Transformative Mediation±ä¸ïÐ͵÷½â

¡¡¡¡There are some mediators who see their role not as problem solver but as a person who helps people in conflict to learn and grow from the experience. This approach was called transformative mediation. In transformative mediation, the mediator looks for opportunities for empowerment and recognition. Empowerment occurs when people realize that they have the power to deal with their own conflicts and to speak out in their own voice about what they need. Recognition is the acknowledgment of the other person¡¯s feelings, rights, and empowerment. Recognition does not necessarily as that you agree with the other person, but that you recognize him or her as an individual, not as a piece of the puzzle to be solved.

¡¡¡¡Two Siblings and One Orange

¡¡¡¡People:

¡¡¡¡Mediator - Tony

¡¡¡¡Sibling 1 - Jerry

¡¡¡¡Sibling 2 - Sandy

¡¡¡¡A table and several chairs are available. As the siblings come in, Tony greets them and asks them to take a seat. They sitswheresthey choose. When both siblings are seated, Tony takes a seat.

¡¡¡¡Tony: How can I help you?

¡¡¡¡Jerry: We¡¯re here because of Sandy. We have one orange in the house. This jerk knows that I need it, and ...

¡¡¡¡Sandy: (interrupting) That¡¯s exactly like Jerry! Everything is about what Jerry needs...

¡¡¡¡Jerry: Will you listen to this hysteria! It should be pretty easy for you to figure out what we need to do here.

¡¡¡¡Tony: (interrupting) Let¡¯s wait just a minute, Jerry. Sandy, you too. You need to figure out how I can help you with this. I¡¯m not here to make any decisions for you. This isn¡¯t like courtswheresyou tell me things and I decide for you. This is an opportunity for the two of you sit down together, and really listen to one another as you talk about what¡¯s going on with the orange. How does that sound?

¡¡¡¡Jerry: I have a solution in mind already. We just have to get through to Simple Simon over there.

¡¡¡¡Tony: Right now I need to know that you are both willing to listen to one another. For now, tell me if you are willing to talk this out.

¡¡¡¡Jerry: Sure. I¡¯ll stay if Sandy stays.

¡¡¡¡Tony: Sandy?

¡¡¡¡Sandy: I¡¯ll stay, but Jerry has to stop calling me Simple Simon.

¡¡¡¡Tony: Does that work for you, Jerry?

¡¡¡¡Jerry: Sure.

¡¡¡¡Tony: Okay. (writing)¡°Jerry won¡¯t call Sandy Simple Simon.¡±

¡¡¡¡Sandy: Or any other name!

¡¡¡¡Tony: Shall we make that a rule for going forward?The siblings nod their agreement.

¡¡¡¡Tony: How does this sound? Everything you tell me will be confidential. I won¡¯t tell anyone about what here unless you want me to. You may see me take notes so I can keep my thinking straight, but you¡¯ll also see me tear my notes up when we are finished. I won¡¯t take sides but will be here to be sure that you both are represented and to help you find out what is truly important to one another. Sound good?

¡¡¡¡Sandy and Jerry nod.

¡¡¡¡Tony: Who would like to go first?

¡¡¡¡Sandy: It may as well be Jerry. Jerry always goes first.

¡¡¡¡Jerry: All right, I will.

¡¡¡¡Tony: Is that really all right, Sandy?

¡¡¡¡Sandy: Yeah.

¡¡¡¡Jerry: Sandy has this self-image of being a great chef or something. I came home from running and wanted some fresh orange juice. It¡¯s full of antioxidants and vitamin C. I need it after a run, but - no! Sandy has to bake. I¡¯m hot, I¡¯m tired, I¡¯m thirsty. So all I did was pick up the orange and start to walk out of the room...

¡¡¡¡Sandy: I was using it!

¡¡¡¡Jerry: See how Sandy always interrupts and yells? Anyway, I picked up the orange...

¡¡¡¡Sandy: I do not interrupt and yell!

¡¡¡¡Tony: Jerry?

¡¡¡¡Jerry: I picked up the orange and started to go out of the room and Sandy came after me screaming that the orange wasn¡¯t mine, that is was part of some recipe.

¡¡¡¡(There is a pause.)

¡¡¡¡Tony: Anything else, Jerry?

¡¡¡¡Jerry: That¡¯s about all there was to it. All I wanted was to make some orange juice.

¡¡¡¡Sandy: I was using that orange! Jerry just waltzes in and grabs the orange without asking, and I need the entire peel to grate /into/ my special Blue Ribbon Pound Cake. It¡¯s just like Jerry to ignore what I need. It¡¯s not like Jerry isn¡¯t going to get any of the cake, but no! Jerry has to have juice. It¡¯s infuriating!

¡¡¡¡Tony: Anything else, Sandy?

¡¡¡¡Sandy: No.

¡¡¡¡Tony: Do you have questions for one another?

¡¡¡¡Jerry: Yeah. Why does Sandy have to be such a jerk?

¡¡¡¡Sandy:That¡¯s name-calling! You said you wouldn¡¯t call names!

¡¡¡¡Tony: We did agree to not call names, Jerry. Is there another way you can ask Sandy the question?

¡¡¡¡Jerry: Why is Sandy always acting like baking is the most important thing? Why can¡¯t I take the orange and make juice if I¡¯m thirsty?

¡¡¡¡Tony: I don¡¯t know. Why don¡¯t you ask Sandy?

¡¡¡¡Sandy: I know that you want juice, but you want some of my Blue Ribbon Pound Cake, too... If there¡¯s no orange peel, there¡¯s no Blue Ribbon Pound Cake. You just make me so mad when you come in and interrupt everything I have planned and take the orange just because you need juice. Blue Ribbon Pound Cakes don¡¯t grow on trees.

¡¡¡¡Jerry: You make great cakes, but when I come in all hot and thirsty, I really need my freshly squeezed orange juice. I can¡¯t wait to cut that orange open and squeeze the juice out of it.

¡¡¡¡Tony: Sandy, I think that Jerry has said something that you may want to hear. Jerry, what do you think about Sandy¡¯s cakes?

¡¡¡¡Jerry: I think they¡¯re great. You can be a real pain, sometimes, but your cakes are the best.

¡¡¡¡Sandy: Then, why can¡¯t you let me use the orange when I need it?

¡¡¡¡Tony: Please wait, Sandy. Did you hear Jerry talk about your baking?

¡¡¡¡Sandy: What?

¡¡¡¡Tony: Jerry?

¡¡¡¡Jerry: You¡¯re an excellent baker.

¡¡¡¡Sandy: Wow. Thanks. You always seem to be making fun of my baking. If you like my baking so much, why couldn¡¯t you see that I need the orange?

¡¡¡¡Jerry: I didn¡¯t know you needed the orange. I really needed orange juice after my run. You know the electrolytes...

¡¡¡¡Sandy: Right. And the vitamin C.Jerry: That¡¯s right. And the vitamin C. This is very important to me.

¡¡¡¡Sandy: I know.There is an uncomfortable silence.

¡¡¡¡Tony: What else?

¡¡¡¡Jerry: Sometimes Sandy gets excited and interrupts, but it¡¯s really not a problem.

¡¡¡¡Tony: It doesn¡¯t bother you?

¡¡¡¡Jerry: Well, yes, but I know that when I get excited I call Sandy Simple Simon.

¡¡¡¡Sandy: That has to stop, no matter what.

¡¡¡¡Jerry: I¡¯ll be more careful.

¡¡¡¡Sandy: More careful might not be good enough. It really bothers me when you call me names.

¡¡¡¡Jerry: Well, then don¡¯t be so stupid about whether or not I can make orange juice.

¡¡¡¡Sandy: Well, maybe you should open your eyes and see that I¡¯m baking and I have everything laid out that I need. Everything-including the only orange in the house.

¡¡¡¡Jerry: I can¡¯t read your mind, Sandy!

¡¡¡¡Sandy: You know how I bake. Just pay attention once in a while and you would know that if an orange is on the counter with all of my stuff, I¡¯m going to use it. All you think about is what you need at the moment.

¡¡¡¡Jerry: Well, all you think about is what you need to bake your stupid cakes!

¡¡¡¡Tony: Jerry, what do you think about Sandy¡¯s baking?

¡¡¡¡Jerry: I know. Sandy¡¯s cakes are great. I meant that. But there are other things in life.

¡¡¡¡Tony: Can you think of a way to tell Sandy what you mean without starting a fight?

¡¡¡¡Jerry: (after a pause) Not really.

¡¡¡¡Tony: Sandy, what would work for you?

¡¡¡¡Sandy: I think Jerry likes my cakes but thinks that¡¯s all I have in my life. Jerry is wrong. There are many things about me that people don¡¯t know.

¡¡¡¡Jerry: I know what you mean. Sometimes people say that all I do is run.

¡¡¡¡

Comments on the Two Examples¹ØÓÚÁ½¸öÀý×ÓµÄÆÀÂÛ

¡¡¡¡In the first example, the meeting was about solving the problem of the orange. If an idea for a solution came up, the mediator helped Sandy and Jerry to zero in on it. Then they would talk through whether or not might work for them. In the second meeting the mediator started by asking Jerry and Sandy what the issue was. This meeting was more of a conversation about their relationship with one another.

¡¡¡¡The first example, problem solving, ended with a truce that let Sandy and Jerry split the orange. The transformative mediator in the second example listened for ways to help Sandy hear what was important to Jerry and vice versa. The transformative mediator¡¯s goal is to help people understand that they can work through their own problems while seeing the importance and value of the other person¡¯s point of view. In the second example, Jerry and Sandy learned about themselves and each other. This gave them a good chance not only of figuring out what to do about the orange, but also of how to deal with other conflicts in the future.

¡¡

¡¡Summary×ܽá

¡¡¡¡The mediator plays an important role in the process of negotiation. The chapter firstly defines the meaning of a mediator, then explains its functions and finally introduces two mediating methods through two comparative examples.

