1705133058
2.3 Some Guidelines for Developing a Code of Ethics in Debate
1705133059
1705133060
Each debater is responsible for the choices they make and the consequences of those choices. Each debater is responsible to act in ethical ways. Ethical choices do not apply only to the debating moment; an excellent debater also uses a code of ethics to guide actions taken during debate training, at tournaments, during debriefings, and in conversations with others about debates. Debaters can benefit from understanding how to engage ethical principles in these interpersonal circumstances, principles that also apply during formal debates. The following guidelines may help debaters begin their work toward developing a strong, ethical code to guide them in their debate practices. Since these points represent only a beginning toward establishing ethical practices, debaters who advance past the novice stage will use references in this textbook to seek out many more ways to increase their understanding and mastery of ethics in debate2.
1705133061
1705133063
2.3.1 Employ Ethical Guidelines for the Use of Evidence
1705133064
1705133065
Many ethical standards regarding the use of evidence in debate are clear and virtually absolute. Debaters would agree, for example, that fabrication of evidence is absolutely and categorically unethical. Likewise, taking evidence out of context or selectively omitting significant segments of evidence to make it “fit” a chosen argument are also unethical practices. Other actions, such as choosing to exploit an opponent’s slip of the tongue as a way to support a certain argument, degrade the debate and the debater who has chosen to do so. These kinds of unethical conduct in regard to evidence seem clearly unacceptable to most debaters. They reduce the value of the debate and fail to uphold the important purposes of debate in a civil society.
1705133066
1705133067
Other ethical issues, however, are less easily resolved. They generate difficult questions about the tension between winning and truthfulness, and may need to be carefully considered in each case. For example,
1705133068
1705133069
During a debate, should debaters acknowledge and accept evidence that undermines their own cases?
1705133070
1705133071
During a debate, should debaters acknowledge and accept the weaknesses of their own evidence and argument?
1705133072
1705133073
If, for example, a team is confronted during a debate with evidence new to them, evidence that significantly belies their case, what ethical position does the team take? If they recognize their case has been badly damaged, do they acknowledge the problem and accept the evidence anyway? Do they revise their case or manufacture ways to move the focus of the debate away from the obvious flaw?
1705133074
1705133075
Do they allow the discovery to move them away from the important principle of arguing for the greater good rather than the individual gain? Do they comply with whatever standard has been set by others on their school team or whatever standard is common in their cultural surroundings? In short, at what point does dodging this unexpected development—an action taken to serve the individual or team—begin to undermine the more elevated purpose of the debate, that is, to serve the civil good?
1705133076
1705133077
Similarly, how does a team respond when they find they agree with a reasoned argument from their opponents that points out weaknesses in their own evidence or in the arguments they have used? Do team members refuse to acknowledge what they now see and either change the debate focus or ignore the point? Do team members continue to argue for evidence they now believe to be inaccurate, outdated, or poorly sourced? Do they attempt to deflect the attention to this point? Do team members acknowledge the weaknesses or speak only to the strong points?
1705133078
1705133079
Individuals’ responses to these ethical issues likely will change and mature as debaters gain mastery and experience. Adhering to a strong ethical standard will assist these changes to support the valuable part debate can play in a society, helping debaters to remain true to the critical issues faced by societies rather than falling into a practice of serving a single individual’s needs in a moment of debate.
1705133080
1705133082
2.3.2 Employ Ethical Guidelines for Choosing Arguments and Reasoning Patterns
1705133083
1705133084
Effective debate depends on creating arguments from solid evidence but also focuses on logical reasoning. Good reasoning involves making sound arguments from evidence presented to support claims. Sometimes well-meaning debaters use fallacious reasoning, a topic to be dealt with at length in Chapter 21, but sometimes debaters intentionally use unethical reasoning. For example, fallacious reasoning may occur when a speaker draws inferences from inadequate or insufficient evidence, or when a speaker incorrectly or unknowingly draws inferences that do not relate to the evidence.
