1705133468
1705133469
思辨精英：英语辩论-构筑全球视角 [:1705132334]
1705133470
4.2 Analyzing Topic Type
1705133471
1705133472
After analyzing the background of the topic, debaters then need to consider the specific motion in order to determine what type of motion they are dealing with and how the topic influences the kinds of arguments that will be debated. The last chapter introduced four kinds of claims: descriptive, definitional, associational, and evaluative. Motions are usually stated as a claim—usually an evaluative claim. For instance, a motion might be that “Population control is a violation of human freedom.” Another might be that “The nations of the world should institute stricter policies on control of population.” These two examples represent common kinds of motions that might be debated. Although both are evaluative motions, they are subtly different from one another. The first motion attributes some value to an object. In this case, the value is “human freedom” and the object is “population control.” That is what is called a “value motion.” The second motion advocates some action or policy. That kind of motion is called a “policy motion.” Policy motions usually advocate that some actor perform some action. In this second case, the actor is “the nations of the world” and the action is “institute stricter policies on control of population.”
1705133473
1705133474
The table below gives some examples of different value and policy motions:
1705133475
1705133476
1705133477
1705133478
1705133479
In the examples listed above, the topics are similar, yet the wording of the motions makes them different. The value motions all attach some value (immoral, restrictive, excessive, or Westernized) to some object (smoking, hukou policy, rich-poor gap, current generation). If a person believed that those values are appropriately attached to the objects, that person might begin to think about what actions ought to be taken. But, the motion is about the relationship between the value and the object, not about any action that should or should not be taken. The next set of motions, policy motions, makes the contemplated actions specific.
1705133480
1705133481
One thing that a perceptive person will notice about the list of policy motions is that they contain two elements: an actor and an action. The actors named in the motions listed above include: “The city of Beijing,” “the PRC,” “the US,” and “the Chinese education system.” The actions include:“place greater restrictions on smoking,” “revise its hukou policy,” “reduce the gap between the rich and the poor,” and “teach the values of traditional Chinese culture.”
1705133482
1705133483
Value motions and policy motions are similar in that each of them evaluates something. They are different in that only the policy motion advocates an action or a policy. In some ways, this is a subtle difference, but, as will be seen later, this difference will suggest different kinds of issues that will become a part of the debate.
1705133484
1705133485
A perceptive debater will note that the kind of topic to be debated may lead to different interpretations. The kind of topic and its interpretation also will affect the different issues that may be debated.
1705133486
1705133487
思辨精英：英语辩论-构筑全球视角 [:1705132335]
1705133488
4.3 Analyzing the Definition and Interpretation of the Topic
1705133489
1705133490
Most topics can be defined and interpreted in more than one way. Some topics are very specific and thus have fewer legitimate definitions and interpretations. Some are more abstract, having more potential interpretations. In order to have a productive debate, all of the debaters need to operate on similar definitions and interpretations of the topic. If they do not, then one debater may talk about one thing while another may talk about something entirely different. To ensure that the debaters share a common understanding of the motion, one team is given the right and responsibility to define and interpret the motion. By convention, this right and responsibility is given to the first debater to speak. In Worlds-Style debate, the right and responsibility to define and interpret the motion is given to the first speaker of the First Government Team. This debater(who in Worlds-Style debate is called the “Prime Minister”) has the right to define and interpret the motion, and the responsibility to do so in a reasonable manner.
1705133491
1705133492
Defining and interpreting are similar yet subtly different acts. When a debater “defines,” he or she clarifies any ambiguous or unclear terms in the motion. For example, in the topics illustrated above, some terms that might need to be defined so that the audience and adjudicators will have a clear understanding of them include “hukou,” and “traditional Chinese culture.” For some cultures, these terms may be perfectly clear and need no definition; for others, clarification by definition is needed. Other terms like “rich” and “poor” are so abstract that they might need to be defined more clearly. For instance, the debater might provide a specific definition of the income levels that define “rich” and “poor” in China. Doing so would help to make the debate clearer.
1705133493
1705133494
While definition has to do with abstract terms in the motion, interpretation has to do with narrowing and focusing the motion to help ensure a good debate. For instance, a debater might interpret “greater restrictions on smoking in public” as passing legislation to forbid smoking in all businesses that are used by the general public. “Significantly revising its hukou policy” might be interpreted as allowing farm workers to move to major cities for access to better education for their children and better medical care for their families. “Reducing the gap between the rich and the poor” might be interpreted as introducing a taxation policy that significantly increases taxes on the wealthiest Americans while reducing taxes on the very poor. Finally, “teaching the values of traditional Chinese culture” might be interpreted as requiring classes in secondary schools on the philosophy and practice of traditional Chinese culture. In each of these cases, the interpretation narrows and focuses the motion to make a more clear and productive debate. Thus, analysis of the topic needs to include defining abstract terms in the motion as well as interpreting the motion in a way that will focus and narrow the motion for debate.
