| 13：REFUTATION |
| http://www.sina.com.cn 2003/11/16 23:34 中图读者俱乐部 |
 |
第十三章反驳 反驳是指辩论双方驳斥对方观点的过程。它可以分为直接反驳和间接反驳两种。反驳的方式多种多样，对方的论据、论证过程都可以成为反驳的对象。为了提高反驳的有效性，应该遵循反驳的步骤并注意反驳时使用的语言。
Definition of Refutation反驳的定义 Refutation is the key element in debate and makes the whole process exciting by relating ideas and arguments from one team to those of the other. It is challenging because it is more spontaneous than reading prepared speeches. Refutation is based on good research, good constructive development, and good anticipation of potential attacks. It is the essence of debate and is difficult to master. A great deal of practice and attention to the basic principles outlined in this chapter will help guide you to becoming an effective debater through skillful refutation.
Two Types of Refutation两种反驳的方式 Direct refutation Direct refutation attacks the arguments of the opponent with no reference to the constructive development of an opposing view. For example, it attacks the affirmative need issue by demonstrating the error or inadequacy of arguments A, B, and C. The most effective refutation, as you can probably guess, is a combination of the two methods so that the strengths of the attack come from both the destruction of the opponents- views and the construction of an opposing view. Indirect refutation Debaters refute through an indirect means when they use counterargument to attack the case of the opponent. Counterargument is the demonstration of such a high degree of probability for your conclusions that the opposing view loses its probability and is rejected. For example, the affirmative need issue may be supported by arguments A, B and C. Negative refutation of the need issue may be the development of arguments X, Y and Z. Although the refutation for the argument is indirect, there is a direct clash on the need issue. The use of counter argument is the strategy of the constructive negative case.
Methods of Direct Refutation直接反驳的方法 It makes no sense to illustrate on the methods of indirect refutation due to its ambiguity and uncertainty. It’s meaningful, however, for us to explain the methods of direct refutation due to its clearness and certainty. To refute the case of an opponent is to demonstrate the error or inadequacy of the arguments upon which it is based. Because arguments are the result of reasoning about evidence, the two kinds of direct refutation are attacks on the evidence itself and attacks on reasoning which is the meaning of evidence. Attacks on Evidence Since refutation aims to demonstrate error or inadequacy, the two broad tests of evidence are: Is the evidence correct? And is the evidence adequate to prove the argument? The following questions are offered as more particular criteria for testing evidence. Testing the Facts: 1. Are the facts presented consistent in themselves? 2. Are the facts consistent with other known fact, or does the evidence appear as unusual, picked evidence? 3. Are enough facts introduced to support the conclusions derived from them? 4. Are the facts accurate as they are presented? 5. Are the facts verified with good supporting documentation, and is the source used qualified to know and report the facts? Testing the Opinion: 1. Is the opinion from a qualified source? Is the source an expert in the subject under consideration? Is the source prejudiced? Is this expert usually accurate? 2. Does the quotation cited give a fair indication of the persons real opinion, or was it lifted from context or otherwise distorted? 3. Is the opinion consistent with other assertions the authority has made? 4. What is the reason for the authoritys opinion? Opinions are based upon reasoning and are subject to the same tests of reasoning which apply elsewhere. In summary, the refutation of evidence is limited to the questions of correctness and the adequacy of the evidence. An idea that needs to be stressed is that merely matching sets of evidence does not result in good debating. In our opinion, the most common fault of debate speakers on all levels is that they are too often content to limit their refutation to a matching of evidence. For example, in a debate on the policy question of adopting a federal program of health insurance, the affirmative might argue that there is a need for compulsory health insurance and support this argument with evidence showing that in cities A and B, a significant percentage of the aged receive inadequate medical care. The negative might respond with evidence which indicated that in cities C and D the aged are well cared for and, thus, no need exists. This futile matching of evidence results in an unfounded leap from the evidence to the issue. Argument, or reasoning about the meaning of evidence, is omitted. If reasoning is omitted from debate, and if analysis is lost in simply comparing different piles of note cards, then school debate is guilty of poor education as charged by its critics. The proper relationship of the evidence would suggest that some problems do exist, and subsequent reasoning ought to be along the lines of finding out whether enough problems exist to constitute a need, whether the problems are inherent within the status quo, and ultimately, whether the affirmative provides an adequate solution to the problems. Attacks on Reasoning In a good debate, the evidence is usually not questionable, the facts are as the speakers say they are, the opinions cited are those of recognized authorities, and each debater has a thorough knowledge of the evidence. Conflict, therefore, should center