1705133085
1705133086
Unethical reasoning, on the other hand, occurs when the speaker first chooses a goal—for example, wishing to persuade the audience to use a certain type of toothpaste—and then goes about gathering and arranging any bits of evidence in any configuration to accomplish that persuasion. Suppose Acme Toothpaste, for instance, argues that nine out of ten dentists agreed their brand would reduce cavities for people who used it when the evidence supporting their claim was that nine out of ten dentists agreed toothpastes containing fluoride would reduce cavities for users. Since Acme’s brand contained fluoride, the toothpaste company unethically construed the evidence to apply only to their brand, thereby convincing consumers their brand reduced cavities more than any other brand. Acme did not alter the evidence, but constructed a reasoning pattern to draw customers to a false conclusion. The company’s actions would be unethical because they made the conscious choice to elevate the needs of the company—to make money—over the needs of consumers—to know they could have healthy teeth by using any one of many different toothpastes containing fluoride, even a brand that might be less expensive. A debater trying to judge whether his or her own reasoning is or is not ethical will need to look farther than merely testing the veracity of the claim or evidence.
1705133087
1705133088
Unscrupulous arguers often use the argument that the evidence is “true” or the claim is “valid” as a way to justify their actions. To assess whether reasoning is ethical, a debater must question whether or not the reasoning arose organically from the evidence to the inference rather than having the reasoning concocted so it would connect selected facets of the evidence to an outcome advantageous to the arguer. Was the evidence gathered or arranged so it would serve a particular conclusion that served the individual arguer or did the conclusion arise from the nature of the evidence and thereby serve the civil good? Was the argument or reasoning selected to insure the audience would arrive at a conclusion beneficial to the debater but not necessarily encompassing all the audience might know? Is the audience offered appropriate information in the reasoning to allow them to critically address the issue or has the debater offered only information favorable to the arguer?
1705133089
1705133090
Debaters also use unethical argument and reasoning in other ways, such as a means of evading the central clash in a debate. If a topic arises that debaters have not prepared for or feel uncertain about, speakers may resort to extended and sometimes meaningless haggling over definitions or terms to avoid addressing issues they find daunting. Ethical debaters do not demean their opponents in these cases, but simply continue to address the key elements to raise the debate to the highest interaction possible. Applying an ethical code to debate means elevating each argument and each reasoning pattern to a high standard.
1705133091
1705133093
2.3.3 Implement Mutual Equality
1705133094
1705133095
Mutual equality calls for debaters to consider teammates, opponents, adjudicators, audience members, and other interlocutors as equal participants in the discourse. Sometimes debaters develop attitudes of superiority that causes them to honor their own thoughts and conclusions over those of others. Recognizing that each individual in the debate or exchange will experience the conversation from a different viewpoint, ethical debaters recognize and assume that each other person thinks, reasons, experiences, and verbalizes in a different way—even from within a different cultural or political paradigm—and that each way of processing exudes integrity and value: different, but equally substantive in its basic, inherent position in a clash of ideas.
1705133096
1705133097
Opposing debaters who function with this code of ethics also practice mutual equality. They create supportive communication environments where hearing both sides of the issue and arguing the relative merits of one side or the other are more important than oppressing the other side and eradicating their opportunities to respond.
1705133098
1705133099
A presumption of equality does not suggest creating a collection of people who will act and react in the same way, nor does it suggest each person will hold the same values as the next. On the contrary, a presumption of equality expects that each various voice in the debate will be heard reasonably without interruption, attended with earnest and honorable intent, given space and time to express itself, and afforded a mutual respect across the debate.
1705133100
1705133101
Mutual equality does not eclipse disagreement. Equal characters can clash animatedly in debate. The more often people on opposite sides of an issue can create a climate of mutual equality, the higher the quality of debate that ensues and the higher the quality of outcomes for decisions about the issues being discussed. The differences between people and their ideas are featured and examined rather than oppressed; mutual equality fosters climates in which diverse voices and varied perceptions constitute the social discussion network and inform that society’s dynamic decisions.
1705133102
1705133103
Mutual equality also extends to relationships debaters develop with team members. Toward understanding others’ experiences, ethical debaters benefit themselves and their teams by finding ways to practice with a variety of teammates. If, for example, an experienced debater refuses to practice with an inexperienced debater (either verbally or by nonverbal signals such as gesture, tone of voice, facial expressions, etc.), he or she introduces a division among team members, indicating some members to be more valuable than others. Debating with various partners or teams in practice rounds can improve the team as a whole and also can improve skills for all participating debaters, including the more experienced speakers.
1705133104
1705133105
Choosing to socialize with a variety of team members of all levels of experience and all friendship groups also generates an environment of mutual equality. For instance, holding parties or making decisions that include everyone rather than a segment of the team or having lunch with a range of team members rather than a constant enclave provides multiple avenues for voices to be heard.
1705133106
[
上一页 ]
[ :1.705133057e+09 ]
[
下一页 ]