Return to site

How to Win Your Framework (And Win the Debate) 如何让己方框架取胜(最终赢得比赛)?

John Harper

· Debates

Debates are often very close, and teams can present good reasons with credible evidence for both the pro and the con side. In this case, how does the judge decide who wins and loses?

辩论过程中常常出现双方实力接近的情况,两队无论支持或反对辩题,都要找出可信的证据来证明自己的论点。这种情况下,裁判是怎样裁定胜负的呢?

The frameworks each side puts forward is used by the judges to evaluate the arguments. A framework is a criteria for evaluating arguments or a way to decide who wins the debate. Teams typically say what their frameworks are at the start of their constructive speeches. But you should also justify why your framework is correct, and argue against your opponents framework as you go through the debate.

裁判根据双方提出的框架来评判他们的论述。框架是评判论述的标准,也是决定胜负的因素之一。两方队伍通常是在开篇立论时提出自己的框架。但是双方也需注意框架是否正确,在辩论过程中,反驳对方的辩论框架。

For example, the Pro side in “The United Nations is no longer important” could say that their framework is whether the decisions of the UN are obeyed by countries, and whether they make a difference to what happens in the world. So they might then use examples like the Iraq war to say that powerful countries can ignore the UN, so the UN is not important.

举个例子,对于辩题“联合国不再重要”,正方的框架可以包括联合国的决议是否被其他国家遵守,或者联合国是否对世界事务产生一定作用。所以,正方可以举例,如在伊拉克战争中,大国忽视联合国的决议,所以联合国不再重要。

An example of when frameworks are useful
框架何时有效?

Let us consider this situation: The PRO argues the UN is not important because it failed to prevent the Rwandan genocide. And cites reliable sources stating that hundreds of thousands of people were murdered in the ethnic conflict. On the other hand, the CON argues that the UN was important in stopping the spread of nuclear material. So without the UN nuclear accidents or use of nuclear weapons would have been more likely.

我们想一下这个场景:正方表示联合国之所以不再重要是因为它没能制止卢旺达种族大屠杀。据可靠消息称,成千上万人在种族冲突中被屠杀殆尽。另一方面,反方表示联合国在阻止核武器扩散方面起到了重要作用。所以,若不是联合国的存在,将会有更多的核事故,核武器也会使用的更加频繁。

So both teams had strong contentions with significant harms. How does the judge decide which is more important? Which do we care more about Nuclear weapons or Genocide? A framework gives the judge a way to compare the two impacts and decide who wins the debate.

所以在双方都有很强有力的论据情况下,裁判如何决定哪方的论述更重要呢?我们是更加关心核武器还是种族屠杀呢?这时,框架就能够帮助裁判对比两个论点的影响并决定谁能赢得这场辩论。

For example, the PRO could use a moral standard as their framework. “Genocide is one of the most evil things that can happen. Failing to prevent it makes the UN an immoral organisation. So it is unimportant to doing what is good for humanity.”

比如,正方将道德规范作为它的框架。“种族灭绝是有史以来惨无人性的作为之一。联合国没能阻止它的发生,就说明它称不上是道德的组织。那么它做什么对人类有益的事都不重要了。”

On the other hand, the CON could argue a framework of consequences. “A nuclear attack is one of the most devastating things that can happen. The UN prevented these terrible consequences of nuclear war by using its international power to reduce nuclear arms development.”

另一方面,反方可以使用一个结果导向性的框架。“核袭击是最具毁灭性的行为之一。联合国通过其国际力量减少核武器的使用,抑制其发展,避免了许多灾难的发生。”

It is often useful to directly compare your framework to your opponent's.

裁判经常会直接拿你方的框架去对比对方的框架

For example the Con side could say: “While genocides are awful and should be prevented, nuclear proliferation threatens the entire world. So because it affects more people’s lives it is more important. The Pro side could say: “While the UN is involved in stopping nuclear proliferation, there are many other organisations that can do that. But the UN was created to stop genocides, and no other organisation has it’s ability to intervene. So if it is failing to do so then it has failed at its most important duty.” In this case they are directly comparing the impacts of the two frameworks, and saying theirs is bigger.

