This book would not have been possible without the inspiration of my students-both Chinese and American. I have learned far more from them than they learned from me. It is a privilege to work with students who want to take an extra step in their education by debating. 这本书的创作离不开我的学生们的启发-无论是中国学生还是美国学生。我从他们身上学到的远比他们从我这里学到的更多。能与那些愿意在教育中迈出额外一步进行辩论的学生一起工作是一种特权。
Some of those students served as voices in the writing of this book. In particular, the recommendations of Zhang Ruifang, Chris Hacela, and Zhou Qian were important. Friends such as Sheri Dalrymple, Jeff Travis, and Bill Eddy assisted in earlier drafts. 其中一些学生在本书的撰写中担任了重要角色。特别是张瑞芳、克里斯·哈塞拉和周倩的建议至关重要。像谢丽·达利姆普尔、杰夫·特拉维斯和比尔·埃迪这样的朋友在早期草稿的撰写中提供了帮助。
In learning my craft I have also had the joy of collaborating with dozens of coaches. From my earliest debating days with Larry Woodard to coaching national championship teams with Larry Radden, Edwin Tiongson and Craig Grossman, I have learned the best rewards of debate are friends you can count on. 在学习我的手艺的过程中，我也有幸与数十位辩论教练合作。从我最早与拉里·伍德沃德一起辩论的日子到与拉里·拉登、埃德温·廷松和克雷格·格罗斯曼一起指导国家冠军团队，我发现辩论最大的回报是你可以依靠的朋友。
The administrations of both of my campuses, Beijing Foreign Studies University and Irvine Valley College, were supportive throughout the process. Vice-dean of the School of English and International Studies Jin Limin and Irvine Valley College President Glenn Roquemore encouraged me to discover the best ways 我的两个校区，北京外国语大学和爱尔湾谷学院的管理层在整个过程中都给予了支持。英语与国际研究学院副院长金丽敏和爱尔湾谷学院校长格伦·罗克莫尔鼓励我发现最佳方式
to develop our mutual students. The administration of the South Orange County Community College District, under the direction of Dr. Raghu Mathur, went to extra lengths to help me to qualify for a Fulbright-Hayes Scholarship so I could conduct debate research in China. 来发展我们的共同学生。南橙县社区学院区域管理局在马鲁博士的领导下，为了帮助我获得富布赖特-海斯奖学金，特别努力，以便我能在中国进行辩论研究。
Much of this book derives from that research and additional insight from my Ph.D. supervisor, Wu Yi'an. Her guidance on Sociocultural Theory in second language acquisition has been especially encouraging for the engagement approach to this book. 本书的很大部分源自那次研究，以及我博士导师吴一安的额外见解。她在第二语言习得的社会文化理论方面的指导对本书的参与式方法特别鼓舞人心。
My FLTRP (Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press) editor, Zhao 我的外研社编辑赵春梅花费了无数个小时来编辑我的作品，以增加写作对中国读者的适宜性。我对她在这个过程中的耐心和毅力表示感激。我还要感谢几位匿名审稿人在这个过程中帮助了她。
Chunmei, spent countless hours editing my work to increase the appropriateness of writing for a Chinese audience. I am grateful for her patience and perseverance in the process. I also wish to thank several anonymous reviewers who helped her in the process. 我在这个世界上最大的祝福是我的妻子陈晓青。她牺牲了自己研究的时间来阅读章节并提供见解。在我们俩的写作日程中，日常生活可以是一个美丽的平衡表演，清洁和烹饪，研究和阅读，教学和旅行。她的爱让我旅程中的每一天都充满喜悦。我感谢上帝让我们相遇的那一天。
My best blessing in this world is my wife, Chen Xiaoqing. She sacrificed time from her own research to read chapters and provide insight. With both of our writing schedules daily life can be a beautiful balancing act of cleaning and cooking, researching and reading, teaching and traveling. Her love makes every day of my journey joyous. I thank God for the day we met.
Preface 序言
Technology and globalization have spread opportunities around the world. Yet these same forces have also brought about changes at an unprecedented pace. Peter Lyman of the UC Berkeley School of Information warns that "with the amount of stored information growing at a rate of about a year, a real change in our human ecology is taking place. Specialized knowledge is updated so often that it has a half-life-the time a piece of information stays current-as short as five years."1 技术和全球化已经将机会传播到世界各地。然而，这些力量也带来了前所未有的变化。加州大学伯克利分校信息学院的彼得·莱曼警告说，“随着存储信息量以每年约 的速度增长，我们的人类生态正在发生真正的变化。专业知识更新如此频繁，以至于其半衰期-信息保持当前的时间-短至五年。”1
Even with this quickly changing environment students are still rewarded for memorizing information that will soon be outdated. Worse yet, students cram for exams and as soon as the test is over they forget most of what they "knew." 即使在这个快速变化的环境中，学生仍然因记忆即将过时的信息而受到奖励。更糟糕的是，学生为考试而死记硬背，一旦考试结束，他们就会忘记大部分他们“知道”的内容。
Specifically, in language instruction we can be "left with verbalism, whereby learners do nothing more than listen to lectures, take notes, and memorize abstract definitions. If language instruction is limited to this type of activity, conceptual knowledge will have no power to be generalized to specific concrete communicative situations and will essentially be useless."2 具体来说，在语言教学中，我们可能会“被语言主义所困扰，学习者只是听讲座、做笔记和记忆抽象定义。如果语言教学仅限于这种活动，概念知识将无法推广到具体的交际情境中，并且基本上是无用的。”
Debating in English strives to be different from this type of education. Of course, you will need to learn concepts in this book. But these concepts should not be treated as checkmarks for taking an exam. Instead you need to participate in activities to make these concepts part of who you are, so that you can be a better thinker and a better speaker in English. 用英语辩论力求与这种教育方式不同。当然，你需要学习这本书中的概念。但这些概念不应被视为参加考试的标记。相反，你需要参与活动，使这些概念成为你的一部分，这样你才能成为一个更好的思考者和更好的英语演讲者。
Debate is at the same time content and theory, practice and activity. Debating is active learning. You cannot sit back and passively watch a PowerPoint presentation and take a test. You must think and speak. You must listen and assess ideas. In other words, debating is the type of activity where you must stay engaged. 辩论同时是内容和理论，实践和活动。辩论是积极学习。你不能坐下来被动地观看 PowerPoint 演示并参加考试。你必须思考和演讲。你必须倾听和评估想法。换句话说，辩论是一种你必须保持参与的活动类型。
Think of this book as a new tool box of ideas to help you to build your ability to express your thinking while speaking. I wrote this book to provide you with all of the basic tools to get you started. However, you must do the activities (listed throughout the book) to practice each of the new tools and build on the tools you have mastered. As you learn and practice you will be part of an evaluation process where others will make comments to help you to move to the next level of development. 把这本书看作是一个新的思想工具箱，帮助你提高在演讲时表达思想的能力。我写这本书是为了为你提供所有开始所需的基本工具。然而，你必须做书中列出的活动（遍布全书）来练习每一个新工具，并在你掌握的工具基础上不断提升。当你学习和练习时，你将参与一个评估过程，他人会提出评论来帮助你进入下一个发展阶段。
It is hoped that this type of engagement will better prepare you for a world where knowledge changes all the time, where you will be hired to find the relevant information, analyze and evaluate it and then communicate your thinking in group collaboration. 希望这种参与方式能更好地为您在一个知识不断变化的世界中做好准备，在这个世界中，您将被聘用来查找相关信息，分析和评估信息，然后在团队协作中传达您的思想。
Hundreds of millions of people in China are learning English. For many students, speaking in English is quite challenging. Debating in English may be more so because students might think the concept of an argument is negative and they consider it a form of quarreling. Therefore, while debating is a great way to develop their oral English skills, students may not even want to participate. 中国有数亿人正在学习英语。对许多学生来说，用英语说话是相当具有挑战性的。用英语辩论可能更加困难，因为学生可能认为争论的概念是负面的，他们认为这是一种争吵的形式。因此，虽然辩论是发展他们口语英语技能的好方法，但学生可能甚至不想参与。
However, debating does not have to be unpleasant and difficult. In fact, the comment I hear most from students I have trained is "debating is fun!" As you learn to debate it becomes easier and more enjoyable. If you have opportunities to compete in tournaments you will find the excitement of competition also creates an atmosphere where you make new friends. Even though you may have a heated argument with students from the other side, debates usually end with a handshake and friendly conversation. You will find debating to be a fun activity, where you are allowed to be competitive, but develop interpersonal relationships along the way. 然而，辩论并不一定是令人不愉快和困难的。事实上，我培训过的学生最常听到的评论是“辩论很有趣！”随着你学会辩论，它会变得更容易和更有趣。如果你有机会参加比赛，你会发现竞争的激情也会营造出一个你可以结交新朋友的氛围。即使你可能会与对立方的学生激烈争论，辩论通常以握手和友好的对话结束。你会发现辩论是一项有趣的活动，你可以在其中竞争，但也可以在过程中发展人际关系。
Of course, students do not debate just for fun. They strive to learn debate for great gains in their thinking and speaking abilities in English, so that they will better participate and be more competitive in a globalized world. 当然，学生们并不只是为了好玩而辩论。他们努力学习辩论是为了在英语思维和口语能力方面取得巨大收获，以便更好地参与并在全球化世界中更具竞争力。
Why Debate 为什么要辩论
Development of Applied Skills 应用技能的发展
In a scientific survey, human resource professionals were asked what applied skills were most needed for the 21 st century workplace. Those professionals did not focus on reading and writing or even computer skills. Rather, the three utmost skills they think important to be competitive are: 在一项科学调查中，人力资源专业人员被问及 21 世纪职场最需要的应用技能。这些专业人员并没有关注阅读和写作，甚至也不是计算机技能。相反，他们认为在竞争中最重要的三项技能是：
Oral Communication 口头沟通
Professionalism/Work Ethic 专业精神/职业道德
Teamwork/Collaboration 团队合作/协作
These are the same skills that can be developed by debate. 这些是通过辩论可以培养的同样技能。
Oral Communication 口头沟通
Debating in English is like a short-term immersion into an English language environment. It will help you with three aspects of oral communication. 用英语辩论就像在英语语言环境中进行短期沉浸。它将帮助你提高口语交流的三个方面。
First, it will help your fluency and speed. When you first start learning debate, you may need to think and search for proper words. But with practice and experience the words will come faster. 首先，它将帮助你流利度和速度。当你刚开始学习辩论时，可能需要思考和寻找合适的词语。但通过实践和经验，词语将更快地出现。
Second, debate will help you with increased accuracy in thinking and language use. It is as though the debate is a group collaboration effort to improve your oral English clarity. In debating, the other team, by arguing against you, is actually asking you to be more accurate in your language and your ideas. The judge or your teacher will also give comments to help you to increase your ability to express yourself accurately in English. 其次，辩论将帮助你提高思维和语言使用的准确性。就好像辩论是一个集体合作努力，用以提高你的口头英语表达清晰度。在辩论中，对方团队通过反驳你，实际上是要求你在语言和思想上更准确。评委或你的老师也会提供评论，帮助你提高在英语中准确表达自己的能力。
Third, debate will help you with the complexity of your thinking and language. You will research new ideas, acquire new concepts and vocabulary in the process. You will find new ways to express yourself. As you do these things, your language and thinking will become more sophisticated, and you will move on from just memorizing and reciting from a textbook. You will increasingly be required to form and express your own thoughts that others can understand. As this process develops you will feel more self-confident in speaking, either to one person or in front of a large audience. 第三，辩论将帮助您处理思维和语言的复杂性。在这个过程中，您将研究新的想法，掌握新的概念和词汇。您将发现表达自己的新方式。当您做这些事情时，您的语言和思维将变得更加复杂，您将不再仅仅是从教科书中死记硬背。您将越来越需要形成并表达其他人能够理解的自己的想法。随着这个过程的发展，您将在说话时感到更加自信，无论是对一个人还是在大庭广众面前。
Professionalism/Work Ethic 专业精神/职业道德
Debate will help you to present a professional image to the audience. To be a good debater, you will have to do research and preparation. You will need to meet time schedules. Everything from practice to tournament trains you to act in a professional manner. In professional life this is referred to as "having a high concern for the task." In other words, you are able to get things done. 辩论将帮助您向观众展现专业形象。要成为一名优秀的辩手，您将需要进行研究和准备工作。您将需要遵守时间表。从练习到比赛，一切都在训练您以专业的方式行事。在职业生活中，这被称为“对任务高度关注”。换句话说，您能够完成任务。
Teamwork/Collaboration 团队合作/协作
