1705135101
10.1.2 Deciding What to Refute
1705135102
1705135103
Time does not usually permit refutation of each and every argument. In a competitive debate situation, each debater has a limited amount of time and needs to think about the judicious use of time. Debaters need to remember that, not only will they be engaging in refutation, but they need to have time to present constructive arguments as discussed in previous chapters of this text.
1705135104
1705135105
Even in a situation where time is not limited, the choice to try to refute every argument still may be unwise. Imagine how an audience might react to a debater who said “no” to every point raised by a speaker. The audience might perceive the debater to be particularly arrogant and disrespectful of the speaker of the opposite side. So, whether time is or is not of the essence, the debater needs to make some judgments about which arguments to refute.
1705135106
1705135107
Since every argument cannot and should not be refuted, debaters will need some guidelines to decide where to focus their efforts. A frequent error committed by beginning debaters is to look for their opponents’ weakest arguments and focus their efforts there. The implicit idea is that, because something can be refuted it should be refuted. In cases like these, the beginning debater frequently refutes a number of arguments that have no overall impact on the outcome of the debate.
1705135108
1705135109
Instead of focusing on refuting weak arguments, debaters with more experience focus on refuting particularly important arguments. By focusing on the important arguments, debaters have a greater likelihood that their overall plan of refutation will have a greater impact on the debate. Every argument a debater makes is not equally important. Debaters should refute only those that are the most important.
1705135110
1705135111
Deciding whether or not an argument is important involves at least two considerations:
1705135112
1705135113
First, is the argument essential to the case made by the opposing speaker? If it is, the debater will want to consider refuting that argument. For example, if an opponent suggests that the principle that supports reform of hukou is equality of the individual, the debater may want to refute the fact that equality is not an important principle in collectivist society. In this example, because the opponent has held equality of the individual as a high value, presenting the value of a collectivist society as higher than that of the individual is an important factor in the overall judgment.
1705135114
1705135115
Second, does the argument stand in the way of some important argument that the debater engaging in refutation wants to make? If so, that debater needs to refute it. For example, a debater on the Government side intends to advance an argument that reform of education will advance the principle of sustaining one’s community. If, in this case, an Opposing debater claims that the current education system is congruent with community values, the Government debater supporting the proposition should consider refuting the connection between the educational system and community values. Otherwise, the debater defending the motion cannot possibly continue to advance the argument because the principle of sustaining a community is no longer held as important.
1705135116
1705135117
After debaters think about internal and external methods of refutation and consider what arguments should and should not be refuted, they are ready to think about the method of refutation that they will use.
1705135118
1705135120
10.1.3 Four-Step Method of Refutation
1705135121
1705135122
No single method of refutation exists that is inherently better than all of the other methods. However, for beginners, we suggest the following four-step method because it has the advantages of being simple and containing the elements most important to refutation. Of course, as debaters advance in their skills, they may want to experiment with this method just as they experiment with other aspects of debate. The four steps can be most easily defined by the following four phrases:
1705135123
1705135124
“They say …”
1705135125
1705135126
“But I say …”
1705135127
1705135128
“Because …”
1705135129
1705135130
“Therefore …”
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
[
上一页 ]
[ :1.7051351e+09 ]
[
下一页 ]