of equality does not suggest creating a collection of people who will act and react in the same way, nor does it suggest each person will hold the same values as the next. On the contrary, a presumption of equality expects that each various voice in the debate will be heard reasonably without interruption, attended with earnest and honorable intent, given space and time to express itself, and afforded a mutual respect across the debate.
1705133100
1705133101
Mutual equality does not eclipse disagreement. Equal characters can clash animatedly in debate. The more often people on opposite sides of an issue can create a climate of mutual equality, the higher the quality of debate that ensues and the higher the quality of outcomes for decisions about the issues being discussed. The differences between people and their ideas are featured and examined rather than oppressed; mutual equality fosters climates in which diverse voices and varied perceptions constitute the social discussion network and inform that society’s dynamic decisions.
1705133102
1705133103
Mutual equality also extends to relationships debaters develop with team members. Toward understanding others’ experiences, ethical debaters benefit themselves and their teams by finding ways to practice with a variety of teammates. If, for example, an experienced debater refuses to practice with an inexperienced debater (either verbally or by nonverbal signals such as gesture, tone of voice, facial expressions, etc.), he or she introduces a division among team members, indicating some members to be more valuable than others. Debating with various partners or teams in practice rounds can improve the team as a whole and also can improve skills for all participating debaters, including the more experienced speakers.
1705133104
1705133105
Choosing to socialize with a variety of team members of all levels of experience and all friendship groups also generates an environment of mutual equality. For instance, holding parties or making decisions that include everyone rather than a segment of the team or having lunch with a range of team members rather than a constant enclave provides multiple avenues for voices to be heard.
1705133106
1705133107
Ethical debaters practicing mutual equality emphasize essential listening habits, using perception checking during informal conversation as a means of understanding the particular points offered by other conversant. In formal debates, ethical debaters listen closely to speakers, learn to take effective and sometimes copious notes to insure accuracy, and avoid conferring with their partners in ways that interfere with the presentation by the current speaker. Ethical debaters extend to others in the debate the same dignity, opportunity, regard, and disposition they hope to receive themselves. Such a climate of mutual equality provides a rich environment for an excellent debate.
1705133108
1705133110
2.3.4 Interact Respectfully with Others Prior to, During, and After Debates
1705133111
1705133112
An ethical debater understands the value of each debate participant and demonstrates respect for them in word, manner, and action. Participants in debates include debate partners, other school team members, members of teams from other schools, adjudicators, audience members, observers, coaches, and tournament officials.
1705133113
1705133114
During the debate itself debaters also can show respect for the form, the intent, and the function of debate in a society. Speaking tactfully and with high regard to partners, other debaters, the adjudicator, and audience members demonstrates a debater’s understanding of their important role in dealing with society’s pressing problems. Laughing inappropriately during another’s speech or dramatically raising eyebrows with a partner as the other team makes their presentations indicate debaters have more work to do to develop respect for their craft.
1705133115
1705133116
Debaters may display respect during the debate and then change their actions as they leave the debate. As they talk with others about opponents or adjudicators, they may make derogatory remarks freely. They may even make derogatory remarks to the adjudicators. Debaters can remember that respecting the outcome of the debate is different from agreeing the outcome was the best one. Also, debaters can reframe their thinking to recognize the nature of debate and the need for an adjudicator.
1705133117
1705133118
Debaters need to prepare for a wide variety of adjudicators, all of whom have been engaged to listen to arguments and determine a decision. Although the role of adjudicator is critical to debate situations in need of outside assistance, each adjudicator brings different perspectives and skills to the role, just as each debater brings different perspectives and skills. Human beings differ, so adjudicators also will differ. An excellent debater may spend years learning nuances and complexities of fitting an argument to an audience or adjudicator. If the adjudicator decides against the debater, the debater can learn a great deal by discussing that decision with the adjudicator.
1705133119
1705133120
If the debater is arguing to the adjudicator that he or she should have made a different decision, the debater may benefit from reviewing the debate process. The debater holds the responsibility to make arguments that persuade the audience or adjudicator to their point of view. If the adjudicator does not come to the same conclusion as the debater, the debater has not succeeded in his or her efforts. At that point, the debater can interview the adjudicator to listen to their reasons for their decision; from that conversation the debater can learn more about the art of persuasion.
1705133121
1705133123
2.3.5 Champion Clashes of Ideas and Eschew Personal Attacks
1705133124
1705133125
Partnered with the attitude of respect is the intent to engage the debate by confronting opposing ideas rather than confronting other speakers as opponents. Debaters can strive to determine the most critical ideas that emerge as the debate proceeds and then clarify the points where opposing ideas clash. Having identified the clash, debaters can expand the conversation by presenting reasoning and arguments that privilege one position over the other.
1705133126
1705133127
Problems caused by lack of respect arise when the debater turns away from the clash of ideas and attacks the speaker instead. Name calling is one form of disrespect: “Only a complete radical could make such an argument.” Another form of personal attack derides a person’s credibility
:“Your argument demonstrates your complete ignorance about this subject.”
1705133128
1705133129
In advertising, political arenas, and personal situations and sometimes in formal debates, the conflict of ideas can deteriorate into personal attacks and character assaults of these kinds. A common response to a personal attack is to react with another personal attack. Ethical debaters learn to deflect such attacks, ignore them, or use their time to more fully develop their discussions regarding the clash of ideas, emphasizing, of course, their own reasons for preferring their positions rather than other positions.
1705133130
1705133131
Students who encounter personal attacks during debates during intercollegiate debate tournaments can use those opportunities to improve their skills at derailing personal assaults and returning the debate to the critical issues. Since the higher purpose of debate involves nonviolently finding reasoned ways to ameliorate contentious social problems, ethical debaters need to develop a repertoire of skills for disconnecting the lure of devolving into personal grievances toward refocusing on the social need being addressed by the debate.
1705133132
[
上一页 ]
[ :1.705133083e+09 ]
[
下一页 ]