Teamwork or collaboration goes beyond just building good relationships. Debate involves working within relationships to solve problems with other people. This means developing the abilities to express ideas, hear the ideas of others, analyze and evaluate arguments, establish criteria for the best results while working within a group. Debate is a team effort. You will need to divide assignments among teammates. You will practice with others to help everyone's improvement. And you will have partners who will count on you to do your best. In professional life this is referred to as "having a high concern for people." In other words, as you get things done you build strong relationships. 团队合作或协作不仅仅是建立良好的关系。辩论涉及在关系中与他人合作解决问题。这意味着发展表达观点的能力，倾听他人的观点，分析和评估论点，建立获得最佳结果的标准，同时在团队中工作。辩论是团队的努力。您需要在队友之间分配任务。您将与他人一起练习，以帮助每个人的进步。您将有伙伴依赖您尽力而为。在职业生活中，这被称为“对人高度关注”。换句话说，当您完成任务时，您建立了牢固的关系。
Development of Other Skills 其他技能的发展
Critical Thinking 批判性思维
The most powerful influence that debate will have on your life is the ability to think better. There is a great deal of research pointing to the intellectual benefits of debating. Research has also shown that people may not think as well when speaking in a second language as they do in their first language, UNLESS they are trained to think in their second language. Debating is not an easy thing for most people, even in their native language. It takes real courage to debate in a second language. But, through the activity of debating, you can learn how to better analyze and evaluate thinking and how to present your ideas in organized and persuasive ways. Ultimately, debating will develop your confidence in reasoning. 辩论对你生活的最强大影响是提高思维能力。大量研究指出辩论的智力益处。研究还表明，人们在第二语言中说话时可能没有在母语中思考得那么好，除非他们接受了在第二语言中思考的训练。对大多数人来说，即使是在母语中，辩论也不是一件容易的事情。用第二语言辩论需要真正的勇气。但是，通过辩论活动，你可以学会如何更好地分析和评估思维，以及如何以有条理和有说服力的方式表达你的想法。最终，辩论将培养你的推理信心。
The end result of debating in English is to develop your critical thinking skills while orally communicating. Development of your thinking is woven into the development of your speaking. It is accurate to say that students learn to be better thinkers so they can become better debaters and students become better debaters as they become better thinkers. 用英语辩论的最终目的是在口头交流中发展你的批判性思维能力。你的思维发展与口语发展交织在一起。可以说，学生学会更好地思考，以便成为更好的辩手，学生在变得更好的思考者的同时也成为更好的辩手。
Researching and Writing 研究和写作
As a debater you will be responsible to educate yourself on a wide range of topics by reading and researching in depth. You will discover new models of writing with the reading you do. You will also learn how to make logical arguments supported with evidence. This type of extensive "input"-by reading widely, and "output"-by producing arguments and logical reasoning, helps you to form a good writing style. Most debaters claim that debating helps them to improve as writers as well as speakers. 作为一名辩手，您将负责通过深入阅读和研究来教育自己，涉及广泛的主题。您将通过阅读发现新的写作模式。您还将学会如何提出有证据支持的逻辑论证。通过广泛阅读这种广泛的“输入”和通过提出论点和逻辑推理这种广泛的“输出”，有助于形成良好的写作风格。大多数辩手声称辩论有助于他们提高写作和演讲能力。
Listening and Note-taking 听力和笔记记录
Active listening is another skill you will develop. Debate requires you to closely follow and think about what the other debaters say. You also need to take detailed notes in order to effectively refute what the other team argues and put forward your own arguments. This type of critical listening encourages debaters to be actively engaged in thinking. 主动倾听是你将会培养的另一项技能。辩论要求你密切关注并思考其他辩手所说的内容。你还需要做详细的笔记，以有效驳斥对方团队的论点并提出自己的论据。这种批判性倾听鼓励辩手积极参与思考。
Worldview 世界观
Your viewpoint on the world will start to change with debating. Some people claim that they find "their voice" through debating and develop who they are as a person. You will become more involved with understanding national 通过辩论，你对世界的观点将开始发生变化。一些人声称他们通过辩论找到了“自己的声音”，并发展了作为一个人的自我。你将更多地参与理解国家
and international issues. As you explore these issues you will begin to see the world as more complex, which allows you to understand the values of other people which, in turn, should increase your crosscultural awareness. You will find yourself becoming more fair-minded as you see that there are many ways to view the world. 以及国际问题。当您探索这些问题时，您将开始看到世界更加复杂，这将使您能够理解其他人的价值观，从而增加您的跨文化意识。当您发现有许多种看待世界的方式时，您会发现自己变得更加公正。
Competence and Confidence 能力和信心
As you learn to debate you will also increase your autonomy in learning and better learn how to work out issues and solve problems by yourself. You will become better able to persevere in the face of challenging intellectual activities that you come across in your life. This type of confidence often comes when you become better at expressing your ideas. 当您学会辩论时，您还将增强自主学习能力，更好地学会独立解决问题。您将更能够在生活中遇到的具有挑战性的智力活动中坚持不懈。当您变得更擅长表达自己的想法时，这种信心通常会出现。
Getting Started 入门指南
Since debating is a skill, you cannot learn to debate by reading a book. You cannot learn to debate by listening to lectures. The only way to learn how to debate is by debating. You must go through the steps and make mistakes along the way. Initially, you may be concerned with losing face. And like students around the world, you have taken so many exams that you are used to a question having only "one" correct answer. But now in learning debate you will make mistakes-lots of them-and you will come up with your own answers. You may present arguments that are irrelevant or illogical because you don't have enough information or understanding of the topic. You may miss an argument because the other team is speaking so fast that you can't understand them. You may run out of time before you run out of ideas or run out of ideas before you run out of time. These are all parts of the learning process. This is the way of developing into a better speaker and a better thinker. 由于辩论是一种技能，你不能通过阅读一本书来学会辩论。你也不能通过听讲座来学会辩论。学习如何辩论的唯一方法就是辩论。你必须经历这些步骤，并在过程中犯错误。起初，你可能会担心丢脸。就像世界各地的学生一样，你参加了很多考试，习惯了一个问题只有“一个”正确答案。但是现在在学习辩论中，你会犯很多错误，并且会提出自己的答案。你可能提出无关或不合逻辑的论点，因为你没有足够的信息或对主题的理解。你可能会错过一个论点，因为对方队伍说话太快，你听不懂。你可能会在时间用完之前想法用完，或者在想法用完之前时间用完。这些都是学习过程的一部分。这是成为更好的演讲者和更好的思考者的方式。
The "Five Ps" for effective speaking can help your improvement: Preparation and Practice Prevent Poor Performance. 有效演讲的“五个 P”可以帮助你提高：准备和实践可以避免糟糕的表现。
In debating, if you want to be successful, you will need to prepare properly. First, you will need to prepare your body with the right food, sufficient sleep and plenty of water. Second, you will need to prepare your mind with proper attitude, lots of reading and discussion. Third, you will need to do other preparations prior to the debate, such as topic research, gathering materials like pens and paper. 在辩论中，如果你想取得成功，你需要做好充分的准备。首先，你需要通过正确的饮食、充足的睡眠和大量的水来准备好你的身体。其次，你需要通过正确的态度、大量阅读和讨论来准备好你的思维。第三，你需要在辩论之前做其他准备，比如主题研究，收集笔和纸等材料。
But more than anything else, if you want to be successful, you will need to practice. Sometimes you can practice alone. If you read something you think you might use in a debate, you can practice putting the ideas into your own words. Even after a debate, you can give a speech which you already gave during the debate round over again to try out ways to improve it. There are exercises in this book designed to encourage you to practice by yourself. You should also practice with your partner. Sometimes you will know the topic area you are going to debate. You and your partner can discuss strategies or major arguments you will present or you think the other team will present. Some debaters will even simulate a full debate to develop better strategies and ideas to support their position and attack the ideas of the other team. 但最重要的是，如果你想成功，你需要练习。有时候你可以独自练习。如果你读到一些你认为在辩论中可能会用到的东西，你可以练习用自己的话表达这些想法。甚至在辩论之后，你可以再次发表你在辩论中已经发表过的演讲，以尝试改进它的方式。本书中有一些旨在鼓励你独自练习的练习。你还应该和你的搭档一起练习。有时候你会知道你将要辩论的主题领域。你和你的搭档可以讨论你将提出的策略或主要论点，或者你认为对方团队将提出的论点。一些辩手甚至会模拟一场完整的辩论，以制定更好的策略和支持自己立场的想法，并攻击对方团队的想法。
In the classroom, listening to other debaters in action is another opportunity to practice. Even as an audience, you can have a learning experience by listening to the arguments, taking notes and weighing the arguments on both sides. You will be training your brain by watching the debate and imagining how you would argue if you were one of the debaters. 在课堂上，听其他辩手的表现是另一个练习的机会。即使作为观众，通过听取论点、做笔记和权衡双方的论点，你也可以获得学习经验。通过观看辩论并想象自己如果是其中一名辩手会如何辩论，你将训练你的大脑。
You can maximize your efforts at becoming a good debater if you will do the following: 如果您愿意做以下事情，您可以最大限度地努力成为一名优秀的辩手：
Read the assigned chapter before coming to class. This book is not written so that you can be better in written examinations. But, the book is designed so you can learn skills in a systematic fashion. Reading will be the beginning. It will familiarize you with what you are going to learn in class and help you to make the most of the class. 在上课前阅读指定章节。这本书并非为了让您在笔试中表现更好。但是，这本书的设计是让您系统地学习技能。阅读将是开始。它将使您熟悉您将在课堂上学到的内容，并帮助您充分利用课堂时间。
Take the assignments seriously. The book and your teacher will provide many opportunities to develop your skills. You should try your best to finish the assignments. When debating in class, always give your best performance. 认真对待作业。这本书和您的老师将提供许多机会来发展您的技能。您应该尽力完成作业。在课堂上辩论时，始终发挥出最佳表现。
Learn to be a great note-taker. If you miss what the other debaters are saying during a debate, it will be difficult to provide a good analysis and evaluation of their arguments. Your short-term memory cannot go far. Good notes will help you to recall. Therefore, practice taking notes as much as possible-in practice debates, when observing others, or during your lecture classes. When you have a break after taking the notes, speak the notes aloud, try to explain everything you have noted down. Not only will this reinforce your memory of ideas, it will train you to explain the arguments of others. 学会成为一个出色的笔记记录者。如果你在辩论中错过了其他辩手所说的内容，那么很难对他们的论点进行良好的分析和评价。你的短期记忆有限。良好的笔记将帮助你回想起。因此，尽可能多地练习记笔记-在实践辩论中、观察他人或在上课时记笔记。当你记完笔记后，大声朗读笔记，尝试解释你所记下的一切。这不仅会加强你对思想的记忆，还会训练你解释他人的论点。
Practice as much as possible. You should develop a habit of practicing your speeches outside of class. You can practice in a group or with your partner. But you will especially need to practice by yourself, trying out new ideas and explaining the ideas of others. Ultimately, the people who perform the best are the ones who practice the most. 尽可能多地练习。你应该养成课堂外练习演讲的习惯。你可以在小组中或与你的搭档一起练习。但尤其需要在自己练习，尝试新的想法并解释他人的想法。最终，表现最好的人是那些练习最多的。
Go to debate tournaments. Competition can bring out the best in you. It can provide new opportunities for you to perfect your skills. In competition you will need to collaborate with your partner, listen to the arguments of different people, and learn from the comments of the judges. This type of practice becomes a laboratory for ideas that cannot be duplicated in the classroom. It may be a tournament co-organized by your school with other schools or an "intramural" tournament where only the students from the same school compete against each other. As a beginner if you do not have the confidence to participate in a tournament, you can just go to watch others debate. Sometimes this type of modeling can help you to see what you need to do. 参加辩论比赛。竞争可以激发你的潜力。它可以为你提供完善技能的新机会。在竞争中，你需要与搭档合作，倾听不同人的论点，并从评委的评论中学习。这种实践成为了一个无法在课堂上复制的思想实验室。可能是你的学校与其他学校共同举办的比赛，也可能是只有同一所学校的学生相互竞争的“校内”比赛。作为一个初学者，如果你没有信心参加比赛，你可以去观看其他人的辩论。有时这种模仿可以帮助你看清楚自己需要做什么。
Learn to seek and accept constructive criticism. In a debate not everyone can win the top prize. Judges will explain who won and who lost and why. You may not agree with the decision, but you should listen and learn. It is a great exercise 学会寻求并接受建设性批评。在辩论中，并非每个人都能赢得最高奖项。评委会解释谁赢了，谁输了，以及为什么。你可能不同意这个决定，但你应该倾听并学习。这是一个很好的练习。
