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.
1705137037
1705137038
Second, the next sub-claim is an argument of association, but this time it is an association of the features described in the first sub-claim with some principle. Such sub-claim is frequently developed by using an association of similarity: identifying the principle, and then demonstrating how the object to be evaluated is similar to some other object that the audience already evaluates in a positive (or negative) manner. Associations of similarity are not the only kind of associations that can be used to link an object to a principle, but they are common ones.
1705137039
1705137040
Finally, in the third sub-claim, the principle and, thus, the object itself are explicitly evaluated. The association of similarity made in the second sub-claim is quite important in this evaluation. By showing that some other positively evaluated object is similar to the object that the debater is trying to evaluate in a positive manner, the positive evaluation of the other object is transferred to the object of evaluation.
1705137041
1705137042
That description of the basic pattern used for supporting a value claim using principles is still quite abstract. Hopefully, by using the teachers example, the pattern will become clearer. The diagram presented below is intended to illustrate one way that the claim that “Teachers are engaged in a noble profession” can be supported using an argument of principle.
1705137043
1705137044
1705137045
1705137046
1705137047
The first sub-claim is used to describe teachers. Although many arguable descriptions of the teaching profession might be presented, the sub-claim describes them as a well-educated group, devoted to helping others, even without receiving great financial benefit. The sub-claim describes the teaching profession as unselfish because they put the welfare of their students above their own financial gain. The description that is offered is such that it can later be used to associate the teaching profession with other professions whom the audience will also see as engaged in a noble cause.
1705137048
1705137049
In the second sub-claim, the debater associates the teaching profession with a principle. First, the debater needs to describe and support the principle. The second sub-claim begins by naming the unselfish actions of teachers as an important principle. Potential arguments to support that principle include the idea that such unselfish behavior is for the benefit of students even thought the teachers themselves do not receive great financial benefit themselves. Of course, that argument would need further development.
1705137050
1705137051
After supporting the principle, the debater would then draw an association of similarity between the teachers and some other group that the debater believes the audience views in a positive manner. Any number of examples is possible. The choice of other group should be based on the debater’s knowledge of the audience. The chosen other group should be the one that the audience is likely to view in a positive light. For the purposes of illustration, the medical profession is chosen as an example.
1705137052
1705137053
A sub-claim associating teachers and medical doctors could suggest that both groups consist of well-educated people who are devoted to helping others. The unselfish, and thus noble cause to which teachers are devoted is further enhanced by the fact that teachers, unlike medical doctors, pursue their profession without the promise of great financial gain.
1705137054
1705137055
Finally, in the third sub-claim, both the principle of selflessness and the teaching profession are explicitly evaluated. In that argument, the similarities between the teachers and medical doctors play an important role. The debater might begin by reminding the audience of the noble cause that medical doctors play by devoting themselves to the physical health of others. The debater should show how valuable medical doctors are in the community. Then the debater should, by comparison, show how teachers follow the same principle of selflessness, and thus is engaged in a “noble profession.”
1705137056
1705137057
思辨精英：英语辩论-构筑全球视角 [:1705132525]
1705137058
20.3.4 Supporting a Primary Claim of Policy Using Principles
1705137059
1705137060
Arguments also can be created to support a policy claim by using an argument by principle. Consider, for instance, the claim: “The United Nations should endorse a Declaration of the Rights of Great Apes.” That is an example of a policy claim because it suggests a new course of action by the United Nations. The claim can be supported by the principle of justice using a modified form of the basic pattern described in this chapter.
1705137061
1705137062
One of the primary modifications is necessary because the above primary argument is based on an analogy, the similarities between two objects, rather than on a causal relationship between an object and its consequences. As a result, the descriptions offered in the first sub-claim will need to describe comparative and contrasting features of the two objects that will be examined in the analogy. Furthermore, the second sub-claim will need to be an association of similarity rather than of cause and effect.
1705137063
1705137064
Given those modifications, the basic pattern used to support the policy claim using principles is exemplified in the following illustration:
1705137065
1705137066
1705137067
1705137068
1705137069
As with earlier examples, the above argument is developed using three sub-claims. The first is a descriptive argument. A central object in the primary claim is “Great Apes.” In contrast, another central concept, depending on how the case develops, will probably be “humans.” In the first sub-claim, some features of Great Apes need to be described. In the illustration below, the debater has chosen to describe Great Apes as possessing advanced cognitive and linguistic abilities, including consciousness and recognition of themselves as distinct entities. Great Apes also have complex social and familial structures. Anticipating that the new policy will extend rights to Great Apes, the debater will need to describe features that can be used to associate Great Apes and some principle of rights. Those chosen features appear to be ones that can be used to create such an association.
1705137070
1705137071
Then, in the second sub-claim, the illustration shows how humans have features similar to Great Apes, such as, consciousness, self-recognition, and familial structures. The primary contrast between Great Apes and humans is that humans are protected by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) but Great Apes are not.
1705137072
1705137073
Given the described features, how can a debater create a sub-claim that associates the features of Great Apes and humans with one another and also with a principle, the second element of the basic pattern? One such way is to examine the principle of justice: “Beings in the same essential category should be treated in the same way” (Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca, 1969: 219). The basic requirement of the principle of justice is that beings are considered to belong to the same essential category. According to the comparison of humans and Great Apes, that requirement is arguably satisfied—both humans and Great Apes are animals possessing similar cognitive abilities and, so, share that essential category. Thus, according to the principle of justice, since humans and Great Apes belong to the same category, they deserve to be treated in the same way. The link to the principle of justice is straightforward. Since a general agreement in the United Nations UDHR is that humans belong to a certain category that deserves “human rights,” Great Apes deserve those same rights.
1705137074
1705137075
Finally, the task of evaluation is accomplished by creating a sub-claim that evaluates the basic principle of justice. The most straightforward way to apply the principle of justice to Great Apes involves having the UN pass the Declaration of Rights of Great Apes. Because the Universal Declaration of Human Rights has declared Universal Human Rights belonging to humans, the United Nations should do the same for Great Apes. Doing so would protect Great Apes in at least three ways: 1) by declaring that they have a right to life, that they cannot be killed except in self-defense; 2) by protecting their individual liberties, that they may not be imprisoned unless they have been convicted of a crime; and, 3) by protecting them from torture, that they may not be subjected to severe pain because of a perceived benefit to others.
1705137076
1705137077
The foregoing example of how to support a policy claim using a principle is explained in the illustration below:
1705137078
1705137079
1705137080
1705137081
1705137082
The example has some subtle differences between it and some of the others that have been introduced earlier. Most, but not all, of the earlier examples used causal associations rather than associations of similarity to link the object of evaluation to a value or principle. In this case, an association of similarity has been created between Great Apes and humans. Then, a second association of similarity has been created between an existing policy (the Universal Declaration of Human Rights) and a proposed policy (a Declaration of the Rights of Great Apes). The positive associations between Great Apes and humans were used to illustrate and support the principle of justice that became the primary evaluation criteria in that case. Then, the association between the UDHR and the Declaration of Rights of Great Apes was used to justify applying the principle of justice to Great Apes as it is applied to humans. Thus, an argument of principle can be used to support a value claim.