1705134220 The example above can illustrate how the Opposition Team could present an argument that their counter proposal really is competitive. The Opposition Team might demonstrate that financial resources in Sub-Saharan Africa are so limited that those nations only have the ability to choose either programs for secondary education or for HIV/AIDS, but not both. Thus, the counter proposal to combat HIV/AIDS cannot be accomplished if we are spending all our resources on the First Government Team’s proposal to enhance access to secondary education. In this case, the Opposition would of course be obliged to argue that combating HIV/AIDS is more important than guaranteeing access to secondary education.

1705134221

1705134222 Another way the First Opposition Team can suggest that a counter proposal is competitive with the First Government Team’s model is to suggest that they are mutually incompatible. For instance, if the First Government model suggests increased access to secondary education, the Opposition Team might suggest that we should, in fact, eliminate public secondary education. Although that might not be a counter proposal that many of us would like to support, it illustrates how a counter proposal might be competitive by being mutually exclusive with the First Government Team’s model. The model and counter proposal are mutually exclusive because one cannot even envision simultaneously providing greater access to secondary education and also eliminating secondary education.

1705134223

1705134224 Sometimes, advocating a counter proposal can be a very persuasive way to engage a debate. It also is a more complex way to argue. That is not to say that a counter proposal should be avoided, just that it needs to be argued carefully and probably only by experienced debaters.

1705134225

1705134226 Thus, when debating a motion of policy, the First Opposition Team should develop their stance toward the motion, a stance that is unique and different from that of the First Government Team. Three ways to create such a stance have been discussed: explicit defense of the present course of action, defense of the general direction of the present course of action with minor changes, and defense of a counter proposal. The stance that the First Opposition Team takes will then help to determine the kinds of constructive arguments they and the Second Opposition Team will choose to present.

1705134227

1705134228 7.1.1.2 The Opposition Stance When Debating a Value Motion The necessity for the First Opposition Team to present a clear Opposition stance remains whether the motion centers on policy or value. However, since the First Government Team is not presenting and defending a policy proposal, the stance of the First Opposition Team also will not be about policies. Two ways that the First Opposition Team can present a clear stance opposing the motion as interpreted by the Prime Minister include: 1) clearly stating a different value that the Opposition will support, and 2) clearly stating that, although they support the same value as the government, they will apply it to the object of evaluation differently.

1705134229

1705134230 A. Present a Clear Statement of a Value Different from That of the First Opposition. A very clear way to distinguish the First Opposition’s position from that of the First Government Team is to make a clear statement about the value position they support. For instance, the Leader of Opposition can clearly state and argue for a value that is different from the one supported by the Prime Minister. Thus, the Leader of Opposition should clearly identify the value that is supported by the Prime Minister, identify a different value that the First Opposition Team will support, and give persuasive reasons why the Opposition value is better than that of the Government. For instance, if the value argued by the Prime Minister is individual liberty, the Leader of Opposition might identify and support the community as a contrasting and better value. Then, the Leader of Opposition would need to give reasons why community support is more important than individual liberty when those two values come into contrast. They might suggest for instance, that the pursuit of individual liberty will benefit some people but will harm the community at large.

1705134231

1705134232 B. Present a Clear Statement of Evaluation That the First Opposition Team Will Support. In some cases, the Opposition Team will support the same value that the First Government Team supports, but will argue that that value applies differently to the object to be evaluated. In this case, the Leader of Opposition will express support for the value supported by the First Government Team, then will show how that value does not support the object to be evaluated. Consider, for instance, the situation where the object to be evaluated is Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM), and the Prime Minister has argued that “quality medical care” is a value that supports TCM. In such a case, the Leader of Opposition might first agree that quality medical care is an important value, then, proceed to show how TCM does not provide the highest quality of medical care. Thus, the Leader of Opposition has presented a clear stance without disagreeing about the value presented by the Prime Minister.

1705134233

1705134234 Whether the Leader of Opposition chooses to present and defend a contrasting value or show how the value presented by the Prime Minister supports the Opposition value stance, they are presenting a clear Opposition stance with regard to the value motion.

1705134235

1705134236 思辨精英：英语辩论-构筑全球视角 [:1705132376]

1705134237 7.1.2 Refutation of the Case of the Prime Minister

1705134238

1705134239 The second important responsibility of the Leader of Opposition is to provide explicit refutation of the Prime Minister’s case. Refutation is an important element of the debate because it is the feature that allows the audience and the judge to see not only the arguments of each side, but also how the arguments contrast with each other. Judges expect speakers to refute the most important arguments of the opposing side.

1705134240

1705134241 Refutation is important, but it is not the only important thing that needs to be accomplished in the Leader of Opposition speech. A more complete discussion of refutation will be presented in Chapter 10. For now, the most important thing to remember is that the Leader of Opposition needs to refute at least the most important arguments made by the Prime Minister. The process of refutation might not take more than one or two minutes, but it is an important process, nevertheless.

1705134242

1705134243 思辨精英：英语辩论-构筑全球视角 [:1705132377]

1705134244 7.1.3 Construct Arguments to Oppose the Prime Minister’s Interpretation of the Motion

1705134245

1705134246 The final responsibility of the Leader of Opposition is to construct arguments to oppose the Prime Minister’s interpretation of the motion. These arguments should simultaneously oppose the First Government Team’s model and support the Opposition Team’s stance in the debate. So, if the first Opposition is supporting the status quo, the Leader of Opposition’s argument should support the status quo and simultaneously oppose the Prime Minister’s stance.

1705134247

1705134248 In one sense, creating constructive arguments for the Opposition is like creating a case for the motion. When creating a case for the motion, the Prime Minister will frequently create a model or establish a clear stance that sets the direction that both Government Teams will take during the debate. Similarly, the Leader of Opposition should describe an Opposition stance that will guide both Opposition Teams for the entire debate. Also, like the Prime Minister creates an argument or a series of arguments that provide a sufficient case for an audience or a judge to accept the position taken by the First Government Team, debaters creating a case against a motion must attempt to create an argument or a series of arguments that, singly or in combination, create a sufficient case to reject the First Government Team’s position.

1705134249

1705134250 Below is an outline of potential speeches by Leaders of Opposition. The outline is of a speech on a policy motion. A speech on a value motion would follow a similar process.

1705134251

1705134252 Potential Speech on a Policy Motion

1705134253

1705134254 Introduction

1705134255

1705134256

1705134257

1705134258 Motion for debate: “The nations of the world should guarantee a minimal level of education for all its citizens.”

1705134259

1705134260 Statement of advocacy:

1705134261

1705134262 The First Opposition Team will support the current level of funding and infrastructure for all levels of education. Our belief is that nations of Sub-Saharan Africa have greater spending priorities that must be maintained first.

1705134263

1705134264 Speech preview:

1705134265

1705134266 During the remainder of this speech, I will present two arguments: 1) The Prime Minister’s proposal will not solve the problem of increased access to education, and 2) the Prime Minister’s proposal will divert needed funds from treatment of HIV and AIDS. My colleague the Deputy Leader of Opposition will then suggest even more priorities that may be sacrificed.

1705134267

1705134268 Argument 1: The Prime Minister’s proposal will not solve the problems.

1705134269

[ 上一页 ]  [ :1.70513422e+09 ]  [ 下一页 ]