10£ºFORMAT & OUTLINE


¡¡¡¡µÚʮոñʽºÍÌá¸Ù

¡¡¡¡Ó¢¹úÅ£½òʽ±çÂÛºÍÃÀ¹úÖÊѯʽ±çÂÛÊÇ×îÖªÃûµÄ±çÂÛÐÎʽ¡£Ç°ÕßÇ¿µ÷Õý·´Ë«·½ÔÚ·¢±í×Ô¼ºµÄÑÔÂÛµÄͬʱ·¢Æð·´»÷£¬ºóÕßÓе¥¶ÀÁô³öÀ´µÄÖÊѯʱ¼ä¡£±¾ÕµÚÒ»²¿·ÖÌÖÂÛÁËÕâÁ½ÖÖ±çÂÛÐÎʽ¡£ÓÉÓÚ±çÂÛʱÆø·Õ½ôÕÅ¡¢ÑԴǼ¤ÁÒ£¬±çÂÛµÄʤ°ÜÍùÍùÔÚÓÚÄÜ·ñÔÚ×î¶ÌµÄʱ¼äÄÚ˵·þ¹ÛÖÚ£¬×¥×¡¹ÛÖÚµÄ×¢ÒâÁ¦£¬Òò´Ë£¬±çÂÛµÄÌõÀíÐԷdz£ÖØÒª¡£±¾Õµڶþ²¿·Ö½éÉÜÁ˱çÂÛË«·½Ó¦¸ÃÔõÑùÁгö×Ô¼ºµÄ±çÂÛÌá¸Ù¡£

¡¡

¡¡Formats of Debate±çÂ۵ĸñʽ

¡¡¡¡The various formats of academic debate have certain common elements: (1) Both sides must have an equal number of speakers; (2) both sides must have an equal amount of time; and (3) the affirmative must speak first and last.

¡¡¡¡The standard American procedure calls for what is known as university style debate. In this system, two persons form a team and usually debate both affirmative and negative sides during a tournament. The affirmative begins the debate by presenting a constructive, the first affirmative speech, which makes a case for adopting the resolution. The next speaker is the first negative, who is followed by the second affirmative, and finally, the second negative. Most tournaments also include cross-examination periods between each constructive speech. Without the cross-examination the format is often termed Oxford debate. With the cross-examination periods it is simply termed cross-examination debate or sometimes Oregon style. After a short pause, which is often omitted, the second negative constructive speaker is followed by the first negative rebuttal speaker. In the rebuttal speech, the speaker may attack the opponents- arguments in addition to defense, but may not introduce any new constructive arguments. The speakers then continue to alternate again with first affirmative rebuttal, second negative rebuttal, and finally, second affirmative rebuttal£¬including cross-examinations.

¡¡

¡¡Outlining the Debate±çÂÛµÄÌá¸Ù

¡¡¡¡Why Outlining the Debate

¡¡¡¡The reason why we should outline our debate is based on two considerations: the speaker and the audience.

¡¡¡¡The speaker. Within the above-mentioned time framework, the affirmative tries to compel the audience to agree that the resolution should be adopted. The support for the resolution means that either the audience should accept the affirmative team¡¯s judgments, or it should agree the judgments suggested by the negative team. The negative attempts to prevent the affirmative from succeeding. Since time is limited in a debate, it is literally true that every moment counts. Time is precious to the speaker. No time can be wasted. If you waste a minute aimlessly repeating yourself, it is a minute that can never be made up in that debate.

¡¡¡¡The audience. A debate can be extremely confusing to an audience. Any human being who listens for forty-eight or sixty minutes to four other people arguing is probably going to be swamped by conflicting ideas. To the listener, there is too much time in a debate-that is, so many things are said during the debate that the listener finds it extremely difficult to keep track of what is going on.

¡¡¡¡Think and Speak in Outline Terms

¡¡¡¡For these two reasons-the speaker¡¯s need for time and the audience¡¯s saturation with it-it is imperative that every debate speaker know exactly what to try to do at every instant of the debate. This awareness of what is going on must be communicated to the listeners as well. Therefore, the first principle of successful debate speaking is: think and speak in outline terms.

¡¡¡¡In other words, debate speakers must know what the main ideas are in the debate so they can tell the audience what they are. Obviously, if the debaters do not know their own main arguments, they will never be able to recognize those of the opposition.

¡¡¡¡An affirmative outline. The easiest way to visualize this principle in practice is to see the entire debate as two outlines set alongside each other. To think in outline terms is to view the debate case in terms of its functional parts: issues, arguments, and evidence. For instance, in a debate on a particular policy proposition, the affirmative might outline part of their case as follows:

¡¡¡¡Issue:

¡¡¡¡¢ñ. The present system of state and federal highways is inadequate, for:Argument:

¡¡¡¡A. United States highways are substandard for present needs, for:Evidence:

¡¡¡¡1. Specific supporting evidence

¡¡¡¡2. Specific supporting evidence

¡¡¡¡3. Specific supporting evidence

¡¡¡¡Argument:

¡¡¡¡B. Expansion under the present system is not adequate for future needs, because:Evidence:

¡¡¡¡1. Specific supporting evidence

¡¡¡¡2. Specific supporting evidence

¡¡¡¡3. Specific supporting evidence

¡¡¡¡4. Specific supporting evidence

¡¡¡¡Argument:

¡¡¡¡C. Present federal help is inadequate, for:

¡¡¡¡Evidence:

¡¡¡¡1. Specific supporting evidence

¡¡¡¡2. Specific supporting evidence

¡¡¡¡Argument:

¡¡¡¡D. Present highway programs do not provide work projects to alleviate unemployment, because:

¡¡¡¡Evidence:

¡¡¡¡1. Specific supporting evidence

¡¡¡¡2. Specific supporting evidence

¡¡¡¡3. Specific supporting evidence

¡¡

¡¡Summary×ܽá

¡¡¡¡The Oxford debate format and the cross-examination format are the most well-known debate formats in which different aspects are emphasized. Due to the tension and high speech in a debate, catching the attention of the audience becomes significant. The clearer the speakers puts ideas sintos an outlining way, the more likely they could win the debate.

11£ºFOUR KEY ELEMENTS IN DEBATE
¡¡

¡¡µÚʮһÕ±çÂÛµÄËĸöÒªËØ

¡¡¡¡ÃüÌâ¡¢Â۵㡢ÂÛÖ¤ºÍÖ¤¾ÝÊDZçÂÛÖÐ×îÖØÒªµÄËĸöÒªËØ£¬±¾ÕÂÌÖÂÛÁËÕâËĸöÒªËصÄÏ໥¹Øϵ¡£¼øÓÚÖ¤¾ÝµÄÖØÒªÐÔ£¬±¾Õ½ÓÏÂÀ´Ïêϸ½éÉÜÁËÖ¤¾ÝµÄÖÖÀàÒÔ¼°¼ìÑéÖ¤¾ÝÓÐЧÐԵķ½·¨¡£

¡¡

¡¡Four ElementsËĸöÒªËØ

¡¡¡¡There are four structural elements that serve as the ingredients of a debate case. These are (1) proposition, (2) issues, (3) arguments, and (4) evidence. Analysis of a debate case is made possible through a complete understanding of the function of these parts. A fifth element, and the most important one, is the reasoning process. It, however, is not a separate element so much as the means by which the other four are bound together. The following paragraphs will serve to define each of these four formal elements, while the subsequent section will apply each element directly to the complex problem of building a debate case.

¡¡¡¡Proposition. A proposition (or resolution) is a judgment expressed in a declarative sentence. Each debate centers around a carefully-worded proposition insgroupsthat everyone may know precisely what is being talking about. There are propositions about fact, value, and policy. The value or policy propositions are usually used in school debate, and both are supported by these formal elements: issues, arguments, and evidence.

¡¡¡¡Issues. Issues are often called inherently vital points. They are the assertions (or unsupported statements) which must be proved insgroupsto establish that the proposition ought to be adopted. They are the main contentions that function as the basic reasons for the adoption of the proposition. Finding the issues that are relevant to a proposition is the result of analysis. Ordinary intelligence will suggest that if one advocates a change from the present system (status quo), it becomes necessary to support the idea that there is something wrong with the status quo or that some major new benefit will result from the change. In a policy proposition, if these faults or benefits are extensive, they may provide sufficient and compelling reason for concluding that there is a need to change from the present system. In short, the fact that there is a need to change becomes an issue. If you are dealing with a value proposition, then common sense also tells you that you must also provide your listeners with enough reasons to conclude that the evaluation you are making should be accepted by them as well. Issues do not stand by themselves; rather, they appear as assertions and need to be supported with arguments and evidence.

¡¡¡¡Arguments. An argument is an assertion which is the result of reasoning. The characteristic feature of arguments, as compared to other discourse, is that it states or implies a reasoning process. For example:¡°The papers are on the table¡±is not an argument; but the statement,¡°If we do not close the window, the papers will be blown off the table¡±is an argument because it contains an inference, the result of a reasoning process. Arguments serve as reasons for the acceptance of an issue. Arguments may stand by themselves but usually need to be supported with evidence.

¡¡¡¡Evidence. Evidence is that statement of fact or opinion which makes an assertion acceptable to an audience. It consists of facts, opinions, and objects that are used to generate proof. The advocate brings together the raw materials and, by the process of reasoning, produces new conclusions.

¡¡

¡¡Put Everythingsintosan Example:

¡¡

¡¡Functions of the Four Elements

¡¡

¡¡¾ÙÀý£ºËĸöÒªËصÄ×÷ÓÃ

¡¡¡¡In the previous chapter you saw an example of an outline of an affirmative case on highways along with a companion negative outline on the same topic. Here is another example of a hypothetical case outline which uses these four elements.Proposition: Resolved: That the United States would be justified in significantly increasing trade restriction.

¡¡¡¡Issue: I. National security considerations would justify in creasing trade restriction, for:

¡¡¡¡Argument: A. Highly technical products reach our adversaries.

¡¡¡¡Evidence: 1. Secretary of State testimony regarding loss of important computer advances to communist world.2. Defense Department report on military equipment sold through third parties.

¡¡¡¡Argument: B. Technical losses endanger our security.

¡¡¡¡Evidence: 1. Congressional hearing citation regarding uses made of our technology by others which have harmed U.S. security.

¡¡¡¡2. Statements from Joint Chiefs of Staff concerning danger to our military personnel resulting from technical transfers.

¡¡¡¡Issue: II. Domestic Industries Need Protection, for:

¡¡¡¡Argument: A. The textile industry has been hurt by imports.

¡¡¡¡Evidence: 1. Statistics on lost jobs in textiles due to imports.

¡¡¡¡2. Etc.

¡¡¡¡Thus you can see how the relationship of each of these elements is present in a topic as well as in policy questions. The rule is simple - all propositions are supported by major issues, and these in turn are supported by arguments which have specific evidence as their supports. All of these elements are bound together by reasoning - a fifth and ever-present element.

