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

1705136543

1705136544 Check your memory and comprehension by describing or defining these key terms and concepts:

1705136545

1705136546 · Authority

1705136547

1705136548 · Generalization

1705136549

1705136550 · Analogy

1705136551

1705136552 · Causal links

1705136553

1705136554 · Principle

1705136555

1705136556 · Incompatibility

1705136557

1705136558 · Dissociation

1705136559

1705136560 思辨精英：英语辩论-构筑全球视角 [:1705132497]

1705136561 17.10 Discussion Questions for Chapter 17

1705136562

[ 上一页 ]  [ :1.705136513e+09 ]  [ 下一页 ]