1705133970

1705133971 When a motion does need to be focused and limited, the Prime Minister may want to say a few words to justify the emphasis. Consider, for example, the motion that “Capital Punishment should be reformed.” Suppose that the debaters want to focus the motion on the Middle East and on the particularly cruel methods used to execute people. They might justify their focus by mentioning the common use of capital punishment in the Middle East and by briefly describing the cruelest methods of capital punishment—stoning, beheading, hanging, etc. Since that interpretation does involve a more limited discussion than one might expect in a typical debate about capital punishment, the opposing debaters and the adjudicators will probably be looking forward to some kind of justification of the limitation. Some potential justifications might include the frequency of capital punishment in the Middle East, the frequency of particular methods of capital punishment, and the existence of alternative methods that are less cruel. Because that interpretation is more limited, it also may require more justification than a more standard interpretation that, for instance, involves limiting capital punishment to first-degree murder, or ending capital punishment of juveniles or mentally disabled people.

1705133972

1705133973 Different motions require different levels of definition and interpretation depending on whether the motion is more or less concrete or is worded in a more or less ambiguous manner. Consider two examples: one that has some limited room for interpretation, and another that has a much wider range of legitimate interpretations. The first example is, “The Republic of South Africa should significantly alter its policies regarding the Kruger National Park.” The motion is fairly concrete, but still leaves room for definition and interpretation. Like the earlier motion, this one contains a very clear actor, the Republic of South Africa. Unlike the earlier motion, this one contains one term with which some of the audience might be unfamiliar, and yet another term that is open to interpretation and clarification. Some of the audience might be unfamiliar with the “Kruger National Park.” Thus, the debaters ought to define it for the audience so the debate could proceed with clarity. Also, the term “significantly alter” can have a variety of interpretations, so the First Government Team needs to provide their interpretation of “significantly alter” in order to set a clear direction for the debate. “Reform” of policies regarding the Kruger National Park might be thought of as changing the ways the government tries to protect endangered species within the park, or changing admission policies within the park, or changing water policies inside the park. Thus, this motion requires some definition and interpretation.

1705133974

1705133975 A different motion might be even more ambiguous and, thus, may need more definition or interpretation. Consider, for example, the motion that “The nations of the world should take greater responsibility for protection of the environment.” In that example, although the individual terms are clear and need little definition, the topic needs to be narrowed and focused in order to have a good debate. Three key phrases, “nations of the world,” “greater responsibility,” and “protection of the environment,” all need to be narrowed and focused. Otherwise, the resulting debate will be too general and will not result in specific arguments. Thus, the First Government Team should make clear how they intend to focus the debate: Which “nations of the world” will be emphasized? What kind of “greater responsibilities” should be expected of those nations? Which areas of “protection of the environment” should be the subject of the debate? By focusing and narrowing the scope of the debate in these three areas, the First Government Team will help to start the debate in a productive direction.

1705133976

1705133977 Step two: describing the position the Government Team will defend. Clearly describing and specifying the position that the Government Team will advocate flows directly from their definition and interpretation of the motion. The second step is simply a clearer and perhaps more specific way of explaining the First Government Team’s definitions and interpretation. The Prime Minister’s responsibility with regard to this second step is simply to provide a very clear statement of what the First Government Team will advocate and defend.

1705133978

1705133979 If the motion is a value motion asking debaters to assess some object (person, idea, institution, etc.), then the Prime Minister should clearly specify the person, idea, or institution to be assessed, and should note the specific value or principle that will be used to evaluate that object. For instance, if a motion states, “Health care is a fundamental human right,” the Prime Minister needs to clarify how he or she will focus the debate, especially in terms of health care. Perhaps the First Government Team will decide to focus on emergency medical care, or on preventive medical care. In such a case, the Prime Minister might fulfill his or her responsibility by stating, “We believe all citizens have a fundamental right to emergency health care and we further believe that providing such care is a fundamental responsibility of our government.” This statement describes the object they intend to evaluate (emergency health care) as well as the value or principle (fundamental responsibility of government) they will employ to create the evaluation. Their statement not only describes the position that the First Government Team will defend, but it also describes the direction that the rest of the debate will take as well. All other teams will then be obliged to discuss emergency health care, not preventive health care not reproductive care, etc. Certainly, other teams can appropriately bring other values or principles to bear on the evaluative process (cost, well-being, etc.), but all of those values will be discussed in terms of emergency care.

1705133980

1705133981 The statement of the position that the Government Teams will defend makes explicit all of the decisions that were implicit in the definitions and interpretations. The definitions and interpretations are thus explained in order to make clear that the debate is not about the motion as a whole, but rather about a more focused and clearly defined position to guide the debate.

1705133982

1705133983 The examples above refer to instances where the motion is one of value, attaching a value to an object. One other common kind of motion will involve an evaluation of a proposed action, usually a policy proposal. In debates about those kinds of motions, a very clear “model” may be helpful because it can offer a rather specific examination of the kind of action the First Government Team is prepared to support. The specification of what the First Government Team will defend is provided in terms of its “model” of the motion. The “model,” as its name implies, is not a statement of the motion as a whole, but of the focused specification that the Government Team will defend with regard to the overall motion.

