1705134589
8.2.1 Qualities of a Good Extension
1705134590
1705134591
A good extension is ordinarily a new argument; one not discussed by the First Government or by the First Opposition Teams. A new argument allows the closing team to demonstrate their skills at constructing arguments. A new argument shows that the closing teams are moving the debate forward rather than just depending on the arguments introduced in the first half of the debate. A new argument also allows the closing debater to better demonstrate the distinctiveness of his or her team’s position. For instance, if the First Government Team focused on the social concerns of their model, the Second Proposition might discuss economic concerns. Thus, the second team can distinguish itself from the first by focusing on the economic rather than the social concerns. They should do so in a way that maintains the consistency of the social and economic concerns. If the Member speaker cannot present a totally new argument, it should at least be a new interpretation of an old argument. For instance, an extension might employ a more in-depth analysis of the old argument, or an extensive case study in support of the old argument.
1705134592
1705134593
A good extension must be consistent with and supportive of the positions of the opening team on your side. Most importantly, the extension should in no way contradict anything said by the opening team. Furthermore, if the debater is able to integrate the extension into lines of argument made by the First Government Team, the entire approach becomes more convincing because it begins to look like the arguments of both teams constitute a coherent whole.
1705134594
1705134595
A good extension distinguishes the Second Government and Second Opposition Teams while maintaining their loyalty to the First Government and First Opposition Teams, respectively. A goal of the Member of Government or Member of the Opposition should be to show their teams as different from the other Government and Opposition Teams. To the extent the member speakers do that in their arguments, they will be seen as more persuasive because the combination of the extension arguments with those of the First Government arguments will create a larger and more coherent whole than either set of arguments without the other.
1705134596
1705134597
So, a good extension is consistent with but distinct from the arguments offered in the first half of the debate. Of course, many different types of extension arguments exist. The next section of this chapter will discuss three of the more common types.
1705134598
1705134599
思辨精英：英语辩论-构筑全球视角 [:1705132390]
1705134600
8.2.2 Types of Extensions
1705134601
1705134602
Three types of extension arguments to be discussed in this chapter include: 1) an additional line of argument, 2) an argument containing more in-depth evidence, examples, and reasoning, and 3) a focused case study. As stated earlier, those are not the only kinds of extension arguments that are possible, but are among the more commonly used ones.
1705134603
1705134604
As stated earlier, the most common and perhaps best kind of extension is an additional line of argument not mentioned in the first half of the debate. This is the most straightforward method of extending the argument of the First Government or First Opposition Team. For instance, shifting from an examination of consequences to an examination of principles and philosophical considerations can create an extension that differs in both method and content. If the first half has focused on consequences or pragmatics, changing the focus to principles or philosophy can be a good extension strategy. On the other hand, if the First Government Team focused on principles or philosophical considerations, an appropriate type of extension might involve an examination of consequences or pragmatics. If the first half has focused on principles or philosophy, this extension can change the direction of the debate. In both of these cases, the extension succeeds in changing the focus of the debate from what was introduced by the First Government Team without indicting that approach. An example of extension arguments that might be used in a motion about smoking are presented in the diagram below:
1705134605
1705134606
1705134607
1705134608
1705134609
1705134610
1705134611
1705134612
Sometimes, circumstances will arise when the debaters feel they cannot or should not offer an entirely new argument. In one case, the First Government Team may have made all of the available arguments, or at least all of the available good arguments. In such a circumstance, the debater has other options. For one thing, he or she can provide further and more in-depth evidence and reasoning for an argument made by the other team. In the case where the First Government Team made an argument that contained three sub-claims, and one of those claims was not particularly well developed, the Member of Government might develop it more fully by providing more evidence and more reasoning. For instance, if the First Government Team focused primarily on a problem and only secondarily on providing a solution to the problem, the Member of Government might say something such as, “Our colleagues on the Opening Government Team did an excellent job of identifying a very significant problem. We would like to extend their argument with greater focus on the cause of the problem and on its solution.” By providing more in-depth argument about the cause and solution, the Member of Government can move the debate forward in a way that maintains consistency with the First Government Team yet moves the debate in a new and fuller direction. In another example, perhaps the Opening Government did focus on the solution to the problem but provided less information about the positive effects the proposal would have. The Member of Government might extend the debate by talking about the extent of those effects—the number of people that might be affected or the precise nature of the effects that the proposal would have. Either of these are good examples where a Member of Government speaker can move the debate forward without introducing an argument that is totally new to the debate. The chart below provides examples of Member of Government extensions that use more in-depth evidence and examples.
1705134613
1705134614
1705134615
1705134616
1705134617
1705134618
1705134619
1705134620
This kind of extension will be more successful to the extent that the in-depth reasoning and evidence have made the argument unique and distinct from the way it was presented by the First Government Team.
1705134621
1705134622
Yet another method of extending the debate without developing an entirely new argument is to present a focused case study to support the First Government Team’s argument. This kind of extension focuses the arguments made by the first half on a particular group of people (such as, children, elderly, minorities, etc.) An extended development of a case study can succeed in making an argument different and hence unique. For instance, if the motion is about smoking and the First Government’s arguments focus generally on the health consequences of smoking, the Member of Government might extend the debate by focusing on children as a case study of health effects of smoking. The diagram below illustrates how a focused case study might contribute to extending the debate.
1705134623
1705134624
1705134625
1705134626
1705134627
In either of the cases, the team will likely be more persuasive if the approach they take is different from that of the First Proposition.
1705134628
1705134629
思辨精英：英语辩论-构筑全球视角 [:1705132391]
1705134630
8.2.3 Extending the Debate: Important Considerations
1705134631
1705134632
By way of summarizing the idea of extending arguments, three important considerations should be emphasized regarding the choice of extensions. The Member Speaker offering the extension should be able to answer all of the following questions in the affirmative.
1705134633
1705134634
First, does the extension maintain loyalty to the Member speaker’s colleagues in the first half of the debate? If the extension in any way contradicts the positions made by colleagues in the first half of the debate, the Member speaker will be seen as disloyal. Furthermore, the more the extension can be integrated with the arguments of the First Government Team or the First Opposition Team, the stronger the extension will be.
1705134635
1705134636
Second, does the extension show how the Member speaker is distinguished from his or her colleagues in the first half of the debate? Being loyal to yet distinct from the First Government Team or First Opposition Team is a subtle but necessary process. Just as one party in a coalition government wants to retain an identity distinct from the other party, so each of the closing teams in the debate wants to be distinguished from their corresponding opening team.
1705134637
1705134638
Third, can the extension provide a distinct perspective from your team while simultaneously keeping the debate on track? The extension argument must not, in the case of the Second Government Team, move away from the model. In the case of the Second Opposition Team, the extension must not move away from the position (statement of advocacy) established by First Opposition Team. The extensions of both Member Speakers need continue to support the position of the Lower House while setting a distinct perspective by the Second Government and Second Opposition Teams.