1705134824 Answering both of those questions is clearly important to deciding which side of the debate is best. These two questions could provide a solid framework for a summary, looking at each of the important arguments that had been made in the debate and re-examining them in terms of how they influence the answer to those two questions. But, a good Whip speaker should realize that these are not the only fundamental questions that could be used. Indeed, Whip speakers need to choose a set of fundamental questions that emphasizes the strengths of their arguments(just as when using the Regrouping Method, the debater needs to choose the stakeholder groups carefully), while still ensuring that the questions appear to be fundamental, neutral, and fair. Indeed, the fundamental questions given in the example above are so neutral and fair that they may not be perfect for either side of the debate to use.

1705134825

1705134826 The most effective Whip speakers will ask a set of fundamental questions that seem entirely neutral and that maximize the likelihood that the audience will be persuaded that the speaker’s side of the debate is right. So, using this same example about Syria, the Opposition Whip might build a summary around these fundamental questions:

1705134827

1705134828 1) Will the world be better off if the rebels succeed in overthrowing the current government?

1705134829

1705134830 2) Are airstrikes the best method to facilitate the overthrow of the current government?

1705134831

1705134832 3) Is the US the right agent to be carrying out these airstrikes?

1705134833

1705134834 They provide three unique opportunities to convince the audience that the opposition is right, any one of which is sufficient to persuade the audience and the adjudicators. First, the world may be worse off if rebels overthrow the government because they may set up a repressive regime or they may not be successful in setting up any stable government at all, in which case, the air strikes will just make things worse. Second, even if a rebel overthrow would make things better, other methods of overthrow might accomplish the same goal more effectively. For example, either a negotiated settlement (which might be thwarted by airstrikes) or a military victory without foreign intervention might be a path superior to rebel overthrow. Third, even if a rebel overthrow would make things better and the best way to achieve that is through air strikes, the US military may not be the right actor to perform those airstrikes, perhaps because US intervention will inflame tensions much more than strikes by NATO or other Middle-Eastern states.

1705134835

1705134836 The strategy in this summary framework is to ask fundamental questions in a way that highlights that, if the Whip speaker’s side is right about any one of the answers to those questions, that side is right about the whole debate. Obviously, this is a more powerful way to structure the fundamental summary questions than to ask a set of questions that require answers to all of them to convince the audience, but that is not always possible. In debates about policy (which are the most common debates), because the Opposition Team just needs to show that the Government’s plan has some major flaw, they will more likely be able to set up a series of questions so that getting the audience to agree about any one of them will persuade them that their side is correct.

1705134837

1705134838 Of course, the Government Whip can devise other ways to construct fundamental questions that are more likely to persuade people to the Government side of the debate. The Government Whip’s summary could be built around these questions:

1705134839

1705134840 (1) What are the goals of US foreign policy in the Middle-East?

1705134841

1705134842 (2) Will the current Syrian government change into a partner for peace without external military intervention?

1705134843

1705134844 (3) Will limited airstrikes increase the likelihood that the government of Syria will transform into a partner for regional peace?

1705134845

1705134846 (4) Will anyone else intervene with sufficient effectiveness if the US does not?

1705134847

1705134848 Those questions highlight the features of the situation that suggest that US intervention is appropriate, such as the longstanding US interest in regional peace, the fact that other agents are unlikely to intervene and be effective, and emphasizing that the Government side of the debate does not need to guarantee success, just increase the probability of success so that the likely benefits will outweigh the likely harms.

1705134849

1705134850 Regardless of which fundamental questions the Whip speaker uses, the question should be answered in such a way that the audience clearly sees the process of the Whip speaker directly comparing the arguments relevant to that question that were offered by each side. An effective summary needs to show why the arguments already made (when properly understood in the context of these fundamental questions) are enough to win the debate. Whip speakers understandably should emphasize the arguments made by their teammate in the Member speech. Doing so can help their team place well in the debate. That being said, providing a summary that ignores strong arguments on the Whip speaker’s side just because they were made by the opening team is unwise. The more persuasive a Whip speech is, the more credit the Whip speaker’s team will get, even if some of the arguments emphasized in the summary were arguments made by the Opening team.

1705134851

1705134852 In most cases, although the earlier debaters may have touched upon the fundamental questions, those questions have not been stated quite so clearly and directly, and have not been answered in a manner that seems to settle the entire matter so completely. The Reframing Method starts by identifying what the important questions really are, and then explaining why the correct answers(as provided in the Whip speaker’s side in the debate) demonstrate that his or her side is superior. Thus, the Reframing Method stands in direct contrast to the Repeating Method, which starts by identifying arguments that the Whip’s team is winning, and only then tries to explain why these arguments are the most important.

1705134853

1705134854 Because debate motions are so diverse, appropriate fundamental questions are also quite diverse. However, most debate motions tend to be about public policy issues, and there are some common fundamental questions that can often be asked that either are appropriate as they are stated here, or, are likely to point you toward the fundamental questions that would be appropriate in a particular debate.

1705134855

1705134856 Regardless of which side of the debate you are on, the following questions are often relevant:

1705134857

1705134858 · Will this plan achieve its goal (eliminate or significantly reduce the harm in the status quo)?

1705134859

1705134860 · What is the purpose of … (whatever kind of thing is relevant to the plan)?

1705134861

1705134862 ￭ What is the purpose of government?

1705134863

1705134864 ￭ What is the function of public education?

1705134865

1705134866 ￭ What is the proper goal of doctors?

1705134867

1705134868 ￭ What are the legitimate ends of foreign intervention?

1705134869

1705134870 ￭ What is the purpose of punishing criminals?

1705134871

1705134872 · How do we determine when an action of this type (e.g., paternalism) is warranted?

1705134873

[ 上一页 ]  [ :1.705134824e+09 ]  [ 下一页 ]