1705134305
7.3.1 Arguments Against a Policy Motion
1705134306
1705134307
Typically, arguments against a policy motion include those that suggest that the model will not solve the problems raised by the First Government Team. They also include principled arguments against the First Government team’s model, arguments claiming that the model will create more problems than it will solve, and arguments to suggest that a counter proposal is better.
1705134308
1705134309
7.3.1.1 The Model Will Not Solve Problems A common type of argument used to oppose a model is one that claims that the actions envisioned by the Prime Minister will not solve the problems suggested by the First Government Team. That kind of argument is appropriate when one of the Government speakers uses the very common method of describing a serious problem in the status quo and then shows how the proposed model will solve that problem. The First Government Team’s argument is probably centered on cause and effect reasoning. The Government speaker will describe a problem, and then describe its cause in such a way that the model can eliminate or circumvent the cause, thus, solving or at least mitigating the problem. The Opposition debaters will then need to consider that cause and effect relationship.
1705134310
1705134311
For instance, a Prime Minister might describe problems of secondary education in Sub-Saharan Africa, arguing that lack of access to education causes an increase in poverty. He or she might note that people without a secondary education are much more likely to exist on less than $200(US Dollars) per year than people who have earned a secondary education. A debater for the Opposition might suggest that the model will not solve the problem of poverty because it fails to deal with one of the most significant causes of poverty, HIV/AIDS. The Leader of Opposition might suggest that HIV/AIDS is a substantial reason people are not getting education and that, even if children are guaranteed access to education, they will not complete their schooling nor will they move out of poverty because of HIV/AIDS.
1705134312
1705134313
The illustration below shows how such an argument might look:
1705134314
1705134315
Opposition Argument: The Model Will Not Solve the Problem
1705134316
1705134317
Claim: Access to education will not solve the problem of poverty in Sub-Saharan Africa.
1705134318
1705134319
1705134320
1705134321
·Sub-claim 1: Students will not complete their education because of HIV/AIDS.
1705134322
1705134323
￭ Teachers may be unable to teach because of HIV/AIDS.
1705134324
1705134325
￭ Students may have to leave school to care for family members who have HIV/AIDS.
1705134326
1705134327
￭ Students may be forced to drop out of school because they have HIV/AIDS.
1705134328
1705134329
·Sub-claim 2: Even if students are guaranteed access to secondary schools, they may not be able to complete their education.
1705134330
1705134331
·Sub-claim 3: Because they do not complete their education, students will still be confined to poverty.
1705134332
1705134333
To clarify the process of arguing that the model will not solve the problem, consider a second example. If the First Government Team presented a model suggesting that the United Nations should install desalinization plants to solve the problem of clean drinking water, the Leader of Opposition might suggest that desalinization will not, by itself, provide clean drinking water.
1705134334
1705134335
Such an argument is illustrated below:
1705134336
1705134337
The goal of such an argument is to test whether or not the Prime Minister has isolated the correct cause of the problem. If the alleged cause is not the real cause, then removing the alleged cause will have no effect on the problem.
1705134338
1705134339
Opposition Argument: The Model Will Not Solve the Problem
1705134340
1705134341
Claim: Desalinization will not provide clean drinking water.
1705134342
1705134343
1705134344
1705134345
·Sub-claim 1: Desalinization works primarily for rich countries located by the ocean.
1705134346
1705134347
·Sub-claim 2: Much of the world’s population in need of clean drinking water does not live near the ocean.
1705134348
1705134349
·Sub-claim 3: Therefore, even if the United Nations created clean drinking water through desalinization plants, they would not be able to get the water to inland populations.
1705134350
1705134351
Frequently, arguments that suggest that the Government proposal will not solve the problem are good arguments, but they may not in and of themselves be sufficient to reject the proposal. For instance, even in light of these arguments, the Government Team may be able to suggest that their proposal is a good one even if it does not completely solve the problem. In other words, they would suggest that their proposal would solve a substantial part, if not the entire problem. Thus, that kind of argument will be more persuasive when combined with some of the arguments discussed below.
1705134352
1705134353
7.3.1.2 Principled Arguments Against the Model A second kind of argument that members of the First Opposition Team might consider is a principled argument against the First Government Team’s model. In some cases, as discussed earlier, the First Government Team may have used principles to recommend some actions that they proposed. In cases like this, debaters supporting the Opposition side might choose to explicitly support a different value system or a different principle than that supported by the opening Government Team. That kind of a stance is useful when the case for the motion centers on a principle that the First Government Team has associated with the action they are recommending.
[
上一页 ]
[ :1.705134304e+09 ]
[
下一页 ]