1705135025
1705135026
1705135027
1705135029
思辨精英：英语辩论-构筑全球视角 Chapter 10Refuting and Rebuilding Arguments
1705135030
1705135031
Robert Trapp
1705135032
1705135033
Chapter Outline
1705135034
1705135035
10.1 Refuting Arguments
1705135036
1705135037
10.2 Rebuilding Arguments
1705135038
1705135039
10.3 Summary
1705135040
1705135041
10.4 Terms and Concepts from Chapter 10
1705135042
1705135043
10.5 Discussion Questions for Chapter 10
1705135044
1705135045
10.6 Exercises for Chapter 10
1705135046
1705135047
So far, the discussions in this text have focused mainly on the process of constructing arguments. For ease of understanding, this text has spoken about making arguments to support or oppose a motion as if those arguments existed in their own space, without regard to any other debaters or any other issues. Of course, in an actual debate, arguments are made always with an eye toward how they interact with other arguments. Furthermore, anytime anyone makes an argument, they take the risk that another person will confront their argument. In a debate, that risk is almost a certainty. This chapter will focus on how one speaker refutes the arguments of another, then how, once refuted, another speaker revives and rebuilds those arguments.
1705135048
1705135049
1705135050
1705135052
10.1 Refuting Arguments
1705135053
1705135054
Refutation is the act or process of refuting an argument raised by another debater. According to that usage, “refutation” is a noun and “refute” is a verb. In any debate, refutation is one of the processes used for interacting with other arguments. Refutation is the act of refuting or criticizing an argument made by someone else, to show how that argument is somehow problematic. The argument can be shown to be weak, incomplete, poorly proven, or false. In addition to using refutation to weaken an argument, it also can be used to defend a position that another debater has refuted. Refutation is an interactive process wherein debaters critically examine one another’s arguments by comparing them to other arguments deemed to be cogent, or by subjecting them to various tests of strength. The process of refutation applies both to invalidating or validating an argument.
1705135055
1705135056
Refutation also applies to rebuilding. Thus, this chapter deals with the twin topics of refuting and rebuilding. Refuting is generally thought of as a process of invalidating an argument, and rebuilding is considered a process of revalidating an argument. The first part of the chapter will deal with refutation used to disprove, debunk, discredit, or otherwise invalidate an argument, and the second part of the chapter will deal with rebuilding, repairing, and reconstructing arguments previously refuted.
1705135057
1705135058
Refutation serves several purposes. The first one that people ordinarily think about is that refutation weakens, destroys, dismantles, or overturns an argument. Thinking of refutation in that manner occurs when debaters are interested in making arguments that prevail over those of other debaters. In that situation, debaters would use refutation to weaken the argument of their opponents so that judges will see their arguments as superior.
1705135059
1705135060
A second function of refutation, even when it is used to invalidate an argument, involves a generative process where refutation shows the weaknesses of an argument and those weaknesses are then used to generate better arguments. This generative process of refutation can lead the original debater to improve his or her argument to account for the weaknesses pointed out in the refutation. Refutation also can help the person refuting to make better arguments to support his or her side of the motion. The second function of refutation, the generative function, is much better suited to the nature of excellent debate than the first. Of course, a debater can weaken or even “destroy” an opponent’s arguments using refutation, but a truly excellent debater uses refutation to make a better debate by generating better arguments.
1705135061
1705135062
In this section, we will discuss methods of refutation, methods of deciding what to refute, and introduce a four-step process of refutation.
1705135063
1705135065
10.1.1 Methods of Refutation
1705135066
1705135067
Refutation can be accomplished by methods that are internal or external to the arguments being refuted. The internal method involves pointing to fallacious reasoning, and the external method involves creating a counter argument. Of course, refutation can also be accomplished by a combination of these two methods.
1705135068
1705135069
10.1.1.1 Internal Refutation The first method of refutation can be called internal because it involves examining the argument by looking at its component parts and the relationship of those parts to one another. When debaters examine an argument internally, they are trying to decide whether or not it meets the criteria for a good argument. If it does not, the argument is said to be “fallacious.” Thus, the internal method of refutation involves the process of detecting fallacies.1 The concept of fallacies is briefly developed here simply to illustrate the idea of internal refutation. Fallacies will be discussed briefly in this section and more extensively in Chapter 21.
1705135070
1705135071
To understand the process of detecting fallacious arguments, the criteria for the logical assessment of arguments needs to be examined more fully. A good argument must have good evidence, and the evidence should be soundly linked to a claim. The features of argument—claims, evidence, and links—will be more fully discussed later. For now, we will simply say that an argument is a good one if it is built upon good evidence and good links between the evidence and the claim.
1705135072
1705135073
Canadian Philosophers, Ralph H. Johnson and J. Anthony Blair, developed three standards for distinguishing good arguments from poor ones. Those standards are related to the quality of evidence and the quality of the links between evidence and claims; the first standard is related to evidence, and the second and third standards are related to links. The three standards are called acceptability, relevance, and sufficiency. The following diagram, that we will henceforth call the Johnson and Blair Model of Argument Cogency, is a simple illustration of these three criteria (Johnson and Blair, 2006: 55).
1705135074
[
上一页 ]
[ :1.705135025e+09 ]
[
下一页 ]