比如反方称:“虽然种族屠杀令人震惊,应该得以控制,但是核扩散威胁整个世界。因为后者影响更多人的衣食住行,所以更加重要”。正方反驳称:“虽然联合国参与阻止核扩散的行动,但是许多其他组织都可以做到这一点。而对于阻止种族屠杀,这就是联合国义不容辞的责任,没有其他组织有它的能力去干预组织。所以如果联合国没能阻止种族屠杀,那他就没有履行好最重要的责任。”这种情况下,双方在直接比较两种框架的影响,并宣称各方的观点更加重要。

Other ways you can compare frameworks are by how relevant they are to the topic, or how closely they match a reasonable person’s interpretation of what the topic means. For example if Con set the framework “if we can prove that the UN has ever done anything that influenced the world, we should win this debate”. That would be a very easy framework to prove. Which would make it almost impossible for the Pro to win. But Pro could respond that normally when people say something is important they don’t normally mean just that it has done something, but how much of a difference it makes compared to other things. And then say that their framework makes more sense so it should be used instead.

比较框架的其他方法就是看它们与话题的相关性,或是看该框架与一个普通人对该话题的理解有多匹配。 例如,如果反方将框架设定为“如果我们能够证明联合国曾经做过影响世界的事,那我们就能赢得这场辩论”。 这个框架很容易证明,并且不会给正方留有转机。但是正方可以反驳说,通常人们说一些事情重要时,并不意味着他们已经做了这些事情,还要取决于这些事情和其它事情相比有什么差别。到时就会说他们的框架更有意义,并且应该使用它。

Some other tips for how to use your framework:

其它使用框架的小技巧:

Make sure your framework agrees with your case.

A framework should relate to all of your contentions, or main arguments, in your case. If my framework is based in morality, then all of my points should relate to the moral decisions of the UN in some way. If my points are unrelated to my framework, then those points do not even hold credibility under my case.

框架应该与所有的论点或主要论据相关。假设该框架与道德相关,那么所有的观点在一定程度上都应该与联合国的道德决策联系起来。如论观点与框架无关,那么论点就没有说服力。

Make sure you use your framework in every speech including the final focus.

Remember, the goal of a framework is to help you explain why your arguments are most important. In your summary and final focus speeches, you want to establish that even if your opponents win portions of their case, you still win the debate because your framework gives your arguments a greater priority.

确保每场辩论的框架中包含最终陈述部分。

记住,设立框架是帮助你解释为什么你的论据很重要。在你的总结和最终陈述中,你想让大家明白,即使对手的辩词更具说服力,但是你仍然赢得了比赛,因为你的框架使论据更具重要性。

Make sure your framework is broad enough to be fair.

A framework should benefit your case, but also be debatable by your opponents. Imagine a situation where the PRO claims that their framework is based only on whether or not the UN was successful in the Oil-For-Food Programme. Then any time the CON brought up an argument, the PRO simply said that it did not matter because it was not related to the PRO’s framework, the Oil-For-Food Programme. In this case, the PRO’s framework would not be a persuasive framework. So the judge would be very likely to reject it and judge on the opponents framework. So you want to make sure that your framework is broad enough that it looks fair.

确保框架内容广泛,恰当合理。

框架不仅应对陈述辩词有利,还可让对手进行反驳。想象一下,正方声称他们的框架只是基于联合国是否在石油换食品计划中取得成功。那么在任何时候,当反方提出一个论点时,正方只需说这个论点重要,因为它与正方关于石油换食品计划的框架无关。在这种情况下,正方的框架不具有说服力。所以裁判很可能会否定这个框架,并对对手的框架进行判定。 所以你需要确保你的框架内容广泛并且恰当合理。

That's not to say you can never use a specific framework, but the more specific it is the more work you need to do to justify why it is the most important thing. But a broad framework normally needs less justification. Depending on your arguments it might be a better strategic move to have a very simple framework and explain your arguments well.

这不是说你永远不能使用具体的框架,但是框架越具体,你就越需要证明为什么它是最重要的。 但是一个广泛的框架通常需要更少的理由进行解释。根据你的论点,这可能是一个更好的战略举措,既能使框架简单,又能很好地解释你的论点。

Hope these tips help you all in your debates! As always, if you have any questions post a comment or email info@nhsdlc.cn.

希望这些小建议能够对你有所帮助!如果你有任何问题请在下方留言或通过info@nhsdlc.cn联系我们。

All Posts
×

Almost done…

We just sent you an email. Please click the link in the email to confirm your subscription!

OK