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.

1705134360

1705134361

1705134362

1705134363 ·Sub-claim 1: Safety is a more important principle.

1705134364

1705134365 ￭ The most important principle for any government is to provide safety for its citizens.

1705134366

1705134367 ￭ The current system allows the Israeli government to attack suspected terrorists at will.

1705134368

1705134369 ￭ The model provides Palestinian citizens of Israel, and hence terrorists (from the perspective of the Israeli government), with complete security in their homes.

1705134370

1705134371 ·Sub-claim 2: Defending against terrorism fulfills the principle of safety.

1705134372

1705134373 ￭ Attacking terrorists is consistent with providing safety for citizens.

1705134374

1705134375 ￭ Giving Palestinian citizens of Israel complete security in their homes is inconsistent with providing safety for citizens.

1705134376

1705134377 ·Sub-claim 3: The status quo better supports safety.

1705134378

1705134379 ￭ The current Israeli policy supports the principle of providing safety for citizens.

1705134380

1705134381 ￭ The model proposed by the Government Team does not support the principle of providing safety for citizens.

1705134382

1705134383 Sometimes, debaters appear to be taking a moral high ground by arguing from principle. By supporting a different principle, the Opposition debaters show that they too stand on that high moral ground, even if the principle they support is different from that supported by the debaters arguing in favor of the motion. If the First Government Team is arguing that we should act on principle, the Opposition Team also can claim the moral high ground by arguing from principle.

1705134384

1705134385 7.3.1.3 The Model Will Create More Problems Than It Solves A potentially powerful argument against a model designed to offer a solution to a problem is one that claims that the model will create more problems than it solves. Constructing an argument of this type involves the Prime Minister crafting an argument of consequence. When the First Government Team constructed an argument of consequence, they described their proposal, then drew a causal argument from their proposal to some effect and finally, evaluated the effect. The pattern used to craft an argument of consequence for the Government Team operates exactly in the same way for an Opposition argument.

1705134386

1705134387 Such an argument can be illustrated using our earlier example of a motion that stated, “Nations should provide a minimal level of education to all their citizens.” In that example, the First Government Team presented a model that said all nations of Sub-Saharan Africa should provide at least a secondary education for all their citizens. In a debate involving this model, the Opposition might construct an argument that the model would interfere with efforts to solve the HIV/AIDS problem. Such an argument is illustrated below:

1705134388

1705134389 Opposition Argument: The Model Will Create More Problems Than It solves

1705134390

1705134391 Claim: Guaranteeing universal access to secondary education will interfere with the ability to solve the HIV/AIDS issue.

1705134392

1705134393

1705134394

1705134395 · Describe:

1705134396

1705134397 ￭ The proposal envisioned in the First Government Team’s model has a substantial financial element.

1705134398

1705134399 ￭ Financial resources in Sub-Saharan Africa are limited.

1705134400

1705134401 · Associate:

1705134402

1705134403 ￭ Using the financial resources needed to fund guaranteed access to secondary education would necessarily cause resources to be taken from some other area.

[ 上一页 ]  [ :1.705134354e+09 ]  [ 下一页 ]