1705135171
10.2 Rebuilding Arguments
1705135172
1705135173
As stated earlier, the process of refutation can be used to invalidate or otherwise weaken an argument. Refutation also is used in the process of rebuilding arguments. Refutation can be used to revalidate arguments that have been refuted. This section of the chapter will focus on this use of refutation.
1705135174
1705135175
In most cases, when an argument is refuted, it needs to be rebuilt. Of course, exceptions to that rule exist. Some arguments may not be particularly meaningful, thus, even if they are refuted, their revitalization may not be worth the effort. But most of the time, if a debater presents a major argument and a debater on the other side refutes that argument, the argument needs to be rebuilt.
1705135176
1705135177
The original arguments that a debater presents are presumably among the strongest that the debater has to offer. If this is the case, and if those strong arguments are refuted, not to rebuild them may appear to be tacit admission that they were not that strong to begin with. To allow the argument to be refuted and not revive it may communicate to the audience that the argument is weak. In this case, the credibility of both the argument and the debater who presented it may suffer. For this reason, debaters need to revive and reassert their most important arguments before going on to offer new ones.
1705135178
1705135179
Rebuilding is a constructive process that also involves incorporating the original argument with the refutation brought against it. Thus, rebuilding is neither entirely constructive nor entirely rebuttal. It is an integration of both. To rebuild an argument, one must start with the original argument then pay some consideration to the points of refutation brought against it. The rebuilding process then integrates the original argument and the points of refutation in such a way that the original argument survives even in light of the refutation.
1705135180
1705135182
10.2.1 Five-Step Method of Rebuilding an Argument
1705135183
1705135184
Rebuilding is an art that can be accomplished in a variety of ways. The following five-step process is one such way:
1705135185
1705135186
(1) Stating the thesis of the original argument,
1705135187
1705135188
(2) Stating the refutation offered against the original argument,
1705135189
1705135190
(3) Assessing whether or not the refutation really weakens the original argument,
1705135191
1705135192
(4) Refuting the refutation, and,
1705135193
1705135194
(5) Re-establishing the original argument in light of the insufficient refutation offered against it.
1705135195
1705135196
In the argument about educational reform previously introduced in this chapter, the original argument was that educational reform is a necessity. The Opposition refuted this argument by claiming that educational reform already was being accomplished. The rebuilding of this argument might then proceed by following the five steps mentioned above.
1705135197
1705135198
The first step simply involves identifying the original argument. The debater might say something such as, “Our original argument was that educational reform was a necessity.” The first step is intended to identify for the judge and the audience the precise argument that the debater intends to rebuild. Using the same language that was originally used is quite important because subtle changes in language might confuse judges and audiences. So, if the original argument was “Educational reform is a necessity,” debaters should not change the language to something like “Reform of education is important.” Although the second phrase is really not that different from the first, maintaining the language of the original argument simply helps to ensure that the debater and the audience are on the same page regarding the argument that the debater wants to rebuild.
1705135199
1705135200
The second step identifies for the judge and the audience the refutation that was raised against the original argument. The debater who is interested in rebuilding the original argument should simply restate the refutation as clearly and precisely as possible, being true to the language used by the debater who offered the refutation. So, the debater might say something such as, “Our opponents attempted to refute our argument by saying that education already is being reformed.” The debater who wants to rebuild the original argument need not spend time explaining the refutation, unless he or she intends to show how the internal structure of that argument is flawed. But generally all that is needed is a statement of the refutation itself.
1705135201
1705135202
In the third step, the debater should assess the opponent’s refutation. After having identified the refutation, the debater should then state his or her assessment of the refutation as simply and concisely as possible. For instance, that statement might be as simple as “My opponent’s refutation is insufficient,” “My opponent’s refutation is based on insufficient evidence,” or “My opponent’s refutation is inconsistent with what we know to be true.”
1705135203
1705135204
In the fourth step, the debater should explain the reasons underlying his or her assessment of the refutation. Why is the refutation inadequate? What are the reasons that underlie such an assessment of inadequacy? A debater might say something such as, “Even if true, the refutation does not deny the basic thrust of our argument,” or “The refutation is based on evidence offered a year ago when the situation was entirely different from today.” In other words, the fourth step is an opportunity to explain why the assessment of the refutation is as it is.
1705135205
1705135206
In the fifth step, the debater will re-establish the original argument in light of his or her assessment of the refutation. Given the assessment of the refutation and comparing this assessment to the original argument, why is the original argument still persuasive? The fifth step also is a good place for a debater to add something new to the original argument. Perhaps the debater can strengthen part of a causal relationship that was implicit but not explicit in the original argument. Perhaps the debater can intensify the value that already exists in the original argument. By adding something new to the original argument, the debater signals to the judge that he or she is adding something new to the debate by enhancing the argument introduced by his or her partner.
1705135207
1705135208
The five steps are illustrated in the following diagram:
1705135209
1705135210
Step 1: Identify the original argument.
1705135211
1705135212
1705135213
1705135214
“We said …”
1705135215
1705135216
“Our original argument was that educational reform is a necessity.”
1705135217
1705135218
Step 2: Identify the refutation to the original argument.
1705135219
[
上一页 ]
[ :1.70513517e+09 ]
[
下一页 ]