Unit 1 MotionsTypes of Motions:1.Motions of value: they are motions of moral or philosophical rights or wrongs. E.g.✧Liberty should be valued more than equality.✧Capital punishment is inherently unjust.✧ A benevolent dictatorship is the best form of government.✧It is moral to actively take one innocent life to save then others.2.Motions of policy: they are plans for solving an extant problem.✧This House would abandon the civilian use of nuclear power.✧This House would prohibit speeches which incite hatred.✧This House believes that European Governments should pay parents to have children.3. A closed motion has a limited scope for interpretation, a semi-closed motion has a largerscope and an open motion enjoys comparatively free interpretation.✧ A closed motion :e.g. This House would abolish International Women’s Day.(FLTRP 2006) P14While their counterparts are celebrating IWD happily in the urban areas, the women in the rural areas might be worried about food for their children, not to say for themselves. We have to remember that more than 30 million people in China are living under the poverty line, of which more than half are women. Ladies and gentlemen, having this in mind, do you still want to celebrate IWD?✧ A semi-closed motion: the key terms in the motion should be delineated and the scope of themotion should be narrowed down to avoid the debate running in all directions. E.g.This House would intervene in Syria. P15Intervention: economic, diplomatic, militaryFirstly, my might focus on diplomatic intervention and interpret the motion as follows: we are here to debate the motion. It is evident that this resolution is referring to the ongoing controversy in Syria. That is the basis for today’s debate. Our model is simple: requesting countries like Russia to issue pressures on the Assad Administration to negotiate with the protesters.Secondly, we might interpret the motion with regard to economic sanctions. Ladies and gentlemen, thousands of civilians in Syria are being killed or arrested simply because they have different opinions with the Assad Administration. We cannot act as onlookers any more. We are here to call for economic sanctions on the Assad Administration to force them to stop the cruel treatment to people’s proper appeals.Thirdly, we might interpret the motion in terms of military intervention.In 1982, at the climax of a six-year Islamic insurgency throughout Syria, President Hafez al-Assad ordered a scorched earth policy against the town of Hama to quell an uprising. In 1982, the world did nothing, and those with power that stood by are complicit in the deaths of those people. Thirty years later, the people of Syria once again need our help, and if we stand by and do nothing, their blood will on our hands.✧An open motion: a linkable motion, which allows a wide variety of definitions. E.g. This house believes that the glass is half full. (WUDC 1998)The motion is based on a famous allusion as to whether the glass is half full or half empty, and can be interpreted as “Most Chinese people are satisfied with their living standard.” Or “Women play an active role in the society.”Rules for Interpreting a Motion1.The interpretation, or definition, should be clear. It is always a good idea to use mostfrequently used words for the definition rather big or formal ones, esp. those borrowed from French, Latin or Greek.2.The interpretation should not be a tautology, which is a remark or an assertion that is true orself-proving. E.g. The gift from the Department Store is free of charge./gift—free of charge This house believes the Olympic Games should not be commercialized. /commercialize—make a profit. /Non-profitable games should not be expected to make a profit.3.The interpretation should not be truism, which really is not disputable.4.The interpretation should not be place-set or time-set. ( It is set in the debate field and in thepresent)CaseCase is comprised of 4 basic elements: the case statement, arguments, relevant evidences and rebuttals.1.case statement: standard/position/stance the debate side takes/the general reason/burdenof proof(Burden of proof refers to the speaker’s duty and responsibility to prove the proposal in question is justified or/and effective.)E.g. This house would pay companies to hire ex-convicts.Pro:The state has a duty-both to those former prisoners and society in general-to try and make sure that those individuals do no return to crime, and join society as law-biding, productive, and happy citizens. That is what our case is about today. Secondly, I will show you how employment specifically is an important part of rehabilitation.Oppo: The case you’ve heard today is well-meaning, but ultimately counter-productive. Our stance is simple: at best, this policy is ineffective. At worst, it makes life harder for the most vulnerable. As such, the core of our case today directly clashes with the second point of the opening speaker: This is not an effective way to rehabilitate. (Q 3)This house believes that caging animals in zoos is immoral.The burden of the Government is to prove to you that considering caging animals is zoos immoral will yield far more benefits to humans, than the persisting and shameful