¡¡¡¡Do not forget this relationship because you will need to create both affirmative and negative cases from outlines, and the format above gives you the outline system to follow.

¡¡¡¡As you can see, the debate case is built upon evidence. Good supporting materials, in the form of fact, opinion, and reasoning, which the audience will find compelling, are the foundation of every debate case.

¡¡

¡¡Necessity to Illustrate Evidence in DetailÏêϸ¾ÙÖ¤µÄ±ØÒªÐÔ

¡¡¡¡Evidence is the standpoint of an argument on which everything is based. A detailed illustration of evidence is of vital significance in a debate. The types and tests of evidence will be analyzed respectively in the following text.

¡¡¡¡Types of Evidence

¡¡¡¡Written or unwritten evidence

¡¡¡¡Written evidence is evidence supplied by writings of all kinds: books, newspapers, and magazines, as well as less frequently used types of writing such as roman numerals carved on the cornerstone of a building. Unwritten evidence includes both oral testimony and objects offered for personal inspection.

¡¡¡¡In arguments outside the courtroom, written evidence generally is given greater weight than oral evidence, because it is easier to substantiate. In a recent intercollegiate debate, a negative speaker introduced unwritten, secondary evidence by saying:

¡¡¡¡Last week I had the opportunity to talk with Senator _____ when he visited in my hometown, and he told me that ...

¡¡¡¡Then the negative debater quoted a statement strongly critical of the affirmative¡¯s position. An affirmative speaker replied to this by using written evidence:

¡¡¡¡We have no way of knowing how accurately the negative quoted Senator _____ nor of knowing what the senator said in a private interview. However, we do have a record of the considered opinion of the senator on this subject as he expressed it in an article in the New York Times Magazine of last week when he stated ...

¡¡¡¡The affirmative debater then quoted a carefully qualified statement that indicated only minor reservations about the affirmative¡¯s position. Which of the speakers quoted the senator correctly? Perhaps both. The senator may have changed his mind; or, more likely, the two statements represented the difference between an offhand comment and a considered opinion. In any event, the judge accepted the statement of the affirmative speaker, since he could better substantiate his evidence.

¡¡¡¡Lay or expert evidence

¡¡¡¡Evidence is usually classified as either lay or expert. As a practical matter, however, it is often difficult to distinguish between the well-informed layperson and the expert. Representatives and senators, for example, may or may not the experts on the subjects they speak about. However, because their official position gives them unusual opportunities to acquire special knowledge on many subjects, they are often regarded as experts by popular audiences. Lay evidence is provided by persons without any special training, knowledge, or experience in the matter under consideration. Expert evidence is evidence provided by persons with special training, knowledge, or experience in the matter under consideration.

¡¡¡¡Test the Credibility of Evidence

¡¡¡¡Test the credibility of one¡¯s own evidence

¡¡¡¡In the construction of their cases, advocates will discover a great deal of evidence. Before they include any of it in their cases, they must apply the tests of evidence, rejecting what is weak and inconclusive and using only what stands up under examination. By applying the tests of evidence, they may also anticipate the probable refutation of their opponents and prepare to meet it.

¡¡¡¡The tests of evidence must also be applied to pro-blems outside the debate situation. The political leader must weigh intelligence reports, the executive must evaluate reports of market trends, the college student must appraise studies of employment opportunities in various fields. Throughout life, we are all required to formulate propositions, gather evidence of those propositions, and evaluate that evidence as a part of the process of making decision. Intelligent self-interest and our sense of responsibility to those affected by our decisions require that we apply the tests of evidence with care.

¡¡¡¡Test the credibility of the evidence advanced by an opponent

¡¡¡¡While preparing their own cases, advocates must also seek out evidence that will be of value to opponents, apply the appropriate tests to it, and plan refutation. As a debate develops, they will discover the evidence actually used by opponents and be prepared to test and refute it, of possible, during the debate. It should be noted that the responsibility of applying the tests of evidence and of refuting evidence rests on the party whose case is damaged by the evidence. If our case is adversely affected by certain evidence used by opponents and we do not refute it, we may find that the decision reindeers will accept even weak evidence at its face value. Indeed, the absence of refutation may enhance the value of the adverse evidence.

¡¡¡¡Questions for testing evidence credibility

¡¡¡¡In general affirmative answers to these questions imply that the evidence is credible; negative answers imply a weakness in the evidence.

¡¡¡¡Is there enough evidence?

¡¡¡¡Is the evidence clear?

¡¡¡¡Is the evidence consistent with other known evidence?

¡¡¡¡Is the evidence consistent within itself?

¡¡¡¡Is the evidence verifiable?

¡¡¡¡Is the source of the evidence competent?

¡¡¡¡Is the source of the evidence unprejudiced?

¡¡¡¡Is the source of the evidence reliable?

¡¡¡¡Is the evidence relevant?

¡¡¡¡Is the evidence statistically sound?

¡¡¡¡Is the evidence the most recent available?

¡¡¡¡Is the evidence cumulative?

¡¡¡¡Is the evidence critical?

¡¡

¡¡Summary of the Relationship of the Four Elements

¡¡¡¡

ËĸöÒªËصĹØϵ¸ÅÀ¨

¡¡¡¡1. The proposition is supported by main contentions, called issues.

¡¡¡¡2. The issues, which appear as assertions, are supported by reasoned discourse, called arguments.

¡¡¡¡3. The arguments are supported with the best available evidence.

¡¡

¡¡ExercisesÁ·Ï°

¡¡¡¡Determine whether the following passages are definitions, arguments, evidence, explanations, or propositions. Issues are hard to be put in sentences so we use definitions and explanations instead to do exercises.

¡¡¡¡1. There are over 250 million people living in the United States. Most of the people today live in the South or the West. The mid-West and East Coast have been losing population steadily over the past twenty years.

¡¡¡¡2. There are over 250 million people living in the United States because that is what all the standard geography textbooks say and they certainly can¬ðt be all the wrong about something so simple.

¡¡¡¡3. The pipes burst because the water froze.

¡¡¡¡4. All people have a natural right to the fruit of their own labor. Therefore it is wrong for government to tax individuals for any reason other than providing for the common defense against criminals from within or aggressor nations from without.

¡¡¡¡5. Statement to a foreign visitor to the Sacramento valley a month after the floods of 1997:¡°Many houses here are in a terrible mess because of the break in the levees and the consequent flooding.¡±

¡¡¡¡6. The reason so many people are calling in sick is that there is a new flu virus going around this year is especially mean.

¡¡¡¡7. The great theorist of socialism is Karl Marx. Marx produced his major work on economics almost a century after Adam Smith. In that three-volume work called simply Capital, Marx did not argue that Smith was wrong about the virtues of the free market, the division of labor, and industrialization. His fundamental objection was that Smith¡¯s picture of industrial capitalism was incomplete.

¡¡¡¡8. The reason fish have gills is that they can get oxygen out of the water.

¡¡¡¡9. Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, and oppose any foe to assure the survival and success of liberty.

¡¡¡¡10. Since the introduction of slavery in America, there has been a continuous struggle for equality between blacks and whites. It was hoped that this struggle would end with the civil rights acts of the 1960s. But it didn¡¯t.

¡¡¡¡11.¡°Dogs¡±is a fourª²letter word.¡°Cats¡±is a four-letter word.¡°Pigs¡±is a four-letter word. Therefore, all four-letter words refer to animals.

¡¡¡¡12. The mind directly perceives only ideas. Material objects are not ideas. These facts prove that the mind does not directly perceive material objects.

¡¡¡¡13. Liberalism is the theory that it is impossible for a person to be both sincere and mistaken about what is good.

¡¡¡¡14. In 1957, among the thirtyª²three nations that chose not to exercise the death penalty, the number of murders never increased. Thus, capital punishment simply does not appear to serve as a deterrent.

¡¡¡¡15. Song and dancing were parts of the worship of Greek gods. Contests in music and poetry were held at the shrine of Apollo in Delphi. Civic festivals with¡°games¡±were similarly developed, notably the festival of Athena at Athens. And all these contests were means of gaining honor.

¡¡¡¡16. When I got home from school, the lights were on and the phone was ringing. The front door was wide open. There were no signs of any forced entry or burglary. Someone must have left the house in a hurry.

¡¡¡¡17. The reason capital punishment is not an effective deterrent is that most murders are¡°crimes of passion¡±where the murderer is simply not thinking about the consequences of his or her action.

¡¡¡¡18. No free government, or the blessing of liberty, can be preserved to any people, but by a firm adherence to justice, moderation, temperance, frugality and virtue, and by frequent recurrence to fundamental principles.

¡¡¡¡19. Anyone who has ever giggled himselfsintoshiccups knows how the initial giddiness turns to annoyance at the body¬ðs uncontrollable rebellion - and how, after not very long, annoyance can give way to worry that they may never end. No one knows more about this alarming state of mind than 92-year-old Charles Osborne of Anthon, Iowa. One November day in 1922, on a farm near Union, Nebraska, while helping lift a 350-pound hog, Osborne began to hiccup. He hasn¡¯t stopped since.

¡¡¡¡20. Scientists will never succeed in designing a computer that can actually think. Thinking, by its very nature, involves subjectivity. But computers are machines, and machines involve no subjectivity.

¡¡¡¡21. Since the Industrial Revolution, average standards of life in Western Europe and America seem definitely to have been showing a rising secular trend, tending to outstrip the underdeveloped nations.

¡¡¡¡22. Government estimates of the distribution of wealth in the United States in 1972 show that the top fifth owned 76% of the total wealth, the middle threeª²fifths 23%, while the bottom fifth owned only 0.2%. More recently, it was estimated by the Joint Economics Committee of Congress that the top one-half of one percent of the United States households owned 26.9% of the nation¡¯s total wealth.

¡¡¡¡23. Critical thinking is the ability to make good judgments in situations in which the best solution or answer is not to be discovered merely by applying a rule or repeating a memorized answer.

¡¡¡¡24. It is entirely correct ... to speak of the God of Technology-in the sense that people believe technology works, they rely on it, it makes promises, they are bereft when denied access to it, they are delighted when they are in its presence, for most people it works in mysterious ways, they condemn people who speak against it, they stand in awe of it, and in the bornª²again mode, they will alter their lifestyles, their schedules, their habits, and their relationships to accommodate it. If this be not a form of religious belief, what is it?

