1705133253
思辨精英：英语辩论-构筑全球视角 [:1705132319]
1705133254
3.1.1 Persuasion and Debate
1705133255
1705133256
Persuasion and debate have much in common yet they are different in certain ways. Persuasion is a symbolic process that people use to convince others to change their position (or sometimes to reinforce their own current position) about some issue, idea, or action. Debate is a process in which at least two persons who are engaged in some kind of a conflict over ideas or actions use persuasion to try to resolve their disagreement.
1705133257
1705133258
Persuasion is the broader of these two related concepts. All persuasion does not include debate but all debate involves persuasion. Consider for instance, the case of a corporation advertising a product to the general public. Apple, for example, tries to convince consumers to purchase the iPhone, the iPod, or a Macintosh computer. Such an advertising campaign is clearly an example of persuasion, but hardly can be considered a debate. On the other hand, if a lawyer tries to convince a judge that her client is not guilty of a crime, the lawyer is directly engaged with another lawyer in a conflict of ideas and thus the two lawyers are in a debate. These two lawyers are trying to persuade the judge to resolve the disagreement (guilty or not guilty) in their favor. So, persuasion sometimes, but not always includes what is called debate but sometimes includes symbolic acts that are not in the category of debate.
1705133259
1705133260
Both persuasion and debate take place in a variety of situations using different forms. Situations that are described as persuasion include circumstances such as a wife trying to persuade her husband to take a holiday, a child trying to persuade a parent to purchase a toy, or a lawyer trying to persuade a judge that a client is guilty (or innocent) of a charge. Although all of these three examples can be accurately described as persuasion, only the example of the lawyer and the judge can reasonably be described as a debate because it involves two persons engaged in a conflict of ideas. Debate always includes persuasion, however, persuasion frequently exists outside of debate.
1705133261
1705133262
In addition to existing in a variety of situations, persuasion comes in many forms. For example, narrative can be used as a form of persuasion. An advocate may narrate a story to convince someone else to behave in ways that are prescribed in the story. A child trying to convince a parent to purchase a toy might tell a story about a friend who already has a similar toy. The story might include how the friend not only has fun with the toy but how the toy makes the friend seem important to other friends. Another example of persuasion involves the use of an extended metaphor. In such an extended metaphor, a person talks about a familiar example to convince the other person of the wisdom of an idea or course of action. A wife talking to her husband about a holiday that the two of them took years ago to reveal why they ought to take a holiday this year would constitute an example of an extended metaphor. So, narrative and metaphor are just two examples of persuasion—argument (another key concept to be explained later) is another. As will be shown in the upcoming section, argument is the central form of persuasion that is used in what will be called debate.
1705133263
1705133264
Thus, both persuasion and debate exist in various situations and use different forms. One of the key features that generally differentiate persuasion in general from debate in particular is the presence of an external adjudicator. When two parties engaged in a conflict are unable to reach an agreement, those two take the conflict to an adjudicator who is not a party to the conflict. That requirement may be voluntary in that the two persons agree to seek adjudication of their conflict, or it may be compulsory whereby the two parties are compelled by law to seek adjudication. In either event, the two parties must take their positions to an adjudicator who has or is given the right to decide which position should prevail. Debate is the process that the two parties use to convince the adjudicator that their position is best.
1705133265
1705133266
In summary, persuasion is a symbolic process whereby people try to convince others to change their ideas about ideas, issues, or actions. Debate is one kind of persuasion, but debate is limited to situations where at least two participants are directly engaged with one another about some conflict. In most cases, debate includes external adjudicators whose role is to decide the outcome of the conflict. Thus, persuasion is the broader of the two concepts and debate is one kind of persuasion.
1705133267
1705133268
思辨精英：英语辩论-构筑全球视角 [:1705132320]
1705133269
3.1.2 Arguments and Argumentation
1705133270
1705133271
Argumentation can be defined as the process whereby an advocate uses arguments to advocate a position. During the process of argumentation, a person uses what are called arguments to communicate their views about the positions they advocate. Arguments includes specific claims, along with their supporting material, that a debater introduces during the process of argumentation. Specifically, when debaters want to convince an adjudicator to accept their side of an issue, they do so by engaging the process of argumentation, specifically by using arguments.