for developing your critical thinking skills. In the classroom your teacher and fellow students will also offer comments to help you to improve. Most people are giving you these comments to help you. Listen to them, take notes, ask clarifying questions and learn. 用于培养您的批判性思维技能。在课堂上，您的老师和同学也会提供意见，帮助您改进。大多数人给您这些意见是为了帮助您。倾听他们，做笔记，提出澄清问题并学习。
Give good feedback to your classmates. Besides seeking constructive criticism from others, you also need to assess the ideas of others and give them constructive criticism. You need to be honest about your thoughts, but you also have to present your critique in a way that can be easily accepted and helps to build the relationship. You must have a high concern for the task and a high concern for the relationship. 给予同学们良好的反馈。除了向他人寻求建设性的批评意见外，您还需要评估他人的想法并给予他们建设性的批评。您需要诚实表达自己的想法，但也必须以一种易于接受且有助于建立关系的方式提出批评。您必须对任务和关系都高度关注。
Conclusion 结论
You have now become a student of debate. This means you should be committed to developing your critical thinking skills through oral communication. I sincerely believe there is nothing better than debate to help you to become a better speaker and a better thinker. It will take effort on your part, but it will be well worth it. 你现在已经成为辩论的学生。这意味着你应该致力于通过口头交流发展你的批判性思维能力。我真诚地相信没有比辩论更好的方式来帮助你成为一个更好的演讲者和更好的思考者。这需要你付出努力，但一切都是值得的。
Activities 活动
Discuss with a partner: What do you expect to achieve through debating? 与伙伴讨论：你希望通过辩论实现什么目标？
Start debating with easy and fun value topics. Choose one of the topics below, prepare a two-minute speech on both sides. Be sure to provide reasons to support your ideas. Form teams with classmates who choose the same topic and assign the side, with 2-4 members on each side. Give alternate speeches for and against the topic. 从容易且有趣的价值话题开始辩论。选择以下话题之一，准备一场双方各两分钟的演讲。一定要提供支持你观点的理由。与选择相同话题的同学组成团队，分配双方，每边 2-4 名成员。轮流演讲支持和反对该话题。
A dog is a better pet than a cat. 狗是比猫更好的宠物。
McDonald's is better than KFC. 麦当劳比肯德基更好。
Traveling by car is better than traveling by train. 开车旅行比坐火车旅行更好。
Rice is better than noodles. 米饭比面条更好。
Fall is better than spring. 秋天比春天更好。
A trip to the US is better than a trip to Europe. 去美国旅行比去欧洲旅行更好。
A trip to the mountains is better than a trip to the beaches. 去山区旅行比去海滩旅行更好。
Blue is a better color than green. 蓝色比绿色更好。
2 Filumlamentile of Delinate Delinate 的 2 Filumlamentile
History of Debate 辩论的历史
Debate has a long history. In the West, debating traditions started during the Golden Age of Greece over 2,000 years ago and continued with the Roman Empire. Aristotle, in the 4th century BC, created a form of logic so that citizens of Athens would be able to test the arguments being made in court or public decisions. Debating is often called the heart of democracy. This means that different sides of an issue can be heard so that proper decisions can be made. 辩论有着悠久的历史。在西方，辩论传统始于希腊黄金时代，距今已有两千多年，并延续至罗马帝国时期。公元前 4 世纪，亚里士多德创立了一种逻辑形式，以便雅典市民能够审查法庭或公共决策中提出的论点。辩论常被称为民主的核心。这意味着问题的不同方面可以被听取，以便做出正确的决定。
Debate in China can be traced back to the Spring and Autumn Period and the Warring States Period (770-221 BC) when "the hundred schools of philosophical thought" questioned and tested the great ideas of the day in writing or orally. Confucius developed a type of dialecticism as a way to see things in their appropriate contexts. During the Tang Dynasty (618-907) debate blossomed in the form of discussion and disputation on religious metaphysics. Qing tan (pure talk) and ting yi (court discussion) are two forms of debate in ancient Chinese history. 中国的辩论可以追溯到春秋战国时期（公元前 770-221 年），当时“百家争鸣”在书面或口头上质疑和检验当时的伟大思想。孔子发展了一种辩证法，作为一种看待事物的方式。唐代（618-907 年）辩论在宗教形而上学的讨论和辩论中蓬勃发展。清谈和廷议是中国古代历史上的两种辩论形式。
Today, debating can be found around the world in a variety of contexts. Law makers in legislatures and lawyers in courtrooms debate against each other. Debates take place frequently in the House of Commons in Great Britain and between presidential hopefuls in the US. In business, debates also occur widely. Jim Collins in his book, Good to Great, wrote that the best companies in the US have executives who argue and debate in pursuit of the best results. In this book we will focus on academic debate as it exists in schools around the world. 如今，辩论可以在世界各地的各种背景中找到。立法者在立法机构，律师在法庭上相互辩论。在英国下议院和美国总统候选人之间经常进行辩论。在商业领域，辩论也广泛发生。吉姆·柯林斯在他的著作《从优秀到卓越》中写道，美国最优秀的公司有执行人员为了取得最佳结果而争论和辩论。在本书中，我们将重点关注全球学校中存在的学术辩论。
Elements of a Debate 辩论的要素
In order for an oral communication activity to be classified as a debate three elements are necessary: a topic to debate, debate teams on two opposing sides, and a judge to decide a winner. 为了将口头沟通活动归类为辩论，需要三个要素：一个辩论主题，两支针锋相对的辩论队，以及一名裁判来决定胜负。
Topic 主题
A debate topic can be called a resolution, a motion or a proposition. A debatable topic should have arguments available on both sides. This is referred to as the "ground" of a debate. Controversial issues are the most suitable topics for debate. Topics should be about issues with common knowledge and significance so that an ordinary student would have access to the information necessary to debate either side. Debates can be about facts or values or policies. An example of a fact debate would be "The recession is over." An example of a value debate would be "Economic development is more important than environmental protection." An example of a policy debate would be "Private automobile ownership should be substantially reduced in China." Different types of arguments are required for debates on different types of topics. Chapter 5 will provide detailed explanations. 辩论主题也可以称为决议、动议或提案。一个有争议的主题应该在两方都有可用的论点。这被称为辩论的“基础”。有争议的问题是最适合进行辩论的主题。主题应该围绕着有共同认知和重要性的问题，这样普通学生就可以获取必要的信息来辩论双方。辩论可以围绕事实、价值观或政策展开。事实辩论的例子是“衰退已经结束了。”价值辩论的例子是“经济发展比环境保护更重要。”政策辩论的例子是“中国的私人汽车所有权应大幅减少。”不同类型的辩题需要不同类型的论点。第 5 章将提供详细说明。
Debate Teams on Two Opposing Sides 两支对立方的辩论团队
In academic debate, teams are randomly assigned to the side they will support in the debate. The precondition for a debate is that "two teams agree to disagree on a specific topic." You do not need to have strong personal convictions for the side you are defending. You only have to present the best arguments in support of your side. The team in a debate that affirms the motion can be called the Affirmative, the Government, the Proposition, or the Pro; and the side that negates the motion can be called the Negative, the Opposition, or the Con. Usually, the Proposition is abbreviated as Prop, and the Opposition as Opp. 在学术辩论中，团队会随机被分配到他们在辩论中支持的一方。辩论的前提是"两支团队同意在特定话题上不同意"。你不需要对你所支持的一方有强烈的个人信念。你只需要提出支持你所在一方的最好的论点。在辩论中，支持动议的一方可以被称为“肯定方”、“政府方”、“提案方”或“赞成方”；而反对动议的一方可以被称为“否定方”、“反对方”或“反对者”。通常情况下，提案方被缩写为 Prop，否定方被缩写为 Opp。
Your job in a debate is not to convince the other team to accept your arguments and abandon their own, but to persuade the judge or the audience to think your arguments are better and vote for your side. 在辩论中，你的工作不是说服另一支团队接受你的论点并放弃他们的，而是说服裁判或观众认为你的论点更好，并为你的一方投票。
Judges are sometimes called adjudicators, especially in British parliamentary debate and All-Asian debate. The judge is a necessary element of a debate, or else you are just having communication. Judges are usually more experienced debaters, or instructors who decide which side did the better job of debating. How do they do this? Ideally, judges should be objective. They should not decide who won the debate based on personal beliefs that they held on topics or teams before the debate began. Judges should also be knowledgeable about the rules to be able to make appropriate decisions. At the end of the debate round, judges make a decision on who won and provide reasons for their decision in an oral or written form or both. In many cases, judges give an oral critique at the end so that debaters can learn from the experience. 裁判有时被称为裁决者，特别是在英国议会辩论和全亚洲辩论中。裁判是辩论的必要元素，否则你只是在进行交流。裁判通常是经验更丰富的辩手，或者是决定哪一方在辩论中表现更好的指导者。他们是如何做到这一点的呢？理想情况下，裁判应该是客观的。他们不应该根据在辩论开始之前对话题或团队持有的个人信念来决定谁赢得了辩论。裁判还应该了解规则，以便能够做出适当的决定。在辩论结束时，裁判会做出决定并以口头或书面形式或两者形式提供决定的理由。在许多情况下，裁判会在最后进行口头批评，以便辩手能够从中学习经验。
Major Formats of Debate 辩论的主要形式
Debate formats are rules to be followed to ensure that all debaters have fair and equal opportunities to win. Formats provide the time limits and speaking order for the debaters. Although formats are usually consistent for a particular style of debate such as American or British parliamentary debate, the rules are often slightly modified to suit the needs of specific competitions or classroom exercises. For example, a speech could be reduced from seven to five minutes. In spite of the variations among different formats, two principles remain constant: Debate teams on the propositional side and oppositional side have the same amount of speaking time and they alternate in giving their speeches. 辩论格式是要遵循的规则，以确保所有辩手有公平和平等的机会获胜。格式规定了辩手的时间限制和发言顺序。尽管格式通常对于特定风格的辩论（如美国或英国议会辩论）是一致的，但规则经常会稍作修改以适应特定比赛或课堂练习的需求。例如，一篇演讲可能会从七分钟减少到五分钟。尽管不同格式之间存在差异，但两个原则保持不变：提议方和反对方的辩论队拥有相同的发言时间，并且他们轮流发表演讲。
Formats have much to do with the different range of topics: changing and fixed. With changing topic formats, motions are different for every round. This type of debate, usually called parliamentary debate, is very popular around the world and can have two, three or four competitors on each side of the motion. In the fixed topic format, the motion remains the same throughout the tournament, month, or school year. It is very popular in the US where high school and college students debate in one-on-one debate, called Lincoln-Douglas (after the famous Abraham Lincoln-Stephen Douglas debates in 1858) or in debate with two people on a team, called cross-examination debate or policy debate. 格式与不同范围的主题有很大关系：变动和固定。随着主题格式的变化，每一轮的观点都不同。这种类型的辩论通常被称为议会辩论，在世界各地都非常受欢迎，并且每一边可以有两个、三个或四个竞争者。在固定主题格式中，运动在整个比赛、月份或学年中保持不变。这在美国非常流行，在那里高中和大学学生进行一对一辩论，称为林肯-道格拉斯辩论（以 1858 年著名的亚伯拉罕·林肯 - 斯蒂芬·道格拉斯辩论为名）或与两人组成的辩论团队进行辩论，称为交叉审问辩论或政策辩论。
Parliamentary Debate 议会辩论
In parliamentary debate, the motion is announced only 15 to 25 minutes before the beginning of the debate. Debaters must extemporize their arguments and are not allowed to bring into the round any materials from which to read (except the notes they write during preparation). The number of debaters involved in each format varies. American parliamentary (AP) debate has one team on each side, with two persons on each team. All-Asian (AA) debate has one team on each side, with three persons on each team. For British parliamentary (BP) debate, there are two teams on either side, with two persons on each team. 在议会辩论中，动议在辩论开始前只宣布15至25分钟。辩手必须即兴发挥他们的论点，并不允许携带任何阅读材料进入辩论（除了他们在准备期间写的笔记）。每种辩论形式中涉及的辩手数量各不相同。美国议会辩论（AP）每边有一支队伍，每支队伍有两人。全亚洲辩论（AA）每边有一支队伍，每支队伍有三人。英国议会辩论（BP）每边有两支队伍，每支队伍有两人。
Since parliamentary debate evolved from the British parliamentary system, the teams supporting the motion are called the Government, while those against the motion are called the Opposition (as in "loyal opposition"a different party who wants to see different changes to improve the current system. In the parliamentary system many parties may want to advance proposals and debate against the ruling party. The party with the most votes in Parliament is in charge of the government and has the authority to implement changes). A recent development in debate has changed the term "government team" to "propositional team" since they have to support the proposition or motion. 由于议会辩论起源于英国议会制度，支持动议的团队被称为政府，而反对动议的团队被称为反对派（如“忠诚的反对派”——一个希望看到不同变革以改善当前制度的不同政党。在议会制度中，许多政党可能希望提出提案并与执政党进行辩论。在议会中获得最多选票的政党负责政府，并有权实施变革）。辩论中的一个最新发展是将“政府团队”一词更改为“提案团队”，因为他们必须支持提案或动议。
