1705136493 A fourth method of supporting a cause and effect relationship involves controlled empirical studies. As stated earlier, correlation and simultaneous presence of suspected causes and effects are imperfect methods of inferring causal relationships. Sometimes, scholars are able to design controlled empirical studies that help to offset those imperfections. For instance, an empirical study might examine the relationship between smoking and lung cancer while controlling for the effects of other possible causes (such as pollution, genetics, etc.) and might discover that, even considering the potential effects of those alternative causes, the causal relationship between smoking and lung cancer still is substantial.

1705136494

1705136495 Debaters frequently use argument by causality to judge actions based on their consequences. A debater first uses causal links to convince the audience that a particular action will cause certain consequences. In that case, the argument is that an action (smoking) leads to a consequence (lung cancer). Then, the debater can argue that an action that has good consequences is justified while one that has bad consequences is not. Thus, in the smoking example, the debater maintains, either implicitly or explicitly, that society has an obligation to stop people from smoking to reduce the negative consequences of that action.

1705136496

1705136497 We must consider a variety of factors when judging the adequacy of this argument. As causes are inferred but not directly observed, they are difficult to prove and, even in the best of circumstances, cannot be proven completely.

1705136498

1705136499 思辨精英：英语辩论-构筑全球视角 [:1705132492]

1705136500 17.5 Argument by Principle

1705136501

1705136502 Creating a link from a principle to a claim is a useful technique for supporting an argument of evaluation—especially in cases where debaters must justify a particular action. Whereas, the argument by causality is used to judge an action based on its consequences, the argument by principle, as its name implies, judges an action based on the principles involved. A simple comparison might clarify the distinction between consequences and principles. For instance, why is cheating on a college examination a bad idea? An argument based on consequences might suggest that cheating is a bad idea because students who are caught risk being expelled from school. An argument from principle might say you should not cheat because cheating goes against the important principle of honesty. Debaters using argument from principle ordinarily claim that principles are more important than consequences, and that, when consequences and principles point in opposite directions, people should follow the principles.

1705136503

1705136504 An argument from principle ordinarily has three parts. First, the debater must select a principle. Second, the debater should argue for the importance of that principle. Third, the debater should apply the action being contemplated to the principle. One action sometimes justified on principle is the abolition of capital punishment (the death penalty). That example can be used to explain the three parts of an argument by principle.

1705136505

1705136506 In the case of capital punishment, the debater might, for instance, select the sanctity of human life as the appropriate principle. Having selected that principle, she or he would then turn to a consideration of the importance of that principle, perhaps suggesting that we should never violate the sanctity of human life because life is the essence of human existence. Without life, the very essence of humanity is gone. Having selected the principle and shown why it is important, the debater would then apply the action to the principle showing how capital punishment quite obviously violates the sanctity of human life because it involves the intentional taking of a human life.

1705136507

1705136508 One of the difficulties with the previous example is that many people do not accept the principle of the sanctity of human life in all situations. For instance, most societies are willing to set aside that principle in matters of self-, family-, or societal-defense. In other words, most societies agree that the taking of a human life in self-defense, in defense of one’s family, or in defense of one’s nation is justified. As a result, some debaters might revise the argument slightly by modifying the selected principle and, as a result, the rest of the argument. That modified argument would, of course, need to argue that capital punishment is not needed in matters of self-, family-, or societal-defense.

1705136509

1705136510 The adequacy of an argument from principle depends on several assumptions. First, the argument presumes that the articulated principle is sound, in general, or at least in the context in which it is being applied. Frequently, persons who use an argument by principle claim that the principle applies universally. For example, some claim that the sanctity of human life is absolute and universal—that no cases exist in which the intentional taking of human life is justified. In other cases, arguers might define a specific context in which the principle is applicable. A debater might be unwilling to defend the sanctity of life as an absolute and universal principle, and might acknowledge certain instances where the principle should be set aside. The debater might, therefore, refine the principle by arguing that the sanctity of life should apply in situations that do not involve self-defense or defense of one’s family or community.

1705136511

1705136512 A second assumption of the argument from principle is that the action being defended applies unambiguously to the principle. A debater would have little difficulty demonstrating that capital punishment clearly applies to the principle of sanctity of human life, because capital punishment obviously ends a human life; however, the debater would have to construct a more elaborate argument to show that capital punishment applies to the principle against taking a life except in self-defense. In that case, the debater would need to argue that capital punishment is not necessary for a society to defend itself against potential murderers. The debater could argue that capital punishment is not necessary for self-defense for a variety of reasons, for instance, that life imprisonment without parole, instead of capital punishment, is a sufficient means of societal self-defense. Whether the principle involves the sanctity of human life in general, or the sanctity of human life except in cases of self-defense, the debater would need to establish that capital punishment is unequivocally related to the principle.

1705136513

1705136514 思辨精英：英语辩论-构筑全球视角 [:1705132493]

1705136515 17.6 Argument by Incompatibility

1705136516

1705136517 Incompatibility is a kind of argument used to refute an opponent’s argument and, by implication, support the debater’s own. Using this kind of argument, a debater can attempt to show that an opponent holds incompatible views on a particular issue and that, as a result, one of those views must be discarded. For instance, a debater using that argument might argue, “How can my opponent be a supporter of human rights and still support the US war in Iraq?” The assumption is that the US war in Iraq was incompatible with human rights, and, thus, a person cannot logically support both human rights and the US war in Iraq simultaneously, and that, as a result, the opponent cannot logically support the war.