12£ºCROSS-EXAMINATION


¡¡µÚÊ®¶þÕÂÖÊѯ

¡¡¡¡±¾ÕÂÌÖÂÛÁ˱çÂÛµ±ÖÐÖÊѯ½×¶ÎµÄ¸÷ÖÖÒòËØ¡£ÖÊѯÊÇÖ¸±çÂÛË«·½ÓÐÄ¿µÄµØÏ໥ÎÊÎÊÌâºÍ»Ø´ðÎÊÌâµÄ¹ý³Ì¡£±¾ÕÂÊ×ÏÈ̽ÌÖÁËÖÊѯµÄ¶¨ÒåºÍ¹¦ÄÜ£¬½ÓÏÂÀ´Ñо¿ÁËÎÊÎÊÌâÒÔ¼°»Ø´ðÎÊÌâʱӦ¸Ã×ñÑ­µÄ»ù±¾Ô­Ôò£¬²¢ÔÚÒ»¸ö¾ßÌåÀý×ÓÖнéÉÜÁËÕâЩ¹æÔòµÄ¾ßÌåÓ¦Óá£

¡¡

¡¡Definition of Cross-examinationÖÊѯµÄ¶¨Òå

¡¡¡¡Cross-examination may be defined as the purposeful asking and answering of questions about the issues in the debate during an established time format. An effective cross-examination will consist of a series of carefully-word-ed questions which establish an order, or a sequence, of ideas which help to persuade the audience that you and your statements are worthy of belief.

¡¡¡¡Edward Bennett Williams, once called¡°the country¡¯s hottest criminal lawyer,¡±gave this tough but practical advice on the most difficult of trial techniques, cross-examination:

¡¡¡¡It is ...the art of putting a bridle on a witness who has been called to do you harm, and of controlling him so well that he helps you. You must think of him as a man with a knife in his hand who is out to stab you, and you must feel your way with him as if you were in a dark room together. You must move with him, roll with him. You must never explore or experiment during cross-examination. You must never ask a question if you do not already know the answer. If you do know it and the witness refuses to say what you know, you can slaughter him. Otherwise he may slaughter you. Never attack a point that is unassailable. And if you hit a telling point, try not to let the witness know it. Keep quiet and go on. The time to dramatize it to the jury is during your closing argument.

¡¡¡¡

Functions of Cross-examinationÖÊѯµÄ×÷ÓÃ

¡¡¡¡All of the considerations of argumentation and debate apply to cross-examination debate. Cross-examination mainly has the following four functions.

¡¡¡¡1. Some portions of your opponent¬ðs speech may have been unclear - either by accident or design. Cross-examination affords an opportunity to clarify them.

¡¡¡¡Q: Your plan calls for placing a space station in orbit. What sort of an orbit will that be?

¡¡¡¡A: Geosynchronous. That way we will be able to ...

¡¡¡¡Q: Thank you. That¡¯s what I wanted to know.

¡¡¡¡This brief exchange clarified the affirmative¡¯s plan. The negative now knows that the affirmative is going to use a high orbit that will be far more costly than a low orbit and will present many technical difficulties. With the now-clarified plan before them, the negative can begin to develop plan attacks specific to the type of orbit the affirmative is now committed to using in their plan.

¡¡¡¡2. If you know of a defect in your opponent¬ðs evidence, crossª²examination gives you an excellent opportunity to expose it.

¡¡¡¡Q: You justify your plan for greater freedom for law-enforcement agencies by claiming that crime increased 16 percent last year?

¡¡¡¡A: Yes, and not only last year; it has been a steady trend.

¡¡¡¡Q: And the source of your evidence was?

¡¡¡¡A: The Boston Globe.

¡¡¡¡Q: Andswheresdid the Globe get its figures?

¡¡¡¡A: (Consulting card) From, er, let me see. From the FBI. Yes, from an FBI report.

¡¡¡¡Q: From the FBI report. Thank you, we¡¯ll come to that later. Now...

¡¡¡¡The questioner has now established the source of the affirmative¡¯s evidence. In the next speech the negative will certainly emphasize the flaw in that evidence. You may recall that the FBI had warned against using these statistics to make year-to-year comparisons.

¡¡¡¡Let¡¯s consider another example:

¡¡¡¡Q: You claim industry will move to escape environmental controls?

¡¡¡¡A: Right. They certainly will.

¡¡¡¡Q: Would you please read that card? I think it was the ...

¡¡¡¡A: State Street Report.¡°When faced with unreasonably high taxes and excessive regulation, industry will give serious consideration to their option to move to a location that offers a more favorable business climate.¡±

¡¡¡¡Q: That specifically says a combination of high taxes and unreasonable regulations, doesn¡¯t it?

¡¡¡¡A: Well, er, yes, but I think the focus is ...

¡¡¡¡Q: Does the evidence say that any industry moved because of environmental regulations alone?

¡¡¡¡A: Er, no, I don¡¯t think so. Not in this report, but environ-mental controls are a part of it.

¡¡¡¡Q: Does the State Street Report specifically mention environmental controls?

¡¡¡¡A: It cites¡°unreasonable regulations¡±and many of the ...

¡¡¡¡Q: No mention of environmental controls. Thank you. And it said industry would consider moving, didn¡¯t it?

¡¡¡¡A: Yes, and they have moved.

¡¡¡¡Q: Does your evidence say so?

¡¡¡¡A: Well, no, not this evidence. We have other evidence that my partner will read ...

¡¡¡¡Q: We¡¯ll be looking for it in her speech. But so far there is not evidence of industry moving, no evidence about environmental controls. Thank you.

¡¡¡¡This cross-examination has given the questioner an opportunity to point out important flaws in the evidence. If the respondent¡¯s partner fails to provide the promised new evidence in her speech, the questioner¡¯s colleague should be prepared to point that out.

¡¡¡¡3. Crossª²examination may be used to advance your position.

¡¡¡¡Q: You didn¡¯t respond to our argument that unemployment will persist, did you?

¡¡¡¡A: No. We give you that.

¡¡¡¡This brief exchange allowed the debater to emphasize that the other team had dropped an argument. The¡°development of space¡±resolution provides another example:

¡¡¡¡Q: Our evidence says that industry will make billions in the space station, doesn¡¯t it?

¡¡¡¡A: Yes, but industry is reluctant to gosintosspace.

¡¡¡¡Q: You mean industry is reluctant to make billions in profits?

¡¡¡¡A: No. They¡¯re reluctant because they¡¯re not certain that the station will be built.

¡¡¡¡Q: Our plan mandates that the space station will be built, doesn¡¯t it?

¡¡¡¡A: Yes, but ...

¡¡¡¡Q: And industry will certainly want those billions of dollars of profit, won¡¯t they?

¡¡¡¡A: Well, once it¡¯s built ...

¡¡¡¡Q: Thank you.

¡¡¡¡4. Crossª²examination may be used to respond to an attack made on your position.

¡¡¡¡Q: In your workability attack you said our plan wouldn¡¯t work because the people in the space station would get sick.

¡¡¡¡A: Right. The evidence shows they develop low blood pressure and lose bone marrow. Both Russians and Americans. And it takes three months.

¡¡¡¡Q: They get low blood pressure. So what?

¡¡¡¡A: Low blood pressure isn¡¯t good for you.

¡¡¡¡Q: Does the evidence say that?

¡¡¡¡A: Well, no, but everybody knows that low blood pressure ...

¡¡¡¡Q: The evidence doesn¡¯t say it¡¯s low enough to do any harm, does it?

¡¡¡¡A: It says they develop low ...

¡¡¡¡Q: The evidence doesn¡¯t say it gets low enough to stop them from working, does it?

¡¡¡¡A: Well, no, but everyone knows low blood pressure ...

¡¡¡¡Q: No significance shows in low blood pressure. Now, about the bone marrow - so what?

¡¡¡¡A: They lose 5 percent of their bone marrow, and it takes three months to get it back to normal. Both Russians and Americans.

¡¡¡¡Q: Again no significance. The evidence doesn¡¯t say that they can¡¯t work, does it?

¡¡¡¡A: It does say that it takes them three months to ...

¡¡¡¡Q: And they¡¯re back to normal. But the evidence doesn¡¯t attach any significance to a 5 percent loss, does it?

¡¡¡¡A: I certainly think it¡¯s significant.

¡¡¡¡Q: Do the physicians who made the reports say it¡¯s significant?

¡¡¡¡A: Well, what they say is ... they report ... they report low blood pressure and loss of bone marrow.

¡¡¡¡Q: And in neither case do they say it¡¯s significant. Thank you.Here the debater defended his case by establishing that the workability attack had no significance.

¡¡

¡¡Rules for the QuestionersÌáÎÊÕߵĹæÔò

¡¡¡¡1. Questioners should avoid¡°openª²ended¡±questions that allow the respondent freedom to roam at will.

¡¡¡¡Q: Do you think your plan will reduce fuel consumption?

¡¡¡¡A: Absolutely. The Petroleum Study proves our tax will effectively reduce consumption. The hearings prove we have the technology. The Berkeley Report says that this combination of increased taxed and already-proved technology will reduce oil imports by at least 20 percent within ...

¡¡¡¡The¡°do you think¡±opening gives respondents license to say anything they want to. Of course, they think position is favorable and will use this opportunity to advance it.

¡¡¡¡Lawyer and best-selling author Scott Throw admonishes.¡°A good trial lawyer never asks why, unless he knows the answer.¡±Know echoes Williams¬ðwise advice considered earlier. Like the¡°do you think¡±opening, a¡°why¡±question invites respondents to give the best possible reasons for their position.

¡¡¡¡Further considerations of the questioner include:

¡¡¡¡2. Questioners should try to elicit brief responses. They may not cut off a reasonable qualification, but they may cut off a verbose response with a statement such as¡°Thank you, that gives us enough information¡±or¡°That¡¯s fine, thank you. That makes your position clear.¡±

¡¡¡¡3. Questioners should not develop arguments on the responses obtained during crossª²examination. Cross-examination is a time for asking questions and getting responses. The significance of the responses should be argued in the constructive speeches or in rebuttal.

¡¡¡¡4. Questions should be brief and easily understandable. Rambling, ambiguous questions may confuse the opponent, but they may also confuse those who render the decision. Respondents would certainly ask for a clarification of such questions, and the resultant waste of time would reduce the number of questions that could be asked.