American Parliamentary (AP) Debate 美国议会辩论（AP 辩论）
This format of debate is used by the National Parliamentary Debate Association (NPDA) in the US and for many years at the FLTRP CUP National English Debating Competition. Motions can be announced in two ways. First, a committee or Chief Adjudicator directing the tournament decides the exact wording of a motion and announces it to the entire tournament participants. This group announcement enables the tournament participants to limit the preparation time so that every debate starts at the same time. A second way is to provide each room with a list of three motions and let the debaters rank the motions. A rank of third automatically gets excluded, while if both teams rank the same motion as their first preference it will be the motion to be debated. If 辩论的这种形式被美国国家议会辩论协会（NPDA）使用，并在 FLTRP CUP 全国英语辩论比赛中使用多年。提案可以通过两种方式宣布。首先，指导比赛的委员会或首席裁判员决定提案的确切措辞，并宣布给整个比赛参与者。这一群体公告使得比赛参与者可以限制准备时间，以便每场辩论同时开始。第二种方式是为每个房间提供三个提案，并让辩手们对提案进行排名。排名第三的自动被排除，而如果两支队伍将同一提案排名为首选，那么这个提案将被辩论。如果第一和第二选择有分歧，抛硬币决定提案。
there is a disagreement on the first and second choice a flip of a coin will decide the motion. 对于课堂辩论并没有固定的规则，准备时间由老师决定。为方便起见，辩题可以在辩论之前提供给全班。这样学生可以有几天的时间进行研究和准备。提案的措辞是全班和老师的决定。
There is no set rules for classroom debates and the preparation time is decided by the teacher. For convenience, a motion may be given to the class prior to the debate. In that way students can research and prepare for a few days. The wording of motions is a decision of the class and teacher.
In competition, debaters have a preparation period ranging from 15 to 25 minutes depending on the specific tournament rules. Tournament rules usually explicitly spell out details concerning issues such as coaching during preparation, and the usage of electronic resources and research materials. In some tournaments, coaching and group preparation are allowed, while in other tournaments debaters are required to work by themselves on preparing the topic. Sometimes debaters are allowed to access the Internet via computers or cellphones, while other tournaments permit only hard copy of research files to be used. Debaters must check the rules in advance to see what is allowed and prohibited in a particular tournament. Regardless of the variations in rules, it is common in all parliamentary debates that debaters are only allowed to bring in notes they have written on the topic during the preparation period. 在辩论比赛中，辩手有一个准备时间，根据具体比赛规则的不同，范围从 15 到 25 分钟不等。比赛规则通常明确规定了有关辅导、准备期间的使用电子资源和研究资料等问题的细节。在一些比赛中，允许辅导和团体准备，而在其他比赛中，辩手需要独自准备主题。有时，辩手可以通过计算机或手机访问互联网，而其他比赛只允许使用研究文件的硬拷贝。辩手必须提前查看规则，了解在特定比赛中允许和禁止的事项。尽管规则有所不同，但在所有的议会辩论中，辩手只允许在准备期间写在主题上的笔记。
Below are the speaking order and time limits: 下面是发言顺序和时间限制：
Constructive Speeches (Build new arguments) 建设性发言（构建新论点）
Leader of the Proposition/Prime Minister Constructive 7 minutes 提案方领袖/建设性 7 分钟总理
Leader of the Opposition Constructive 8 minutes 反对方领袖建设性 8 分钟
Member of the Proposition Constructive 8 minutes 提案方成员建设性 8 分钟
Member of the Opposition Constructive 8 minutes 反对派建设性成员 8 分钟
Rebuttal Speeches (No new arguments) 反驳发言（不得提出新论点）
Leader of the Opposition Rebuttal 4 minutes 反对派领袖反驳 4 分钟
Leader of the Proposition/Prime Minister Rebuttal 5 minutes 提案方领袖/首相反驳 5 分钟
Total 40 minutes 总共 40 分钟
The Leader of the Opposition has the first rebuttal speech, and the Leader of the Proposition finishes the debate. This means that two of the debaters speak twice and the other two speak once. 反对方领袖首先进行反驳发言，提案方领袖结束辩论。这意味着两名辩手发言两次，另外两名发言一次。
During the constructive speeches, debaters from the other team may ask questions by raising a "Point of Information (POI)." The purpose of asking a POI is to clarify an issue or ask a question or to point out a flaw in the speaker's reasoning. A POI is not allowed during the first 在建设性发言期间，来自另一队的辩手可以通过提出“信息点（POI）”来提问。提出 POI 的目的是澄清问题、提出问题或指出发言者推理中的缺陷。在建设性发言的第一分钟或最后一分钟，或在反驳性发言期间，不允许提问 POI。POI 应该简短明了，不超过 15 秒。发言者有权决定是否接受问题。提问者可以站起来问“信息点？”发言者可以通过说“陈述你的观点”来接受问题，或者通过说“现在不是时候”来拒绝问题。提问者不应一次提出多个问题，也不应在被拒绝后立即再次站起来。没有确切的 POI 提问或回答数量。如果你经常打断发言者，裁判会认为你很无礼。如果你不接受任何 POI，裁判会认为你很胆怯。这两种情况都会导致你的分数减少。通常，每次演讲回答两到三个 POI 就足够了。
or last minute of a constructive speech, or anytime during a rebuttal speech. A POI should be short and concise, taking no more than 15 seconds. The speaker who has the floor has the control over whether to take the question or not. The questioner may stand up and ask "Point of Information?" The speaker may accept the question by saying "State your point," or decline the question by saying "Not at this time." The questioner should not ask more than one question at a time and should not stand up again immediately after being declined. There is no exact number on the amount of POIs to ask or answer. If you interrupt the speaker too often the judge will think you are rude. If you do not take any POI, the judge will think you are afraid. Both cases can cause your points to be reduced. Typically, two or three POIs answered per speech are sufficient.
The first speaker of each team provides the rebuttal speech. This means they must take notes throughout the debate and be able to summarize the main points they are winning. Speakers are not allowed to present new arguments in their rebuttal speeches. If this happens, debaters from the other side may point out to the judge that the argument is new and should be excluded. To do this, the debater stands up and says, "Point of Order." The judge stops the time and asks the debater to "State your point." Then the debater must explain why the argument is new. The debater offering the argument may be allowed by the judge 每个团队的第一位发言人提供反驳发言。这意味着他们必须在辩论过程中做笔记，并能够总结他们所赢得的主要观点。发言人在反驳发言中不允许提出新的论点。如果发生这种情况，来自另一方的辩手可以向裁判指出该论点是新的，应该被排除在外。为此，辩手站起来说：“抗议”。裁判停止计时并要求辩手“陈述你的观点”。然后辩手必须解释为什么这个论点是新的。提出该论点的辩手可能会被裁判允许解释为什么这个论点不是新的。此时，裁判有三种不同的选择。裁判可以决定该论点不是新的，并宣布：“抗议不成立”，该论点被记录下来。如果裁判认为该论点是新的，他们会说“抗议成立”，该论点被排除在外。如果裁判说“暂时保留意见”，这意味着该论点的地位将在辩论结束时决定。 <b0></b0>
to provide an explanation why the argument is not new. At that point, the judge has three different options. The judge can decide the argument is not a new one and announce, "Point not well-taken" and the argument is flowed. If the judge decides the argument is new, they say "Point well-taken" and the argument is excluded. If the judge says "Taken under consideration," it means that the status of argument will be decided at the end of the debate. 为什么该论点不是新的。此时，裁判有三种不同的选择。裁判可以决定该论点不是新的，并宣布：“抗议不成立”，该论点被记录下来。如果裁判认为该论点是新的，他们会说“抗议成立”，该论点被排除在外。如果裁判说“暂时保留意见”，这意味着该论点的地位将在辩论结束时决定。
Other than the time allowed right before the debate starts, no additional preparation time is given between speeches. Debaters are expected to rise to speak as soon as the other team has finished. 辩论开始前除了允许的时间外，发言之间不再给予额外的准备时间。预期辩手在对方队完成发言后立即起身发言。
At the end of the debate, the judge decides who won by looking at the substantive arguments in the round. As the arguments develop the debaters will argue about how to decide the round and how to weigh the issues against each other. Judges take all of the arguments into consideration in their decisions. 辩论结束时，裁判通过审视该轮辩论中的实质性论点来决定胜负。随着论点的发展，辩手将就如何决定该轮辩论以及如何权衡各个问题展开争论。裁判会考虑所有的论点来做出决定。
Judges decide who won the debate and then assign speaker points. The speaker points on a scale of 3 to 30 (up to 50 at the FLTRP CUP) are a general indication of how well the individual debaters performed in the round. Judges look to the performance of every debater in regards to delivery, organization, refutation, reasoning, and case construction. As a consequence of two different evaluation procedures (issues for the decision, speaker points), the winning team may have lower points than the losing team because they are not as skilled at speaking or organizing, but they have the most significant arguments. However, some contests may require the winning team to also have the highest points. In this case, a winner is usually decided first and points are assigned to match the decision. 裁判决定谁赢得了辩论，然后分配演讲者积分。积分在 3 到 30 的范围内（在 FLTRP 杯赛上最高可达 50）是对每位辩手在该轮表现如何的一般指示。裁判会关注每位辩手在演讲、组织、反驳、推理和案例构建方面的表现。由于两种不同的评估程序（决定问题、演讲者积分），获胜团队的积分可能比输掉的团队低，因为他们在演讲或组织方面不够娴熟，但他们有最重要的论点。然而，有些比赛可能要求获胜团队也具有最高的积分。在这种情况下，通常会先决定获胜者，然后分配积分以符合决定。
British Parliamentary (BP) Debate 英国议会辩论（BP 辩论）
In BP debate (also called Worlds Style as in World Universities Debate 在 BP 辩论中（也称为世界风格，如世界大学辩论）
Championship or WUDC), four teams compete at the same time with two twoperson teams on each side. The name of each speaker is based on the British government system. 在 BP 辩论中，四支队伍同时竞争，每边有两支两人组成的队伍。每位演讲者的名字基于英国政府体制。
This format has been used extensively by the International Debate Education Association and FLTRP CUP has changed to this format since 2010. 国际辩论教育协会和外研社杯自 2010 年起广泛采用这种辩论格式。
The preparation time is 15 minutes in BP debate. There is no group preparation. Each team must prepare their arguments separately and all compete against the other three teams. It may even occur that two teams from the same school are in the debate (unlike AP). The adjudicator will decide which teams do the better debating based on the strength of their arguments (matter) and the style of their delivery (manner). There is no winning side, only team rankings from first place to fourth place. The top team in the debate would be awarded three points; the second-ranking team receives two points; the third-ranking team, one point; and the last team, zero point. The teams with the most points in the preliminary rounds in the tournament advance to the elimination rounds. BP 辩论的准备时间为 15 分钟。没有团队准备时间。每支队伍必须分别准备他们的论点，并与其他三支队伍竞争。甚至可能出现来自同一所学校的两支队伍参与辩论（与 AP 不同）。裁判将根据他们的论点（内容）的强度和演讲风格（方式）来决定哪支队伍辩论更好。没有获胜方，只有从第一名到第四名的队伍排名。辩论中的头名队伍将获得三分；第二名队伍获得两分；第三名队伍获得一分；最后一支队伍获得零分。在预赛轮次中得分最高的队伍将晋级淘汰赛。
In BP debate, POIs may be asked by all eight debaters. There is a protected time without any POIs in the first and last minute of the speech. A Point of Order is not allowed. 在 BP 辩论中，所有八名辩手都可以提问 POIs。演讲的第一分钟和最后一分钟有保护时间，期间不允许提问。不允许提出议事规则。
The speaking order and time limits are as follows: 演讲顺序和时间限制如下：
First opening propositional/Prime Minister 7 minutes 第一位开场提案者/首相 7 分钟
First opening oppositional/Opposition Leader 7 minutes 第一次开场反对/反对领袖 7 分钟
Second opening propositional/Deputy Prime Minister minutes 第二次开场提议/副首相 分钟
Second opening oppositional/Deputy Opposition Leader minutes 第二次开场反对/副反对领袖 分钟
First closing propositional/Member of the Government minutes 第一次闭幕命题/政府成员 分钟
First closing oppositional/Member of the Opposition 7 minutes 第一次闭幕反对/反对派成员 7 分钟
Second closing propositional/Government Whip 7 minutes 第二次闭幕命题/政府鞭笞 7 分钟
At the end of the debate the adjudicator must assign speaker points to each debater on a scale of 1 to 100 points. The total points of the two debaters on each team must match their ranking. In other words, the first place team must also receive the highest total speaker points. One debater on the team may receive substantially more points than the other debater on the same team, as long as their total points match their ranking.