1705136518

1705136519 The argument from incompatibility has its foundation in principles of both logic and physics. A principle of physics maintains that two objects cannot be in the same place at the same time. Analytic philosophers hold to a precept that they call the “principle of non-contradiction.” That principle states that an object cannot simultaneously be and not be X. Those two principles are similar to an argument by incompatibility, but are not the same. Although two objects cannot be in the same place at the same time, an arguer can, even logically, hold two positions that seem incompatible. The difference is that the properties of the physical world are not amenable to change by interpretation. A person cannot “interpret” the physical world such that that person and an oncoming train would be able to occupy the same space at the same time. However, an arguer may be able to interpret the “US war in Iraq” and “human rights” in such a way that they are not incompatible.

1705136520

1705136521 The argument by incompatibility can function in a variety of ways. First, an argument by incompatibility can allow a debater to argue that, “Views held by my opponent are different from views held by the opponent in a different time or place.” Such a suggestion, if supported, allows a debater to cast doubt on the current argument of the opponent. If a debater makes arguments at one time or place that are opposite to arguments that he or she made in another time or place, that debater may lose a great deal of credibility and his or her arguments may become more suspect. Second, an argument of incompatibility can help a debater argue that, “The views of my opponent are incompatible with some accepted fact.” If a debater makes a statement that is incompatible with accepted facts, that statement arguably cannot be trusted. Third, an argument by incompatibility allows a debater to argue that the opponent’s views are incompatible with accepted values: “Refusal to act in this particular situation is incompatible with our values.” If principles or values demand a certain course of action, but society is not moving toward that action, an argument by incompatibility can suggest a change in action or policy.

1705136522

1705136523 Argument by incompatibility is an interesting way to make arguments of value—especially in debates where the opposing debaters are expected to state their own positions. Because most people have come to believe consistency is important, incompatibility links can be very persuasive. The next category of arguments is sometimes used in reaction to arguments of incompatibility.

1705136524

1705136525 思辨精英：英语辩论-构筑全球视角 [:1705132494]

1705136526 17.7 Argument by Dissociation

1705136527

1705136528 Most of the previous kinds of arguments discussed operate by linking various concepts with one another. The causal argument associates cause and effect, argument by example associates several examples with one another, and argument by authority associates persons and acts. The last type of argument is different because it takes as its starting point a unified concept and divides it into two different concepts using a process called dissociation (Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca, 1969: 411-459).

1705136529

1705136530 The process of dissociation starts with a concept that the audience is assumed to value, and then divides that concept into two new concepts, one which is valued and one which is not. Then, the arguer shows how valuing one of the new concepts and opposing the other can avoid the incompatibility. In this manner, the argument by dissociation is a means to argue against an argument of incompatibility.

1705136531

1705136532 At one point in the history of many cultures, a concept of the place of a woman was valued and agreed upon. In those cultures, the “place” of a woman was in the home, supporting her husband and her children. Any woman who stepped outside of that place was not valued. However, the notion of a “woman’s place” has changed. Many cultures now are coming to think that the real place of a woman is much larger than simply in the home. So, the place of a woman has been dissociated into two concepts: a woman’s traditional place and a woman’s real place, which might more appropriately be called “women’s roles in society.” That dissociation is developed by repeated argument about the place of women until the “place of women” that was once a unified concept is now divided into two concepts: the traditional place of women and the real roles for women in society. So, imagine an advocate’s response when someone accuses him or her of not respecting that “A woman’s place is in the home.” The advocate might argue by dissociation that “I do not restrict a ‘woman’s place’ to the traditional notion of supporting a home, husband, and children. In reality, the role of women in society is much broader, including not only in the home, but in other things like careers, service to society, government service, etc.” By dissociating the concept of a “woman’s place” into the dual concepts of a “woman’s traditional place” from a “woman’s real role in society,” the advocate is able to answer the incompatibility.

1705136533

1705136534 思辨精英：英语辩论-构筑全球视角 [:1705132495]

1705136535 17.8 Summary

1705136536

1705136537 This chapter has described a variety of methods of linking evidence to claims. One purpose is to catalogue various methods that debaters can use to draw such links. Another purpose is to encourage the debater to think about ways that certain kinds of evidence can be used in conjunction with certain kinds of links in order to support certain kinds of claims. In all cases, care needs to be taken to make sure that links are clear and adequately drawn.

1705136538

1705136539 这一章介绍了连接论据和论点的几种方法。目的之一是将辩手们经常使用的连接方法进行归类。此外，本章还意在鼓励辩手们去思考与总结：用何种连接方式，可以使某类论据支撑特定的某类论点。当然在所有情况下，辩手们都要注意给出的连接必须清晰且足够有说服力。

1705136540

1705136541 思辨精英：英语辩论-构筑全球视角 [:1705132496]

1705136542 17.9 Terms and Concepts from Chapter 17

[ 上一页 ]  [ :1.705136493e+09 ]  [ 下一页 ]