status quo.2.an argument: an idea used to support the case statement, which consists of two basic elements: the claim and the reason(主张和理由).The claim: the point that the speaker intends to make, the stance or the position that we take in the debate.The reason explains why the speaker intends to make the point.Argument = Claim (The death penalty is immoral) + Reason (It encourages the revenge.)E.We had better not pack all arguments into one speech, because we do not haveenough time to offer effective reasoning. We suggest, for each case, and in as fewwords as possible, grouping ideas under 3-4 arguments.3.Evidence: the factual information to create the link btw the claim & the case in point.It might be examples, statistics or testimony used to support an argument.4.Argument= Claim + Reason(evidence 1+ evidence 2 +evidence 3+…)Types of argument or reasoning: example, analogy, cause-effect, by sign, from authority/testimonyspecific examples→ a general theory or assumption: inductionVice versa: deductionAnalogy:which proves an argument should well be true for an analogous situation. E.g. This House believes that the public has the right to know when in crisis. (The crisis could be bird flue, or SARS, which will cause a high death rate. If people knew the information, no social chaos would be caused.Cause-effect: E.g. This house would legalize the sale of organs. (The motion can be interpreted as The sale of Human kidneys should be legalized. If so, the effect would be that a large number of poor people sell their kidneys, as kidneys are in great demand. Even worse, when people are in great need, they will irresponsibly sell their kidneys as it is one of the most convenient sources for money.In debate, one of the most common forms of causal reasoning is the disadvantage or negative consequences.Reduction to absurdity(归谬法，反证法)/proof by contradiction: If we want to prove x is true, we first assume x is not true. From our assumption, we may draw a contradictory conclusion, which is the opposite of the fact. Thus, we conclude that our assumption must be false.E.g. The house believes that the marriage without love is immoral.(Argument: Let’s assume that marriage without love is moral. If so, one partner of a marriage not taking care of the seriously ill partner is morally acceptable; one partner of a marriage leaving a child under the care of the other one is morally acceptable. Obviously, it is absurd. Therefore, marriage without love is immoral.)Rebuttals: the argument made to refute the opponent’s argument or defend the speaker’s argument. *PM does not have to refute.*LO cannot use the repairing-oriented rebuttal strategies as he or she does not have to repair any argument.Rebuttal strategies: the Meany and Shuster Model, proposing a counterplan, challenging the burden of proof, offering strategic agreement, announcing an argumentative turn, comparing consequences, shifting concepts, asserting invalidity of arguments and digging out missed arguments.Offering strategic agreement(让步性反驳策略,以退为进): an effective way for LO to refute the PM’s argument. The LO might strategically concede or admit that one or two of the weaker arguments of the Pro are true in order to refute more effectively. With strategic agreement or concession, we prepare ourselves for more fierce attack.E.g1. This House would pay civil servant high salaries to fight corruption.(FLTRP 2006) (PM: when civil servants are paid low wages, the best talent will leave for better-paid positions, while those that remain will be tempted to use their positions to make money when possible. Rebuttal: It is necessary to pay civil servants high salaries in order to prove the point that a high salary might result in more corruption as greed knows no bounds and there is no clear line for how high is high.)E.g 2. This House would pay companies to hire ex-convicts.(PM: the state has the duty to rehabilitate ex-prisoners.Rebuttal: the state has the duty to rehabilitate ex-prisoners, but the goal of rehabilitation is no more important than any other goal of the legal system like deterrence, fairness, and balance. When the state offers chances for ex-convicts, it takes jobs away from other groups of people. The pro fails to explain why ex-convicts matter more than other vulnerable groups of people, which should be the pro’s burden of proof. The proposal is not justified. Secondly, the social stigmas on ex-convicts figured out by the PM are true, but in the meanwhile, the proposition proposal does not solve the problem at all. Making employment cheap does not change people’s attitudes. It is important to note that this proposal does the reverse of what they want it to do, if what they want to do is overcome the way prisoners are “punished twice”: once by prison, and again by the stigma of prison. Ex-convicts are untrustworthy, or lazy, or just plain dirty, making them cheap to employ isn’t going to change any of that. So that social stigma is here to say.)E.g 3 This House would ban video surveillance.