1705134270
Sub-claim 1: Students do not complete education because of HIV/AIDS.
1705134271
1705134272
Sub-claim 2: Even if they are guaranteed funding and infrastructure, they will not complete their education.
1705134273
1705134274
Sub-claim 3: Because they do not complete their education, they will still be confined to poverty.
1705134275
1705134276
Argument 2: The Prime Minister’s proposal will interfere with work on HIV/AIDS.
1705134277
1705134278
Sub-claim 1: The Government proposal advocates spending money on education.
1705134279
1705134280
Sub-claim 2: The funds devoted to education will come from research on HIV/AIDS.
1705134281
1705134282
Sub-claim 3: Devoting money to HIV/AIDS will have a larger effect than devoting money to education.
1705134283
1705134284
Conclusion
1705134285
1705134286
Both the Leader and Deputy Leader of Opposition create constructive arguments in their speeches. This section focused on the Leader of Opposition and the next will focus on the Deputy Leader.
1705134287
1705134289
7.2 Role of the Deputy Leader of Opposition
1705134290
1705134291
The role of the Deputy Leader of Opposition is analogous to that of the Deputy Prime Minister. The Deputy Leader of Opposition is responsible for defending the Opposition stance presented by the Leader of Opposition. To do so, the Deputy Prime Minister should continue the refutation of the Prime Minister’s case that was begun by the Leader of Opposition, refute any new arguments raised by the Deputy Prime Minister, rebuild arguments raised by the Leader of Opposition, and add at least one new argument to those presented by the Leader of Opposition.
1705134292
1705134293
The Deputy Leader of Opposition is responsible for adding new material to that presented by the Leader of Opposition by constructing at least one new argument in support of the Opposition stance. Thus, the Deputy Leader also constructs arguments, but not to the extent that the Leader of Opposition does. The Deputy Leader’s speech is, nevertheless, important with regard to argument construction.
1705134294
1705134295
The role of the Deputy Leader of Opposition, like that of the Deputy Prime Minister, is to add something constructive to what was said by the Leader of Opposition. The Deputy Leader of Opposition might choose to add a completely new argument or might choose to elaborate a point made by the Leader of Opposition. In either event, the Deputy Leader will add new constructive material to the debate. Such new material may be in the form of a new argument suggesting why the First Government Team’s model will not work, or why the First Government Team’s model will create more problems than it solves, or why the Opposition’s counter proposal is superior to the First Government’s model, or any other argument designed to oppose the First Government Team’s model. In either case, the Deputy Leader will construct arguments using principles similar to those used by the Leader of Opposition.
1705134296
1705134297
So, those are the roles of the Leader and Deputy Leader of Opposition, the two members of the First Opposition Team. The next section will discuss common kinds of arguments that those and other Opposition speakers may choose to make.
1705134298
1705134300
7.3 Common Kinds of Opposition Arguments
1705134301
1705134302
The kinds of common arguments may differ depending on whether the motion is one of value or of policy. The discussion below will begin with common arguments to be raised when confronting a policy, and then will move to those which can be used arguing against a value motion.
1705134303
1705134305
7.3.1 Arguments Against a Policy Motion
1705134306
1705134307
Typically, arguments against a policy motion include those that suggest that the model will not solve the problems raised by the First Government Team. They also include principled arguments against the First Government team’s model, arguments claiming that the model will create more problems than it will solve, and arguments to suggest that a counter proposal is better.
1705134308
1705134309
7.3.1.1 The Model Will Not Solve Problems A common type of argument used to oppose a model is one that claims that the actions envisioned by the Prime Minister will not solve the problems suggested by the First Government Team. That kind of argument is appropriate when one of the Government speakers uses the very common method of describing a serious problem in the status quo and then shows how the proposed model will solve that problem. The First Government Team’s argument is probably centered on cause and effect reasoning. The Government speaker will describe a problem, and then describe its cause in such a way that the model can eliminate or circumvent the cause, thus, solving or at least mitigating the problem. The Opposition debaters will then need to consider that cause and effect relationship.
1705134310
1705134311
For instance, a Prime Minister might describe problems of secondary education in Sub-Saharan Africa, arguing that lack of access to education causes an increase in poverty. He or she might note that people without a secondary education are much more likely to exist on less than $200(US Dollars) per year than people who have earned a secondary education. A debater for the Opposition might suggest that the model will not solve the problem of poverty because it fails to deal with one of the most significant causes of poverty, HIV/AIDS. The Leader of Opposition might suggest that HIV/AIDS is a substantial reason people are not getting education and that, even if children are guaranteed access to education, they will not complete their schooling nor will they move out of poverty because of HIV/AIDS.
1705134312
1705134313
The illustration below shows how such an argument might look:
1705134314
1705134315
Opposition Argument: The Model Will Not Solve the Problem
1705134316
1705134317
Claim: Access to education will not solve the problem of poverty in Sub-Saharan Africa.
1705134318
1705134319
[
上一页 ]
[ :1.70513427e+09 ]
[
下一页 ]