All-Asian (AA) Debate 全亚洲（AA）辩论
This format of parliamentary debate has two teams with three debaters on each team. The teams are called the Government and the Opposition. Preparation time is 15 minutes. 这种议会辩论的格式有两支队伍，每支队伍有三名辩手。队伍分为政府和反对派。准备时间为 15 分钟。
The speaking order and time limits are as follows: 发言顺序和时间限制如下：
Prime Minister Constructive 7 minutes 总理建设性 7 分钟
Leader of the Opposition Constructive 7 minutes 反对党领袖建设性 7 分钟
Deputy Prime Minister Constructive 7 minutes 副总理建设性 7 分钟
Deputy Leader of the Opposition Constructive 7 minutes 反对党副领袖建设性讨论 7 分钟
Government Whip Summary 7 minutes 政府鞭挥霍概要 7 分钟
Opposition Whip Summary 7 minutes 反对党鞭挥霍概要 7 分钟
Opposition Reply Speech 4 minutes 反对派回复讲话 4 分钟
Government Reply Speech minutes 政府回复讲话 分钟
Total 50 minutes 总共 50 分钟
Like AP debate, the last two speeches in AA debate are rebuttal speeches that provide a review of the major clash in the debate and reasons why their team is winning the debate. The speech may be given by either of the first two speakers of the team (only the whip is prevented from giving this speech). 就像 AP 辩论一样，AA 辩论中的最后两次发言是反驳性发言，对辩论中的主要冲突进行回顾，并说明他们的团队为何赢得了辩论。这次发言可以由团队的前两名发言人之一发表（只有 whip 被禁止发表此发言）。
Just like AP debate, there are POIs in AA debate. However, there are no Point of Order allowed. In this case, the adjudicator must make an independent 就像 AP 辩论一样，AA 辩论中也有 POI。然而，不允许提出 Point of Order。在这种情况下，裁判必须独立做出决定，判断论点是否是新的。如果论点是新的，那么裁判必须忽略它。
decision on whether the argument is new or not. If the argument is new, then the adjudicator must ignore it. 就像 AP 辩论一样，AA 辩论中的最后两次发言是反驳性发言，对辩论中的主要冲突进行回顾，并说明他们的团队为何赢得了辩论。这次发言可以由团队的前两名发言人之一发表（只有 whip 被禁止发表此发言）。
The result of the debate is determined on matter (argument construction, refutation, logic) and manner (delivery). A third element, method (organizational dynamics) is also considered. In AA debate, adjudicators are asked to vote on the substantive arguments in the debate, but must still give higher points to the winning team. Each speaker gets up to 100 points based on: 辩论的结果取决于内容（论证构建，反驳，逻辑）和方式（表达）。第三个元素，方法（组织动态）也会被考虑。在辩论中，裁判被要求对辩论中的实质性论点进行投票，但仍然必须给予获胜团队更高的分数。每位发言人最多可以获得 100 分，基于：
Matter-40 points 内容-40 分
Manner-40 points 方式-40 分
Method-20 points 方法-20 分
A reply speech is worth only 50 points. This means that each team can receive a total of 350 points for the round. 回复发言只值 50 分。这意味着每个团队本轮最多可以获得 350 分。
Speaker Duties 演讲者职责
The first four speeches in all three formats have similar speaker duties. But, since the amount of speeches and debaters vary, the later speeches are different. Below are the duties for the first four speeches. The specifics on how to develop cases and strategies for each speaker are presented in later chapters. 在所有三种格式中，前四次演讲的演讲者职责相似。但是，由于演讲数量和辩手数量不同，后来的演讲不同。以下是前四次演讲的职责。关于如何为每位演讲者制定案例和战略的具体内容将在后面的章节中介绍。
Constructive Speeches 构造性演讲
First propositional speech. The main duty of the first speaker of the propositional team is to set up the "case," which includes what the propositional team is proposing and what reasons there are for the plan such as harms to solve and advantages to achieve. 第一正方陈词。正方团队的第一位演讲者的主要职责是建立“案例”，其中包括正方团队提出的内容以及计划中要解决的问题的原因和要实现的优点。
Case construction 案例构建
Greet the house (All debaters start with a greeting to all present and thanks to the judge, who is called the "Speaker of the House.") 迎接主人（所有辩手都要向在场所有人致以问候，并感谢被称为“议院发言人”的裁判。）
State the motion 提出议题
Define key terms 定义关键术语
Give a background to the problem 提供问题背景
Provide a thesis (plan) 提供论点（计划）
Provide reasons why the motion should be adopted (advantages) 提供通过动议的理由（优势）
First oppositional speech. The main duty of the first speaker of the oppositional team is to set up the "counter-case" which may include an alternative proposal, reasons to adopt the alternative, reasons to not adopt the proponent's proposal, and refutation of the case. 第一反方发言。反方第一发言人的主要职责是建立“反案”，其中可能包括替代提案、采纳替代方案的理由、不采纳提案的理由以及驳斥案例。
Counter-case construction 反案构建
Greeting 问候
Disagreements on definition (clarification) 对定义的分歧（澄清）
Rebuttal of Proposition's case 反驳提案的论据
Direct refutation of the case 直接驳斥案例
No need 不需要
No solvency 没有解决能力
No advantages 没有优势
Counter-case arguments 反例论点
Disadvantages of the plan 计划的缺点
Infeasibilities of the plan 计划的不可行性
The philosophy/values of the Proposition that should not be endorsed 不应被认可的提案哲学/价值观
Counter-proposal with benefits 具有好处的对提案的反对建议
Second propositional speech. The main duty of the second speaker of the Proposition is to provide rejoinder to the case presented by the first speaker and refute the counter-case of the Opposition. If there is any time left, new arguments to support the motion can be advanced. 第二个主张性发言。第二个主张方发言者的主要职责是对第一个发言者提出的案例进行回应，并驳斥反对方的反案。如果还有剩余时间，可以提出新的论点来支持动议。
Refute the counter-case of 1st oppositional speaker 反驳第一个反对方发言者的反案
Rebuild the case of 1st propositional speaker 重建第一个主张方发言者的案例
May add new arguments to the case of 1st propositional speaker 可以向第一个主张发言者的案例中添加新的论点
Second oppositional speech. The main duty of the second speaker of the Opposition is to provide rejoinder to all arguments in the debate. Since this is a constructive speech new arguments may be added. 第二个反对方发言。反对方的第二个发言者的主要职责是对辩论中的所有论点进行答辩。由于这是一篇建设性的演讲，可以添加新的论点。
Continue refutation of case of 1st propositional speaker 继续驳斥第一个主张发言者的案例
Rebuild arguments of 1st oppositional speaker 重建第一个反对发言人的论点
May add new arguments to the counter-case of 1 st oppositional speaker 可以为第一个反对发言人的反驳案添加新的论点
Rebuttal Speeches 反驳发言
Since there are a different number of speeches in the three formats there are some variations among the different types of rebuttal speeches. 由于三种格式中的演讲数量不同，不同类型的反驳演讲之间存在一些变化。
AP Debate AP 辩论
The last two speeches are given by the first two speakers. In these speeches, the debaters synthesize and let the judge know why they are winning the round. 最后两个演讲由前两名演讲者发表。在这些演讲中，辩手们综合起来，让裁判知道他们为什么赢得了这一轮。
Oppositional Rebuttal Speech 对抗性反驳讲话
Present voting issues for the Opposition based on what 2nd oppositional speaker discusses - These voting issues are a summary of why the Opposition is winning the debate. 根据第二个反对派发言人讨论的内容提出反对面的投票问题-这些投票问题是反对派赢得辩论的总结。
NO NEW ARGUMENTS 不要提出新的论点
Propositional Rebuttal Speech 命题反驳发言
Refute the voting issues of the Opposition 反驳反对方的投票问题
Answer any new arguments presented by 2nd oppositional speaker (These are the only new arguments allowed in the rebuttals since this is the first opportunity to answer the points of 2nd oppositional speech) 回答第二反对方发言者提出的任何新论点（这些是反驳中允许的唯一新论点，因为这是回答第二反对方发言的观点的第一次机会）
Present voting issues for the Proposition 提出关于提案的投票问题
NO NEW ARGUMENTS 没有新的论点
BP Debate BP 辩论
The last four speeches are given by the lower house, which means these debaters are separate teams from the first four speakers (upper house). Though the lower house debaters have different roles, they need to support the ideas of the upper house. If they attack the ideas of the upper house team on the same side of the 最后四场演讲由下议院进行，这意味着这些辩手是与前四位演讲者（上议院）不同的团队。尽管下议院的辩手有不同的角色，他们需要支持上议院的观点。如果他们在同一方向上攻击上议院团队的观点，将会被裁判评为较低。攻击你方观点的想法被称为“刀子嘴。”
motion they will be ranked lower by the adjudicator. Attacking the ideas of your side of the motion is called "knifing." 第一闭幕提案演讲
First Closing Propositional Speech
Defend the general direction and case of the opening propositional team 捍卫开场命题团队的总体方向和案例
Continue refutation of the opening oppositional team 继续反驳开场反对团队
Develop a new argument that is different from, but consistent with the opening propositional team, no knifing 提出一个与开场命题团队不同但一致的新论点，不要刀枪不入
First Closing Oppositional Speech 第一次反对陈词陈议
Defend the general direction taken by the opening oppositional team 辩护开场反对方团队所采取的总体方向
Continue general refutation of the opening propositional team 继续对开场提议方团队进行一般性反驳
Provide specific refutation of the closing propositional team 提供对结案提议团队的具体反驳
Provide new oppositional arguments 提供新的反对论点
Second Closing Propositional Speech 第二个结案提议发言
Summarize the entire debate from the point of view of the propositional team 从支持性团队的观点总结整个辩论
Defend the general viewpoint of both propositional teams with a special eye toward the first closing propositional arguments 以特别关注第一个闭幕支持性论点为视角，捍卫支持性团队和反对性团队的一般观点
NO NEW ARGUMENTS 禁止提出新的论点
Second Closing Oppositional Speech 反方二次闭幕辩论发言
Summarize the entire debate from the point of view of the oppositional team 从反方团队的角度总结整个辩论
Defend the general viewpoint of both oppositional teams with a special eye toward the first closing oppositional arguments 以特别关注第一反方辩论的论点来捍卫两支反方团队的一般观点
NO NEW ARGUMENTS 没有新的论点
AA Debate AA 辩论
The job of the third speakers in AA debate is the same: AA 辩论中第三位发言人的工作是相同的:
Refute and rejoin the arguments presented by the speakers before them 反驳并回应之前演讲者提出的论点
Remind adjudicator of the arguments within the case or counter-case that they are winning 提醒裁判案例或反案中他们正在赢得的论点
Summarize the other speeches 总结其他演讲内容
The fourth speech for each side in AA debate can be delivered by either the first or second speaker from the team. As in AP debate these speeches synthesize the arguments that are winning them the debate: 辩论中每一方的第四次发言可以由该队的第一名或第二名发言人发表。与 AP 辩论类似，这些发言综合了赢得辩论的论点。
Outline the major clash points 概述主要冲突点
Provide reasons why their team is winning the clash 提供他们的团队正在赢得冲突的原因
Parliamentary debate is the dominant form of English language debate in China, especially the AP and BP debate. Debating in parliamentary style requires a broad knowledge and an ability to construct case very quickly on a variety of topics. 议会辩论是中国主要的英语辩论形式，尤其是 AP 和 BP 辩论。以议会形式进行辩论需要广泛的知识和在各种主题上快速构建案例的能力。
Cross-examination debate offers an opportunity to develop a completely different skill set. Since the fixed topic debate gives advanced warning about the actual wording of the motion (usually called a "resolution" in cross-examination debate), debaters are encouraged to do extensive research, bring the research files with them and develop complex arguments. They usually read prepared arguments and evidence during the debate. 交叉质询辩论为开发完全不同的技能提供了机会。由于固定的辩题辩论提前警告了动议的实际措辞（在交叉质询辩论中通常称为"决议"），鼓励辩手进行广泛的研究，带着研究档案并且发展复杂的论点。他们通常在辩论中阅读准备好的论点和证据。