(PM: the harm of video surveillance outweigh the benefits it brings to the well-being of citizens as it is easier to monitor streets and might be helpful to catch criminals.Rebuttal: First, why are video cameras necessary? Well, that’ an easy one, and the PM has already done most of the job for us. We hold the not-so-controversial view, that crime is a bad thing, and the lower crime rate is, the better people generally are. We see no point in elaborating any further on this, as it is unlikely to be contested by the government members. We know them, and they’re quite clever. So, something must be done to tackle crime. But alas, we have finite resources, and cannot afford to place a police-officer who, by dint of being human, requires a salary, food, rest and equipment, on every single street corner. Clearly, having cameras that can deter crime in some places, and quickly alert the police to the right spot in others, is more efficient.)E.g. 4 This House would end online Anonymity.Rebuttal: Before I go on, we would like to make a quick concession. We accept that the removal of online anonymity will have a chilling effect on expression and individuals will self-censor. However, we believe that this effect would extend to all expression, negative or positive. We find this loss of positive expression to be an unacceptable loss and hence oppose the government’s ban.Shifting concepts（偷换概念）: a technique to prove the PM’s definition on the motion is wrong and needs to be corrected.E.g1.This House would intervene in Syria.(PM: the Syrian government is attacking ordinary people demanding the freedom and the attack might turn into massacre.LO: Whilst Assad continues to crack down on protesters, we think it’s worth pointing out that some of these protesters have themselves adopted extremely violent measures. Some elements among the anti-government protesters are armed. Firstly, more than 150 members of the Syrian security forces have been killed. Secondly, during the Hama fighting, it was reported that armed gunmen were driving around on motorcycles shooting at people, and dumping bodies in a river. Therefore, this is not the gunning down of peaceful protesters; this is more of a civil war between armed combatants.)Proposing a counterplan: the LO acknowledges that there is a problem in the status quo but the opposition plan solves the problem effectively.* the proposition’s model and the opposition’s counterplan are mutually exclusive. They arecontradictory and do not coexist.E.g1. This House would end online Anonymity.(The counterplan: to leave the question of whether users are anonymous or not when generating content to the discretion of individual websites but we’re also quite happy for anonymous Web blogs, like those currently on Blogspot, and comments to continue to exist.)POIA point of information refers to a point that an opponent speaker intends to address to the speaker in action, questioning, commenting or requiring a response, which lasts at most 15 seconds. When we offer POI, we need to reach out our left hand and place our right hand on the head. Each speaker should accept ideally two POIs or at least one during the speech if an adequate number of POIs are offered by the opponents and usu. accept POIs when delivering the best argument and reject POIs when delivering arguments of which we are not confident.Homework:1. This house believes the Olympic Games should not be commercialized.The leader defines "commercialize" as "make a profit" and narrows the Olympic Games to the specific sports of discus and shot put, which is defined as non-profitable games. Thus non-profitable games such as discus and shot put should not be expected to make profit.Q: what is wrong with the interpretation on the motion made by the leader?A: There is no way to commercialize non-profitable games. The interpretation is a tautology.(A by Ss: Part cannot represent the whole. If the range goes to all sports in Olympic Games, then it can be argued in this way. Only personal perspective is to be reviewed. He has made up another new definition to be argued, which is non-profitable games. This way of arguing could only prove that not all the games in Olympics should be commercialized.)2. What kind of argument or reasoning could be employed in the following motion: This House believes that the public has the right to know when in crisis.A. examplesB. analogyC. cause-effectD. reduction to absurdityChoose the answer and then clarify the argument.A: the answer is B. / The crisis could be bird flue, or SARS, which will cause a high death rate. If people knew the information, no social chaos would be caused.3. As for the motion: “This House would pay companies to hire ex-convicts”, Prime Minister proposes: “the state has th e duty to rehabilitate ex-prisoners”.How would you refute the PM's proposal?4.As for the motion: “This House would ban video surveillance”, PM proposes that the harm of video surveillance outweigh the benefits it brings to the well-being of citizens as it is easier to monitor streets and might be helpful to catch criminals. How would you refute the proposal?A: what we just heard from the PM is twofold: (1) a gross misinterpretation of the efficacy of video surveillance in fighting crime, and (2) a rather ethereal assertion regarding some alleged harm. Video cameras on our streets are in fact necessary, and can be proportionally used.。