1705135200
The second step identifies for the judge and the audience the refutation that was raised against the original argument. The debater who is interested in rebuilding the original argument should simply restate the refutation as clearly and precisely as possible, being true to the language used by the debater who offered the refutation. So, the debater might say something such as, “Our opponents attempted to refute our argument by saying that education already is being reformed.” The debater who wants to rebuild the original argument need not spend time explaining the refutation, unless he or she intends to show how the internal structure of that argument is flawed. But generally all that is needed is a statement of the refutation itself.
1705135201
1705135202
In the third step, the debater should assess the opponent’s refutation. After having identified the refutation, the debater should then state his or her assessment of the refutation as simply and concisely as possible. For instance, that statement might be as simple as “My opponent’s refutation is insufficient,” “My opponent’s refutation is based on insufficient evidence,” or “My opponent’s refutation is inconsistent with what we know to be true.”
1705135203
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
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.
[
上一页 ]
[ :1.7051352e+09 ]
[
下一页 ]