1705133984

1705133985 In general, a model of this kind will involve three specifications:

1705133986

1705133987 1) Who is the proposed actor? In some cases, the proposed actor is named in the motion, e.g. the United States. Even so, the First Government Team may decide to further specify who ought to take action. Should action be taken by a municipality? By members of a family? By the state government? By members of a club or organization? By the federal government? As stated earlier, the Prime Minister may want to explain why the First Government Team has decided to specify a particular actor.

1705133988

1705133989 2) What are the essential elements of the proposed action? The First Government Team needs to describe the broad details of the proposed action. Because time is limited in most debates, the model can only describe the most essential elements of the proposal, not the fine details. Because of time constraints, the Government Team can only outline its plan, but it should be ready to provide greater explanation if required later in the debate.

1705133990

1705133991 3) What other elements of the proposal, such as details of implementation are needed to make the proposal feasible? These elements may include how the plan will be funded, how the plan will be enforced, how various agencies in the plan are expected to work together, etc. Because the Government Team has limited time, it cannot present these elements in great detail. By briefly describing those three elements of their model, the Government Team makes clear what it intends to advocate and defend during the entirety of the debate. A model is an aid to help all four teams focus the debate on more specific issues in order to have a good, clear debate.

1705133992

1705133993 In some cases, even when the motion is about a policy, a specific motion may be unnecessary. Sometimes the motion is so clear and unambiguous that specifying a particular course of action may be redundant with restating the motion. For instance, a motion that states simply “The United States should abolish capital punishment” may be so clear that further specification of a model is completely unnecessary.

1705133994

1705133995 Thus, whether by a model or simply by a clear statement, the Prime Minister needs to help focus the remainder of the debate on a particular position that the Government Team will advocate. The basic responsibility of the Prime Minister in this step is to clarify the position to be advocated by the First Government Team and, as a result, the position that will be the focus of the rest of the debate.

1705133996

1705133997 Step three: creating arguments to support government’s interpretation of the motion. The final step in creating a case for the motion is the most substantive—creating arguments to support the Government Team’s interpretation of the motion. As stated earlier, a case can include one or more arguments in support of the Government’s interpretation. Usually, the case will consist of two or three arguments. More than three arguments may mean that the Prime Minister does not have adequate time to develop each argument. Creating arguments is the most important step in creating a case because it focuses the debate on the reasons for accepting the motion. These arguments are the substance of the case for the motion.

1705133998

1705133999 Other concepts important to creating arguments for First Government Teams were briefly introduced in Chapter 3. In that chapter, the notions of principles and consequences were briefly discussed. In this current chapter, examples of First Government arguments using both principles and consequences will be provided. Discussions of consequences and principles will not be repeated in this chapter but will be discussed in greater depth in Chapter 19.

1705134000

1705134001 Chapter 20 will describe further how to create an argument or even a complete case by combining claims of description, association, and evaluation. A case, as described earlier, is an argument or series of arguments to support the motion. One pattern whereby a series of claims can be coherently combined is what this text will call the describe, associate, evaluate pattern. The describe, associate, evaluate pattern, used throughout the text will be briefly introduced here and later expanded on in Chapter 20. That basic pattern asks debaters to create an argument or arguments supported by the following kinds of claims: 1) a claim that describes a feature of the object, concept, or policy to be evaluated, 2) a claim that associates that feature with a consequence or a principle, and 3) a claim that evaluates that concept or principle. This basic pattern will be used in this chapter to illustrate arguments that can be used to support a case.

1705134002

1705134003 This chapter will create two rather complete outlines of cases that might be made by the Prime Minister. Those outlines can be used as examples by beginning or experienced students as a way to create a case. Both outlines involve evaluative motions. The first uses a value motion that applies a value to an object and the second uses a policy motion that advocates a change in an action or policy.

1705134004

1705134005 思辨精英：英语辩论-构筑全球视角 [:1705132366]

1705134006 6.2 Outline of a Prime Minister Speech Supporting a Value Motion

1705134007

1705134008 Introduction

1705134009

1705134010 Motion for debate: “Traditional Chinese medicine has an important place in overall health care.”

1705134011

1705134012 Definition and interpretation: “Traditional Chinese Medicine” is defined as having a tradition of over 2000 years. The tradition includes herbal medicine, massage, acupuncture and other non-invasive techniques. Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) is interpreted for the purposes of this debate as acupuncture because it is so central to TCM.

1705134013

1705134014 “Important place in overall health care” is interpreted to mean that TCM is one of a range of options that should be included in health care. We are not saying it is the only option that should be available, just one appropriate method.

1705134015

1705134016 Statement of advocacy: As the Government, we will argue that acupuncture is one technique that deserves a place in the overall system of health care. We do not argue that it is the only, or even the most important technique; simply that it is one important technique.

1705134017

1705134018 Speech preview: During the remainder of this speech, I will present two arguments: 1) that acupuncture is a useful technique for certain conditions and 2) that acupuncture is not harmful to patients. My colleague, the Deputy Prime Minister, will then argue that acupuncture will help to eliminate unnecessary surgery.

1705134019

[ 上一页 ]  [ :1.70513397e+09 ]  [ 下一页 ]