70 likes | 269 Views
China Debate Education Network: . Constructing Arguments for the Prime Minister. Prior to Preparing the Speech: Analyze the Motion. Most motions can be interpreted in a number of different ways.
E N D
China Debate Education Network: Constructing Arguments for the Prime Minister
Prior to Preparing the Speech: Analyze the Motion • Most motions can be interpreted in a number of different ways. • All debaters need to focus some attention on what they expect will be the focus and direction of the debate given the motion. • One thing to be considered when analyzing the motion is what kind of motion has been presented.
Three Steps • 1. Define and interpret the motion • 2. Present a model of the motion • 3. Create a case for the model
Step One: Defining And Interpreting the Motion • The First Government Team has the right to define and interpret the motion. • Parallel to this right is the responsibility to define and interpret the motion in a reasonable fashion.
Step One: Defining And Interpreting the Motion (continued) • Defining the motion includes defining any words or phrases that: • Are ambiguous • Might not be understood • Interpreting the motion includes narrowing and focusing the topic for debate • focus on the issues debated in the public forum • Narrow and focus for the purpose of creating a good debate, not just to help yourself win the debate.
Step Two: Presenting The Model • A. If the motion is about assigning value to an object (person, institution, idea, etc.), then the model simply needs to be a clear statement of the focus and direction for the debate. • B. If the motion is about a policy or action, then model should contain at least three things: • a. Who is the actor? • b. What is the proposed action? • c. Are any other details of the proposal needed?
Step Three: Creating a Case Constructing Arguments • Two broad conceptual ways to create arguments to support a motion: principles and consequences • Principled arguments, usually grounded in morals and ethics, focus on the inherent rightness or wrongness of an action. • Consequential arguments, grounded in the effects or outcomes of policies or actions, suggest that the best action is the one that causes the most positive and fewest negative consequences.