1705134913
9.4 The Response Trap
1705134914
1705134915
One common error in Whip speeches deserves careful attention. That error involves using too much of the Whip speech to respond to the previous speaker instead of focusing on one’s own summary framework. When a Whip speech does not provide enough time for the summary framework, the audience gets no sense of closure about the case for which the Whip speaker is arguing. Because the Government Whip speaker needs to respond to the arguments presented by the Member of Opposition, while the Opposition Whip has no similar obligation, one might assume that the Government Whip speaker is more likely to fall into the response trap, but such is not the case. Certainly, some Government Whip speakers spend too much time on rebuttal and do not emphasize their summary framework enough, but most of the time, they move through the rebuttal in a reasonable amount of time and then have time to present their summary framework.
1705134916
1705134917
The response trap is a bigger problem for the Opposition Whip speaker because, by directly responding to the arguments within Government Whip’s framework, the Opposition Whip distracts the audience from the Opposition’s own summary framework. Thus, the trap for the Opposition Whip speaker is not actually about wasting time, it is about validating the framework used by the Government side, which is typically structured so as to be favorable to their conclusion. If the Opposition Whip tries to directly refute the arguments made by the Government Whip, the Opposition Whip helps to ensure that the debate is happening within the Government’s chosen framework. Having the debate occur within the Government’s framework is obviously not helpful for the Opposition.
1705134918
1705134919
Avoiding the response trap is about not wanting to have the debate on territory that has been set up by your opponents. Instead, a primary goal of the Opposition Whip should be to largely ignore the framework offered by the Government Whip, and offer a new summary framework that is sufficiently compelling so that the audience will prefer to think about the debate through that lens. Of course, if serious flaws exist with the government’s summary framework, the Opposition Whip should probably begin by pointing out those flaws. For example, if the Government Whip speaker used the regrouping method, but entirely left out a large group of people who were significantly harmed by the government’s plan, the Opposition Whip should attack the framework itself. However, attacking the framework is different from arguing within the Government framework and should be very brief. Mainly, the Opposition Whip’s goal should be to change how the audience looks at the debate altogether. That goal may be best accomplished by spending all or almost all of the time within the Opposition’s summary framework.
1705134920
1705134921
One might ask, “Where does rebuttal occur in a Whip speech?” The answer is that rebuttal needs to be woven into the summary framework. The summary framework is just that, a framework, and an outline within which arguments need to be made. Refutation in Whip speeches should generally involve direct comparisons between what the two sides are offering. Consider an example where the Government has proposed the legalization of recreational drugs. The Government side has argued that legalizing drugs will reduce the number of drug addicts because people will no longer be attracted to drugs as a forbidden fruit, public use will discourage people from using drugs excessively, and better addiction treatment centers will be provided under their plan. The Opposition side has argued that addiction will increase because of a decreased stigma regarding drug use, an increase in availability without risk of jail, and a decrease in cost. Of course, both sides have offered other arguments, as well. Now, finally, imagine that the Government Whip speaker offers the following reframing summary framework:
1705134922
1705134923
1) Do people have a fundamental liberty right to use drugs if no one else is harmed?
1705134924
1705134925
2) Would our society be better off if drugs were legal?
1705134926
1705134927
3) When is it acceptable for governments to restrict individual liberty?
1705134928
1705134929
The question is, where in the Government Whip speech should the speaker refute the Opposition’s arguments about why addiction will increase? If some of those arguments were brand new in the Member of Opposition speech, they might be appropriately addressed at the start of the Whip speech, before getting to the summary framework. However, refuting all of these ideas within the context of the second fundamental question might be a better idea. And, spending minimal time on this dispute would make more sense, even if previous speakers spent a lot of time talking about it. The question about whether the number of addicts is going to increase is clearly a part of the larger question of whether legalizing drugs will be good for society, but it is only one part of that question. Other questions involve economics, incarceration, foreign relations, organized crime, etc. So, imagine a smart Government Whip speaker in that circumstance saying, “We think that addiction rates will go down for all the reasons we have given, which make more sense than their reasons because… But, even if we are wrong, and addiction will increase, the larger and more important point is that, as we have asserted, so many other benefits will accrue to society. Therefore, the answer to our second fundamental question is that society would be better off after legalization.”
1705134930
1705134931
The point of this long example is to demonstrate how direct comparison and refutation fit within a summary framework. Note that, even if the Second Government Team believed that they were unlikely to win the argument that addiction would decrease under the government plan, their choice of a framework made the loss of this argument largely irrelevant (even if previous speakers had spent lots of time focusing on that argument), just by refocusing the attention of the audience using the right lens.
