1705134172
思辨精英：英语辩论-构筑全球视角 Chapter 7Arguments by First Opposition Teams
1705134173
1705134174
Robert Trapp
1705134175
1705134176
Chapter Outline
1705134177
1705134178
7.1 Role of Leader of Opposition
1705134179
1705134180
7.2 Role of the Deputy Leader of Opposition
1705134181
1705134182
7.3 Common Kinds of Opposition Arguments
1705134183
1705134184
7.4 Summary
1705134185
1705134186
7.5 Terms and Concepts from Chapter 7
1705134187
1705134188
7.6 Discussion Questions for Chapter 7
1705134189
1705134190
7.7 Exercises for Chapter 7
1705134191
1705134192
The roles of the Leader and Deputy Leader of Opposition are analogous to those of the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister, with the role of the Leader of Opposition being similar to that of the Prime Minister. Like the Prime Minister is primarily responsible for describing the position the Government side will defend, the Leader of Opposition will describe the stance to be taken by the Opposition side in the debate. As the Prime Minister is responsible for constructing most of the arguments of the First Government Team, the Leader of Opposition is responsible for constructing most of the arguments of the First Opposition Team.
1705134193
1705134194
1705134195
1705134196
Debaters assigned to debate for Opposition side need to remember that they must do more than simply oppose the motion. They need to oppose the particular stance or the model offered by the First Government Team. Consider a situation where the motion is, “Nations should provide a minimal level of education to all their citizens.” The First Government Team might decide to focus the debate on Sub-Saharan Africa and might present a model that suggests that all nations of Sub-Saharan Africa should provide at least a secondary education for all their citizens. In such a case, the First Opposition Team would need to focus their arguments on the model, not just on the general motion. The Opposition side would be expected to engage the First Government Team with arguments about Sub-Saharan Africa, not nations in general. Furthermore, they would be expected to focus on the question of secondary education. Opposition debaters who raise issues about education in East Asia or issues about post-secondary education would miss the mark because they focused on the motion in general, not on the model offered by the First Government Team. Those arguments would not address the central point of the debate.
1705134197
1705134199
7.1 Role of Leader of Opposition
1705134200
1705134201
The Leader of Opposition is responsible for the following: 1) providing a clear statement of the Opposition stance in the debate, 2) refuting arguments made by the Prime Minister, and 3) constructing at least one independent argument against the position advocated by the Prime Minister.
1705134202
1705134204
7.1.1 Provide a Clear Statement of the Opposition Stance in the Debate
1705134205
1705134206
The Opposition stance toward the motion tries to accomplish some of what the First Government Team achieved when they created their model of the motion. A solid stance gives the First Opposition team the chance to show that they do more than merely oppose statements made by the First Government Team. Such a stance also gives them the opportunity to show the audience and judge precisely what the Opposition Team intends to support. A clear Opposition stance is important regardless of the kind of motion being addressed.
1705134207
1705134208
Just as defining and interpreting the motion is the right and responsibility of the First Government Team, establishing the stance for the Opposition is the right and responsibility of the First Opposition Team. As the First Government Team is expected to establish a reasonable definition and interpretation, the First Opposition Team is expected to develop a reasonable stance. After the First Opposition Team develops the stance, the Second Opposition Team is obliged to continue to pursue that stance in their speeches, as well. To do otherwise would leave the debate going in too many directions, and would create a very confusing debate. Thus, if the First Opposition decides to support the status quo, the Second Opposition Team would not be able to suggest a counter proposal—one that is different from the Government’s proposal and the status quo.
1705134209
1705134210
Of course, one way that an Opposition debater can make a persuasive argument against the motion is to merely oppose the claims of the First Government Team. But, creating a more precise stance allows the Opposition Team to go beyond merely opposing to showing that they too have a position they support. The following brief sections will discuss how the Leader of Opposition can describe the Opposition stance when debating policy and value motions.