¡¡¡¡5. Questions may set the stage for a question. For example,¡°You know of course, that President Bush has announced his support for...¡±

¡¡¡¡6. Questions should never ask a question unless they already know the answer. Remember the attorney Williams- advice given earlier.

¡¡¡¡7. Questioners should not attempt to attack unassailable points. Some of the arguments in the respondents- case will probably be so well established as to be irrefutable. Questioners should focus on the points they can carry.

¡¡¡¡8. Remember that the whole purpose of asking questions in crossª²examination is to obtain information that you can use to your advantage in your next speech. On your flow sheet make notes of your questions and the responses you receive - the judge will be doing this so that you refer to them directly. Don¡¯t assume that the significance of an opponent¡¯s response is self-evident. Drive your point home to the audience in your nest speech.

¡¡¡¡In cross-examination Gail admitted that their space station would be in geosynchronous orbit. Let¡¯s see what that really means in terms of cost ...

¡¡¡¡Roger admitted in cross-examination that their figures on increased crime came from the FBI. Now I¡¯m going to tell you what the FBI itself said about using those figures for year-to-year comparisons ...

¡¡¡¡Remember when I asked Mark about the significance of his claim that people get sick in space stations? He couldn¡¯t give you any significance of low blood pressure. None. Again on the bone marrow - Mark couldn¡¯t give you any significance there either. There¡¯s no significance shown in their workability attack ...

¡¡¡¡

Rules for the Respondents»Ø´ðÕߵĹæÔò

¡¡¡¡Rules for the respondent include:

¡¡¡¡1. Respondents must keep in mind that each question is designed to destroy their case or to advance the case of their opponents. Consequently, they must constantly be on guard.

¡¡¡¡2. Respondents must answer any reasonable question. As noted earlier, however, they can refuse to give a¡°yes¡±or¡°no¡±answer and can add reasonable qualifications.

¡¡¡¡Q: The report adopted the recommendations of the chemical companies, didn¡¯t it? Yes or no.

¡¡¡¡A: There were Democrats and Republicans on the committee and the report was adopted by a unanimous vote.

¡¡¡¡3. Respondents may refuse to answer ambiguous or¡°loaded¡±question.

¡¡¡¡Q: Have you stopped cheating on examinations?

¡¡¡¡A: I quit the same day you stopped snorting cocaine.

¡¡¡¡Q: But, but, but I never snorted cocaine.

¡¡¡¡A: Bingo!

¡¡¡¡4. Respondents may qualify their response. The¡°Yes, but ...¡±qualification is weak. It is better to give the qualification first and then give a direct response.

¡¡¡¡Q: Do you believe that all branches of government should be responsive to the will of the people?

¡¡¡¡A: I believe that the Supreme Court is responsive to the will of the people by protecting their Constitutional rights. With this important Constitutional safeguard, I would say that government should be responsive to the will of the people.

¡¡¡¡5. Respondents must answer from their perspective. Governor Mario M. Cuomo of New York provided an example of this:

¡¡¡¡Reporter: Aren¡¯t you pretty thin-skinned about that, Governor?

¡¡¡¡Cuomo: If by thin-skinned you mean very, very quick to respond¨Cthat¡¯s what I¡¯ve done for a lifetime. I¡¯d been a lawyer for more than twenty years. You can¡¯t let the comment from the witness pass. If£Ûby thinª²skinned£Ýyou¡¯re talking about being personally sensitive to criticism, that¡¯s a lot of£Ûexpletive£Ý.

¡¡¡¡6. Respondents should promptly admit not knowing the answer to a question.

¡¡¡¡Q: Do you know what methodology Kwarciany and Langer used in their study?

¡¡¡¡A: They¡¯re reputable scholars. I¡¯m sure they used an appropriate methodology. Buy, no, I don¡¯t know their exact methodology.

¡¡¡¡7. Respondents should not attempt to defend an indefensible point. It is better to yield a point immediately than to allow questioners to wring admissions from the respon-dents in a series of questions that will only fix the point more firmly in the minds of those who render the decision.

¡¡

¡¡A Full Example for the Whole ProcessÈ«¹ý³Ì¾ÙÀý

¡¡¡¡Examiner: On contention¢ò.B, what was your supporting evidence?

¡¡¡¡Respondent: We cited a study calling for federal intervention.

¡¡¡¡Examiner: Was the study done by the federal government?

¡¡¡¡Respondent: No, it was done by Zwgler Research.

¡¡¡¡Examiner: Did the federal government commission pay Zwigler to do the study?

¡¡¡¡Respondent: Well, yes, they did have a federal contract.

¡¡¡¡Examiner: What was the date?

¡¡¡¡Respondent: October, 1972.

¡¡¡¡Examiner: Was there a presidential election that year?

¡¡¡¡Respondent: Yes, I believe so.

¡¡¡¡Examiner: Could money influence the results of a study?

¡¡¡¡Respondent: I¡¯m not sure what you¡¯re getting at.

¡¡¡¡Examiner: Suppose you were hired to mow somebody¡¯s lawn, would you do it the way they wanted?

¡¡¡¡Respondent: I guess so.

¡¡¡¡Examiner: Is it possible such bias might creepsintosa study report as well.

¡¡¡¡Respondent: I suppose it¡¯s possible.

¡¡¡¡Examiner: Was President Nixon running for reelection that year?

¡¡¡¡Respondent: I don¡¯t know.

¡¡¡¡Examiner: Well, he was, and if we later introduce evidence showing he strongly favored federal intervention in this area as a theme in his campaign, are you still willing to stand by an argument whose only support is a twenty-year-old study, done at the request and support of the federal government, which exactly concludes what the incumbent wanted it to conclude and which was issued just in time for the November election?

¡¡¡¡Respondent: Well, (pause) you¡¯d have to show meswheresthere¡¯s a problem.

¡¡¡¡Examiner: Would a reasonable person at least have cause to wonder?

¡¡¡¡Respondent: Well, (pause) I¡¯m not so sure. (pause) We thought it was pretty good.

¡¡¡¡Examiner: Thank you, let¡¯s now turn to contention¢ó. Can you restate your title of this contention for me?

¡¡¡¡As you can see, the examiner set up a series of questions designed to reveal a weakness in the opposition¡¯s case. While the respondent never admitted this weakness, most people in the audience would be impressed by the damaged credibility of the evidence and by the team that proved it, and they would be ready for subsequent refutation.

13£ºREFUTATION
¡¡

¡¡µÚÊ®ÈýÕ·´²µ

¡¡¡¡·´²µÊÇÖ¸±çÂÛË«·½²µ³â¶Ô·½¹ÛµãµÄ¹ý³Ì¡£Ëü¿ÉÒÔ·ÖΪֱ½Ó·´²µºÍ¼ä½Ó·´²µÁ½ÖÖ¡£·´²µµÄ·½Ê½¶àÖÖ¶àÑù£¬¶Ô·½µÄÂ۾ݡ¢ÂÛÖ¤¹ý³Ì¶¼¿ÉÒÔ³ÉΪ·´²µµÄ¶ÔÏó¡£ÎªÁËÌá¸ß·´²µµÄÓÐЧÐÔ£¬Ó¦¸Ã×ñÑ­·´²µµÄ²½Öè²¢×¢Òâ·´²µÊ±Ê¹ÓõÄÓïÑÔ¡£

¡¡

¡¡Definition of Refutation·´²µµÄ¶¨Òå

¡¡¡¡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 RefutationÁ½ÖÖ·´²µµÄ·½Ê½

¡¡¡¡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 RefutationÖ±½Ó·´²µµÄ·½·¨

¡¡¡¡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 person¬ðs 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 authority¬ðs 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·´²µµÄÎå¸ö²½Öè

¡¡¡¡/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·´²µµÄÓïÑÔ

¡¡¡¡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 negative¬ðs 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¡±

¡¡

¡¡ExercisesÁ·Ï°

¡¡¡¡Discuss the following disputes which might happen in our daily life and point out the success or failure in the refutation.

¡¡¡¡1. Aunt: I¬ðm 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 War¢òthan 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 don¬ðt 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.

14£ºAN EXAMPLE OF THE EXCELLENT DEBATE


¡¡×î¼Ñ±çÂÛ·¶Àý

¡¡¡¡ÎªÊ¹Í¬Ñ§ÃÇÄÜÔڽ϶Ìʱ¼äÄÚѸËÙÌá¸ß¿ÚÓïÎÊ´ð¡¢ÌÖÂÛ¡¢²ûÊö¡¢Õù±ç¡¢ÖÊÒɵȷ½ÃæµÄʵսˮƽ£¬ÎÒ¾«ÐÄÑ¡±àÁËÒ»Ì×¾«²Ê¾øÂ׵ĿÚÓï±çÂÛÄÚÈÝ£¬¼´ÃÀ¹úÇ°×ÜͳÇÇÖΡ¤²¼Ê²ÓëÃñÖ÷µ³ÒéÔ±(ʱÈÎÂíÈøÖîÈûÖÝÖݳ¤)Âõ¿Ë¶û¡¤¶Å¿¨»ù˹µ±Ä꾺ѡÃÀ¹ú×ÜͳʱµÄµçÊÓ±çÂÛ¡£±çÂÛÖ÷ÌâÉæ¼°·¸×ïÓëËÀÐÌ¡¢¸±×ÜͳÈËÑ¡¡¢Ë°ÊÕÓëÔ¤Ëã¡¢Éç»á±£ÕÏ¡¢¼ÛÖµ¹Û¡¢¾ü·ÑÔ¤Ëã¡¢µ±´úÓ¢ÐÛ¡¢¼ÒÍ¥¹ÛÄî¡¢¶éÌ¥ÎÊÌâµÈµÈÊ®·ÖÃô¸ÐÓÖÇÐÖÐÒªº¦µÄÖ÷Ìâ¡£ÎÒÑ¡È¡ÆäÖеÄƬ¶Î£¬Ï£ÍûͬѧÃÇ¿ÉÒÔ´ÓÖÐѧϰËûÃÇ¿ÚÈôÐüºÓ¡¢ÃîÓïÁªÖ顢˼άçÇÃÜ¡¢µÎË®²»Â©µÄÐÛ±ç¿Ú²Å¡£