1705134932
1705134934
9.5 Summary
1705134935
1705134936
The main function of a Whip speech is to convince the audience to look at the big picture (the entire debate) through a certain lens that is favorable to the Whip speaker’s side. That lens should focus the audience’s attention on the strengths of the arguments supported by the Whip speaker. The lens may also emphasize vocabulary that is beneficial to the Whip speaker’s position. For example, those who are in favor of abortion rights would rather label their opponents as “anti-choice” rather than “pro-life” in order to focus on the value of choice rather than life. Thus, the function of a good Whip speech is to convince the audience to look at a confusing set of arguments in a way that simplifies the task of deciding which set of arguments is best, and to do so in a manner most favorable to your side. Of course, while other details need to be kept in mind, the primary thing to remember and master is to create a compelling framework in the Whip speech.
1705134937
1705134938
Several different approaches to creating a summary framework are available. Three of them are discussed above: 1) the repeating method, 2) the regrouping method, and 3) the reframing method. The first method is not recommended if you want a strong Whip speech. The second and third methods can both be very effective, but the reframing method is the most effective if it is done well. Reframing is also the most difficult because it is harder to see what the fundamental questions are, but knowing how to formulate the fundamental questions well is important to do well in all positions in the debate.
1705134939
1705134940
Finally, remember that the Whip speaker has about an hour between the beginning of preparation time and the Whip speech. In that time, the Whip speaker has three main tasks. First, the Whip speaker must help his or her partner create extension material: new lines of argument, deeper analysis of existing arguments, rebuttal arguments, new examples and analogies, etc. Second, the Whip speaker must think of good points of information to ask that seriously challenge what the speakers are saying. Third, the Whip speaker needs to focus on how to frame the debate. As the arguments in the debate unfold and get pushed deeper, the Whip speaker must continue to think about the best way to summarize the debate. In the end, the performance of the Whip speaker will be judged based on how persuasive the Whip speech is. A persuasive speech is the best way for a Whip speaker to help the team, so listening to all of the previous speeches is important. However, a Whip speaker need not be obsessed with getting every idea down in notes. A good Whip speaker should take the time necessary to create an effective framework that weaves together all of the most important issues discussed during the debate. Once an appropriate framework is created, the placement of important arguments in the debate within that framework becomes fairly obvious, even if some arguments come up in more than one place.
1705134941
1705134942
党鞭演讲的主要作用是说服观众透过一副有利于己方的“有色眼镜”来审视整场辩论。这副“有色眼镜”应将观众的注意力转移到己方支持的论点或词汇上。比如，支持堕胎自由的人会将反方打上“剥夺自主选择权”而非“反堕胎”的标签，这是为了把关注点放在选择权而非生命的价值上。因此，一个好的党鞭演讲，可以用简单的方法，帮助观众在诸多繁杂的论点中，判断出最有说服力的论证，并且引导他们支持党鞭所在的这一方。当然，在牢记这些细节的同时，最重要的是在党鞭演讲中构建一个令人信服的框架。
1705134943
1705134944
构建总结性框架的方法有很多种。上面我们谈到了其中三种：1）重复法；2）分组法；3）解构法。如果希望呈现一个强有力的党鞭演讲，我们不推荐使用第一种方法。第二和第三种方法更好一些，其中解构法在使用得当的情况下会是最有效的。解构法同时也是最难的，因为找到辩题中最基本最关键的问题非常困难。然而，知道如何恰当地系统阐述基本问题，对处于任何位置的辩论都至关重要。
1705134945
1705134946
最后，值得注意的是，从准备时间开始到演讲，党鞭大概有一个小时左右可以用来准备。在这段时间里，党鞭有三个主要任务：第一，帮助队友构思延伸的内容，如新的论证思路、更深层的分析、反驳的论点、新的例子以及类比等等。第二，需要想出好的质询以强有力地挑战对方观点。第三，要把重点放在如何整理出一个框架上。随着辩论中论证的展开和深入，党鞭要不断思考如何才能最好地总结整场辩论。党鞭的表现取决于其总结性发言是否有说服力。发表一场有说服力的演讲是党鞭帮助整支队伍的最好方法，因此，仔细聆听之前所有的演讲是至关重要的。然而党鞭并不需要记下前面演讲中所有的观点，而是应该充分利用时间，将之前谈及的重要问题联系在一起，建立一个有力的框架。搭建起合理的框架后，如何在其中填充辩论中出现的重要观点就相对简单了，即使有些论点在不同地方重复出现也没有关系。
1705134947
1705134949
9.6 Terms and Concepts from Chapter 9
1705134950
1705134951
Check your memory and comprehension by describing or defining these key terms and concepts:
1705134952
1705134953
· Whip speaker
1705134954
1705134955
· Extension
1705134956
1705134957
· Summary
1705134958
1705134959
· The paradox of Whip speeches
1705134960
1705134961
· Direct comparison
[
上一页 ]
[ :1.705134912e+09 ]
[
下一页 ]