1705133944
6.1.1 Analyze the Motion
1705133945
1705133946
Methods of analyzing a motion were covered in Chapter 4. Analysis of the motion is an important prerequisite to creating the Prime Minister’s speech, even though the speech will not include all of the elements of analysis. The background of the topic, the type of motion to be debated, the definition and interpretation of that motion, and a catalog of the potential issues will help the Prime Minister construct the speech, but will not become the speech itself.
1705133947
1705133948
All of the work that the First Government Team did when they analyzed the motion need not be presented in the Prime Minister’s speech. Sometimes, statements about the background of the controversy will be important to clarify for the judges and audience the focus of the arguments presented by the Prime Minister. Sometimes, the controversy will be so clear to everyone that stating its background would be redundant. Usually the Prime Minister need not state what kind of topic, value or policy, is being debated. However, the kind of topic is implicit in the Prime Minister’s advocacy. If the motion is about policy, the Prime Minister will ordinarily advocate some policy proposal. If the motion is about value, the Prime Minister will not advocate a policy proposal but will clearly state how a certain object does or does not possess a certain value.
1705133949
1705133950
The part of the analysis of the motion that is perhaps most important to the Prime Minister’s speech is the definition of ambiguous terms and interpretation of the motion. The Prime Minister needs to include in his or her speech ideas about definition and interpretation of the motion and, must clearly state what will be the primary focus of the debate. The purpose of this part of the Prime Minister’s speech is to ensure that the other debaters and the audience will clearly understand the focus and direction of the debate.
1705133951
1705133952
The final part of analysis, discovering potential issues, will not specifically be a part of the speech, however, the most important of those issues will constitute the substance of the Prime Minister’s speech.
1705133953
1705133954
Analyzing the motion is a very important precursor to supporting it. Taking the time to think about the ways they want to focus the debate, the direction they believe the debate should take, which arguments are central and which are peripheral, will help debaters construct a persuasive and sound case for the motion. By clearly analyzing the motion, the debaters come to see exactly what that they need to be prepared to support.
1705133955
1705133957
6.1.2 Create a Case for the Motion
1705133958
1705133959
Creating a case for the motion can be considered in three steps: 1) defining and interpreting the motion, 2) describing the approach the First Government Team will take, and 3) creating one or more arguments to support that approach.
1705133960
1705133961
Step one: defining and interpreting the motion. Because they speak first, as noted in Chapter 4, the First Government Team has the right and responsibility to define and interpret the motion. That means that they are the team who will decide the ultimate direction and focus of the debate. As discussed earlier, some motions can be debated in a number of legitimate yet different ways. In cases like those, the First Government Team has the right to decide which of those legitimate areas will be the focus of the particular debate. The decision they make is one that the other three teams are obliged to follow. If the motion is “Nations of the world should take greater responsibility to curb pollution,” the First Government Team might decide to focus on countries of the developing world and on air pollution. If they do, that focus will guide the entire debate.
1705133962
1705133963
The other teams cannot elect to change the focus from the developing world to, say, the developed world, or from air pollution to water pollution, for example. The convention of allowing the First Government Team to decide about defining and interpreting the motion is a good way to ensure that a debate begins and ends with a particular focus rather than wandering from topic to topic.
1705133964
1705133965
The right to define and interpret the motion gives the First Government Team a certain advantage in the debate. For this reason, the right to define and interpret the motion carries a responsibility to do so in a reasonable fashion. That responsibility to define and interpret the motion in a reasonable way helps to ensure a good debate for all participants rather than being a self-serving method of helping the First Government Team “win” the debate. The criterion that should be employed to determine if the definition and interpretation is appropriate is what might be called a “reasonable person” standard. Would a reasonable person agree that the definitions and interpretations are legitimate? Would a reasonable person agree that the definitions and interpretations are such that they have the potential to lead to a good debate on the topic? If the answer to each of those questions is “yes,” the First Government Team has fulfilled its responsibility with regard to defining and interpreting the motion, and the other teams are, therefore, obliged to follow these definitions and interpretations for the remainder of the debate.