¡¡¡¡ºÃºÃµØÄ¥Á·Ò»ÏÂÄãµÄsense of occasion(Ëæ»úÓ¦±äµÄÊÊÓ¦ÄÜÁ¦)°É£¡

¡¡

¡¡THE U.S. PRESIDENTIAL TV DEBATE

¡¡

¡¡±çÂÛË«·½±³¾°½éÉÜ

¡¡¡¡±çÂÛË«·½±çÂÛµÄÄ¿µÄÔÚÓÚ¾ºÑ¡ÏÂÒ»½ì×Üͳְλ¡£ÔÚÀï¸ù°ËÄêÖ´ÕþÆڼ䣬ÃÀ¹ú¾­ÀúÁ˳¤´ï6Äê¶àµÄÕ½ºóºÍƽʱÆÚ×µÄ¾­¼Ã·¢Õ¹ÆÚ¡£Í¨»õÅòÕÍÁ¬ÐøÁ½Äê±£³ÖÔÚ4.4%µÄµÍˮƽ¡£µ«ÊÇÁª°î²ÆÕþ³à×־Ӹ߲»Ï£¬Îü¶¾ÎÊÌâ³ÉΪÑÏÖصÄÉç»áÎÊÌâ¡£

¡¡¡¡ÇÇÖΡ¤²¼Ê²

¡¡¡¡Ê±ÈÎÀï¸ùÕþ¸®¸±×Üͳ¡£ÔøÔÚµÚ¶þ´ÎÊÀ½ç´óÕ½ÖÐÈκ£¾üº½¿Õ±ø·ÉÐÐÔ±£¬¶à´Î¼Ý»ú²ÎÕ½£¬ÂŽ¨Õ½¹¦¡£ÍËÒÛºó¿¼ÈëҮ³´óѧ¾­¼Ãѧϵ£¬Ñ§Ï°³É¼¨ÓÅÐ㣬»ñѧʿѧλ¡£±ÏÒµºóÈëµÃ¿ËÈø˹ÖÝʯÓÍ×ê̽¹«Ë¾£¬Í¨¹ý°×ÊÖÆð¼Ò£¬ÊýÄêÄÚ³ÉΪ°ÙÍò¸»ÎÌ¡£ºóÆúÉÌ´ÓÕþ£¬ÔøÈÎÃÀ¹úפÁªºÏ¹úÊ×ϯ´ú±í¡£20ÊÀ¼Í70Äê´úÖÐÃÀ¹ØϵºÃתºóÈÎפ±±¾©ÁªÂç´¦Ö÷ÈεÈְλ¡£²¼Ê²´¦Ê½÷É÷¡¢Àä¾²£¬ÐÐÕþ¡¢Íâ½»¾­Ñé·á¸»¡£ÔÚÕþÖη½ÃæÊô¹²ºÍµ³ÄÚ¡°Îºͱ£ÊØÅÉ¡±(Æä×ÓСÇÇÖΡ¤²¼Ê²ÏÖΪÃÀ¹ú×Üͳ)¡£

¡¡¡¡²¼Ê²ÒÔÀï¸ùÕþ¸®¸±×ÜͳÉí·Ý¾ºÑ¡Ï½ì×Üͳ£¬¼ÈÒª¼Ì³ÐÀï¸ùµÄ´óÕþ·½Õ룬ÓÖÏ뼫Á¦×ß³öÀï¸ùµÄÒõÓ°£¬Ìá³ö½â¾ö²ÆÕþ³à×ֺͶ¾Æ·ÎÊÌâµÄÓÐЧ·½·¨¡£

¡¡¡¡ËûÔø³«Ò顰ǧµãÖ®¹â¡±¼Æ»®¡£Ëû˵£ºI have spoken of a¡°thousand points of light¡±- of all the community organizations that are spread like stars throughout the nation, doing good. They are timeless, sacrifice, commitment, and a patriotism that finds its expression in taking part and pitching in. (ÎÒ˵¹ý¡°Ç§µãÖ®¹â¡±--Ïñ·±ÐÇÒ»Ñù±é²¼È«¹ú×öÉÆʵÄ×éÖ¯¡£Ö°Ôð¡¢ÎþÉü¡¢ÒåÎñÒÔ¼°ÒÔÇ×Éí²Î¼ÓºÍŬÁ¦¹¤×÷±íÏÖ³öÀ´µÄ°®¹úÖ®ÐÄÊÇÓÀ²»¹ýʱµÄ¡£)

¡¡¡¡And I do not mistrust the future; I do not fear what is ahead. For our problems are large, but our heart is larger, our challenges are great, but our will is greater.(ÎÒ²¢·Ç²»ÐÅÈÎδÀ´£»ÎÒ²¢²»º¦ÅÂÃæÁÙµÄÎÊÌâ¡£ÎÒÃǵÄÎÊÌâºÜ¶à£¬µ«ÎÒÃǵÄÄÚÐĸü²©´ó¡£ÎÒÃÇÃæÁÙµÄÌôÕ½ºÜÑϾþ£¬µ«ÎÒÃǵÄÒâÖ¾¸üÇ¿´ó¡£)

¡¡¡¡I see history as a book with many pages-and each day we fill a page with acts of hopefulness and meaning.(ÀúÊ·ÊÇÒ»±¾ÓкܶàÒ³µÄÊ飬ÎÒÃÇÿÌ춼ÓÃÓÐÏ£Íû¡¢ÓÐÒâÒåµÄÐж¯À´×«Ð´Ã¿Ò»Ò³ÀúÊ·¡£)

¡¡¡¡Âõ¿Ë¶û¡¤¶Å¿¨»ù˹

¡¡¡¡ÃÀ¼®Ï£À°ÒáÈË¡£Ôø½øҽѧԺѧϰ£¬ÁùÄêºóÒÔÓÅÒì³É¼¨±ÏÒµ£¬ºóÔÚº«¹ú·þ±øÒÛ¡£Á½Äêºó½øÈë¹þ·ð·¨Ñ§Ôº¹¥¶Á·¨ÂÉ£¬±ÏÒµºó×÷ÂÉʦ¡£ºóµ±Ñ¡ÎªÂíÈøÖîÈûÖÝ(²¼Ê²³öÉúµØ)Öݳ¤£¬Á¬Ñ¡Á¬ÈΡ£

¡¡¡¡¶Å¿¨»ù˹ÈÎÖݳ¤Æڼ䣬ÀûÓøÃÖݸßУÖÇÁ¦ÓÅÊÆ£¬¶Ô²úÒµ½á¹¹½øÐиÄÔ죬½«Öع¤Òµ×ªÐÍΪ¸ß¼¼Êõ²úÒµ£¬´´ÔìÁËÃÀ¹ú¾­¼ÃµÄÐÂÆæ¼£¡£Ëû»¹ÑϸñÖƶ¨Ë°ÊÕ·¨¹æ£¬Á¬ÐøÊ®ÄêʹÖݲÆÕþÊÕ֧ƽºâ¡£²¢ÇÒÖƶ©ÁËÂíÈøÖîÈûÖݱ£½¡·¨£¬Ê¹¸ÃÖݹ«Ãñ¶¼ÄÜÏíÊÜÒ½ÁƱ£ÕÏÖƶȡ£

¡¡¡¡¶Å¿¨»ù˹ǿµ÷ÒªÒÔÎȲ½µØ¡¢Ö𽥵ؼõÉÙ³à×Ö×÷ΪĿ±ê¡£

¡¡¡¡Ëû˵¹ý£º

¡¡¡¡We need a chief executive who¡¯s prepared to lead, but will lead, will bring down that deficit, will make tough choices on spending, will go out and do the job that we expect of him and do with it the Congress of United States.(ÎÒÃÇÐèҪһλ¾ß±¸Áìµ¼²Å¸ÉµÄÐÐÕþÊ×ÄÔ£¬Ëû½«Äܹ»ÆðÁìµ¼×÷Óã¬Ëû½«ÄÜÏ÷¼õ³à×Ö£¬Ëû½«ÄÜÑϸñ¿ØÖÆ¿ªÖ§£¬Ëû½«ÄÜ×öÎÒÃÇÆÚÍûËû×öµÄ¹¤×÷£¬Ëû½«Äܺ͹ú»áºÏ×÷¹²Ê¡£)

¡¡¡¡So I hope and expect that I¡¯ll be liked by the people of this country. I think it¡¯s important to be somebody who¡¯s willing to make those tough choices.(ËùÒÔÎÒÆÚÍû²¢ÆóÅÎÄܱ»¹úÃñËùϲ»¶¡£ÎÒÈÏΪһ¸öÔ¸ÒâÈ¥½â¾ö¼¬ÊÖÎÊÌâµÄÈËÊÇÖÁ¹ØÖØÒªµÄ¡£)

¡¡¡¡ÏÖ³¡±çÂÛ

¡¡¡¡Ö÷³ÖÈËÒ»¿ªÊ¼±ãÓÃßÍßͱÆÈ˵ĿÚÆøѯÎʶſ¨»ù˹£º¡°¼ÙÈçÄãµÄ·òÈ˱»¼éɱ£¬Äã»áÔ޳ɶÔɱÈË·¸Ê©ÐÐËÀÐÌÂ𣿡±Ä¿µÄÔÚÓÚ´Ùʹ¶Å¿¨»ù˹(Ò»Ïò·´¶ÔËÀÐÌ)²ûÊö·´¶ÔËÀÐ̵Ĺ۵㡣

¡¡¡¡¡¾Çë¼Çס£º¶ÔÏÖÔÚ²»¿ÉÄÜ·¢ÉúµÄ¼ÙÉèÒªÓÃÐéÄâÓïÆø£ºif +¹ýȥʽ£¬would +¶¯´ÊÔ­ÐΣ»Ñ¯ÎÊÔÞ³ÉÓë·ñ³£ÓãºWould you favor...?¡¿

¡¡¡¡Mr. SHAW(Ö÷³ÖÈË)£º...Governor(Öݳ¤£¬Ö¸¶Å¿¨»ù˹)£¬if Kitty Dukakis(¶Å¿¨»ù˹µÄÆÞ×Ó)were raped(Ç¿¼é)and murdered, would you favor an irrevocable death penalty(ËÀÐÌ)for the killer?

¡¡¡¡Mr. DUKAKIS: No, I don¬ðt, Bernard, and I think you know that I¡¯ve opposed the death penalty during all of my life. I don¡¯t see any evidence that it¡¯s a deterrent, and I think there are better and more effective ways to deal with violent crimes (±©Á¦·¸×ï).We¡¯ve done so in my own state, and it¡¯s one of the reasons why we have had the biggest drop in crime of any industrial state in America, why we have the lowest murder rate of any industrial state in America.

