1705134708
思辨精英：英语辩论-构筑全球视角 [:1705132397]
1705134709
思辨精英：英语辩论-构筑全球视角 Chapter 9Summarizing the Debate in Whip Speeches
1705134710
1705134711
Eric Barnes
1705134712
1705134713
Chapter Outline
1705134714
1705134715
9.1 Overview of Whip Speeches
1705134716
1705134717
9.2 Summarizing: What to Discuss
1705134718
1705134719
9.3 Summarizing: How to Organize
1705134720
1705134721
9.4 The Response Trap
1705134722
1705134723
9.5 Summary
1705134724
1705134725
9.6 Terms and Concepts from Chapter 9
1705134726
1705134727
9.7 Discussion Questions for Chapter 9
1705134728
1705134729
9.8 Exercises for Chapter 9
1705134730
1705134731
The final speech on each side of the debate is called a Whip speech. Speakers giving Whip speeches incur distinct expectations and limitations, different from speakers giving any of the other speeches in the debate. The fact that these expectations and limitations exist does not imply only one way to give a successful Whip speech; many such ways exist, but certain specific expectations for this kind of speech still remain.
1705134732
1705134733
1705134734
1705134735
思辨精英：英语辩论-构筑全球视角 [:1705132398]
1705134736
9.1 Overview of Whip Speeches
1705134737
1705134738
The main purpose of a Whip speech is to summarize the debate that has just occurred in a manner that shows why the arguments on the Whip speaker’s side of the debate should prevail. Just as an individual persuasive speech should have a conclusion that emphasizes the most important elements of the speech, the Whip speech should emphasize the most important arguments that have been made by the previous three speakers on his or her side. The most effective methods of summarizing the debate will make direct comparisons between the two sides of the debate rather than focusing solely on what was said by only one side.
1705134739
1705134740
Some differences exist between what is expected in a Government Whip speech and in an Opposition Whip speech. Entirely new arguments are strongly discouraged in the Opposition Whip speech, because allowing a new argument that the other side would have no opportunity to refute would be unfair. In contrast, new arguments are permitted in the Government Whip speech, although, presenting new arguments in this speech is strongly discouraged because these arguments would be better presented in the Member of Government speech, when both sides will have time to discuss them. So, the persuasiveness of new arguments in the Government Whip speech may be discounted to some degree. The Government Whip also has the very important job of refuting any new arguments that have been presented by the Member of Opposition, because the Government Whip is the only speaker with the opportunity to do that. Failure to do so may be considered a major flaw in a Government Whip speech, assuming that new arguments that need to be refuted were presented in the Member of Opposition speech. The characteristics of good refutation will be covered elsewhere and will not be discussed here, but a generally agreed upon idea is that the rebuttal portion of the Government Whip speech should come first and should be brief. Of course, the Opposition Whip speaker has the option of refuting the Member of Government’s extension argument, but this obligation is not as important because the Opposition Whip speaker can fold that refutation into his or her summary.
1705134741
1705134742
The most important part of any good Whip speech is the summary. The three primary goals of the summary are: 1) to provide an honest and accurate comparison of the two sides of the debate; 2) to demonstrate the superiority of the Whip speaker’s position in the debate; and, 3) to highlight the importance of contributions made by the Whip speaker’s team. Accomplishing those three goals and finding the right balance between them can be a challenge, but a good Whip speaker should never lose sight of the fact that the overarching goal is to give a persuasive speech, a speech that convinces the audience that the Whip speaker’s side of the debate is more likely to be right. A strong summary is a means to that larger goal.
1705134743
1705134744
Obviously, certain tensions exist among these goals. If the Whip speaker’s side is clearly losing the debate, then an entirely honest and accurate summary would probably not do a good job of demonstrating the superiority of the closing team’s position. Similarly, if the Whip speaker’s team contributed very little, then a perfectly accurate summary will not emphasize the importance of that team’s contribution to the debate. But, in the end, honesty and accuracy need to be the primary guides in summarizing the debate, because a debater will gain very little by making assertions that are dishonest or inaccurate. Judges will almost certainly recognize when a debater is not being honest and accurate, and will look upon the Whip speaker very unfavorably because of it.
1705134745
1705134746
Distinguishing between honesty and accuracy on the one hand, and impartiality on the other hand can largely resolve the apparent tensions. Judges and audiences expect that the Whip’s interpretation of the debate will be biased toward that debater’s side of the debate, and as long as the Whip speaker is not saying anything false, he or she can safely summarize the debate by emphasizing the aspects of the debate that favored the Whip speaker’s side in the debate. Summarizing the debate in such a manner is not impartial, but is still honest and accurate. Things are somewhat more complicated when the Whip tries to decide how to best emphasize his or her team’s contribution to the debate if that contribution was not actually as significant as what was offered by the opening team on the Whip’s side. In this case, the most accurate thing to do is to offer a summary that highlights the arguments from the opening team, because by being obviously inaccurate, even a good Whip speaker will not fool the judges into thinking the contributions of the closing team were more important than they were. This may not help the closing team place above the opening team on their side (which they probably do not deserve), but they may end up in second place. In contrast, trying to claim that they added more than they did, in addition to being ethically dubious, may very well put that team into an even lower ranking.
1705134747
1705134748
Before moving into the details of how to create a good summary, this chapter will consider the reasons why Whip speeches are particularly difficult. A good Whip speaker needs to say something new, without saying anything new. He or she needs to say something new because any speech that merely repeats what the audience has already heard from another speaker would not be engaging or persuasive. The Whip speaker must not say anything new because, as described above, the strong expectation is that the final speaker should not add new arguments. This is the paradox of Whip speeches. Understanding how to navigate this paradox is the key to giving good Whip speeches. Excellent Whip speakers need to contribute something that is novel and important to the debate without violating the expectation against presenting new arguments. This is what successful summaries do.
1705134749
1705134750
The Government and Opposition Whip speeches serve a similar purpose, but they are not entirely the same. The main function of both speeches is to present the audience with a way to look back at the debate that compels the audience to believe that one side is correct and the other is mistaken, and to do this in a manner that is both innovative and illuminating. But, because the Government Whip speaker is the only debater with an opportunity to refute the new arguments(i.e., extension material) presented by the Closing Opposition Team, the Government Whip speaker has a special obligation to refute any of these arguments that are worthy of refutation. In contrast, the Member of Government’s extension argument presumably will have been addressed by the Member of Opposition, so the Opposition Whip speaker has no symmetrical obligation to engage in this kind of refutation. The other significant difference between the two Whip speeches is that new lines of argument by the Opposition Whip are very likely to be entirely ignored by judges, while new lines of argument by the Government Whip are more likely to be merely discounted to some degree. New lines of argumentation are discouraged in both speeches because it is rather late in the debate to be introducing wholly new arguments, which could have been better explored had they been presented in the Member speeches. New lines of argument by the Opposition Whip are particularly discouraged because no one on the Government side will have any opportunity to refute those arguments.
1705134751
1705134752
The diagram below summarizes the limitations and expectations of the Government and Opposition Whip speakers:
1705134753
1705134754
1705134755
1705134756
1705134757
思辨精英：英语辩论-构筑全球视角 [:1705132399]