on the meaning of the evidence and on reasoning about the facts and opinions. Since argument in debate is nothing more than the oral expression which results from the process of reasoning, any debate speaker must develop skill in talking about the process by which conclusions are derived from evidence. In short, the question, one must return to concepts introduced in the previous chapter. If reasoning can be described according to the relationship of the evidence to the conclusion, then the correctness of arguments ought to be measured by questions which test the correctness of that relationship. Table 1 is provided as guide to the testing of arguments. In using the table, the reader should recall the guiding principle underlying all tests of argument - that every argument is either based on a generalization (deductive) or makes a generalization (inductive). Table 1Summary: Analysis of Argument Kind of Argument Sign Explanation The argument asserts that the presence of A indicates the presence of B. Example A build-up of troops in country A indicates hostile intentions toward country B. Tests Is the sign adequate to prove the conclusion, or are other signs necessary for corroboration?(The probability of an argument from sign is strengthened as additional signs are introduced to support the conclusion. Have unusual circumstances occurred which change the normal sign relationships? (The build-up of troops may be relevant to the internal affairs of country A, or country B may have stages a troop build-up first.) Kind of Argument Causal Explanation The argument asserts that if fact A exists, it will cause fact B to follow. Or, in past fact, A was followed by B; therefore, A was the cause of B. Example Future fact: The invasion of country B would lead to a general war. Past Fact: During the past three Democratic administrations there have been wars. Therefore, Democratic administrations cause wars. Tests Is the cause adequate to produce the alleged effect? Will other factors alter the alleged cause-effect relationship? In past fact, is the cause directly related to the alleged effect, or could there have been other causes for the same effect? Kind of Argument Analogous Explanation The argument asserts that if facts relating to A and facts relating to B are alike in some essential respects, they will be alike in another, or other, essential respects. Example The war in country B was fought as a limited war with characteristics A, B, and C; so it follows that a war in country C would also exhibit characteristics A, B, and C. Tests Are the cases really alike in essential respects? Are enough comparisons made to support the probability of the conclusion? Kind of Argument Example Explanation This is the inductive form of reasoning that provides the generalizations upon which deductive argument is based. Example A build-up of troops in Vietnam, Burma, Thailand, and Laos each led to war; therefore, all such cases of troop build-ups lead to war. Tests Are enough examples given to justify the generalization that is made? Are the examples clearly related to the generalization?(Are the examples really instances of the circumstances being generalized?)
Five Steps in Refutation反驳的五个步骤 /where/ in the constructive speeches or in the rebuttal period, the debate speaker ought to view the whole case of the opponents and evaluate the effect of the opposition, they must limit the refutation to one argument at a time. While preceding paragraphs have stressed the importance of relating the particular refutation to the whole case, the intention here is to offer a guide to the refutation of particular arguments. There are five steps in the process of refuting an argument effectively. 1. State with absolute clarity what it is you are going to refute. 2. Clarify the relationship of the argument to be refuted to the attack of the opponent. 3. State how you will refute the argument. 4. Present your argument in refutation. 5. Indicate the effect of your refutation on the issue in question and relate the effect to its impact on the opponents’case. In print, these five steps may seem to be cumbersome, but in practice they are completed briefly with the use of effective language. The refutation given in the following example can be completed in less than one minute. Step 1 and 2: The argument to be refuted and its relationship to the case as a whole. In developing a need for price controls, the effect of inflation has been injurious to the welfare of the American laborer. Now, if this were true, the affirmative would indeed have a strong argument. Step 3: How it will be refuted. However, it can be demonstrated that the affirmative has reached an erroneous conclusion by neglecting the most relevant aspects of the United States economic picture. Step 4: Refutation with supporting evidence. Has the United States laborer been hurt by inflation? On the contrary, according to the Secretary of the Treasury, his buying power has gone up forty per cent in the past twenty years, and according to a study conducted by the labor organizations themselves (AFL-CIO report),“The laborer, even though prices have gone up, still is in a position to buy more of the desired goods on the market than ever before.” Step 5: The effect of the refutation. Transition to continued refutation. Thus we see that the affirmative need argument, an appeal to the welfare of labor, is refuted by the labor leaders themselves. Now, let us proceed to their other need arguments to see if they are real or largely imaginary.