1705133966
1705133967
Some motions are relatively clear from the beginning and others are somewhat ambiguous. The more clear and concrete the motion, the less defining and interpreting will be needed. The dual processes of defining and interpreting are related to each other, yet are conceptually distinct. Defining the motion simply refers to providing clear meanings for any words or phrases that might not be understood by the audience, or that might have multiple meanings. Interpreting the motion ordinarily involves narrowing and focusing the motion for debate. Defining and interpreting the motion are two processes used to set the focus and direction of the debate.
1705133968
1705133969
Consider, for example, the motion that “The United States should abolish capital punishment.” This motion is so clear that it likely requires little, if any, definition. The important phrases, “United States” and “capital punishment,” are likely to be understood by audience members and do not seem to have more than one important meaning. Furthermore, the motion is concrete in terms of both the suggested actor and the proposed action so that it needs little interpretation in order to have a clear and focused debate. The actor is clearly specified in the motion as the United States. Had the motion stated, “Nations of the world should abolish capital punishment,” the debate might reasonably be about policies in the People’s Republic of China, the Arab world, or parts of Asia. In that case, further interpretation might be required to focus the debate. In addition to the actor being clearly specified, the statement of the motion is also clear and requires little interpretation of the action to be undertaken. Had the motion used the words “reform capital punishment” rather than the words “abolish capital punishment,” the motion would have been more abstract and open to interpretation. One could envision reform of capital punishment as involving a range of possible actions such as limiting the kinds of crimes for which capital punishment is used, limiting the age of persons who might be executed, specifying the methods of execution, specifying the conditions under which capital punishment is called for, etc. But this motion, by using the word “abolish” clearly calls for an end to rather than a reform of capital punishment and, thus, very little interpretation is needed beyond the direct statement of the motion.
1705133970
1705133971
When a motion does need to be focused and limited, the Prime Minister may want to say a few words to justify the emphasis. Consider, for example, the motion that “Capital Punishment should be reformed.” Suppose that the debaters want to focus the motion on the Middle East and on the particularly cruel methods used to execute people. They might justify their focus by mentioning the common use of capital punishment in the Middle East and by briefly describing the cruelest methods of capital punishment—stoning, beheading, hanging, etc. Since that interpretation does involve a more limited discussion than one might expect in a typical debate about capital punishment, the opposing debaters and the adjudicators will probably be looking forward to some kind of justification of the limitation. Some potential justifications might include the frequency of capital punishment in the Middle East, the frequency of particular methods of capital punishment, and the existence of alternative methods that are less cruel. Because that interpretation is more limited, it also may require more justification than a more standard interpretation that, for instance, involves limiting capital punishment to first-degree murder, or ending capital punishment of juveniles or mentally disabled people.
1705133972
1705133973
Different motions require different levels of definition and interpretation depending on whether the motion is more or less concrete or is worded in a more or less ambiguous manner. Consider two examples: one that has some limited room for interpretation, and another that has a much wider range of legitimate interpretations. The first example is, “The Republic of South Africa should significantly alter its policies regarding the Kruger National Park.” The motion is fairly concrete, but still leaves room for definition and interpretation. Like the earlier motion, this one contains a very clear actor, the Republic of South Africa. Unlike the earlier motion, this one contains one term with which some of the audience might be unfamiliar, and yet another term that is open to interpretation and clarification. Some of the audience might be unfamiliar with the “Kruger National Park.” Thus, the debaters ought to define it for the audience so the debate could proceed with clarity. Also, the term “significantly alter” can have a variety of interpretations, so the First Government Team needs to provide their interpretation of “significantly alter” in order to set a clear direction for the debate. “Reform” of policies regarding the Kruger National Park might be thought of as changing the ways the government tries to protect endangered species within the park, or changing admission policies within the park, or changing water policies inside the park. Thus, this motion requires some definition and interpretation.