Instead of POIs, this style of debate has a cross-examination period. After each constructive speech, the other side asks questions (usually for three minutes), thereby helping to develop questioning and answering skills. 这种辩论风格并不是提问, 而是有一个交叉质询时期。在每次建设性发言之后，对方提出问题（通常为三分钟），从而有助于发展提问和回答的技能。
Teams who support the motion are called the Affirmative and those against the motion are called the Negative in cross-examination debate. 在交叉质询辩论中，支持动议的团队称为肯定方，而反对动议的团队称为否定方。
Here are the speaking order and time limits: 这里是发言顺序和时间限制：
Constructive Speeches (Build new arguments) 构建性发言（提出新论点）
First Affirmative Constructive (1AC)_8 minutes 第一正方构建性（1AC）_8 分钟
Cross-examination (by ) 3 minutes 质询（由 进行）3 分钟
First Negative Constructive (1NC) 8 minutes 首次否定建设（1NC）8 分钟
Cross-examination (by ) 3 minutes 质询（由 进行）3 分钟
Second Affirmative Constructive (2AC) 8 minutes 第二肯定建设性陈述（2AC）8 分钟
Second Negative Constructive (2NC) 8 minutes 第二否定建设性陈述（2NC）8 分钟
Cross-examination (by ) 3 minutes 盘问（由 ）3 分钟
Rebuttal Speeches (No new arguments) 反驳发言（不得提出新论点）
First Negative Rebuttal (INR) 5 minutes 第一反方反驳（INR）5 分钟
First Affirmative Rebuttal (IAR) 5 minutes 第一肯定辩驳（IAR）5 分钟
Second Negative Rebuttal (2NR) 5 minutes 第二否定辩驳（2NR）5 分钟
Second Affirmative Rebuttal (2AR) 5 minutes 第二肯定辩驳（2AR）5 分钟
Preparation time ( 10 minutes per team)_ 20 minutes 每队准备时间（10 分钟）_20 分钟
Total 总计
84 minutes 84 分钟
Preparation Time 准备时间
Since the teams show up with prepared arguments it is not necessary to give a preparation period before the debate begins. Instead, each team has a total of 10 minutes throughout the debate round to prepare their arguments before a debater gets up to speak. For instance, if the first negative speaker uses four minutes of the preparation time, then the negative team has six minutes left for the rest of preparation. 由于团队带有准备好的论点，因此在辩论开始之前不需要给予准备时间。相反，每个团队在整个辩论轮中有共计 10 分钟的时间来准备他们的论点，然后演讲者开始讲话。例如，如果第一个反方演讲者使用了四分钟的准备时间，那么剩下的六分钟将留给反方团队进行剩余的准备。
Speaker Duties 演讲者职责
The speaker duties for case and counter-case development are roughly the same. 案例和反案例发展的发言人职责大致相同。
In this format the affirmative side gets the first speech and the last speech. The negative side gets two consecutive speeches (the Second Negative Constructive 在这种格式中，肯定方先发言，也是最后一个发言。否定方有两个连续的发言机会（第二个否定构建和第一个否定反驳），这被称为“否定阵营”。肯定方的优势在于能够在法官听到的第一件事和最后一件事中构建辩论。否定方的优势在于否定阵营有 13 分钟来发展论点，而第一个肯定反驳发言人只有五分钟来回答阵营。
and the First Negative Rebuttal), which is called the "negative bloc." The advantage for the Affirmative is to be able to frame the debate in the first thing and the last thing the judge hears. The advantage for the Negative is that the negative bloc has 13 minutes to develop the arguments, while the first affirmative rebuttal speaker only has five minutes to answer the bloc.
The same as in parliamentary debate, the constructive speeches in crossexamination debate are where new arguments are presented to support the affirmative case or to support the counter-case of the Negative. The rebuttal speeches are only for extending or refuting the arguments that come out of the constructive speeches. No new arguments are allowed to be advanced because it would not be very fair (or a good debate) if the last affirmative speaker waited for the last speech to present their best arguments. 与议会辩论中相同，交叉质询辩论中的建设性发言是提出新论点以支持肯定案例或支持否定方案的地方。反驳性发言仅用于延伸或驳斥建设性发言中提出的论点。不允许提出新的论点，因为如果最后一个肯定方发言者等到最后一次发言才提出他们最好的论点，那将不太公平（或是一场好的辩论）。
Conclusion 结论
Debate has a long and proud history. Over the years, rules have been established to make debate a fair opportunity for all. The formats of debate allow for an equal chance for debaters to influence the judge and the audience. These rules specify the speaking order and time limits. The three parliamentary formats described in this chapter have different strengths. 辩论有着悠久而光荣的历史。多年来，已经建立了规则，使辩论成为一个公平的机会。辩论的格式允许辩手有平等的机会影响评委和观众。这些规则规定了发言顺序和时间限制。本章描述的三种议会辩论格式各有优势。
The AP format has an emphasis on individual arguments throughout the debate. This type of debate looks to specific arguments. For this reason the first speakers must stay engaged throughout the debate. It also has the least amount of time involved so more debates can be held in a day. Practice is also easier since only four debaters are involved. AP 格式在辩论中强调个别论点。这种辩论类型着眼于具体论点。因此，第一发言人必须在整个辩论中保持参与。这种格式所需时间最少，因此一天可以举行更多的辩论。练习也更容易，因为只涉及四名辩手。
The BP format is more general and philosophical in nature. Since four teams are competing against each other, even those on the same side of the motion, the importance of individual matter and manner is elevated over the direct refutation of arguments. Beginning debaters may find it easier to give only one speech in this format. It is also easier to have tournaments in BP format since eight debaters BP 格式更具一般性和哲学性质。由于四支队伍相互竞争，即使是在同一立场上的辩手，个人的态度和方式的重要性也高于直接驳斥论点。初学者可能会发现在这种格式中只发表一次演讲更容易。在 BP 格式中举办比赛也更容易，因为每场辩论有八名辩手，只需要一半的房间和裁判员，相比 AP 辩论。
are in one debate, only half as many rooms and adjudicators as in AP debate are needed. 在一场辩论中有八名辩手，只需要一半的房间和裁判员，相比 AP 辩论，BP 格式更容易举办比赛。
The AA format tries to combine the AP and BP formats. Matter, manner, and method are considered by the adjudicator, but a winner must be declared. Since there are three members per team, different collaboration skills develop. This format also allows more debaters to compete per round than AP debate without any additional adjudicators or rooms required. AA 格式试图结合 AP 和 BP 格式。裁判员考虑事情、方式和方法，但必须宣布一个获胜者。由于每队有三名成员，不同的合作技能得到发展。这种格式还允许比 AP 辩论更多的辩手在每轮比赛中竞争，而无需额外的裁判员或房间。
Cross-examination debate allows students to prepare more on a long-term topic. This type of depth is enhanced by question and answer period where debaters can point out the flaws of the opposite side or explain their positions. 交叉审讯辩论允许学生更多地准备一个长期的话题。这种深度由问答环节增强，辩手可以指出对方的缺陷或解释他们的立场。
Activities 活动
Make a list of the advantages and disadvantages of each format of debate. Debate in class which format is better, in the format you will defend. 列出每种辩论格式的优缺点。在课堂上辩论哪种格式更好，以你所支持的格式为依据。
Would you prefer to start the debate with the first propositional speech or end with an oppositional speech? Write a short paper to discuss: "The position in which I would prefer to debate is... and the reason is..." 你更喜欢从第一发言开始辩论还是以反对性发言结束辩论？写一篇简短的文章讨论：“我更喜欢辩论的立场是……原因是……”
This book is designed to help you to become a better speaker and a better thinker. In the West, better thinking is often called critical thinking. You may even find other terms for critical thinking such as "higher-order thinking" or "problemsolving thinking." What constitutes critical thinking? Why is critical thinking better than other forms of thinking, say, creative thinking or logical thinking or analytical thinking or imaginative thinking or dialectical thinking? 本书旨在帮助你成为一个更好的演讲者和更好的思考者。在西方，更好的思考通常被称为批判性思维。你可能会找到其他形容批判性思维的术语，比如“高阶思维”或“解题思维”。什么构成批判性思维呢？为什么批判性思维比其他形式的思考更好，比如创造性思维、逻辑思维、分析性思维、想象性思维或辩证思维？
Dozens of definitions for critical thinking have been provided over the years, which might answer these two questions. One of the most easy-to-understand definitions explains critical thinking as "thinking about thinking to make thinking better." Another definition given by Dr. Richard Paul puts it in this way: "Critical thinking is a system of thinking that unlocks all other systems." This book adapts this definition to: "Critical thinking is a system of analysis and evaluation used to increase the understanding of any other system." 多年来，人们提供了数十种关于批判性思维的定义，这些定义或许可以回答这两个问题。其中一种最容易理解的定义将批判性思维解释为“思考思考，以使思考更好”。理查德·保罗博士给出的另一个定义是：“批判性思维是一种解锁所有其他系统的思维系统。”本书将这个定义改编为：“批判性思维是一种分析和评估系统，用于增进对任何其他系统的理解。”
Some people interpret critical thinking as having a negative meaning, which pertains to criticism or rejection of other people's ideas. In academic settings, however, critical thinking has a positive meaning which involves the analysis and evaluation of ideas. 有些人将批判性思维解释为具有负面含义，涉及对他人观点的批评或拒绝。然而，在学术环境中，批判性思维具有积极的含义，涉及对观点的分析和评估。
Debate and Critical Thinking 辩论与批判性思维
So what is the connection between debate and critical thinking? Initially, debate provides systems for constructing ideas to support or attack an issue and presenting the ideas orally. These systems involve ways of thinking, so that as you learn how to debate you are actually learning critical thinking. At the same time, debating is also a form of practice. As you learn the systems you will become better enabled to express your ideas orally. So you are becoming a better speaker 那么辩论与批判性思维之间有什么联系呢？最初，辩论提供了构建支持或攻击问题的观点并口头表达这些观点的系统。这些系统涉及思维方式，因此当你学习如何辩论时，实际上也在学习批判性思维。同时，辩论也是一种实践形式。当你学习这些系统时，你将更好地表达自己的观点。因此，你正在成为一个更好的演讲者
and a better thinker at the same time. In other words, as you become a better debater you are becoming a better critical thinker; as you become a better critical thinker you are becoming a better debater. Debate offers content and practice at the same time, all done with a goal to increase the oral English skills and thinking skills. 也是一个更好的思考者。换句话说，当你成为一个更好的辩手时，你也在成为一个更好的批判性思考者；当你成为一个更好的批判性思考者时，你也在成为一个更好的辩手。辩论同时提供内容和实践，所有这些都旨在增强口头英语技能和思维能力。
Some people think of debate like mental gymnastics where you build your thinking abilities through practice and competition. Others like to think of debate like a laboratory where the best ideas are tested. 有些人认为辩论就像是通过实践和竞争来提高思维能力的心理体操。其他人则喜欢将辩论看作是一个测试最佳观点的实验室。
Of course, there are some competitive aspects of debate: Winners are chosen and sometimes awards given. But, each debate is actually more of a collaborative effort to improve thinking skills of the participants. As a debate progresses speakers will present their best ideas. Each team will explain the weaknesses in the other team's arguments and offer their own critical thinking. This goes back and forth with each debater practicing their thinking and speaking until they shake hands at the end of the debate. So the debate itself is like a collaborative group effort to test out each other's ideas. 当然，辩论中有一些竞争性的方面：会选出获胜者，有时还会颁发奖项。但是，每场辩论实际上更像是一种协作努力，旨在提高参与者的思维能力。随着辩论的进行，发言者会提出他们最好的想法。每个团队会解释对方论点的弱点，并提出自己的批判性思维。这个过程反复进行，每位辩手都在练习他们的思维和表达，直到在辩论结束时握手。因此辩论本身就像一种协作的集体努力，用来检验彼此的想法。
