1705136761 Sub-argument 2 (Association):

1705136762

1705136763 Gandhi’s use of non-violent action produced consequences in Ghana. Using Gandhi’s tactics, Ghana became the first African Country to break free of British rule.

1705136764

1705136765 Sub-argument 3 (Evaluation):

1705136766

1705136767 Ghanaian independence from Britain was a positive consequence. Not only did it provide a non-violent means of freeing citizens of Ghana from British rule, it also provided a model for the advancement of civil rights in the United States.

1705136768

1705136769 The argument illustrated above is one that seeks to attach a value (being one of the world’s best leaders) to an object (Mohandas Gandhi). It does so by demonstrating the consequences of the actions taken by Gandhi. The argument consists of three sub-arguments. The first sub-argument described a feature of Gandhi’s method of non-violent protest. To support that sub-argument, a debater would need to clearly describe the method of non-violence; then show how that method was central to Gandhi’s teachings. A second sub-argument in the illustration associated non-violent protest with the consequences of assisting Ghana to break free of British rule. Here, the debater would need to provide historical evidence of how Ghana broke British rule, and also would need to show how Gandhi’s method was instrumental to that consequence. The third sub-argument evaluated that consequence by showing how it produced good for the people of Ghana and the people of the United States, as well. To support that sub-argument, the debater would need to provide specific evidence showing how people’s lives in Ghana and the United States were improved. Thus, this argument is one that demonstrates how the consequences of action can be used to evaluate that action.

1705136770

1705136771 Another kind of evaluative claim discussed in Chapter 15 is a claim about policy or action. Arguments based on consequences are commonly used to support claims about policies and actions. A policy or an action is good (positively evaluated) to the extent that its positive consequences outweigh its negative ones. A claim that “Nations should provide a minimal level of education to all their citizens” is a claim of policy. A debater might support such a claim by arguing that his or her proposal to provide a minimal level of education to all citizens would have more benefits than costs. When a debater discusses benefits, he or she usually talks of direct material benefits. So, a proposal is a valuable one and is positively evaluated when its benefits outweigh its costs. The illustration presented below contains an example of a policy claim that exemplifies an argument of consequence. Debaters have at their disposal a variety of methods to construct an argument based on consequences. The illustration below shows how three sub-arguments (descriptive, associational, and evaluative) can be combined to create a primary argument about the consequences of a proposed action. In this example, the debater is proposing a policy to replace a current one. The first sub-argument describes both the current and the proposed policies. It compares and contrasts the current policy with the one the debater proposes as a replacement. The second sub-argument shows how features existing in the proposed policy, and absent in the current policy, are causally associated with certain consequences. The third and final sub-argument provides an explicit evaluation of the consequences established in the second sub-argument.

1705136772

1705136773 Motion for debate: Nations should provide a secondary education to all their citizens.

1705136774

1705136775 Primary argument: Increasing funding and infrastructure for secondary education will improve people’s lives by helping to alleviate poverty.

1705136776

1705136777

1705136778

1705136779 ·Sub-argument 1 (Description):

1705136780

1705136781 The Government Team’s proposal substantially changes the policies of the current system.

1705136782

1705136783 ￭ The current policies of nations of Sub-Saharan Africa provide insufficient funding and infrastructure to secondary education.

1705136784

1705136785 ￭ The Government Team’s model provides both funding and infrastructure.

1705136786

1705136787 ·Sub-argument 2 (Associational):

1705136788

1705136789 Infrastructure and funding is causally related to access to secondary education.

1705136790

1705136791 ￭ The lack of funding and infrastructure in the current system leads to poor access to education.

1705136792

1705136793 ￭ By increasing funding and infrastructure, the Government Team’s proposal provides better access to education.

1705136794

1705136795 ·Sub-argument 3 (Evaluative):

1705136796

1705136797 Increasing access to secondary education will help relieve poverty and will improve people’s lives.

1705136798

1705136799 ￭ Lack of access to secondary education leads many to live a life of poverty.

1705136800

1705136801 ￭ Evidence that the Government’s proposal to increase access to education is the fact that people without a secondary education are more likely to be poorer than those with a secondary education.

1705136802

1705136803 ￭ Fewer people with a secondary education go without food.

1705136804

1705136805 ￭ People with a secondary education are generally healthier, living longer and better lives.

1705136806

1705136807 In the illustration above, the Government Team has focused the debate on funding and infrastructure in Sub-Saharan Africa. Their primary argument is that, by increasing funding and infrastructure, their proposal will improve people’s lives by helping to alleviate poverty. As explained earlier, this primary argument is supported by three sub-arguments. The first sub-argument describes both the current and the proposed policies with regard to funding and infrastructure. In that sub-argument, the debater from the Government Team contrasts the current system with the proposed system, indicating that the proposed system will provide funding and infrastructure that is lacking in the current system. The second sub-argument then draws a cause and effect association between providing increased funding and infrastructure and access to a secondary education. The claim made in this sub-argument is that the current system’s lack of funding and infrastructure leads to inadequate access to education, whereas, conversely, the proposed policy will enhance educational access. Therefore, the consequence of increased funding and infrastructure is better access to education. The debater cannot simply assert this cause and effect association; he or she must provide evidence that funding and infrastructure are real contributors to access to education. The third sub-argument then goes on to provide an explicit evaluation of the consequence of better access to education. Better access to education is valuable because it helps relieve poverty and generally improves people’s lives. Again, the debater needs to do more than assert that access to education is valuable to people. He or she needs to provide specific evidence that educational access has a real effect on poverty and, thus, on people’s lives.

1705136808

1705136809 In summary, one way to support a claim of evaluation is to create an argument related to the consequences of actions. That is the method associated with the philosophy of utilitarianism that suggests that a good action is one that creates the greatest good for the greatest number of people.

1705136810

[ 上一页 ]  [ :1.705136761e+09 ]  [ 下一页 ]