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
1705134440
1705134441
Claim: Spending to guarantee access to secondary education will interfere with solving the problem of HIV/AIDS.
1705134442
1705134443
1705134444
1705134445
· Describe:
1705134446
1705134447
￭ The First Government Team’s model advocates spending large sums of money to guarantee access to secondary education.
1705134448
1705134449
￭ The counter proposal advocates devoting that money to solving the HIV/AIDS problem.
1705134450
1705134451
￭ These two proposals are incompatible with one another since the governments of nations of Sub-Saharan Africa do not have sufficient funds to do both.
1705134452
1705134453
· Associate:
1705134454
1705134455
￭ Money devoted to solving the HIV/AIDS problem will have a very large effect on people living in the Nations of Sub-Saharan Africa.
1705134456
1705134457
￭ Money spent to guarantee access to post-secondary education would have a more modest effect on those people.
1705134458
1705134459
· Evaluate:
1705134460
1705134461
￭ Solving the HIV/AIDS problem has the potential to help over 22 million people currently suffering with AIDS.
1705134462
1705134463
￭ While guaranteed access to post secondary will have positive consequences, these consequence pale in comparison to those to be achieved by solving the problem of HIV/ AIDS.
1705134464
1705134465
In the above example, the Opposition debater has described a feature that distinguishes the model from the counter proposal, noting that the First Government model must involve spending large amounts of money on universal access to secondary education. In contrast, the counter proposal recommends spending that money on HIV/AIDS treatment and prevention. Such a description highlights the contrast between what the First Government Team is suggesting (model) and what the Opposition Team is suggesting (counter proposal). Those features as described identify the point of conflict between the two actions being proposed. Having described the features that identify those essential differences between the two actions, the debater in this example has drawn a causal association between that feature and an effect: Spending money on guaranteeing secondary education causes governments in Sub-Saharan Africa to reduce spending on HIV/ AIDS. Then, the debater moves to the explicit evaluation, arguing that a reduction of spending on HIV/AIDS will have a disastrous effect on the health of all people living in Sub-Saharan Africa.
1705134466
1705134468
7.3.2 Arguments Against a Value Motion
1705134469
1705134470
One of the most common ways to argue against a value motion is simply to suggest that the consequences associated with the object of evaluation do not support the government position. Consider, for example, the value motion discussed in the last chapter about traditional Chinese medicine. Recall that the motion was interpreted to support acupuncture because acupuncture is useful for treating certain conditions and it is generally not harmful. If opposing such a motion, the Leader of Opposition might choose to construct arguments showing how acupuncture is not useful or that acupuncture leads to bad side effects. For instance, the Leader of Opposition might note that study reported by The Guardian noted that the benefits of acupuncture were quite small when compared to either no acupuncture or sham acupuncture (Jha, 2012). That article cited studies that compared patients who received acupuncture to those who did not. It also cited studies that compared patients receiving legitimate acupuncture to those receiving fake acupuncture.
1705134471
1705134472
Another common method of arguing against a value motion is to associate the object of evaluation with some value or principle. Consider a motion stating that the “execution of Yao Jiaxin was just.” Yao Jiaxin, a wealthy young Chinese man, was involved in an intentional homicide resulting from a traffic accident. After Yao struck the person with his automobile, he then got out of the automobile, killed her with a knife, and later was executed for that crime. In some circles, the execution of Yao was controversial because he was from a wealthy, prominent family. The execution might be supportable as just by appealing to the principle of the rule of law. A well-known commentator in the Chinese media, Li Qianfan (2011), wrote: “In a country guided by the rule of law… What I really hope to see is not the death of Yao Jiaxin, but the legal system being able to provide protection to the people.” Thus, the motion could be opposed by appealing to the principle of the rule of law.
1705134473
1705134474
This section has been devoted to explaining some common kinds of arguments that might be made by debaters opposing a motion. It begins by explaining arguments relevant to the Leader of Opposition. The speech of the Leader of Opposition should contain an introduction, a statement of the Opposition side’s stance toward the motion, arguments opposing the First Government Team’s motion, and a conclusion. The speech is an especially important one because it will set the direction for both Opposition Teams. The section also explained the role of the Deputy Leader of Opposition showing how that person’s role is similar to the role of the Deputy Prime Minister. Both of those speeches involve refutation of the arguments of the previous speaker, rebuilding of the arguments of his or her colleague, and the construction of another argument to support his or her side in the debate.
1705134475
1705134476
This chapter focused on constructing arguments to support and to oppose a motion attending primarily, but not exclusively, on the speeches made by the First Government and First Opposition Teams. Those speeches constitute the first half of the debate, sometimes referred to as the “top of the House.” The speeches made by the Second Government and Second Opposition Team constitute the second half of the debate, which is referred to as the “bottom of the House.” The next section will focus on constructive arguments presented in the second half of the debate.
1705134477
[
上一页 ]
[ :1.705134428e+09 ]
[
下一页 ]