1705134211
1705134212
7.1.1.1 The Opposition Stance When Debating a Policy Motion When the First Government Team introduces a model that supports a certain action, the First Opposition Team should support an action that goes in a different direction. By doing so, the First Opposition Team can show the judge and audience that, in addition to opposing the action taken by the First Government Team, they also support some action of their own. The First Opposition Team can describe the action they support in one of three ways: by explicitly supporting the present course of action, by supporting general direction the present course of action with minor changes, or by supporting a counter proposal.
1705134213
1705134214
A. Explicitly Support the Present Course of Action. One good way for the Leader of Opposition to take a solid stance is to explicitly defend the present course of action. This option is the one that is most frequently taken by First Opposition Teams. Much of the time, however, the First Opposition Team’s support for the present course of action is only implicit in their rejection of the First Government Team’s model. The First Opposition Team can be more persuasive by describing the actions taken by the present system and by defending those actions explicitly. To do so, they would need to describe the particular elements of the current policy they support, then, of course, they would need to give persuasive reasons why they believe the current action is superior to the First Government Team’s model. For instance, with regard to the education example discussed earlier, the Leader of Opposition might clarify that they support the current efforts regarding post-secondary education in Sub-Saharan Africa. Then, the speaker would need to go on to describe the current approach as a combination of increased access for students and increasing the number and quality of qualified teachers. Later, the speaker will need to construct an argument supporting that stance. Construction of such an argument will be discussed soon, but for now, the Opposition Team’s stance should be clearly and explicitly stated.
1705134215
1705134216
B. Defend the Present Course of Action with Minor Changes. A second choice of the First Opposition Team is to defend the general direction of the present course of action while supporting minor changes to it. Perhaps the Leader of Opposition believes that the present course of action is basically good, but also wants to suggest some things about it that could be changed without going as far as the First Government Team would suggest. In that case, the Leader needs to be explicit about what changes he or she proposes to the present policy. For instance, the Leader might defend the current policy of working to increase student access to education while acknowledging that more money needs to be put into the effort. In this way, the Leader of Opposition retains the benefit of arguing for the present system, in general, while simultaneously offering mechanisms for overcoming problems caused by the present system.
1705134217
1705134218
C. Support a Counter Proposal. A third alternative is to support a counter proposal, sometimes called a counter plan or counter model. A counter proposal is one that is different from both the status quo and from the model presented by the First Government Team. More than just being different, the counter proposal needs to differ from the First Government Team’s model in ways that cannot be accommodated by the First Government Team’s model. When two things are so different that their differences cannot be accommodated, those differences are called “competitive.” So, the counter proposal needs to be not just different from the Government model, but different in ways that are competitive. The motion, “Nations should provide a minimal level of education to all their citizens,” can be used to illustrate examples of competitive and non-competitive counter proposals. For instance, if the First Government Team were to offer a model that suggests that nations of Sub-Saharan Africa should guarantee access to a secondary education for all, and the First Opposition Team offered a counter proposal that said, “Yes, but we also should institute new programs in Sub-Saharan Africa to combat AIDS and HIV,” then the first response by the First Government Team might simply be “We should enact the proposal envisioned by the First Government Team’s model along side, not instead of, the counter proposal.” In other words, the First Government Team is arguing that the counter proposal is not competitive with the model because the two proposals can and should accommodate one another. The point is this: If the proposal offered by the First Government and the counter proposal offered by the Opposition can accommodate one another—that is to say that they can be pursued simultaneously, the counter proposal is not competitive and, thus, does not offer a reason not to accept the First Government Team’s model.
1705134219
1705134220
The example above can illustrate how the Opposition Team could present an argument that their counter proposal really is competitive. The Opposition Team might demonstrate that financial resources in Sub-Saharan Africa are so limited that those nations only have the ability to choose either programs for secondary education or for HIV/AIDS, but not both. Thus, the counter proposal to combat HIV/AIDS cannot be accomplished if we are spending all our resources on the First Government Team’s proposal to enhance access to secondary education. In this case, the Opposition would of course be obliged to argue that combating HIV/AIDS is more important than guaranteeing access to secondary education.
[
上一页 ]
[ :1.705134171e+09 ]
[
下一页 ]