After the debate, evaluations are offered by the judge or the audience. This critique process provides specific feedback on how debaters can improve. 辩论之后，评委或观众会提供评价。这种批评过程为辩手提供了如何改进的具体反馈。
So, while many people think only about the competitive aspects, debating can be one of the best educational experiences for improving your critical thinking while speaking. 因此，尽管很多人只考虑竞争性方面，辩论实际上可以是一种最好的教育经验，可以提高你的批判性思维和演讲能力。
Developing Critical Thinking 发展批判性思维
Two things are necessary to develop critical thinking: tools and practice. 发展批判性思维需要两样东西：工具和实践。
First, a critical thinking system is like a box of tools. If you were building a house, you would need tools such as hammers and saws. If you don't have the right tools you might not be able to do the best job in your building. Critical thinking 首先，批判性思维系统就像一个工具箱。如果你在建造房子，你会需要锤子和锯子等工具。如果你没有正确的工具，你可能无法在建造过程中做到最好。批判性思维
provides a system of thinking tools for you to use when understanding and constructing arguments. While this chapter is just a basic introduction to critical thinking, throughout the book you will find many different thinking tools to help you with debating when you are evaluating the significance of an argument or explaining the logic of a fallacy, etc. Good debating is effectively using the tools of critical thinking. 为您提供了一个思维工具系统，用于在理解和构建论点时使用。虽然本章只是对批判性思维的基本介绍，在整本书中您会发现许多不同的思维工具，帮助您在评估论点的重要性或解释谬误的逻辑等方面进行辩论。良好的辩论是有效地运用批判性思维的工具。
Second, a tool is only as good as the person who uses it. Debate provides experiences to develop the use of critical thinking tools. Few students will ever find themselves in a position of debating when they hold a professional job. But they will find themselves in positions where they must use their thinking and speaking skills to solve problems. Although there are many concepts in debating that add to the overall system of critical thinking, you should think of debate mostly as an activity to provide practice to sharpen your tools. Debating in English is a great way for you to develop your oral critical thinking abilities. The practice that debate offers is like a one-hour immersion program where you think, speak, listen, and write in English. 其次，工具的优劣取决于使用者。辩论提供了发展批判性思维工具使用经验的机会。很少有学生在从业时会发现自己需要进行辩论。但他们将发现自己需要使用思维和口头表达技巧来解决问题。虽然辩论中有许多概念有助于批判性思维的整体系统，但您应该认为辩论主要是提供实践来磨练您的工具。用英语进行辩论是您发展口头批判性思维能力的绝佳方式。辩论所提供的练习就像一个一小时的沉浸式项目，在其中您会用英语思考、说话、倾听和写作。
Public speaking is difficult for most people even in their first language. Many people feel they just aren't logical. Debate may be essential in developing the skills to talk through a problem using critical thinking. Debate requires you to come up with your best thinking while being able to evaluate the thinking of others, and then communicate those ideas to a third party (usually the judge who will provide feedback on how to get better with your debating and therefore thinking and speaking). The beautiful thing about this process is that your thinking, speaking and debating skills improve at the same time. Once again, this development process requires that you learn some thinking tools and then practice using these tools. 公众演讲对大多数人来说即便是在他们的母语中也是困难的。许多人觉得他们的逻辑性不足。辩论可能是发展运用批判性思维通过问题进行交流的关键技能。辩论要求你提出最佳思维，同时能够评估他人的思维，然后将这些想法传达给第三方（通常是提供如何在辩论和因此思考和演讲中变得更好的反馈的裁判）。这个过程的美好之处在于你的思维、说话和辩论能力同时提高。再次强调，这个发展过程需要你学习一些思维工具，然后实践运用这些工具。
Critical Thinking Through the Paul-Elder Model (PEM) 通过保尔-艾尔德模型（PEM）进行批判性思维
The Paul-Elder Model (PEM) is an effective critical thinking tool for debate. It is also effective with ANY subject matter or situation. Once you learn the model, it will provide you with better thinking in many situations. This chapter provides the basics of this model. Only through repeated practice will you develop your ability to use this tool of critical thinking. Also, as you become a better debater you will discover new ways to apply this tool of critical thinking. The PEM consists of two parts: elements of thinking and intellectual standards of thinking. 保罗-埃尔德模型（PEM）是一种有效的辩论批判性思维工具。它在任何主题或情境下都很有效。一旦你掌握了这个模型，它将在许多情况下帮助你更好地思考。本章介绍了这个模型的基础知识。只有通过反复练习，你才能发展出运用这种批判性思维工具的能力。同时，随着你成为更好的辩手，你会发现新的运用这种批判性思维工具的方法。PEM 由思维要素和思维的智力标准两部分组成。
Elements of Thinking 思维要素
The elements of thinking provide aspects for you to analyze an argument. A good metaphor is to think about these elements like the different windows through which to observe a house. Each window will give you a different view in the understanding of what the house looks like inside. There are eight elements of thinking: purpose, questions, information, inferences, concepts, assumptions, consequences, and points of view. There is no specific order for these elements. When analyzing something through the elements, you may choose to use only one or several of them. 思维要素提供了让你分析论点的方面。一个很好的比喻是把这些要素想象成观察房子的不同窗户。每个窗户都会让你从不同角度了解房子内部的样子。思维要素包括八个部分：目的、问题、信息、推理、概念、假设、后果和观点。这些要素没有特定的顺序。在通过这些要素分析某事物时，你可以选择使用其中一个或几个。
Purpose. In a debate, you always want to determine the purpose you want to achieve first. Are you trying to compare the pros and cons of a policy? Are you trying to weigh values? Are you trying to develop a plan to solve a problem? Knowing the purpose of a debate is the first step toward analyzing the topic and establishing a case. 目的。在辩论中，你总是希望首先确定你想要实现的目的。你是想比较政策的利弊吗？你是想权衡价值观吗？你是想制定解决问题的计划吗？了解辩论的目的是分析主题和建立案例的第一步。
Questions. What major issues are involved in the purpose? What problems or harms need to be addressed? Why isn't the current system taking care of the problems? What is the basis of the values being debated? What actions could be taken? Are there benefits for taking any specific action? 问题。目的中涉及哪些主要问题？有哪些问题或伤害需要解决？为什么当前的制度不能解决问题？辩论的价值观基础是什么？可以采取哪些行动？采取任何具体行动是否有好处？
Information. What information do you have to argue for or against the topic? Do you have any specific experience that could help you to answer the questions? Are there facts or opinions that can help to guide you? What is the source of the information? Is the information accurate, up-to-date, and relevant to the issue in discussion? What is the quality of the information being used by the other team? 信息。你有哪些信息可以支持或反对这个话题？你有任何特定经验可以帮助你回答这些问题吗？有哪些事实或观点可以帮助指导你？信息的来源是什么？信息是否准确、及时且与讨论的问题相关？其他团队使用的信息质量如何？
Inferences. Once you hear the questions and information what conclusions can you draw? What is the relationship between a problem and its solution? Is there a connection between two different pieces of evidence? Can you compare two arguments to see if they are consistent or contradictory? 推论。一旦你听到问题和信息后，你能得出什么结论？问题与解决方案之间有什么关系？两个不同证据之间是否有联系？你能比较两个论点来看它们是否一致还是矛盾吗？
Concepts. Is there any philosophical idea or theory you need to understand or argue about? Is there a definition that needs to be provided? Do the introduced criteria need to be justified? 概念。是否有任何哲学观念或理论需要你理解或讨论？是否需要提供一个定义？引入的标准需要被证明合理吗？
Assumptions. What things have been taken for granted on the topic? Has a change happened that would alter the approach that should be taken? 假设。在这个话题上有哪些东西被视作理所当然了吗？是否发生了改变，需要改变应该采取的方法？
Consequences. What are the good things and bad things that come from the arguments under consideration? Are these good and bad things on a personal or societal level? What will happen if a plan is instituted? What are the advantages and disadvantages of the actions in discussion? 结果。从所考虑的论点中产生的好事和坏事是什么？这些好事和坏事是在个人层面还是社会层面？如果实施一个计划会发生什么？讨论中的行动有什么优点和缺点？
Points of view. In a debate there are two opposite points of view. Other points of view could also come in if you consider the opinions of different experts or countries involved. These various points of view need to be understood and evaluated. What type of language frames the arguments? Is the language or position objective or appropriate for the issue at hand? How are the arguments phrased? Is the position accurate for the question at hand? 观点。在辩论中有两种相反的观点。如果考虑到不同专家或涉及的国家的意见，其他观点也可能出现。这些不同的观点需要被理解和评估。什么样的语言构成了这些论点？语言或立场是否客观或适合手头的问题？论点是如何表达的？这个立场对手头的问题是否准确？
Learning how to analyze is one of the keys to being a better debater. The elements provide tools for you to use so that you can properly place your efforts. At this point in the book, these elements are very general. The important thing for now is to learn that whenever analyzing an argument there are appropriate elements for you to investigate. As we progress in the book you will see how the elements apply in actual debates. Remember not all elements will apply to every argumentative situation. 学习如何分析是成为更好的辩手的关键之一。这些要素为您提供了工具，让您可以正确地投入精力。在本书的这一部分，这些要素非常一般。现在重要的是要学会，每当分析一个论点时，都有适当的要素供您调查。随着我们在书中的进展，您将看到这些要素如何应用于实际辩论中。请记住，并非所有要素都适用于每个辩论情况。
Intellectual Standards of Thinking 思维的智力标准
The intellectual standards of thinking provide a system for evaluation of the elements of thinking. The nine standards are: clarity, accuracy, precision, relevance, significance, depth, breadth, logic, and fairness. Each of the nine standards can be applied to any of the eight elements, so you can evaluate the quality of thinking at multiple levels. Your evaluation during a debate should concern two things: How can I develop the best possible arguments? How can I discover the flaws in the arguments presented by others? To continue the house metaphor, when you look through the window of a kitchen what would you see to make it a great kitchen? 思维的智力标准提供了一个评估思维要素的系统。这九个标准是：清晰度、准确性、精确性、相关性、重要性、深度、广度、逻辑和公平性。这九个标准中的每一个都可以应用于八个要素中的任何一个，因此您可以在多个层面评估思维的质量。在辩论过程中，您的评估应关注两件事：我如何能够发展出最佳的论点？我如何能够发现他人提出的论点中的缺陷？继续使用房屋的比喻，当您透过厨房的窗户看到什么，才能使它成为一个伟大的厨房？
Clarity. Are the arguments understandable? Is there a vagueness that does not allow for understanding of a specific element? For example, is the purpose clear? 清晰度。论点是否容易理解？是否存在无法理解特定要素的模糊性？例如，目的是否清晰？
