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
1705135182
10.2.1 Five-Step Method of Rebuilding an Argument
1705135183
1705135184
Rebuilding is an art that can be accomplished in a variety of ways. The following five-step process is one such way:
1705135185
1705135186
(1) Stating the thesis of the original argument,
1705135187
1705135188
(2) Stating the refutation offered against the original argument,
1705135189
1705135190
(3) Assessing whether or not the refutation really weakens the original argument,
1705135191
1705135192
(4) Refuting the refutation, and,
1705135193
1705135194
(5) Re-establishing the original argument in light of the insufficient refutation offered against it.
1705135195
1705135196
In the argument about educational reform previously introduced in this chapter, the original argument was that educational reform is a necessity. The Opposition refuted this argument by claiming that educational reform already was being accomplished. The rebuilding of this argument might then proceed by following the five steps mentioned above.
1705135197
1705135198
The first step simply involves identifying the original argument. The debater might say something such as, “Our original argument was that educational reform was a necessity.” The first step is intended to identify for the judge and the audience the precise argument that the debater intends to rebuild. Using the same language that was originally used is quite important because subtle changes in language might confuse judges and audiences. So, if the original argument was “Educational reform is a necessity,” debaters should not change the language to something like “Reform of education is important.” Although the second phrase is really not that different from the first, maintaining the language of the original argument simply helps to ensure that the debater and the audience are on the same page regarding the argument that the debater wants to rebuild.
1705135199
[
上一页 ]
[ :1.70513515e+09 ]
[
下一页 ]