1705133272
1705133273
The process of argumentation also includes other elements such as refutation, delivery, etc. The illustration below shows the argumentation process along with some other elements included in the process. Those other elements of the argumentation process will be discussed later.
1705133274
1705133275
1705133276
1705133277
1705133278
The fact that arguments constitute the basic tools of persuasion used in debate does not negate the usefulness of narrative, metaphor or other processes of persuasion. As the above illustration shows, narratives and metaphors can be a part of the argumentation process and, as will be discussed in later chapters, can be used as resources to support particular arguments. The purpose of this chapter is to describe the process that a debater engages to construct basic arguments when engaging in argumentation to convince an adjudicator of the wisdom of that debater’s position.
1705133279
1705133280
思辨精英：英语辩论-构筑全球视角 [:1705132321]
1705133281
3.2 Components of Arguments
1705133282
1705133283
In subsequent chapters, this text will introduce four components of an argument. For the purposes of this chapter, those four components have been simplified and reduced to two components: a claim and supporting material. Fundamentally, an argument consists of a claim that is substantiated by some kind of supporting material: evidence, explanation, logic, another claim, etc. The following diagram illustrates that basic idea of an argument:
1705133284
1705133285
1705133286
1705133287
1705133288
A claim is the main point or thesis of your argument. Chapter 15 will identify several different kinds of claims. However, for the purposes of this chapter, a claim is any controversial statement that a debater uses to convince the adjudicator that his or her position is worthwhile. Examples include statements like “Capital punishment is immoral,” “China’s one-child policy is obsolete,” “A university education is unimportant,” etc. Each of these statements can become part of an argument.
1705133289
1705133290
思辨精英：英语辩论-构筑全球视角 [:1705132322]
1705133291
3.3 Kinds of Claims
1705133292
1705133293
In Chapter 15, this text will differentiate four kinds of claims: descriptive, definitional, associational, and evaluative. Descriptive and definitional claims are about individual objects and concepts. A descriptive claim might state a way to look at a certain object or concept as it conforms to observed or observable reality. For instance, “Human development is best described by a process of evolution” is such a descriptive claim. A debater supporting this descriptive claim might argue that observation of the fossil record supports the idea that humans developed from other species. A definitional claim usually states that some word or group of words is an appropriate way to define an object or concept. For instance, “Members of ISIS (Islamic State in Syria and Iraq) are terrorists.” This definitional claim addresses the question of whether the word terrorist is appropriately applied to ISIS. The preceding kinds of claims are about how we describe and define certain objects and concepts. Associational claims are about how certain objects and concepts are related to one another. Among the most common kinds of associational claims are claims about relationships of cause and effect, similarity, and coexistence. A claim of cause and effect implies that one object or concept is the cause (or effect) of another. A claim of similarity suggests that two or more objects or concepts are similar (or dissimilar) to one another. A claim of coexistence states simply that two or more objects exist together in the same time and space. A claim of evaluation suggests that one or more objects or concepts possess some positive or negative value. Evaluative claims are the most common kinds of claims used in debate. As will be discussed later, descriptive, definitional, and associational claims are frequently used to support evaluative claims.
1705133294
1705133295
Because they are the most common kinds of claims used in educational debate, this chapter will focus on claims of evaluation. Claims of evaluation frequently are of three types: claims that order values, claims that assign values to objects or concepts, and claims that evaluate policies or actions.
1705133296
1705133297
Claims that order values typically state that one value is more important than another, for instance, “The value of community is more important than individualism.” This claim places the two values in a hierarchy so that when the two values come into conflict, one is considered more important than the other.
1705133298
1705133299
Other evaluative claims assign values to objects or concepts, for instance, “China’s ancient culture was among the most enlightened in human history.” Rather than simply ordering values into a hierarchy, this kind of claim applies certain values to objects or concepts in such a way to suggest that the object is good or bad.
1705133300
1705133301
The third kind of evaluative claim advocates that some action or policy should be undertaken. This claim is similar to assigning a value to an object or concept, but is specific to actions or policies. Thus, a claim of action or policy ordinarily says that some actor should engage in some action: A should do B. For instance, “Western countries should adopt the principles of Traditional Chinese Medicine.”
1705133302