1705134812
9.3.3 Reframing Method
1705134813
1705134814
The third method of summarizing is the Reframing Method. This method is generally considered to be the most powerful and effective method of summarizing a debate. The debater using this method reframes the issues in the debate by asking and then answering certain questions that are fundamental to the original motion being debated. The goal is to present the audience with a set of questions that are obviously central to settling the debate, and to then show how the arguments that have already been made actually provide answers to those questions that support the Whip speaker’s side of the debate. Learning to identify the best fundamental questions around which to build a summary is not simple, but when it is done well, it provides the audience with both a sense of closure on the debate and an impression that the side represented by the Whip speaker has obviously prevailed.
1705134815
1705134816
Even though it is the best method, the Reframing Method is not the only one being taught, because it is the most difficult to learn to do well. No simple formula exists to identify and construct the most appropriate fundamental questions for a given debate. At the same time, the ability to do that is important far beyond constructing good summaries in Whip speeches. Being able to see the fundamental questions behind an issue is important for every person in a debate and is important to becoming a good critical thinker for life outside of competitive debates. So, what follows includes some examples and some hints about how to construct fundamental questions, but much of it will require genuine insight and practice over time.
1705134817
1705134818
So, what are fundamental questions? As stated above, they are the most basic questions that need to be answered in order to come to a rational conclusion about the motion being debated. Imagine that the motion being debated is, “This house believes that the U.S. should provide airstrikes in support of the Syrian rebels.” In that case, the fundamental questions might be:
1705134819
1705134820
1) Does the US have the right to militarily intervene in Syria?
1705134821
1705134822
2) Will US airstrikes in Syria make the situation better?
1705134823
1705134824
Answering both of those questions is clearly important to deciding which side of the debate is best. These two questions could provide a solid framework for a summary, looking at each of the important arguments that had been made in the debate and re-examining them in terms of how they influence the answer to those two questions. But, a good Whip speaker should realize that these are not the only fundamental questions that could be used. Indeed, Whip speakers need to choose a set of fundamental questions that emphasizes the strengths of their arguments(just as when using the Regrouping Method, the debater needs to choose the stakeholder groups carefully), while still ensuring that the questions appear to be fundamental, neutral, and fair. Indeed, the fundamental questions given in the example above are so neutral and fair that they may not be perfect for either side of the debate to use.
1705134825
1705134826
The most effective Whip speakers will ask a set of fundamental questions that seem entirely neutral and that maximize the likelihood that the audience will be persuaded that the speaker’s side of the debate is right. So, using this same example about Syria, the Opposition Whip might build a summary around these fundamental questions:
1705134827
1705134828
1) Will the world be better off if the rebels succeed in overthrowing the current government?
1705134829
1705134830
2) Are airstrikes the best method to facilitate the overthrow of the current government?
1705134831
1705134832
3) Is the US the right agent to be carrying out these airstrikes?
1705134833
1705134834
They provide three unique opportunities to convince the audience that the opposition is right, any one of which is sufficient to persuade the audience and the adjudicators. First, the world may be worse off if rebels overthrow the government because they may set up a repressive regime or they may not be successful in setting up any stable government at all, in which case, the air strikes will just make things worse. Second, even if a rebel overthrow would make things better, other methods of overthrow might accomplish the same goal more effectively. For example, either a negotiated settlement (which might be thwarted by airstrikes) or a military victory without foreign intervention might be a path superior to rebel overthrow. Third, even if a rebel overthrow would make things better and the best way to achieve that is through air strikes, the US military may not be the right actor to perform those airstrikes, perhaps because US intervention will inflame tensions much more than strikes by NATO or other Middle-Eastern states.
1705134835
1705134836
The strategy in this summary framework is to ask fundamental questions in a way that highlights that, if the Whip speaker’s side is right about any one of the answers to those questions, that side is right about the whole debate. Obviously, this is a more powerful way to structure the fundamental summary questions than to ask a set of questions that require answers to all of them to convince the audience, but that is not always possible. In debates about policy (which are the most common debates), because the Opposition Team just needs to show that the Government’s plan has some major flaw, they will more likely be able to set up a series of questions so that getting the audience to agree about any one of them will persuade them that their side is correct.
1705134837
1705134838
Of course, the Government Whip can devise other ways to construct fundamental questions that are more likely to persuade people to the Government side of the debate. The Government Whip’s summary could be built around these questions:
1705134839
1705134840
(1) What are the goals of US foreign policy in the Middle-East?
1705134841
1705134842
(2) Will the current Syrian government change into a partner for peace without external military intervention?
1705134843
1705134844
(3) Will limited airstrikes increase the likelihood that the government of Syria will transform into a partner for regional peace?
1705134845
1705134846
(4) Will anyone else intervene with sufficient effectiveness if the US does not?
1705134847
1705134848
Those questions highlight the features of the situation that suggest that US intervention is appropriate, such as the longstanding US interest in regional peace, the fact that other agents are unlikely to intervene and be effective, and emphasizing that the Government side of the debate does not need to guarantee success, just increase the probability of success so that the likely benefits will outweigh the likely harms.
1705134849
1705134850
Regardless of which fundamental questions the Whip speaker uses, the question should be answered in such a way that the audience clearly sees the process of the Whip speaker directly comparing the arguments relevant to that question that were offered by each side. An effective summary needs to show why the arguments already made (when properly understood in the context of these fundamental questions) are enough to win the debate. Whip speakers understandably should emphasize the arguments made by their teammate in the Member speech. Doing so can help their team place well in the debate. That being said, providing a summary that ignores strong arguments on the Whip speaker’s side just because they were made by the opening team is unwise. The more persuasive a Whip speech is, the more credit the Whip speaker’s team will get, even if some of the arguments emphasized in the summary were arguments made by the Opening team.
1705134851
1705134852
In most cases, although the earlier debaters may have touched upon the fundamental questions, those questions have not been stated quite so clearly and directly, and have not been answered in a manner that seems to settle the entire matter so completely. The Reframing Method starts by identifying what the important questions really are, and then explaining why the correct answers(as provided in the Whip speaker’s side in the debate) demonstrate that his or her side is superior. Thus, the Reframing Method stands in direct contrast to the Repeating Method, which starts by identifying arguments that the Whip’s team is winning, and only then tries to explain why these arguments are the most important.
1705134853
1705134854
Because debate motions are so diverse, appropriate fundamental questions are also quite diverse. However, most debate motions tend to be about public policy issues, and there are some common fundamental questions that can often be asked that either are appropriate as they are stated here, or, are likely to point you toward the fundamental questions that would be appropriate in a particular debate.
1705134855
1705134856
Regardless of which side of the debate you are on, the following questions are often relevant:
1705134857
1705134858
· Will this plan achieve its goal (eliminate or significantly reduce the harm in the status quo)?
1705134859
1705134860
· What is the purpose of … (whatever kind of thing is relevant to the plan)?
[
上一页 ]
[ :1.705134811e+09 ]
[
下一页 ]