1705135949
· How do elements like speaking rate, pauses, volume, and tone contribute to effective delivery?
1705135950
1705135951
思辨精英：英语辩论-构筑全球视角 [:1705132467]
1705135952
14.8 Exercises for Chapter 14
1705135953
1705135954
· Exercise 1:
1705135955
1705135956
The purpose of this exercise is to allow students to see the effectiveness of their natural manner of delivery and contrast it to their manner of delivery in a debate. Have a student prepare an argument and present the argument to a group of students. Video recording this speech is best, but if this is impossible, comments from the group of students also work well. After the presentation of the argument, ask the students to sit quietly and imagine a very memorable incident in their lives. Tell the students to bring their memories of that incident into the foreground of their consciousness imagining that they were physically present in the time and place that the incident occurred. After they have sat quietly and contemplated this incident, have each student stand and describe the incident to the other group of students. Discuss the differences in delivery between the students’ argumentative speeches and their descriptions of the incident.
1705135957
1705135958
1705135959
1705135960
· Exercise 2:
1705135961
1705135962
Choose an emotion (outrage, triumph, celebration, concern, etc.). Tell a story of a recent news event in which that emotion was central. The goal of the exercise is to have the audience guess the emotion you are expressing through tone, volume, facial expression, etc.
1705135963
1705135964
1705135965
1705135966
· Exercise 3:
1705135967
1705135968
Ask students to prepare an argument for or against a motion. Rather than delivering the argument in a speech, ask the students to first tell the instructor or one other student about the argument in conversation.
1705135969
1705135970
1705135971
1705135972
Notes
1705135973
1705135974
1 Our approach to fallacious arguments and to the criteria for the logical assessment of arguments is completely borrowed from the work of two Canadian Philosophers: Ralph H. Johnson and J. Anthony Blair in their book entitled Logical Self-Defense (2006).
1705135975
1705135976
2 Much of this section is based on material from Kay Ann Cassell and Uma Hiremath’s Reference and Information Services in the 21st Century (2006) and Rebecca Sullivan’s Web Research in Academic Libraries (2010).
1705135977
1705135978
3 Many library websites provide examples of how to evaluate websites. Sullivan aggregates a number of these, and the information presented here draws heavily from her book.
1705135979
1705135980
4 A link: search will find pages that link to a particular page. This allows researchers to examine the interrelationships among web pages. For instance, searching on link www.chinareform.org will return pages that link to China Institute for Reform and Development’s main web page. Researchers can use this information to help determine authority and evidence of potential bias. The help files for a search engine will usually indicate whether the search engine supports this feature.
1705135981
1705135982
1705135983
1705135984
1705135985
思辨精英：英语辩论-构筑全球视角 [:1705132468]
1705135986
思辨精英：英语辩论-构筑全球视角 Part FourElements of Argument and Argumentation
1705135987
1705135988
The chapters in Part Four introduce some important features of argumentation in general. Those features of argumentation are important, not just to educational debate, but to all forms of argumentation that people encounter in society. The features are described in a basic model borrowed from Philosopher Stephen Toulmin created in 1958 (Uses of Argument) and later modified in 1988 in The Abuse of Casuistry: A History of Moral Reasoning. (Jonsen and Toulmin, 1988: 35) The basic model is so commonly recognized among argumentation teachers and writers that it is now simply referred to as the Toulmin Model of Argument.
1705135989
1705135990
The modified Toulmin Model includes four elements and looks like this:
1705135991
1705135992
1705135993
1705135994
1705135995
In this text, the term data is replaced with evidence, warrant is replaced with link, and rebuttal is replaced with exception. All of these modifications in language are made for the sake of clarity. The concepts remain the same. Thus, the Toulmin Model as discussed in this text looks like this:
1705135996
1705135997
1705135998