1705135131
1705135132
The first phrase, “They say …” identifies the argument that the debater is going to refute. Identifying the exact argument about to be refuted is particularly important in order to orient the audience or judge with the argument to which the debater is referring. Sometimes, beginning debaters start the process of refutation without clearly identifying the argument they are refuting. Judges and audiences are left disoriented regarding what the speaker is actually doing. The simple phrase, “My opponents said that education policies are already being reformed,” successfully identifies the argument that the debater is about to refute. This simple statement constitutes the first of the four-step process.
1705135133
1705135134
The second phrase “But I say …” states the debater’s response to the argument about to be refuted. Sometimes, debaters start explaining their refutation before they concisely state the central idea of the refutation. Judges and audiences can get lost in the explanation if they have not been told the central idea before the explanation. The phrase, “But I say …” provides the orientation needed by the judge or audience to be able to understand the explanation. By saying, for instance, “But these education reforms referred to by my opponents are merely cosmetic,” the audience or the judge is oriented to the explanation that is to follow. This is the second of the four steps.
1705135135
1705135136
The third phrase, “Because …” signals that the debater is about to begin explaining the details of his or her refutation. This step contains the bulk of the refutation. This third phase is when the debater either explains why the argument to be refuted contains one or more fallacies, or explains a counter argument. This step might begin with a sentence such as, “The reforms mentioned by my opponent do not solve the essential problems of employment opportunities or social benefits, and thus are just cosmetic.” Of course, this sentence will then require further explanation, but it begins the third of the four-step process of refutation.
1705135137
1705135138
The fourth phrase, “Therefore …” signals that the debater is about to explain the importance of the refutation. The simple refutation of an argument does not have much of an impact on the debate unless the debater takes the time to explain what difference the refutation makes to the argument under consideration, or better yet, what difference the refutation makes to the debate as a whole. Many debaters frequently overlook this important step. So, the sentence, “My opponent’s argument is not sufficient to suggest that reform of education policy is unnecessary,” would require more explanation, but is one good way to begin the fourth of the four-step process of refutation.
1705135139
1705135140
The following is a summary of the four-step process of refutation:
1705135141
1705135142
Step 1: Identify the argument to be refuted.
1705135143
1705135144
1705135145
1705135146
“They say …”
1705135147
1705135148
“My opponents said that education policies are already being reformed.”
1705135149
1705135150
Step 2: State your response to their argument.
1705135151
1705135152
“But I say …”
1705135153
1705135154
“But these educational reforms referred to by my opponents are merely cosmetic.”
1705135155
1705135156
Step 3: Explain the details of your refutation.
1705135157
1705135158
“Because …”
1705135159
1705135160
“The reforms mentioned by my opponent do not solve the essential problems of employment opportunities or social benefits, and thus are just cosmetic.”
1705135161
1705135162
Step 4: Explain the importance of your refutation.
1705135163
1705135164
“Therefore …”
1705135165
1705135166
“My opponent’s argument is not sufficient to suggest that changes to education policy are unnecessary.”
1705135167
1705135168
As stated earlier, this four-step process is not the only process of engaging refutation, but it is a good one for beginners to learn as they develop their skills. More advanced debaters can change and enhance this and other processes of argumentation.
1705135169
1705135171
10.2 Rebuilding Arguments
1705135172
1705135173
As stated earlier, the process of refutation can be used to invalidate or otherwise weaken an argument. Refutation also is used in the process of rebuilding arguments. Refutation can be used to revalidate arguments that have been refuted. This section of the chapter will focus on this use of refutation.
1705135174
1705135175
In most cases, when an argument is refuted, it needs to be rebuilt. Of course, exceptions to that rule exist. Some arguments may not be particularly meaningful, thus, even if they are refuted, their revitalization may not be worth the effort. But most of the time, if a debater presents a major argument and a debater on the other side refutes that argument, the argument needs to be rebuilt.
1705135176
1705135177
The original arguments that a debater presents are presumably among the strongest that the debater has to offer. If this is the case, and if those strong arguments are refuted, not to rebuild them may appear to be tacit admission that they were not that strong to begin with. To allow the argument to be refuted and not revive it may communicate to the audience that the argument is weak. In this case, the credibility of both the argument and the debater who presented it may suffer. For this reason, debaters need to revive and reassert their most important arguments before going on to offer new ones.
1705135178
1705135179
Rebuilding is a constructive process that also involves incorporating the original argument with the refutation brought against it. Thus, rebuilding is neither entirely constructive nor entirely rebuttal. It is an integration of both. To rebuild an argument, one must start with the original argument then pay some consideration to the points of refutation brought against it. The rebuilding process then integrates the original argument and the points of refutation in such a way that the original argument survives even in light of the refutation.
1705135180
[
上一页 ]
[ :1.705135131e+09 ]
[
下一页 ]