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

1705134320

1705134321 ·Sub-claim 1: Students will not complete their education because of HIV/AIDS.

1705134322

1705134323 ￭ Teachers may be unable to teach because of HIV/AIDS.

1705134324

1705134325 ￭ Students may have to leave school to care for family members who have HIV/AIDS.

1705134326

1705134327 ￭ Students may be forced to drop out of school because they have HIV/AIDS.

1705134328

1705134329 ·Sub-claim 2: Even if students are guaranteed access to secondary schools, they may not be able to complete their education.

1705134330

1705134331 ·Sub-claim 3: Because they do not complete their education, students will still be confined to poverty.

1705134332

1705134333 To clarify the process of arguing that the model will not solve the problem, consider a second example. If the First Government Team presented a model suggesting that the United Nations should install desalinization plants to solve the problem of clean drinking water, the Leader of Opposition might suggest that desalinization will not, by itself, provide clean drinking water.

1705134334

1705134335 Such an argument is illustrated below:

1705134336

1705134337 The goal of such an argument is to test whether or not the Prime Minister has isolated the correct cause of the problem. If the alleged cause is not the real cause, then removing the alleged cause will have no effect on the problem.

1705134338

1705134339 Opposition Argument: The Model Will Not Solve the Problem

1705134340

1705134341 Claim: Desalinization will not provide clean drinking water.

1705134342

1705134343

1705134344

1705134345 ·Sub-claim 1: Desalinization works primarily for rich countries located by the ocean.

1705134346

1705134347 ·Sub-claim 2: Much of the world’s population in need of clean drinking water does not live near the ocean.

1705134348

1705134349 ·Sub-claim 3: Therefore, even if the United Nations created clean drinking water through desalinization plants, they would not be able to get the water to inland populations.

1705134350

1705134351 Frequently, arguments that suggest that the Government proposal will not solve the problem are good arguments, but they may not in and of themselves be sufficient to reject the proposal. For instance, even in light of these arguments, the Government Team may be able to suggest that their proposal is a good one even if it does not completely solve the problem. In other words, they would suggest that their proposal would solve a substantial part, if not the entire problem. Thus, that kind of argument will be more persuasive when combined with some of the arguments discussed below.

1705134352

1705134353 7.3.1.2 Principled Arguments Against the Model A second kind of argument that members of the First Opposition Team might consider is a principled argument against the First Government Team’s model. In some cases, as discussed earlier, the First Government Team may have used principles to recommend some actions that they proposed. In cases like this, debaters supporting the Opposition side might choose to explicitly support a different value system or a different principle than that supported by the opening Government Team. That kind of a stance is useful when the case for the motion centers on a principle that the First Government Team has associated with the action they are recommending.

1705134354

1705134355 If the Opposition chooses to support a different principle, they need to state that principle clearly, then give reasons why the principle they are supporting is better or more appropriate than those of the First Government Team. Then, the Opposition needs to show how that principle is consistent with the actions they believe should be taken. For example, if the First Government Team argues that, “Israel should change its policies toward Palestinians,” it could choose to support the principle of property rights. Using an alternative principle, the Opposition might choose to support the idea that the Government has the responsibility to provide safety for its citizens. The Opposition debaters would then need to think of reasons that safety was more important than property rights, and also would need to show how the current policy toward Palestinians is consistent with the principle of safety. The example of supporting a different principle is illustrated below:

1705134356

1705134357 Opposition Argument: Principled Argument Against the Motion

1705134358

1705134359 Claim: Israel should change its policies toward Palestinians.

[ 上一页 ]  [ :1.70513431e+09 ]  [ 下一页 ]