1705135204 In the fourth step, the debater should explain the reasons underlying his or her assessment of the refutation. Why is the refutation inadequate? What are the reasons that underlie such an assessment of inadequacy? A debater might say something such as, “Even if true, the refutation does not deny the basic thrust of our argument,” or “The refutation is based on evidence offered a year ago when the situation was entirely different from today.” In other words, the fourth step is an opportunity to explain why the assessment of the refutation is as it is.

1705135205

1705135206 In the fifth step, the debater will re-establish the original argument in light of his or her assessment of the refutation. Given the assessment of the refutation and comparing this assessment to the original argument, why is the original argument still persuasive? The fifth step also is a good place for a debater to add something new to the original argument. Perhaps the debater can strengthen part of a causal relationship that was implicit but not explicit in the original argument. Perhaps the debater can intensify the value that already exists in the original argument. By adding something new to the original argument, the debater signals to the judge that he or she is adding something new to the debate by enhancing the argument introduced by his or her partner.

1705135207

1705135208 The five steps are illustrated in the following diagram:

1705135209

1705135210 Step 1: Identify the original argument.

1705135211

1705135212

1705135213

1705135214 “We said …”

1705135215

1705135216 “Our original argument was that educational reform is a necessity.”

1705135217

1705135218 Step 2: Identify the refutation to the original argument.

1705135219

1705135220 “Our opponents said…”

1705135221

1705135222 “Our opponents refuted the argument by saying that education is already being reformed.

1705135223

1705135224 Step 3: State the assessment of the opponent’s refutation.

1705135225

1705135226 “But we say …”

1705135227

1705135228 “But we say the refutation offered by our opponents is insufficient.”

1705135229

1705135230 Step 4: Explain the details of your assessment.

1705135231

1705135232 “Because …”

1705135233

1705135234 “The reforms mentioned by the opposition are cosmetic, and taken as a whole, current reforms do not provide the kinds of reforms that are needed.”

1705135235

1705135236 Step 5: Re-establish the original argument in light of the refutation.

1705135237

1705135238 “Therefore…”

1705135239

1705135240 “Therefore, our original argument that reform is a necessity still stands, even in light of the opposition’s refutation.”

1705135241

1705135242 These five steps are a practical method of rebuilding an argument. They simply represent one way to rebuild an argument that has been refuted. The important thing to remember is that in the process of rebuilding, refutation is integrated with argument construction so that a debater’s original argument can be revitalized. Rebuilding an argument is important because otherwise, once refuted, an argument has no further life in the debate. If a debater introduces what they consider to be an important argument and another debater refutes that argument, the team supporting the original argument is obliged to do their best to rebuild that argument.

1705135243

1705135244 思辨精英：英语辩论-构筑全球视角 [:1705132417]

1705135245 10.3 Summary

1705135246

1705135247 Refutation involves refuting an argument, in order to invalidate or otherwise weaken that argument. Refutation also is used to revalidate an argument that already has been refuted. Thus, refutation has two different functions: to invalidate arguments and revalidate them. The process of rebuilding or revalidating arguments involves an integration of the rebuttal and constructive functions of argument.

1705135248

1705135249 Debaters need to remember that they cannot and should not refute every argument. Deciding which arguments should be refuted is an important part of the art of debating. Debaters need to learn to decide which arguments should be refuted and which are so unimportant that they can safely be ignored.

1705135250

1705135251 Refutation, whether to weaken or to rebuild an argument, may include internal and external methods of refutation. Refutation can be accomplished by following a four-step process that uses the phrases “they say,” “but I say,” “because,” and “therefore.” After the process of refutation, the process of rebuilding an argument allows a debater to reconstruct an argument that has been weakened by refutation. This process of rebuilding an argument can be accomplished by a five-step process using phrases such as, “we said,” “they said,” “but we say,” “because,” and “therefore.” Those steps sound, and are, quite mechanical. They are not designed to be a hardand-fast template for how to conduct the processes of refuting and rebuilding. They are designed as a rubric to help debaters understand the important elements of these processes so that they can communicate their refutation and rebuilding effectively.

1705135252

1705135253 反驳的目的是为了推翻或者削弱对方的论点。有时，反驳也可以使已经被驳斥的论点重新站住脚。因此，反驳兼具推翻某一论点和重构论点的双重功效。重构论点的过程包括驳斥论点和建设性重构论点。

[ 上一页 ]  [ :1.705135204e+09 ]  [ 下一页 ]