1705136310
Because presumptions are frequently as much about how things “ought” to be as about how they really are, presumptions blur the distinction between evidence pertaining to reality and evidence pertaining to preference. The next three categories, however, provide examples of evidence that falls squarely in the category of evidence pertaining to preference.
1705136311
1705136312
16.1.2.1 Value Values provide evaluations of objects, persons, ideas, institutions, etc. Any statement expressing something other than indifference about an object7 is a statement of value. By their nature, values are abstract, but can become more concrete when connected to an object to be evaluated. To argue that Ge is pretty or Jinkai is handsome is to attach a value of beauty to a human object. Although evidence is ordinarily thought of as factual, values also serve as evidence in argument.
1705136313
1705136314
One clear example of how a debater can use value as evidence occurs in arguments about the American system of health care. America is currently involved in an argument over whether it should provide universal health care to all citizens. Those who favor universal health care believe that the right to health care is an important value. Therefore, the value of the right to health care might be used as evidence to support the claim American should adopt a system of universal medical care for all its citizens. Because we do not ordinarily think of values as evidence in argumentation, perhaps a diagram of such an argument may help explain that category:
1705136315
1705136316
1705136317
1705136318
1705136319
The example in the previous diagram shows how a value can be combined with a fact to provide evidence to support a claim. In that case, the value involves the right to health care, and the fact is a statistic involving the number of Americans who do not have access to health care. Both of the two pieces of evidence are then combined to support a claim that “America should adopt a system of universal health care.” This example demonstrates that values can be important sources of evidence, especially in claims of evaluation.
1705136320
1705136321
One problem in using values as evidence is that sometimes audiences hold competing values related to a particular object. With regard to the previous illustration of universal health care, some might also maintain the value of the necessity of reducing the cost of government. While the right to health care might be used to argue for the claim that America should provide a system of universal health care, the value of reducing the cost of government might mitigate against that claim. In situations where values such as the right to health care and the cost of government collide, the more important type of evidence concerns value hierarchies.
1705136322
1705136323
16.1.2.2 Value Hierarchies Value hierarchies order values and establish certain values as more important than others. Value hierarchies are important only when values collide. A person who could choose to act on both of two values would have no reason to order those two values hierarchically.
1705136324
1705136325
So, for instance, if a debater were to use a value hierarchy to argue about the right to health care, he or she might start with a value hierarchy that places the right to health care higher than the cost of government. The reason that one of those values is placed hierarchically over the other is because the two values might interfere with one another—especially in the case of the right to health care and cost of government where people might not be able to achieve both values and thus would be forced to choose one over the other. Such an argument might be illustrated as follows:
1705136326
1705136327
1705136328
1705136329
1705136330
In the example above, the evidence consists of a value hierarchy that places the right to health care over the cost of government. The evidence is then linked to the claim that adopting a system of universal health care is worth the cost of increasing the cost of government. In a great number of debates, arguers find themselves faced with situations where their audiences favor two or more sets of values that seem to collide. In those situations, debaters must determine the proper hierarchy of values and use it as evidence for their positions.
1705136331
1705136332
16.1.2.3 Value Categories Value hierarchies can be thought of as existing in different categories. Philosophers Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca sorted hierarchies into six categories: quantity, quality, order, existence, essence, and person (1969: 85-94). Some hierarchies simply are founded on the category of quantity. That category assumes that more is better than less, thus, more money is higher on the hierarchy than less money. On the other hand, a person whose value hierarchies are organized according to quality probably will argue for something based on its uniqueness or irreplaceability. Therefore, according to the category of quality, the unique or rare is valued more than the common and replaceable. The dispute about global climate change can be used to illustrate the category of quality. The category of quality could be used to assert the importance of the irreplaceable (the environment) over the replaceable (the economy). A debater might use evidence consisting of quality to support a claim that protecting the environment is more important than sustaining the economy. A damaged economy can be restored, but a damaged environment is much more difficult to repair. Thus, the values associated with the environment are unique and irreplaceable. An example of such an argument using evidence from this value category is illustrated below:
1705136333
1705136334
1705136335
1705136336
1705136337
Books about debating rarely treat the last three categories (values, value hierarchies, and value categories) as evidence. Nevertheless, they are important forms of evidence when debating propositions that require evaluation. In addition, because evaluation is central to argumentation and debate, those three categories are quite important.
1705136338
1705136339
思辨精英：英语辩论-构筑全球视角 [:1705132482]
1705136340
16.2 Citing and Documenting Evidence
1705136341
1705136342
Before concluding this chapter about evidence, a few words about citing and documenting evidence are important. The claim, since the debater creates it, can be considered the creative work of the debater. On the other hand, evidence usually does not consist of material created by the debater, but rather of material that is found using some formal or informal method of research. Thus, evidence is usually supporting material that is external to the debater; it is discovered rather than created. For that reason, the debater has an obligation to inform opposing debaters, judges, and audiences where the evidence was discovered. If the evidence consists of personal observations, the debater is obliged to let others know about the nature of those personal observations. If, as is frequently the case, the evidence was discovered by reading and surveying relevant publications on the subject, the debater is obliged to inform others where the evidence was found. How much detail should the debater report when citing the evidence? A good rule of thumb is that the debater should be prepared to provide sufficient detail that would allow the listener (or reader) to find the evidence on their own. The debater should be prepared to offer the name(s) of the author, the title of the book, magazine, or document from which the evidence was extracted, the title of the article in the book or magazine, the date of the article, and the pages on which the information appeared.
1705136343
1705136344
Most who listen to an oral argument do not expect to hear all of the citation for every piece of evidence, but they do expect that the debater would provide the complete citation if requested. So, a debater might say something like “According to a study conducted in 1975 by Professor Samuel Peltzman…” with the expectation that he or she would present the rest of the citation on request. In a written argument, the arguer needs to present the entire citation in the text. The difference between oral and written argument with regard to citing evidence is that a reader cannot always ask the arguer for a citation because the writer and reader may not be in the same physical location. On the other hand, speaker and listener are almost always physically together, so the need to present the entire citation orally is reduced. The important point about citing and documenting evidence is that the debater needs to present or at least be prepared to present enough information so that the listener can find the evidence using only the citation that the debater presents.
1705136345
1705136346
思辨精英：英语辩论-构筑全球视角 [:1705132483]
1705136347
16.3 Summary
1705136348
1705136349
In summary, evidence is the starting point of any argument. Categories of evidence discussed in this chapter include facts, theories, presumptions, values, value hierarchies, and value categories. Much remains to be said about evidence in debate. How does the debater research evidence? How does the debater go about selecting evidence for an argument? How does a debater criticize and evaluate the quality of evidence? We will consider those and other important questions later in this book.
1705136350
1705136351
总而言之，论据是论证过程的起点。本章中我们讨论了各种类型的论据，包括事实、理论、设想、价值判断、价值等级以及价值类别。然而还有很多内容有待挖掘，比如说，辩手们如何搜集论据？如何选取合适的论据为论点服务？如何评估论据的质量？在接下来的章节中，我们将进一步探讨这些及其他重要问题。
1705136352
1705136353
思辨精英：英语辩论-构筑全球视角 [:1705132484]
1705136354
16.4 Terms and Concepts from Chapter 16
1705136355
1705136356
Check your memory and comprehension by describing or defining these key terms and concepts:
1705136357
1705136358
· Facts
1705136359