1705134599
思辨精英：英语辩论-构筑全球视角 [:1705132390]
1705134600
8.2.2 Types of Extensions
1705134601
1705134602
Three types of extension arguments to be discussed in this chapter include: 1) an additional line of argument, 2) an argument containing more in-depth evidence, examples, and reasoning, and 3) a focused case study. As stated earlier, those are not the only kinds of extension arguments that are possible, but are among the more commonly used ones.
1705134603
1705134604
As stated earlier, the most common and perhaps best kind of extension is an additional line of argument not mentioned in the first half of the debate. This is the most straightforward method of extending the argument of the First Government or First Opposition Team. For instance, shifting from an examination of consequences to an examination of principles and philosophical considerations can create an extension that differs in both method and content. If the first half has focused on consequences or pragmatics, changing the focus to principles or philosophy can be a good extension strategy. On the other hand, if the First Government Team focused on principles or philosophical considerations, an appropriate type of extension might involve an examination of consequences or pragmatics. If the first half has focused on principles or philosophy, this extension can change the direction of the debate. In both of these cases, the extension succeeds in changing the focus of the debate from what was introduced by the First Government Team without indicting that approach. An example of extension arguments that might be used in a motion about smoking are presented in the diagram below:
1705134605
1705134606
1705134607
1705134608
1705134609
1705134610
1705134611
1705134612
Sometimes, circumstances will arise when the debaters feel they cannot or should not offer an entirely new argument. In one case, the First Government Team may have made all of the available arguments, or at least all of the available good arguments. In such a circumstance, the debater has other options. For one thing, he or she can provide further and more in-depth evidence and reasoning for an argument made by the other team. In the case where the First Government Team made an argument that contained three sub-claims, and one of those claims was not particularly well developed, the Member of Government might develop it more fully by providing more evidence and more reasoning. For instance, if the First Government Team focused primarily on a problem and only secondarily on providing a solution to the problem, the Member of Government might say something such as, “Our colleagues on the Opening Government Team did an excellent job of identifying a very significant problem. We would like to extend their argument with greater focus on the cause of the problem and on its solution.” By providing more in-depth argument about the cause and solution, the Member of Government can move the debate forward in a way that maintains consistency with the First Government Team yet moves the debate in a new and fuller direction. In another example, perhaps the Opening Government did focus on the solution to the problem but provided less information about the positive effects the proposal would have. The Member of Government might extend the debate by talking about the extent of those effects—the number of people that might be affected or the precise nature of the effects that the proposal would have. Either of these are good examples where a Member of Government speaker can move the debate forward without introducing an argument that is totally new to the debate. The chart below provides examples of Member of Government extensions that use more in-depth evidence and examples.
1705134613
1705134614
1705134615
1705134616
1705134617
1705134618
1705134619
1705134620
This kind of extension will be more successful to the extent that the in-depth reasoning and evidence have made the argument unique and distinct from the way it was presented by the First Government Team.
1705134621
1705134622
Yet another method of extending the debate without developing an entirely new argument is to present a focused case study to support the First Government Team’s argument. This kind of extension focuses the arguments made by the first half on a particular group of people (such as, children, elderly, minorities, etc.) An extended development of a case study can succeed in making an argument different and hence unique. For instance, if the motion is about smoking and the First Government’s arguments focus generally on the health consequences of smoking, the Member of Government might extend the debate by focusing on children as a case study of health effects of smoking. The diagram below illustrates how a focused case study might contribute to extending the debate.
1705134623
1705134624
1705134625
1705134626
1705134627
In either of the cases, the team will likely be more persuasive if the approach they take is different from that of the First Proposition.
1705134628
1705134629
思辨精英：英语辩论-构筑全球视角 [:1705132391]
1705134630
8.2.3 Extending the Debate: Important Considerations
1705134631
1705134632
By way of summarizing the idea of extending arguments, three important considerations should be emphasized regarding the choice of extensions. The Member Speaker offering the extension should be able to answer all of the following questions in the affirmative.
1705134633
1705134634
First, does the extension maintain loyalty to the Member speaker’s colleagues in the first half of the debate? If the extension in any way contradicts the positions made by colleagues in the first half of the debate, the Member speaker will be seen as disloyal. Furthermore, the more the extension can be integrated with the arguments of the First Government Team or the First Opposition Team, the stronger the extension will be.
1705134635
1705134636
Second, does the extension show how the Member speaker is distinguished from his or her colleagues in the first half of the debate? Being loyal to yet distinct from the First Government Team or First Opposition Team is a subtle but necessary process. Just as one party in a coalition government wants to retain an identity distinct from the other party, so each of the closing teams in the debate wants to be distinguished from their corresponding opening team.
1705134637
1705134638
Third, can the extension provide a distinct perspective from your team while simultaneously keeping the debate on track? The extension argument must not, in the case of the Second Government Team, move away from the model. In the case of the Second Opposition Team, the extension must not move away from the position (statement of advocacy) established by First Opposition Team. The extensions of both Member Speakers need continue to support the position of the Lower House while setting a distinct perspective by the Second Government and Second Opposition Teams.
1705134639
1705134640
思辨精英：英语辩论-构筑全球视角 [:1705132392]
1705134641
8.3 Using Preparation Time to Prepare for Member Speeches
1705134642
1705134643
Preparation time for a Member speech differs in a few ways from that of an opening speech, such as that of First Government and First Opposition. The First Government and First Opposition must use their preparation time to prepare arguments for two speeches. As a closing team, the Second Government and Second Opposition only need to focus on constructive arguments for one speech. While preparing arguments for a single speech seems easier, those teams will need to prepare even more arguments because of the nature of an extension. Opening teams are able to prepare the arguments with a guarantee that they will be able to use those arguments. As a team in the bottom half, the arguments created in preparation time may have been used in the top half of the debate and, thus, will not serve the member. Ways to use preparation time differ. This section will offer only a few of the possible strategies for coming up with unique arguments during preparation time. To ensure that a team’s arguments constructed in preparation time will be useful, the following are a few recommended strategies for preparation time for bottom half teams.
1705134644
1705134645
Possibly the easiest way to use preparation time as a bottom half team is to come up with a case study. This is easier than creating a multitude of other arguments, though Member speakers will not often have the depth of knowledge needed to create a case study for each motion. As stated before, case studies are an efficient and effective way to give more in-depth analysis of an argument. Also, if the subject of the case study was not mentioned in the top half of the debate, that subject can become an entirely new line of argumentation. However, if a case study is not a good possibility, other relatively easy methods exist to generate different arguments. The remainder of this section will focus on two such possibilities.
1705134646
1705134647
Another strategy for creating unique arguments is identifying and evaluating all the different parts of the motion. For example, in the motion “Teachers should maintain strict disciplinary control over students,” at least three different topics are mentioned. The first is the teachers, second is the strict disciplinary control, and third is the students. In this way, a Member speaker can create general arguments for why the motion is good or bad for each different group. The first teams will not likely touch on all of these groups, which means that the Member speaker will have a new line of argumentation to contribute to their speech.
1705134648