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
1705134479
7.4 Summary
1705134480
1705134481
The purpose of this chapter is to explain arguments and strategies useful to the First Opposition Team. The two members of this team have distinct responsibilities. The Leader of Opposition should first provide a clear statement of the Opposition stance in the debate. Second, the Leader of Opposition should refute the important arguments made by the Prime Minister. Finally, the Leader of Opposition should construct and present at least one independent argument against the position advocated by the Prime Minister. The second and third responsibilities, refutation and argument construction, are both important, but need not be presented in that order. In some cases, a debater may want to present a new argument and then turn to refutation, while in other cases, the debater may want to conduct refutation prior to the construction of a new argument.
1705134482
1705134483
The Deputy Leader of Opposition needs to advance the refutation offered by the Leader of Opposition, and also needs to refute any new arguments presented by the Deputy Prime Minister. Also, the Deputy Leader of Opposition needs to add at least one new argument to the overall position advanced by the First Opposition Team. By following those responsibilities, the two members of the First Opposition Team will be seen as acting in concert with one another—as a team rather than as two independent speakers.
1705134484
1705134485
本章旨在介绍一些对于反方上院有所帮助的论证方式和策略。反方上院中的两名成员各有各的职责。就反对党党魁而言，应该首先表明自己队伍的立场，然后反驳首相之前提出的重要论点，并且至少提出一个自己的论点，用以反对首相的观点。反驳和立论尽管都很重要，其顺序并没有一定之规。有些辩手会先论证己方观点再进行反驳，而在有些情况下，这一顺序则会颠倒。
1705134486
1705134487
反对党副党魁则需要进一步阐述党魁的驳论并且反驳副首相提出的新论点。除此之外，副党魁至少要提出一个新论点来支持己方立场。通过遵守这些职责，反方上院的两名成员可以彼此配合，相辅相成，发挥出团队的力量而不仅仅是作为两个独立的辩手单打独斗。
1705134488
[
上一页 ]
[ :1.705134439e+09 ]
[
下一页 ]