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

1705134890 · Do better ways exist to achieve this goal?

1705134891

1705134892 · Should a different method be used?

1705134893

1705134894 · Does the plan violate any important rights?

1705134895

1705134896 The questions listed above can be useful as a starting point for those unfamiliar with how to formulate fundamental questions, but most of the questions would sound much too generic if they were used verbatim because Whip speakers offer fundamental questions in a context where at least six people have just spoken on a particular topic and have presumably said some interesting things. Ideally, at least some of the fundamental questions will be pertinent to the arguments that have been made.

1705134897

1705134898 Of course, there are exceptions. Some fundamental questions will come up regularly, such as the question, “What is the purpose of government?” Because debates are often about what the government should do, and because controversial positions about that often depend on different theories of what government should do, the question is a very common fundamental one in debates. So, you should be familiar with the range of plausible answers to that question, and with the strengths and weaknesses of the following answers:

1705134899

1705134900 · Government exists to maintain order and security.

1705134901

1705134902 · Government exists to protect the rights of individuals.

1705134903

1705134904 · Government exists to improve the lives of its citizens.

1705134905

1705134906 · Government exists to give expression to the will of the citizens.

1705134907

1705134908 · Government exists to fulfill the collective obligations of the populace (to themselves and to others).

1705134909

1705134910 Of course, other common questions exist and excellent debaters will want to know or learn some of the common answers to them. As debaters become more experienced, those questions and answers will become familiar.

1705134911

1705134912 思辨精英：英语辩论-构筑全球视角 [:1705132404]

1705134913 9.4 The Response Trap

1705134914

1705134915 One common error in Whip speeches deserves careful attention. That error involves using too much of the Whip speech to respond to the previous speaker instead of focusing on one’s own summary framework. When a Whip speech does not provide enough time for the summary framework, the audience gets no sense of closure about the case for which the Whip speaker is arguing. Because the Government Whip speaker needs to respond to the arguments presented by the Member of Opposition, while the Opposition Whip has no similar obligation, one might assume that the Government Whip speaker is more likely to fall into the response trap, but such is not the case. Certainly, some Government Whip speakers spend too much time on rebuttal and do not emphasize their summary framework enough, but most of the time, they move through the rebuttal in a reasonable amount of time and then have time to present their summary framework.

1705134916

1705134917 The response trap is a bigger problem for the Opposition Whip speaker because, by directly responding to the arguments within Government Whip’s framework, the Opposition Whip distracts the audience from the Opposition’s own summary framework. Thus, the trap for the Opposition Whip speaker is not actually about wasting time, it is about validating the framework used by the Government side, which is typically structured so as to be favorable to their conclusion. If the Opposition Whip tries to directly refute the arguments made by the Government Whip, the Opposition Whip helps to ensure that the debate is happening within the Government’s chosen framework. Having the debate occur within the Government’s framework is obviously not helpful for the Opposition.

1705134918

1705134919 Avoiding the response trap is about not wanting to have the debate on territory that has been set up by your opponents. Instead, a primary goal of the Opposition Whip should be to largely ignore the framework offered by the Government Whip, and offer a new summary framework that is sufficiently compelling so that the audience will prefer to think about the debate through that lens. Of course, if serious flaws exist with the government’s summary framework, the Opposition Whip should probably begin by pointing out those flaws. For example, if the Government Whip speaker used the regrouping method, but entirely left out a large group of people who were significantly harmed by the government’s plan, the Opposition Whip should attack the framework itself. However, attacking the framework is different from arguing within the Government framework and should be very brief. Mainly, the Opposition Whip’s goal should be to change how the audience looks at the debate altogether. That goal may be best accomplished by spending all or almost all of the time within the Opposition’s summary framework.

1705134920

1705134921 One might ask, “Where does rebuttal occur in a Whip speech?” The answer is that rebuttal needs to be woven into the summary framework. The summary framework is just that, a framework, and an outline within which arguments need to be made. Refutation in Whip speeches should generally involve direct comparisons between what the two sides are offering. Consider an example where the Government has proposed the legalization of recreational drugs. The Government side has argued that legalizing drugs will reduce the number of drug addicts because people will no longer be attracted to drugs as a forbidden fruit, public use will discourage people from using drugs excessively, and better addiction treatment centers will be provided under their plan. The Opposition side has argued that addiction will increase because of a decreased stigma regarding drug use, an increase in availability without risk of jail, and a decrease in cost. Of course, both sides have offered other arguments, as well. Now, finally, imagine that the Government Whip speaker offers the following reframing summary framework:

1705134922

1705134923 1) Do people have a fundamental liberty right to use drugs if no one else is harmed?

[ 上一页 ]  [ :1.705134874e+09 ]  [ 下一页 ]