1705133004
2.1 The Ethical Debater
1705133005
1705133006
To debate well means to debate ethically. Throughout the centuries, philosophers, speakers and thinkers from both China and the United States have unequivocally declared that any excellent speaker cannot, by definition, be exceptional without operating from a high moral character adhering to an enduring, ethical code of conduct.
1705133007
1705133008
For example, Chinese philosopher Mencius, who was himself an excellent speaker dismayed by the trickery and manipulation used by traveling advisors to the kings, declared that sincere speech(chengyan) was “the most effective, moral, and humane mode of expression to accomplish persuasion” (Lu, 1998: 175). Similarly, Roman orator Marcus Fabius Quintilian explicitly taught that while the orator must have knowledge of how to speak well and must achieve an artistic excellence in those skills, “the orator in Quintilian’s view must, above all, be a good man [or woman]” (Kennedy, 1999: 101). As debaters grapple with disputations, they are charged with a vital social responsibility for delineating the best arguments for and against essential civic issues. That social responsibility demands highly ethical practices to ensure the prosperity, growth, and sustenance of a society.
1705133009
1705133010
Acting in ethical ways as a speaker and using ethical speech not only fulfills a social responsibility but also inherently supports an arguer’s purpose to persuade. Aristotle, an ancient Greek philosopher, names ethos as the character of the speaker, a character making the speaker “worthy of belief; for as a rule we trust men [and women] of probity more, and more quickly…”(Cooper, 1960: 8). Similarly, “according to The Analects,” one of Confucius’s four components of curriculum was xing, the practice and conducts of morality (Lu, 1998: 166).
1705133011
1705133012
Xing Lu writes, “For Mencius, chengyan referred not only to sincere and honest speech, but also to an innate moral quality out of which sincere and honest speech naturally and powerfully arise in our efforts to influence one another… Therefore, [Mencius’s] understanding of chengyan was similar to Aristotle’s notion of ethos, in that chengyan is an indication of ethos and serves as the most effective means of persuasion” (Lu, 1998: 175). Exhortations that arguers practice morality and ethics can be found across both Eastern and Western traditions.
1705133013
1705133014
Since ethics is a philosophy or system of morality and good conduct, arguers strive to improve their debating skills by developing habits to practice principles of ethical debating. Debaters can examine their own behavioral choices to discover unethical patterns they recognize and replace those practices with more ethical ones. Toward reducing unethical actions, debaters may usefully conceptualize debate as both making argumentation choices and making choices about how to communicate with others.
1705133015
1705133016
One key to constructing and delivering an ethical argument lies in the distinction between 1) the topics and arguments constituting the debate and 2) the persons participating in the debate. Arguing the merits of one position or the discrepancies in another’s argument differs sharply from arguing to discredit or demean another speaker or another debate participant. Often these particular unethical and destructive practices occur because the offending speaker or team is not well prepared or does not yet possess the skill to squarely address the topics. An ethical debater can provide a spirited and animated argument, case, or rebuttal regarding the topic without debasing other individuals in the debate.
1705133017
1705133018
In the next section, the authors describe some of the essential features of debate and discuss the moral purposes of those features.
1705133019
1705133021
2.2 Four Features of Debate
1705133022
1705133023
How does one decide what are the ethical and unethical actions associated with debate—or with any other activity for that matter? One way is to examine the various features of an activity and assess those features in terms of moral purpose. The four features chosen for discussion in this section are not the only characteristics of debate nor do they represent all consideration of ethical conduct, however, these four features were selected by the authors as among the most important and the most salient: 1) communicating responsibly with others; 2) using arguments to solve disagreements; 3) using an adjudicator when participants are unable to solve their differences; and 4) reaching an outcome to a conflict. As a way to focus on some ethics of debate, each of these four features will be explained in terms of its moral purpose both to the activity and to the process of decision-making.
1705133024
1705133026
2.2.1 Communicating Responsibly with Others
1705133027
1705133028
Communicating with other people is an essential feature of debate. Without communication, debate is not possible. During preparation for, participation in, and debriefing after a debate, debaters communicate interpersonally with their school team members, their partners, their coaches and teachers, their judges, and students or officials from other schools. That interpersonal communication, like the public speaking performances within a formal debate, consists of a communicator purposefully choosing messages and intending to influence one or more others. Both the actions of choosing messages and the intentions of influencing others represent keys in this communication process and carry ethical implications.
