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

1705134874 · What will happen if we do nothing?

1705134875

1705134876 · Who is the best actor to address this problem?

1705134877

1705134878 · Which are greater, the advantages of the plan or the disadvantages?

1705134879

1705134880 Some questions tend to be more appropriate when defending the Government’s position, because they are typically proposing a change in the status quo. Some examples of those questions are:

1705134881

1705134882 · Are we obliged to take action?

1705134883

1705134884 · Is reducing harms important even if those harms can’t be completely eliminated?

1705134885

1705134886 · Is causing some harms worthwhile given a necessity to eliminate greater harms?

1705134887

1705134888 Similarly, some questions tend to be more appropriate when arguing for the Opposition, such as:

1705134889

[ 上一页 ]  [ :1.70513484e+09 ]  [ 下一页 ]