¡¡¡¡¡¾³ÂÊö¹Ûµã£ºI think you know that I¡¯ve opposed...ÎÒÈÏΪÄãÖªµÀ£¬ÎÒÒ»Ö±·´¶Ô¡­¡­It¬ðs one of the reasons why...Õâ¾ÍÊÇΪʲô¡­¡­¡¿

¡¡¡¡But we have work to do in this nation; we have work to do to fight a real war and not a phony(¼ÙµÄ£¬²»ÕæʵµÄ)war against drugs. And that¡¯s something that I want to lead, something we haven¡¯t had over the course of the past many years, even though the Vice President has been, at least allegedly(Ðû³ÆµØ)£¬in charge of that war. We have much to do to step up(´Ù½ø)that war, to double the number of drug enforcement agents, to fight both here and abroad, to work with our neighbors in this hemisphere. And I want to call a hemispheric summit just as soon after the 20th of January as possible to fight that war.

¡¡¡¡¡¾ÎªÁ˽øÒ»²½²ûÃ÷¾ßÌå¹Ûµã£¬¶Å¿¨»ù˹ʹÓÃÁË£ºWe have work to do... That¡¯s something that I want to ... We have much to do... I want to do ...¡¿

¡¡¡¡But we also have to deal with drug education and prevention here at home. And that¡¯s one of the things that I hope I can lead personally as the president of the United States. We¡¯ve had great success in my own state, and we¡¯ve reached out to young people and their families and been able to help them by beginning drug education and prevention in the early elementary grades.

¡¡¡¡¡¾ÔÚ²ûÊöÍê´Ë¹Ûµãºó£¬¶Å¿¨»ù˹ÓÃÁË£ºSo we can do...¡¿

¡¡¡¡So we can fight this war and we can win this war, and we can do so in a way that marshals our forces, that provides real support for state and local law enforcement officers who have not been getting that kind of support, do it in a way which will bring down violence in this nation, will help our youngsters to stay away from drugs, will stop this avalanche(Èçѩɽ±À°ãÇãк¶øÏÂ)of drugs that¡¯s pouringsintosthe country, and will make it possible for our kids and our families to grow up in safe and secure and decent neighborhoods.

¡¡¡¡Mr. SHAW: Mr. Vice President, your oneª²minute rebuttal(·´²µ).

¡¡¡¡Mr. BUSH: Well, a lot of what this campaign is about, it seems to me, Bernie, is to a question of values. And here, I do have, on this particular question, a big difference with my opponent.

¡¡¡¡You see, I do believe that some crimes are so heinous(×ïÐÐÇîÐ×¼«¶ñµÄ)£¬so brutal(²ÐÈ̵Ä)£¬so outrageous(±©Å°Î޳ܵÄ)- and I¡¯d say particularly those that result in the death of a police officer - those real brutal crimes, I do believe in the death penalty. And I think it is a deterrent. And I believe we need it, and I¡¯m glad that the Congress moved on this drug bill, and it finally called for that, related to these necrotics drug kingpins. And so, we just have an honest difference of opinion. I support it, and he doesn¡¯t.

¡¡¡¡¡¾Õæ¿ÉνÐÛ±çµÄ¿Ú²Å£¬ÎÞ¿É·ñÈϵÄÊÂʵ¡£ÂÖµ½²¼Ê²·´²µÁË¡£¶ÔÓÚ¶ÔÊÖµÄÁ¬ÖéÅÚ£¬²¼Ê²Ñ¡Ôñ¡°Ò»ÑÔÒÔ±ÎÖ®¡±£ºA lot of what... is about, it seems to me, is to a question of...(ÔÚÎÒ¿´À´£¬¶ÔÓÚ¡­¡­µÄÐí¶à·½Ã棬ÊÇ¡­¡­µÄÎÊÌâ¡£)È»ºó±íʾ²»Í¬¹Ûµã£ºI have a difference with my opponent.(ÎÒÓë¶Ô·½¹Ûµã²»Í¬¡£)

¡¡¡¡I do believe in ....(ÎÒµÄÈ·ÏàÐÅ¡­¡­)

¡¡¡¡I¡¯m glad that ...

¡¡¡¡×îºó²¼Ê²Ëµ£ºAnd so, we just have an honest difference of opinion.(ÓÉ´Ë¿´À´£¬ÎÒÃÇÓÐ×ÅÃ÷ÏÔ²»Í¬µÄ¹Ûµã¡£)¡¿

¡¡¡¡Mr. SHAW: Now, to you, Vice President Bush. I quote to you this from Article¢óof the 20th Amendment of the Constitution: Quote,¡°if, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term of the President, the President-elect shall have died, the Vice President elect shall become President,¡±meaning, if you are elected and die before inauguration Day-

¡¡¡¡¡¾Ö÷³ÖÈ˲»À¢Îª¡°Ãû×족£¬ÓÖÌá³öÒ»ÖÖ¼ÙÉ裬ÒâÔÚÆÈʹ²¼Ê²ÆÀ¼ÛÆ侺ѡ´îµµµ¤¡¤¿ü¶û¡£

¡¡¡¡Çë¼ÇסÕâ¸ö¾äʽ£º

¡¡¡¡What have you to say about that possibility?

¡¡¡¡Äã¶ÔÕâÖÖ¿ÉÄÜÐÔҪ˵Щʲô£¿¡¿

¡¡¡¡Mr. BUSH: Bernie!

¡¡¡¡Mr. SHAW: Automatically, automatically, Dan Quayle would become the 41st President of the United States. What have you to say about that possibility?

¡¡¡¡Mr. BUSH: I¬ðd have confidence in him, and I made a good selection. And I¡¯ve never seen such a pounding, an unfair pounding, on a young senator in my entire life. And I¡¯ve never seen a presidential campaignswheresthe presidential nominee runs against my Vice Presidential nominee - never seen before. You know, Lloyd Bentsen(¶Å¿¨»ù˹ÌáÃûµÄ¸±×ÜͳºòÑ¡ÈË)jumped on Dan Quayle when Dan Quayle said he¡¯s had roughly the same amount of experience. He had two terms in the Congress; he had two terms in the Senate, serving his second term.

¡¡¡¡He founded the - authored the Job Training Partnership Act(Ö°ÒµÅàѵЭ×÷·¨°¸)that says to American working men and women that are thrown out of work for no fault of their own, that they¡¯re going to have jobs. We¡¯re movingsintosa new, competitive age, and we need that kind of thing. He, unlike my opponent, is an expert in national defense, helped amend the INF Treaty(Öг̺ËÎäÆ÷ÌõÔ¼)£¬so we got a good, sound treaty which these people over here were talking about a freeze. If we¡¯d listened to them, we would never have had a treaty.

¡¡¡¡¡¾´Ó²¼Ê²µÄÕâ¶Î±ç½âÖÐÎÒÃÇ¿ÉÒÔѧµ½ºÜ¶àÓÐÓõľäʽ£¬²¢Á˽⵽ÃÀ¹úÈ˵Ä˼άÂß¼­±í´ï·½·¨¡£Æô¡¢³Ð¡¢×ª¡¢ºÏ£¬²ã²ãÍƽø¡£Ö÷Ìâ¾ä(Æô)Ö±ÈëÖ÷Ì⣺I¡¯d have confidence in him, and I made a good selection.

¡¡¡¡×ªÕ۾䣺I¡¯d never seen...

¡¡¡¡À©Õ¹¾ä--ÁоÙÊÂʵ£¬ËµÃ÷Ö÷Ìâ

¡¡¡¡He founded...

¡¡¡¡He is an expert in...¡¿

¡¡¡¡And so I have great confidence in him and he¡¯s¨Cit¡¯s turning around. You know, the American people are fair. They don¡¯t like it when there¡¯s an unfair pounding and kind of hooting about people. They want to judge it on the record itself. And so I¡¯m proud of my choice. And, you know, I don¡¯t think age is the only criterion. But I¡¯ll tell you something, I¡¯m proud that people that are 30 years old and 40 years old now have someone in their generation that is going to be Vice President of the United States of America. I made a good selection. The American people are seeing it and I¡¯m proud of it. That¡¯s what I¡¯d say. And he could do the job.

¡¡¡¡¡¾×ܽá¾ä--Öظ´Ö÷ÌâAnd so I have great confidence in him... I made a good selection.

¡¡¡¡...That¡¯s what I¡¯d say. And he could do the job.¡¿

¡¡¡¡Mr. SHAW: Governor Dukakis, your oneª²minute rebuttal.

¡¡¡¡Mr. DUKAKIS: Bernard, this was the first presidential decision that we, as nominees, were called upon to make and that¬ðs why people are so concerned because it was an opportunity for us to demonstrate what we were looking for in a running mate. More than that, it was the first national security decision that we had to make.

¡¡¡¡¡¾¸ÃÂÖµ½¶Å¿¨»ù˹·´²µÁË¡£Õë¶Ô²¼Ê²Ö¸ÔðËûÃǹ¥»÷µ¤¡¤¿ü¶ûÒ»µã£¬¶Å¿¨»ù˹±Üʵ¾ÍÐéÓ­ºÏÑ¡ÃñÐÄÀí¡£

¡¡¡¡ºËÐľäʽ£ºThis was the first...and that¡¯s why people are so concerned because it was an opportunity for us to demonstrate...More than that, it was the first...¡¿

¡¡¡¡The Vice President talks about national security. Three times since World War¢ò, the Vice President has had to suddenly become the president and Commander-in-Chief. I picked Lloyd Bentsen because I thought he was the best-qualified person for the job. Mr. Bush picked Dan Quayle and, before he did it, he said,¡°Watch my choice for Vice President. It will tell all.¡±And it sure did. It sure did.

¡¡¡¡¡¾¶Å¿¨»ù˹¾ÍÌôÑ¡¸±×ÜͳһÊÂ˵£ºI picked Lloyd Bentsen because he was the best qualified person for the job.

¡¡¡¡²¢ÒýÓÃÁ˲¼Ê²µÄÒ»¾ä»°À´Ö§³Ö×Ô¼º¡£×îºóÍÑ¿Ú¶ø³ö£ºIt sure did.(ȷʵÕâÑù¡£)¡¿

¡¡¡¡Mr. SHAW: Ann Compton for the Vice President.