1705133029
1705133030
Communicating responsibly with others is one of the high moral purposes of debate. A person can communicate responsibly with others by considering the other person to be an equal partner in the communication process rather than an object to be overcome. Showing respect for each other does not mean compromising positions or deferring to the values of the other perspective.
1705133031
1705133032
Responsible communicators value their own reasoning and evidence. They also view others as persons whose reasoning and evidence occupy that same critical value to the other person. Both sets of reasoning and evidence constitute specific and unique features, the combination of which will make up the substance of this debate. For that reason alone—that is, the better the clash between ideas in the debate, the more information and understanding can emerge about the topic—the moral purpose of the debate activity requires debaters to act in ethical ways. Whether or not debaters agree with others’ positions or reasoning has no bearing on the respect all debaters deserve from one another in the communication process. Communicating respectfully under all debate circumstances with all participants constitutes an essential ethical standard as a way to uphold the moral purpose of this feature.
1705133033
1705133035
2.2.2 Using Arguments to Resolve Disagreements
1705133036
1705133037
A second essential feature of debate involves the use of arguments to resolve disagreements. Using arguments rather than violence to resolve disagreements is one of the most important moral purposes of the activity.
1705133038
1705133039
Argument represents a vital alternative to weaponry and violence. Throughout history humans have used their creative energies to invent and implement weapons of greater and greater destructive power. These weapons of mass destruction threaten the very existence not only of human life but of all other life on the planet. As humans continue to compete with one another for limited resources such as water, food, and clean air, they frequently resort to violence to accomplish their goals. The ability of humans to engage arguments instead of violence to manage their differences embodies one of the highest moral purposes of debate. Showing respect for the process of debate responds to the great moral value of arguing well.
1705133040
1705133042
2.2.3 Using an Adjudicator to Resolve Differences
1705133043
1705133044
When arguers are not able to manage disagreements themselves, they may elect to or be required to involve an adjudicator. At this point, both parties relinquish their roles as decision-makers together and present their arguments to an adjudicator. The adjudicator hears both sides of the disagreement and renders a decision that binds both parties. In some cases, one party may appeal the decision to another adjudicator, but ultimately a decision will be made by someone other than the two disagreeing parties.
1705133045
1705133046
Since the adjudicator plays such a critical role in the process of managing the issues, their positions in the debate require respect from debaters, coaches, and administrators. If arguers disagree with the adjudicator’s decision, that disagreement can be respectfully presented. Honoring this process of decision making in this way maintains the principle of using these methods rather than violence to manage human difference. Treating adjudicators with respect demonstrates debaters’ understandings of the critical role their positions play in the process. At a stalemate between the parties, the decision-making process requires an outside decision. Those people serving as adjudicators—in educational debate or in other venues such as courtrooms—function to provide disagreeing parties with an alternative to violence. Since human beings function differently in the roles they play, excellent arguers understand the wide variances they face when they argue before an adjudicator. Whatever the decision is, the adjudicator provides a key function that promotes argumentation as the principle force toward peaceful resolution and deserves respect for fulfilling this moral purpose of debate.
1705133047
1705133049
2.2.4 Reaching an Outcome to a Conflict
1705133050
1705133051
The last feature of debate to be discussed is outcome, especially with regard to adjudicated debate. Respect due to any debate outcome emanates from the principle that reasoned, argued decisions generally produce outcomes that serve human needs at a significantly higher moral level than do those produced by unilateral, unexamined decisions. Using a process that can reach an outcome stimulates a higher investment by each party and also provides an expectation of change. Left without recourse to an adjudicator, the two disagreeing parties would have stalled at an impasse. Having turned the decision making over to an external adjudicator produces an outcome. While parties may choose to appeal the decision in an attempt to change the outcome, even that action suggests the outcome represents another critical component of the debate process. Providing a means for disagreeing parties to reach an outcome—even if they are unable to do so themselves—demonstrates the high moral purpose of debate.
1705133052
[
上一页 ]
[ :1.705133003e+09 ]
[
下一页 ]