1705136826 ·Sub-argument 1:

1705136827

1705136828

1705136829

1705136830 Non-violence is one of the most important principles the world has ever known.

1705136831

1705136832 ·Sub-argument 2:

1705136833

1705136834 Mohandas Gandhi employed civil disobedience throughout his life. His method of civil disobedience supports the principle of non-violence.

1705136835

1705136836 In the above illustration, the first sub-argument suggests that the principle of non-violence is an important one. Of course, the debater would need to provide careful reasoning and evidence to support this sub-argument. Why is non-violence an important principle? Is it somehow related to another principle that is universally accepted? Is non-violence essential to the human condition? The second sub-argument then relates the principle to the object to be evaluated. To support that sub-argument, a debater would need to describe the feature of Gandhi that is related to the principle. In the instant case, the debater would need to explain Gandhi’s method of civil disobedience and why civil disobedience is associated with the principle of non-violence. In general, the overall goal of the argument is to move the audience to viewing the object (Gandhi) in the same positive manner that they view the principle (non-violence).

1705136837

1705136838 The illustration presented above shows how an argument of principle can be used to support a claim that applies a value (the principle of non-violence) to an object (Mohandas Gandhi). An argument by principle also can be used to support the evaluation of a policy or action. Earlier, an argument of consequence was illustrated to support the claim that “All governments have a duty to provide education for their citizens.” The same claim can be supported using an argument of principle. The claim is supported by a combination of several sub-arguments. In that case, the first sub-argument supports the existence of the principle that will be used in the evaluation. The second sub-argument then describes the actions that later will be evaluated according to the principle. It explains the features of the current and proposed actions, and how those features are related to the principle itself. Finally, the third sub-argument shows how the principle, duty, or right is fulfilled by the proposed action. That kind of sub-argument is illustrated below:

1705136839

1705136840 Motion for debate: Nations should provide a minimal level of education to all their citizens.

1705136841

1705136842 Primary argument: All governments have the duty to provide education for their citizens.

1705136843

1705136844

1705136845

1705136846 ·Sub-argument 1:

1705136847

1705136848 Access to education is a right of citizens and a duty of the government to provide.

1705136849

1705136850 ￭ Access to education is a right of all citizens.

1705136851

1705136852 ￭ Providing access to education is the duty of government.

1705136853

1705136854 ·Sub-argument 2:

1705136855

1705136856 The Government Team’s proposal substantially changes the policies of the current system.

1705136857

1705136858 ￭ The current policies of nations of Sub-Saharan Africa provide insufficient funding and infrastructure to education.

1705136859

1705136860 ￭ The Government Team’s model provides both funding and infrastructure.

1705136861

1705136862 ￭ Funding and infrastructure are essential for access to education.

1705136863

1705136864 ·Sub-argument 3:

1705136865

1705136866 The Government Team’s proposal fulfills the duty of government and the right of citizens.

1705136867

1705136868 ￭ Providing access to education fulfills the government’s duty.

1705136869

1705136870 ￭ Gaining access to education provides for the rights of citizens.

1705136871

1705136872 The argument illustrated above is an argument of principle designed to support a primary claim that all governments have the duty to provide an education for all of their citizens. As explained above, the argument combines three sub-claims. The first is designed to show that the principle, rights, or duties are legitimate. The debater would need to explain why access to education is a right of all citizens. One possible way to do this would be to point to Article 26 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights that declares, “Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages.”

1705136873

1705136874 Having established that access to education is a fundamental right of all citizens, the debater would explain why providing access to education is a duty of the government. The debater might support this argument by showing how the duty to provide access to education is a part of some larger agreed-upon duty, such as the duty to protect the general welfare. Having established that access to education is a fundamental principle; the second sub-argument describes the current and proposed policies and relates those features to important elements of the principle. In the above example, the Government Team might show how funding and infrastructure that is lacking in the current system is provided in their proposed policy. Then they might show how that funding and infrastructure is relevant to access to education, always being careful to provide clear and solid evidence, reasoning, and explanation. Finally, the third sub-argument would show how the Government Team’s proposed policy fulfills the principle described in the first sub-argument. In this case, they would argue that access to education fulfills the government’s duty as it provides for the rights of citizens. Thus, the example demonstrates how an argument of principle can be used to construct a claim of policy.

1705136875

[ 上一页 ]  [ :1.705136826e+09 ]  [ 下一页 ]