1705133974
1705133975
A different motion might be even more ambiguous and, thus, may need more definition or interpretation. Consider, for example, the motion that “The nations of the world should take greater responsibility for protection of the environment.” In that example, although the individual terms are clear and need little definition, the topic needs to be narrowed and focused in order to have a good debate. Three key phrases, “nations of the world,” “greater responsibility,” and “protection of the environment,” all need to be narrowed and focused. Otherwise, the resulting debate will be too general and will not result in specific arguments. Thus, the First Government Team should make clear how they intend to focus the debate: Which “nations of the world” will be emphasized? What kind of “greater responsibilities” should be expected of those nations? Which areas of “protection of the environment” should be the subject of the debate? By focusing and narrowing the scope of the debate in these three areas, the First Government Team will help to start the debate in a productive direction.
1705133976
1705133977
Step two: describing the position the Government Team will defend. Clearly describing and specifying the position that the Government Team will advocate flows directly from their definition and interpretation of the motion. The second step is simply a clearer and perhaps more specific way of explaining the First Government Team’s definitions and interpretation. The Prime Minister’s responsibility with regard to this second step is simply to provide a very clear statement of what the First Government Team will advocate and defend.
1705133978
1705133979
If the motion is a value motion asking debaters to assess some object (person, idea, institution, etc.), then the Prime Minister should clearly specify the person, idea, or institution to be assessed, and should note the specific value or principle that will be used to evaluate that object. For instance, if a motion states, “Health care is a fundamental human right,” the Prime Minister needs to clarify how he or she will focus the debate, especially in terms of health care. Perhaps the First Government Team will decide to focus on emergency medical care, or on preventive medical care. In such a case, the Prime Minister might fulfill his or her responsibility by stating, “We believe all citizens have a fundamental right to emergency health care and we further believe that providing such care is a fundamental responsibility of our government.” This statement describes the object they intend to evaluate (emergency health care) as well as the value or principle (fundamental responsibility of government) they will employ to create the evaluation. Their statement not only describes the position that the First Government Team will defend, but it also describes the direction that the rest of the debate will take as well. All other teams will then be obliged to discuss emergency health care, not preventive health care not reproductive care, etc. Certainly, other teams can appropriately bring other values or principles to bear on the evaluative process (cost, well-being, etc.), but all of those values will be discussed in terms of emergency care.
1705133980
1705133981
The statement of the position that the Government Teams will defend makes explicit all of the decisions that were implicit in the definitions and interpretations. The definitions and interpretations are thus explained in order to make clear that the debate is not about the motion as a whole, but rather about a more focused and clearly defined position to guide the debate.
1705133982
1705133983
The examples above refer to instances where the motion is one of value, attaching a value to an object. One other common kind of motion will involve an evaluation of a proposed action, usually a policy proposal. In debates about those kinds of motions, a very clear “model” may be helpful because it can offer a rather specific examination of the kind of action the First Government Team is prepared to support. The specification of what the First Government Team will defend is provided in terms of its “model” of the motion. The “model,” as its name implies, is not a statement of the motion as a whole, but of the focused specification that the Government Team will defend with regard to the overall motion.
1705133984
1705133985
In general, a model of this kind will involve three specifications:
1705133986
1705133987
1) Who is the proposed actor? In some cases, the proposed actor is named in the motion, e.g. the United States. Even so, the First Government Team may decide to further specify who ought to take action. Should action be taken by a municipality? By members of a family? By the state government? By members of a club or organization? By the federal government? As stated earlier, the Prime Minister may want to explain why the First Government Team has decided to specify a particular actor.
1705133988
1705133989
2) What are the essential elements of the proposed action? The First Government Team needs to describe the broad details of the proposed action. Because time is limited in most debates, the model can only describe the most essential elements of the proposal, not the fine details. Because of time constraints, the Government Team can only outline its plan, but it should be ready to provide greater explanation if required later in the debate.
1705133990
1705133991
3) What other elements of the proposal, such as details of implementation are needed to make the proposal feasible? These elements may include how the plan will be funded, how the plan will be enforced, how various agencies in the plan are expected to work together, etc. Because the Government Team has limited time, it cannot present these elements in great detail. By briefly describing those three elements of their model, the Government Team makes clear what it intends to advocate and defend during the entirety of the debate. A model is an aid to help all four teams focus the debate on more specific issues in order to have a good, clear debate.
1705133992
[
上一页 ]
[ :1.705133943e+09 ]
[
下一页 ]