1705136987
1705136988
Before moving to the examples, one further comment needs to be made. The initial examples provided here are about how to combine arguments to support a position. The same basic pattern can be used to combine arguments to oppose a motion. Careful readers will recall that several examples illustrated in Chapter 6 and Chapter 7 used this basic describe, associate, evaluate pattern.
1705136989
1705136990
思辨精英：英语辩论-构筑全球视角 [:1705132522]
1705136991
20.3.1 Supporting a Primary Claim of Value Using Consequences
1705136992
1705136993
Before presenting a specific example, consider the structure of the basic pattern for creating an argument from consequence to support a value claim. The basic pattern is diagramed in the following illustration:
1705136994
1705136995
1705136996
1705136997
1705136998
In a value motion, a certain object is to be evaluated. The first thing to be done is to create a sub-claim that describes or defines a feature of that object. The feature selected for description should be one that can later be linked to a positive consequence. The second thing to be accomplished is to create a sub-claim that associates that feature with a consequence. Since consequences are ordinarily effects of some action, the associational sub-claim will probably be one of cause and effect. In other words, the second step involves creating a cause and effect association between the feature of the object and a consequence. Consequences can either be positive or negative, so the third step of this pattern involves creating a sub-claim that provides an explicit positive or negative evaluation of the consequence.
1705136999
1705137000
Now, consider a specific example of a value claim that lends itself to evaluation by consequences:“Traditional Chinese medicine has an important place in overall health care.” The object to be evaluated is traditional Chinese medicine. Because the use of traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) has certain consequences (both positive and negative), a consequential argument seems appropriate. The following diagram illustrates how a consequential argument can be constructed using the example.
1705137001
1705137002
1705137003
1705137004
1705137005
A debater could choose any number of features of traditional Chinese medicine, but choosing one that is potentially linked to positive consequences would be most productive. First, a debater might choose to describe the non-invasive feature of traditional Chinese medicine. For instance, although acupuncture uses very tiny needles to penetrate the skin, it is basically non-invasive. Second, the debater would then associate the non-invasive nature of acupuncture to one or more consequences. In the above illustration, two consequences are chosen: one is a directly positive consequence of acupuncture—it has been shown to help the patient in various ways; the other is that it potentially avoids the negative consequence of surgery. Of course, the debater would need to present further explanation and evidence to make those arguments cogent. Finally, the debater would create a sub-claim to make the ramifications of the consequences explicit by showing the real and positive value of acupuncture in helping with certain diseases, and by showing the dangers of unnecessary surgery that can be avoided by non-invasive techniques.
1705137006
1705137007
思辨精英：英语辩论-构筑全球视角 [:1705132523]
1705137008
20.3.2 Supporting a Primary Claim of Policy Using Consequences
1705137009
1705137010
Arguments by consequence are frequently used to support policy claims because of the obvious fit between consequences and actions. Actions have direct consequences, and those consequences are ordinarily the measure of whether an action is considered good or bad. A debater who creates a policy claim is usually proposing some change in policy—in other words, proposing a change in actions taken by the status quo. The basic pattern used in this chapter fits that kind of policy claim nicely, although, in some subtly different ways than it fits the value claim. The basic difference is that the policy claim is comparative—it compares the current policy to a new, proposed policy. So, the various sub-claims related to description, association, and evaluative are comparative. The illustration below shows how such an argument functions:
1705137011
1705137012
1705137013
1705137014
1705137015
As stated earlier, the features described are not single features of an object but are comparative and contrasting features of a current and proposed policy. Similarly, causal associations must be created between the features of the current policy and consequences, as well as between the features of the proposed policy and consequences. Finally, the consequences that are evaluated are those of both the current and the proposed policies.
1705137016
1705137017
A previous chapter used an example of a policy claim about education to illustrate an argument by consequence. By looking back at that example, an astute student will notice that the illustration followed the basic pattern that is used in this chapter, even though the pattern was not made as explicit as it is now. In the illustration below, the example of the policy motion about education is made explicit by the use of the basic pattern. Again, the claim is that nations should guarantee access to education for all citizens.
1705137018
1705137019
1705137020
1705137021
1705137022
The above example is the same argument illustrated in the previous chapter, but here, it is placed in the context of the basic pattern of description, association, and evaluation. The first sub-claim is a descriptive one that contrasts the current policy with the proposed one, noting that the current policy provides insufficient funding and infrastructure while the proposed policy, by contrast, provides additional funding and infrastructure. The second sub-claim is one of a cause and effect association. In that sub-claim, the debater shows that funding and infrastructure are causally linked to access to education, with poor funding and infrastructure being associated with limited access, and good funding and infrastructure being associated with improved access. Finally, the third sub-claim provides an explicit evaluation of educational access, noting that poor educational access increases poverty and generally degrades people’s lives. In contrast, added funding infrastructure has exactly the opposite effect.
1705137023
1705137024
Thus, the previous examples in this chapter show how arguments of consequence can be used to support both value and policy claims. Now, this text turns to claims of value supported using arguments of principle.
1705137025
1705137026
思辨精英：英语辩论-构筑全球视角 [:1705132524]
1705137027
20.3.3 Supporting a Primary Claim of Value Using Principles
1705137028
1705137029
An example of a value claim might be “Teachers are engaged in a noble profession.” As stated earlier, a value claim applies some value, principle, or consequence to an object. In the example, the object of evaluation is “teachers,” and the value has something to do with a “noble profession.”
1705137030
1705137031
The chart below describes generally how the basic pattern can be applied to the support of the value claim:
1705137032
1705137033
1705137034
1705137035
1705137036
The pattern illustrated above differs slightly from the basic pattern used before. The primary difference is that the modifications of the pattern make it more specific than the ones that have been used before. First, although the first sub-claim remains an argument of description and definition, the definition is accomplished by describing the essential features of the object. In other words, the object is defined by the presence of its essential features. Essential features are those without which the object would not be itself. By way of an analogy, an essential feature of a mammal is that it is covered with hair or fur. That feature is so essential that any animal not possessing hair or fur would not be defined as a mammal.