¡¡¡¡Mr. COMPTON(µçÊÓÅ®¼ÇÕß)£ºThank you, Bernie, Mr. Vice President, yes, we read your lips:¡°No new taxes.¡±But, despite that same pledge from President Reagan, after income tax rates(ÊÕÈëËùµÃË°ÂÊ)were cut, in each of the last five years, some federal taxes(Áª°îË°ÊÕ)have gone up-on Social Security(Éç»á±£ÕÏ)£¬cigarettes, liquor, even long-distance telephone calls. Now that¡¯s money straight out of people¡¯s wallets. Isn¡¯t the phrase¡°no new taxes¡±misleading the voters?

¡¡¡¡¡¾Å®¼ÇÕß¿µÆÕµÇŮʿÏò²¼Ê²ÏÈÉúÌá³öÁËÒ»¸öÑ¡Ãñ¶¼ºÜ¹Ø×¢µÄÃô¸ÐÎÊÌ⣺¡°ËäÈ»ÄãÌá³ö²»Ôö¼ÓË°ÊÕ£¬²¢ÇÒÊÕÈëËùµÃË°µÈ½µµÍÁË£¬µ«Éç»á±£ÕÏ¡¢ÑÌ¡¢¾Æ¡¢³¤Í¾µç»°·ÑµÈÊÕ·ÑÈ´ÉÏÕÇÁË£¬ÄÇô¡°²»ÊÕÐÂË°µÄ±£Ö¤¡±²»ÊÇÎóµ¼Ñ¡ÃñÂ𣿡±ÇÒ¿´²¼Ê²ÈçºÎ×÷´ð¡£¡¿

¡¡¡¡Mr. BUSH: No, because that¡¯s-that I¡¯m pledged to that. And, yes, some taxes have gone up. And the main point is taxes have been cut and yet income is up to the federal government by 25 percent in the last three years. And so, what I want to do is keep this expansion going. I don¡¯t want to kill it off by a tax increase.

¡¡¡¡More Americans are at work today than at any time in the history of this country and a greater percentage of the work force. And the way you kill expansions is to raise taxes. And I don¡¯t want to do that. And I won¡¯t do that. And what I have proposed is something much better. And it¡¯s going to take discipline of the executive branch. It¡¯s going to take discipline of the congressional branch-and that is what I call a flexible freeze(Áé»î¶³½á)that allows growth-about 4 percent or the rate of inflation-but does not permit the congress just to add on spending.

¡¡¡¡¡¾²¼Ê²¾ø¶ÔÊÇÕþ̳ÀÏÊÖ£¬Ëû²»»Å²»Ã¦£¬ÏÈÎÈסÕó½Ç£¬½øÐÐÕýÃæ»Ø´ð£ºÃ»ÓÐÎ󵼡£ÒòΪI¬ðm pledged to that.(ÕâÒ»µãÎÒ±£Ö¤¹ý¡£)Some taxes have gone up.µ«ÊÇThe main point is that...(×ÜÌåÉÏ¡­¡­)And so, what I want to do is...

¡¡¡¡È»ºóÁгöÕþ¼¨Ö®Ò»£ºÊ§ÒµÂÊϽµ¡£

¡¡¡¡I don¡¯t want to do that. And I won¡¯t do that.²¢ÇÒ½øÒ»²½Ìá³ö¸Ä½ø´ëÊ©£º

¡¡¡¡It¡¯s going to take discipline of...

¡¡¡¡That is what I call...¡¿

¡¡¡¡I hear this talk about a blank check. The American people are pretty smart. They know who writes out the checks. And they know who appropriates the money. It is the United States Congress and by two to one, Congress is blamed for these deficits. And the answer is to discipline both the executive branch and the congressional branch beholding the line on taxes.

¡¡¡¡So I am pledged to do that. And those pessimists(±¯¹ÛÖ÷ÒåÕß)who say it can¬ðt be done. I¡¯m sorry. I just have fundamental disagreement with them.

¡¡¡¡¡¾×îºó×ܽ᣺so I am pledged to do that. I have fundamental disagreement.¡¿

¡¡¡¡Mr. SHAW: Governor Dukakis, your oneª²minute response.

¡¡¡¡Mr. DUKAKIS: Ann, the Vice President made that pledge; he¡¯s broken it three times in the past year already, so it isn¡¯t worth the paper it¡¯s printed on. And what I¡¯m concerned about is that if we continue with the policies that Mr. Bush is talking about here this evening-flexible freeze-somebody described it the other day.

¡¡¡¡¡¾¶Å¿¨»ù˹ºÁ²»¿ÍÆøµØ·´»÷µÀ£º

¡¡¡¡So it isn¡¯t worth the paper it¡¯s printed on.(Òò´ËÁ¬Ó¡ÓС°±£Ö¤¡±ÕâÁ½×ֵİ×Ö½¶¼Öµ²»ÁË¡£)

¡¡¡¡È»ºóÌá³ö£ºWhat I¡¯m concerned about is that...

¡¡¡¡²¢½«²¼Ê²µÄ¡°Áé»î¶³½á¡±¼Æ»®àÍÖ®ÒÔ±ÇΪ¡°»¯Á˵Ķ³¸â¡±¡£Ëû˵µÀ£ºSomebody described it ...¡¿

¡¡¡¡He wants to spend billions of virtually every weapons system around. He says he¡¯s not going to raise taxes, thought he has broken that pledge repeatedly. He says he wants to give the wealthiest 1 percent in this country a five-year,¡ç40 billion tax break, and we¡¯re going to pay for it. And he¡¯s been proposing all kinds of programs for new spending costing billions.

¡¡¡¡¡¾ÔÚ²ûÃ÷Ö÷Ìâºó£¬¶Å¿¨»ù˹±ãÕ¹¿ªÌÖÂÛ£¬ÁоÙÁ˲¼Ê²Ëù×öµÄ¼¸¸öµäÐÍÊÂÀý£¬¾äʽÖ÷ÒªÓУºHe wants to... He says... He¡¯s been proposing...¡¿

¡¡¡¡Now, if we continue with these policies, this trillion and a half dollars worth of new debt that¡¯s already been added on the backs of the American taxpayers is going to increase even more. If we continue with this for another four years, then I¡¯m worried about the next generation, whether we can ever turn this situation around.

¡¡¡¡No, we need a chief executive who¡¯s prepared to lead, who won¡¯t blame the Congress, but will lead, will bring down that deficit, will make tough choices on spending, will go out and do the job that we expect of him and do with it the Congress of the United States.

¡¡¡¡Mr. SHAW: And to Governor Dukakis.

¡¡¡¡Mr. COMPTON: Governor, let me follow up on that by asking you, you¡¯ve said it many times, that you¡¯ve balanced 10 budgets in a row in Massachusetts. Are you promising the American people, here tonight, that within a four-year presidential term, you will balance the federal budget?

¡¡¡¡¡¾ÒÔ¼ÙÉè¾ä½øÐÐÍÆÕ¹£ºIf we continue with this for ... then I¡¯m worried about...

¡¡¡¡×îºó£¬¶Å¿¨»ù˹¶ÏÈ»·ñ¶¨¶Ô·½£¬²¢¼«ÆäÉ¿ÇéµØ¸ÅÀ¨ÆäÖ÷ÕÅ¡£

¡¡¡¡Çë¼ÇסÕâ¾ä»°£¬µ±½Ó×ÅÎʼ°Ò»¸öÎÊÌâ¿ÉÓãºLet me follow up on that by asking you...¡¿

¡¡¡¡Mr. DUKAKIS: No, I¡¯m not sure I can promise that. I don¡¯t think either of us can, really. There¡¯s no way of anticipating what may happen. I will say this, that we¡¯ll set up our goal a steady, gradual reduction of the deficit, which will require tough choices on spending. It will require a good strong rate of economic growth. It will require a plan that President works out with the Congress-doesn¡¯t blame them, works it out with them-which bring that deficit down. It will require us to go out and collect billions and billions of dollars in taxes owed that aren¡¯t being paid in this country. And that¡¯s grossly unfair to the average American who¡¯s paying his taxes, and paying them on time, and doesn¡¯t have any alternative-it¡¯s taken out of his paycheck.

¡¡¡¡Mr. Bush says we¡¯re going to put the IRS(¹úÄÚË°Îñ¾Ö)on every taxpayer. That¡¯s not what we¡¯re going to do. I¡¯m for the taxpayer bill of Rights. Well, I think it¡¯s unconscionable(²»ºÏÀíµÄ) that we should be talking or thinking about imposing new taxes on average Americans, when there are billion out there-over a hundred billion dollars in taxes owed that aren¡¯t being paid.

¡¡¡¡Now, I think if we work together on it, and if you have a president that will work with the Congress and the American people, we can bring that deficit down steadily,¡ç20, 25, 30 billion a year, build economic growth, build a good strong future for America, invest in those things which we must invest in: economic development, good jobs, good schools for our kids, college opportunity for young people, decent health care and affordable housing, and a clean and safe environment. We can do all of those things, and at the same time build a future in which we¡¯re standing on a good strong fiscal foundation.

¡¡¡¡¡¾¶Ôijʲ»×öÍêÈ«¿Ï¶¨»Ø´ð£¬²»Ê¹×Ô¼º´¦ÓÚ±»¶¯²¢ÊÚÈ˰ѱú£¬¾Í¿É˵ÕâЩ¾äʽ£º

¡¡¡¡I¡¯m not sure I can promise that.

¡¡¡¡I don¡¯t think either of us can, really. There¡¯s no way of anticipating what may happen. I will say this, that we¡¯ll set up as our goal...(ÎÒÔ¸ÕâÑù˵£¬ÎÒÃÇÒÔ¡­¡­×÷ΪÎÒÃǵÄÄ¿±ê¡£)

¡¡¡¡It will require...¡¿

¡¡¡¡¡¾·´²µÓÃÓ

¡¡¡¡That¡¯s not what we¡¯re going to do.(ÄDz»ÊÇÎÒÃÇÒª×öµÄÊ¡£)

¡¡¡¡I¡¯m for...(ÎÒÔ޳ɡ­¡­)Well, I think it¬ðs unconscionable that...(ÎÒÈÏΪ¡­¡­ÊDz»ºÏÇéÀíµÄ¡£)¡¿