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.

1705134404

1705134405 ￭ Most likely funds would be taken from HIV/AIDS treatment.

1705134406

1705134407 · Evaluate:

1705134408

1705134409 ￭ Money is better spent on HIV/AIDS than on guaranteed access to secondary education.

1705134410

1705134411 In that example, the debater begins with descriptive arguments, describing a part of the First Government Team’s model, namely, that the model has a large financial element. Second, the debater describes a feature of the current situation, namely, that financial resources are limited. Then, the argument moves to one of cause and effect association. There, the debater argues that the financial resources to support guaranteed secondary education would need to be taken from some other programs, most likely from HIV/AIDS prevention and treatment programs. Finally, the debater moves to the issue of direct evaluation claiming that money is better spent on HIV/ AIDS than on guaranteeing access to secondary education. Of course, in all of those cases, much more complete arguments would need to be presented than are present in this brief illustration.

1705134412

1705134413 Arguments suggesting that the Government model will create more problems than it will solve can be quite important to a debate. Think about the motion that Israel should change its policies toward Palestinians and a corresponding model that the State of Israel should destroy their “security fence.” The example below illustrates an argument that claims that the “security fence” prevents terrorism and, by implication, that the destruction of the fence would cause terrorism. The illustration below shows how the argument can be made using the describe, associate, evaluate pattern:

1705134414

1705134415 Opposition Argument: The Model Will Create More Problems Than It Solves

1705134416

1705134417 Claim: The Israeli security fence helps prevent terrorism.

1705134418

1705134419

1705134420

1705134421 · Describe:

1705134422

1705134423 ￭ The “security fence” constructed by State of Israel is so massive that it prevents travel between the occupied territories and Israel.

1705134424

1705134425 · Associate:

1705134426

1705134427 ￭ Prevention of travel between the occupied territories and Israel has greatly reduced the number of suicide bombings.

1705134428

1705134429 · Evaluate:

1705134430

1705134431 ￭ The reduction of suicide bombings has, according to statistics of the Israeli government, saved over 200 Israeli lives and has prevented serious injuries to another 1000.

1705134432

1705134433 In the illustration, the First Opposition Team started by describing features of the “security fence.” They suggested that the “security fence” is a barrier built primarily to separate Israel from the “occupied territories” such as Gaza and the West Bank; that the “security fence” is so massive that it prevents travel between the “occupied territories” and Israel. After describing relevant features of their model, the Opposition debater then drew a causal association between that feature and some effect. In that example, the debater argued that the “security fence” had the effect of preventing Palestinian suicide bombers. To support that cause and effect argument, the debater noted the decreased numbers of Palestinian suicide bombers after the construction of the “security fence.” The causal relationship between the fence and suicide bombers then allowed the debater to make an explicit evaluation of the security fence. After having shown that the effect of the “security wall” was a decrease in the number of suicide bombers, the Opposition debater then intensified evaluation of the fence by discussing how many Israeli citizens were killed in such attacks. In that case, they pointed to Israeli government statistics suggesting that the number of suicide bombing attacks went from 76 before the fence to 12 in the first three years after the building of the security fence.

1705134434

1705134435 Thus, that constructive argument shows why the action modeled by the First Government Team would create serious problems. Of course, the argument will be much stronger when the Opposition debater actually compares the reduction of suicide bombings with the specific problems noted by the Government debaters.

1705134436

1705134437 7.3.1.4 A Counter Proposal Is Better When the First Opposition Team has decided to use a counter proposal as their stance in the debate, they should then present one or more arguments that show why the counter proposal is better than the proposal envisioned in the First Government Team’s model. Consider the situation where the First Government Team is arguing for guaranteed access to secondary education, and in contrast, the Opposition Team is arguing for increased spending on HIV/AIDS. In a situation like this, the Opposition Team might argue that money is better spent on HIV/AIDS treatment and prevention than on universal access to secondary education. Such an argument, illustrated below, can be made following the describe, associate, evaluate method.

1705134438

1705134439 Opposition Argument: The Counter Proposal Is Better

[ 上一页 ]  [ :1.70513439e+09 ]  [ 下一页 ]