1705133495
1705133496
The purpose behind the convention that gives the first speaker the right to interpret the motion is grounded in the idea that a clear and focused debate is better than a vague and general debate. A clear and focused debate is better for everyone involved in the debate — all the debaters, the audience, and the judges. That convention was not established to give the first speaker the opportunity to focus the debate so narrowly that he or she would have a better chance of “winning” the debate. Thus, the responsibility to define and interpret the debate in a reasonable manner involves doing so for the purpose of creating a good debate, not for the self-serving purpose of giving oneself an opportunity to win the debate. As noted in the chapter about ethics, to interpret a topic for the sole purpose of making it easier to “win” the debate does not show proper respect to the other participants in the debate. Such an interpretation treats the other debaters as objects to be overcome rather than as equal participants in the debate. Assuming that the definitions and interpretations are reasonable, the rest of the debaters are then obliged to accept and follow them.
1705133497
1705133498
Knowing something about the background of the topic is one way that debaters can separate reasonable from unreasonable definitions and interpretations. For instance, if debaters analyze the background of the population control topic and come to a clear understanding of the current controversy, they will realize that that controversy is about how human population affects other issues of the human environment as well as the environment of all other living things. Given this realization, the first speaker would recognize that to define “population control” as controlling the population of feral dogs is not a reasonable interpretation of the motion given the current controversy about population. Debaters should ask themselves the question “Would most ordinary people accept this interpretation as legitimately connected to the controversy out of which the topic arose?” If so, then the interpretation is reasonable and ought to be accepted as such by the rest of the debaters and judges.
1705133499
1705133500
What happens when one or more debaters believe that the interpretation is unreasonable? As this text urges the first debater to interpret the motion in a manner that creates a better debate, it also urges the debaters to view the interpretation charitably, remembering that many different, reasonable interpretations may exist. If the first speaker’s interpretation is one of those, it ought to be accepted. However, if other debaters view the interpretation as unreasonable, they must decide whether their objection to the interpretation will create a better or a worse debate. Most often, arguing about the interpretation will lead to a worse debate. If debaters are able to accept and follow the interpretations for the remainder of the debate, they will be contributing to the overall objective of creating a better debate. Creating a better debate for all certainly is the most ethical stance the debater can take. So, the advice offered here is that the interpretation ought to be accepted, except in the most egregious circumstances, realizing that to do otherwise may lead to a poor debate and may, in all likelihood, be seen as self-serving.
1705133501
1705133502
思辨精英：英语辩论-构筑全球视角 [:1705132336]
1705133503
4.4 Analyzing Potential Issues
1705133504
1705133505
After considering the background of the topic, the type of motion being debated, and the particular definition and interpretation, the debaters then turn to an analysis of the potential issues that might be introduced in the debate. Although issues of definition and interpretation involve the first team in the debate (First Government in Worlds-Style debate), analyzing the motion to determine potential issues is something in which all debaters need to engage.
1705133506
1705133507
One systematic method of analyzing potential issues that might arise in a debate is called “stock issues analysis.” Stock issues analysis is an approach to thinking about arguments that centers on very common (stock) issues. These are issues that arise over and over again. By reflecting on these issues when constructing their cases, debaters are able to formulate a set of arguments that they may use during the debate. Stock issues differ depending on whether the debate is about a value motion or a policy motion.
1705133508
1705133509
思辨精英：英语辩论-构筑全球视角 [:1705132337]
1705133510
4.4.1 Stock Issues for a Value Motion
1705133511
1705133512
Stock issues for a value motion center around two questions: (1) what criteria should be used to determine whether a certain value is appropriately assigned to a certain object, and (2) does the assignment of the value to the object follow those criteria? This text will refer to those stock issues as criteria and application, respectively.
1705133513
1705133514
The first stock issue (criteria) for a proposition of value asks the question, “What criteria should be used to judge whether or not the value can be assigned to the object?” A criterion is a standard or a measure that a person can use to evaluate something. For example, the Gross Domestic Product is a criterion (a measure) of the health of a country’s economy. In a value motion, debaters need to identify the criteria that will be used to measure the object of evaluation. For instance, by what criteria can “immoral” be measured? What is the criterion by which something becomes “too restrictive?” Under what criteria would a rich-poor gap be too “excessive?” How would a society determine that something is “too Westernized?”
1705133515
1705133516
The second stock issue (application) then asks how the particular object of evaluation meets or does not meet the criteria. Does smoking in public meet the standard of morality? Does the hukou policy meet the criteria of “too restrictive?” Does the rich-poor gap meet the benchmark of “excessive?” Does the current Chinese generation meet the conditions for being “too Westernized?”
1705133517