Language of Refutation反驳的语言 Because refutation is always concerned with the communication of rather complex ideas, it is highly important that the debater make the means of communication - language - as clear as possible. Avoid vague terms and use the vocabulary of debate by referring to issues, arguments, and evidence. If the opponents have labeled an argument a certain way, use the same label when referring to it. Likewise, in your own case, use consistent references to your ideas and outline in all your speeches. This care is not always evident, as the forms in table 2 indicate. These examples were taken directly from college debate speakers in a tournament situation. Table 2The Language of Refutation Avoid these expressions:“The point has been brought up.” Because: Vague. Calling everything a point, whether it is an issue, and argument, or evidence, is probably the most common language error in debate. By itself it is vague; when it is overused it leads to total confusion. Use instead:“The contention of workability has been attacked with the argument that” Avoid these expressions:“As our quotes have proved” Because: Vague. Be concrete by making specific references. Use instead:“On the other hand, both Professor X, of White University, and the Director of the National Science Foundation have” Avoid these expressions:“They said”or“We said” Because: Vague and clumsy. Use instead:“The first affirmative speaker asserted”or“Miss Smith, in her first constructive speech”or“The contention has been” Avoid these expressions:“The negative hasn’t had too much evidence to support” Because: Clumsy. This use of too is sometimes called the“too tautology.”Not only does it beg the question of how much evidence is enough, but it negates a circumstance that probably could not exist. Could the negative have too much supporting evidence? Use instead:“The negative has offered insufficient evidence to support” Avoid these expressions:“The Status quo is taking care of”or“Our plan takes care of that” Because: Trite. Use instead:“The problems are being effectively solved within the status quo”or“Those problems would be solved if the affirmative were adopted, for” Avoid these expressions:“Here is no need” Because: Trite. The more judicious approach is probably that the need is insufficient, not that there is no need whatsoever. Use instead:“While the negative will quickly admit that there are some problems in our contemporary society, the negative view is that these problems can” Avoid these expressions:“During my partner’s stand on the floor” Because: Trite and clumsy. Use instead:“During the first negative speech”or“During the constructive speech of my colleague” Avoid these expressions:“They came back and said” Because: Clumsy. Use instead:“The negatives response was”Avoid these expressions:“How did they hit this?” Because: Clumsy, although the use of a question to clarify and emphasize is effective. Use instead:“What was the attack on this argument?”or“Let me call your attention to the manner in which this argument was refuted.” Avoid these expressions:“The members of the opposition brought forth the argument” Because: Clumsy; at best archaic. Use instead:“The opposition introduced the argument” Avoid these expressions:“We stand on” Because: Clumsy. Use instead:“Our support of this contention has been” Avoid these expressions:“We backed this up” Because: Clumsy. Use instead:“We supported” Avoid these expressions:“Where is their proof?”and“We have offered proof.” Because: Clumsy and erroneous. Proof is often confused with evidence. Use instead:“Where is the supporting evidence to prove”“We have offered evidence to support”
Exercises练习 Discuss the following disputes which might happen in our daily life and point out the success or failure in the refutation. 1. Aunt: Im sure glad my nephew got a new car. That other one he was driving had terrible brakes and no windshield wipers. Neighbor: Your nephew didn’t get a new car. That car you see him driving is his roommate’s. 2. Mary: If you are going to Butte College, the closest place to live is in Paradise. Howard: No, it’s not. My friend lives in north Oroville and it takes him less time to get to school than it does Ron who lives in upper Paradise. 3. Bob: Mr. Smith certainly is a great mother. She works two jobs so that she can afford to send her children to the best day care center in town. She even works overtime around Christmas so that she can afford to buy name brand clothes for presents. Mary: I totally disagree, Smith is so busy working that she has almost no time just to be with her children. All she does is pay their bills. 4. Susan: Portland is about 400 miles from Chico. Bob: No, it’s not. It’s 389 miles. 5. Robert: My daughter got an apartment right next to campus. How lucky can you get! Jenny: She’s not lucky at all. The only bridge across the river is over a half-mile down stream. 6. Don: Conventional weapons caused much more damage in World WarⅡthan atomic weapons. Martha: That’s impossible. Everyone knows that atomic bombs cause more damage than conversational bombs. 7. Carol: The most important sense organ for humans is their eyes. Ted: No, it’s not. I knew a friend in college who was totally blind and he could“see”things by snapping his finger and then listening for the echo. 8. Fred: Angels dont exist. Donna: Sure they do. Look at all the books written about angels that are best sellers! Look at the faith that so many people place in angels! Look at all the great works of art that deal with angels! How can you possible question the sincere convictions of so many people? 9. Sally: I just read the annual report for HAL, Inc. What a great company in which to invest! Their profits were up 25% last year. Tom: No, I think you’re mistaken. I don’t think HAL is doing well at all. Besides, the Security and Exchange Commission just cited them for making false and misleading statements in their annual report. 10. Tony: There are less than 8 million unemployed people in this country, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Kate: You can’t believe the Bureau of Labor Statistics. A Private research organization has reported that there are only 124 million people in the United States with paying jobs. Since there are over 250 million Americans, that means over 126 million people living here are unemployed. |
| 【英语学习论坛】【评论】【大 中 小】【打印】【关闭】 |
北京市通信公司提供网络带宽