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.
1705134221
1705134222
Another way the First Opposition Team can suggest that a counter proposal is competitive with the First Government Team’s model is to suggest that they are mutually incompatible. For instance, if the First Government model suggests increased access to secondary education, the Opposition Team might suggest that we should, in fact, eliminate public secondary education. Although that might not be a counter proposal that many of us would like to support, it illustrates how a counter proposal might be competitive by being mutually exclusive with the First Government Team’s model. The model and counter proposal are mutually exclusive because one cannot even envision simultaneously providing greater access to secondary education and also eliminating secondary education.
1705134223
1705134224
Sometimes, advocating a counter proposal can be a very persuasive way to engage a debate. It also is a more complex way to argue. That is not to say that a counter proposal should be avoided, just that it needs to be argued carefully and probably only by experienced debaters.
1705134225
1705134226
Thus, when debating a motion of policy, the First Opposition Team should develop their stance toward the motion, a stance that is unique and different from that of the First Government Team. Three ways to create such a stance have been discussed: explicit defense of the present course of action, defense of the general direction of the present course of action with minor changes, and defense of a counter proposal. The stance that the First Opposition Team takes will then help to determine the kinds of constructive arguments they and the Second Opposition Team will choose to present.
1705134227
1705134228
7.1.1.2 The Opposition Stance When Debating a Value Motion The necessity for the First Opposition Team to present a clear Opposition stance remains whether the motion centers on policy or value. However, since the First Government Team is not presenting and defending a policy proposal, the stance of the First Opposition Team also will not be about policies. Two ways that the First Opposition Team can present a clear stance opposing the motion as interpreted by the Prime Minister include: 1) clearly stating a different value that the Opposition will support, and 2) clearly stating that, although they support the same value as the government, they will apply it to the object of evaluation differently.
1705134229
1705134230
A. Present a Clear Statement of a Value Different from That of the First Opposition. A very clear way to distinguish the First Opposition’s position from that of the First Government Team is to make a clear statement about the value position they support. For instance, the Leader of Opposition can clearly state and argue for a value that is different from the one supported by the Prime Minister. Thus, the Leader of Opposition should clearly identify the value that is supported by the Prime Minister, identify a different value that the First Opposition Team will support, and give persuasive reasons why the Opposition value is better than that of the Government. For instance, if the value argued by the Prime Minister is individual liberty, the Leader of Opposition might identify and support the community as a contrasting and better value. Then, the Leader of Opposition would need to give reasons why community support is more important than individual liberty when those two values come into contrast. They might suggest for instance, that the pursuit of individual liberty will benefit some people but will harm the community at large.
1705134231
1705134232
B. Present a Clear Statement of Evaluation That the First Opposition Team Will Support. In some cases, the Opposition Team will support the same value that the First Government Team supports, but will argue that that value applies differently to the object to be evaluated. In this case, the Leader of Opposition will express support for the value supported by the First Government Team, then will show how that value does not support the object to be evaluated. Consider, for instance, the situation where the object to be evaluated is Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM), and the Prime Minister has argued that “quality medical care” is a value that supports TCM. In such a case, the Leader of Opposition might first agree that quality medical care is an important value, then, proceed to show how TCM does not provide the highest quality of medical care. Thus, the Leader of Opposition has presented a clear stance without disagreeing about the value presented by the Prime Minister.
1705134233
1705134234
Whether the Leader of Opposition chooses to present and defend a contrasting value or show how the value presented by the Prime Minister supports the Opposition value stance, they are presenting a clear Opposition stance with regard to the value motion.
1705134235
1705134237
7.1.2 Refutation of the Case of the Prime Minister
1705134238
1705134239
The second important responsibility of the Leader of Opposition is to provide explicit refutation of the Prime Minister’s case. Refutation is an important element of the debate because it is the feature that allows the audience and the judge to see not only the arguments of each side, but also how the arguments contrast with each other. Judges expect speakers to refute the most important arguments of the opposing side.
1705134240
1705134241
Refutation is important, but it is not the only important thing that needs to be accomplished in the Leader of Opposition speech. A more complete discussion of refutation will be presented in Chapter 10. For now, the most important thing to remember is that the Leader of Opposition needs to refute at least the most important arguments made by the Prime Minister. The process of refutation might not take more than one or two minutes, but it is an important process, nevertheless.
1705134242
1705134244
7.1.3 Construct Arguments to Oppose the Prime Minister’s Interpretation of the Motion
1705134245
1705134246
The final responsibility of the Leader of Opposition is to construct arguments to oppose the Prime Minister’s interpretation of the motion. These arguments should simultaneously oppose the First Government Team’s model and support the Opposition Team’s stance in the debate. So, if the first Opposition is supporting the status quo, the Leader of Opposition’s argument should support the status quo and simultaneously oppose the Prime Minister’s stance.
1705134247
1705134248
In one sense, creating constructive arguments for the Opposition is like creating a case for the motion. When creating a case for the motion, the Prime Minister will frequently create a model or establish a clear stance that sets the direction that both Government Teams will take during the debate. Similarly, the Leader of Opposition should describe an Opposition stance that will guide both Opposition Teams for the entire debate. Also, like the Prime Minister creates an argument or a series of arguments that provide a sufficient case for an audience or a judge to accept the position taken by the First Government Team, debaters creating a case against a motion must attempt to create an argument or a series of arguments that, singly or in combination, create a sufficient case to reject the First Government Team’s position.
1705134249
1705134250
Below is an outline of potential speeches by Leaders of Opposition. The outline is of a speech on a policy motion. A speech on a value motion would follow a similar process.
1705134251
1705134252
Potential Speech on a Policy Motion
[
上一页 ]
[ :1.705134203e+09 ]
[
下一页 ]