Accuracy. Is the information being used true and complete? Are the conclusions being drawn appropriately from the information available? 准确性。所使用的信息是否真实完整？所得出的结论是否恰当地基于可获得的信息？
Precision. Are there enough details to satisfy the specific requirements? Does the action have sufficient conditions presented to solve the problem (i.e. enough money)? 精确度。是否有足够的细节满足具体要求？行动是否提供足够的条件来解决问题（即足够的资金）？
Relevance. How much does the element relate to the issue at hand? Does the opponent's argument actually refute something you say? 关联性。元素与问题之间的关系有多大？对手的论点是否真正反驳了你说的某些内容？
Significance. How important is something? Can its significance be measured? There may also be several values involved in a debate. When looking to the quality of the values can you determine which are more important and why? Is the significance you present greater than the significance the other team presents? 重要性。某事有多重要？它的重要性是否可以衡量？辩论中可能涉及到几个价值观。在评估这些价值观的质量时，你能确定哪些更重要，为什么？你提出的重要性是否比对方提出的重要性更大？
Depth. When evaluating an issue, is there a need for understanding other specifics within the issue? 深度。在评估一个问题时，是否需要了解问题内部的其他具体情况？
Breadth. When evaluating an issue, are there other areas of interest necessary for understanding the complete picture? 广度。在评估问题时，是否有其他感兴趣的领域对于理解完整画面是必要的？
Logic. Does the argument make sense? Do the conclusions come from the analysis and evidence provided? 逻辑。论点是否讲得通？结论是否来自所提供的分析和证据？
Fairness. Is an objective position being taken? Are there other points of view that need to be considered to minimize ethnocentrism or egocentrism? 公平性。是否采取客观立场？是否有其他观点需要考虑以减少种族中心主义或自我中心主义？
The critical thinking tools of elements and intellectual standards provide a beginning list for improving your thinking. The elements of thinking give you ways to analyze an argument. The intellectual standards provide ways to evaluate the quality of the argument. For example, when you analyze the "purpose" of an argument the standards ask you to evaluate the clarity of the argument or the relevance or the logic. In a sense if you learn the eight elements and the nine standards you actually have 72 ways to analyze and evaluate any issue. 元素和智力标准的批判性思维工具为改善您的思维提供了一个起始列表。思维的元素为您提供了分析论点的方法。智力标准提供了评估论点质量的方法。例如，当您分析一个论点的“目的”时，标准要求您评估论点的清晰度、相关性或逻辑性。从某种意义上说，如果您学会了八个元素和九个标准，实际上您有 72 种方法来分析和评估任何问题。
Of course, as a beginner you are not asked to do 72 ways of analysis and evaluation in an hour-long debate round. Nor will you be expected to master critical thinking by reading this chapter. Only application of these tools to actual situations can help you to develop critical thinking. This is where practice becomes important. 当然，作为初学者，在一个小时的辩论中不会要求您进行 72 种分析和评估。您也不会被期望通过阅读本章节来掌握批判性思维。只有将这些工具应用于实际情况才能帮助您发展批判性思维。这就是练习变得重要的地方。
The elements and intellectual standards of thinking allow us to analyze and evaluate an argument. An argument is like a building. When we build we have to make sure that our construction is strong so the building doesn't fall. Critical thinking allows you to know whether your argument construction is strong. So what does it take to make a strong argument? According to British philosopher, Stephen Toulmin, argument construction has three main parts: claim, data, and warrant. 思维的要素和智力标准使我们能够分析和评估一个论点。论点就像一座建筑物。在建造时，我们必须确保我们的结构牢固，这样建筑物就不会倒塌。批判性思维让你知道你的论点结构是否牢固。那么，要构建一个强有力的论点需要什么？根据英国哲学家斯蒂芬·图尔敏的说法，论点结构主要由三个部分组成：主张、数据和保证。
Claim. The claim is a statement you make about the issue you are addressing. Claims can be statements about facts, values, or policies. For example, the statement: "Air pollution is bad for human health" is a claim of fact. 主张。主张是你对所讨论问题的陈述。主张可以是关于事实、价值观或政策的陈述。例如，陈述：“空气污染对人类健康有害”是一个事实主张。
Data. Data is various forms of information used to prove claims, in other words, evidence used to support claims. If you use evidence that says "Air pollution causes children to get asthma" then you are providing some information to support the claim of harm. Other words for data are grounds, evidence, support, proof, documentation, or substantiation. 数据。数据是用来证明主张的各种形式的信息，换句话说，用来支持主张的证据。如果你使用的证据是“空气污染导致儿童患哮喘”，那么你提供了一些信息来支持伤害主张。数据的其他说法包括依据、证据、支持、证明、文档或证实。
Warrant. The warrant is the analysis that puts the claim and data together and makes sense of the argument. In other words, the warrant provides the connection between the claim and data. The warrant asks if there is a relevant link between the two statements. To provide the warrant for the claim and data above: "We know that asthma is not a good thing for human health and that air pollution causes asthma, therefore we can understand that air pollution is bad for human health." A warrant is like glue that holds two things together. 保证。保证是将主张和数据结合在一起并理解论点的分析。换句话说，保证提供了主张和数据之间的联系。保证询问这两个陈述之间是否存在相关联。为上述主张和数据提供保证：“我们知道哮喘对人类健康不利，空气污染会导致哮喘，因此我们可以理解空气污染对人类健康有害。”保证就像将两件事粘在一起的胶水。
Here is a logical argument construction: 这里是一个逻辑论证的构建：
If an argument is sound usually the three parts of the Toulmin Model work together in relevant and logical ways. If the argument is unsound then there is at least one part of the model where thinking is wrong. For example, consider the argument: "Air pollution is bad for human health because there are over 500 McDonald's Restaurants in Beijing." Both claim and data may be true but at the warrant level there is no obvious relationship between the harm of air pollution and McDonald's. 如果一个论点是合理的，通常 Toulmin 模型的三个部分会以相关和逻辑的方式一起运作。如果论点不合理，那么模型中至少有一个部分的思维是错误的。例如，考虑这个论点：“空气污染对人类健康有害，因为北京有 500 多家麦当劳餐厅。”主张和数据可能都是真实的，但在保证层面上，空气污染的危害与麦当劳之间没有明显的关系。
Here is how this unsound argument would look in a diagram: 这里是这个不合理论点在图表中的展示方式：
The Toulmin Model can be used to increase the strength of your arguments and can give you a way to understand the weaknesses of your opponent's ideas. We will discuss the Toulmin Model in detail in Chapter 12 when fallacies are discussed. 图尔敏模型可用于增强您的论点的力量，并帮助您理解对手观点的弱点。我们将在第 12 章详细讨论图尔敏模型时讨论谬误。
Conclusion 结论
Argument construction is the basis of critical thinking. The PEM provides 72 ways of analysis and evaluation for every argument. With development and practice you should be able to use them to understand, explain and argue about arguments, and be able to better express your thinking using analytical tools like the Toulmin Model. 论证结构是批判性思维的基础。PEM 提供了 72 种分析和评估每个论证的方式。通过发展和实践，你应该能够使用它们来理解、解释和讨论论证，并且能够更好地运用像陶尔敏模型这样的分析工具来表达你的思想。
Activities 活动
Type up a list of the elements and intellectual standards of thinking to use as a reference whenever you need to do critical thinking. Print out the list and place it somewhere convenient so it is there for constant reference. 打印一份思维要素和思维标准的清单，以便在进行批判性思维时随时作为参考。把该清单打印出来并放在方便的地方，以便随时查阅。
Read an article in China Daily opinion pages. Use the elements of thinking to analyze what the author is writing, and then evaluate it using the intellectual standards of thinking. Explain your analysis and evaluation in class. 在《中国日报》观点版阅读一篇文章。使用思维要素分析作者的写作，然后使用思维的智力标准进行评估。在课堂上解释你的分析和评估。
Chapter Appendix 章节附录
Developing Arguments Through SEE-I 通过 SEE-I 发展论点
SEE-I (pronounced "seeing eye") is an excellent way for you to develop critical thinking and argument construction. It serves as a simple organizational tool to work out your arguments in advance. It is also an efficient way for others to analyze and evaluate your arguments. SEE-I（发音为“seeing eye”）是您发展批判性思维和论证构建的绝佳方式。它作为一个简单的组织工具，帮助您提前整理您的论点。它也是他人分析和评估您论点的有效方式。
There are four parts in a SEE-I: SEE-I 有四个部分：
S-Statement. In this part you would write a statement in response to a question or topic. If the topic was: "What is the most important concept in the first chapter?" A statement could be: "The most important concept in Chapter 1 is that thinking in oral English comes with appropriate practice." S-Statement。在这部分，您将针对问题或主题写一个陈述。如果主题是：“第一章中最重要的概念是什么？”一个陈述可以是：“第一章中最重要的概念是，用口语英语思考需要适当的练习。”
E-Elaboration. In this part you would write an explanation of what the statement means. It should be at least five or six sentences. A good way to do this is to start with the words "In other words." To continue the above statement, a good elaboration would be: "In other words, oral English is different from written English skills. When one listens and speaks the logic of an idea, one is developing critical thinking skills. This skill will not come from reading and writing, but only from oral practicing. This practice can be in a variety of forms such as individual reviewing of information aloud, practicing with teammates, or competing in a tournament. Of course, the more speaking I do, the more I will train my brain." E-详细说明。在这部分中，您将写下对该陈述的解释。它应该至少有五到六个句子。做到这一点的一个好方法是以“换句话说”开头。继续上面的陈述，一个很好的详细说明可能是：“换句话说，口语英语不同于书面英语技能。当一个人听和说一个想法的逻辑时，他正在发展批判性思维技能。这种技能不会来自阅读和写作，而只会来自口语练习。这种练习可以采取各种形式，比如大声复习信息，与队友练习，或参加比赛。当然，我说得越多，我就会训练我的大脑。”
E-Example. In this part you would provide an example to support your elaboration (another five or six sentences). A good way to do this is to start with the words "For example." For the above elaboration an example might be: "For example, when I go to a tournament I will have to listen to the E-例子。在这部分中，您将提供一个例子来支持您的详细说明（另外五到六个句子）。做到这一点的一个好方法是以“例如”开头。对于上述详细说明，一个例子可能是：“例如，当我参加比赛时，我将不得不听取其他人的意见”
ideas of the other team. Then I will need to state my own argument. I need to explain my reasons for the argument, and provide a logical argument why the other team is wrong. This means that my brain has to process in English in a variety of ways. As I do that, thinking while speaking becomes easier." 其他团队的想法。然后我需要陈述自己的观点。我需要解释我的观点理由，并提供一个逻辑论证，说明为什么其他团队是错误的。这意味着我的大脑必须以各种方式用英语进行处理。当我这样做时，边思考边说变得更容易。
I-Illustration. In this part you would provide a metaphor, diagram, or other devices to clarify your position. A good way to start this would be "This is like." An illustration for the above example would be: "This is like a basketball player who wants to be good at free throws. They can only become better by practicing that specific skill." I-插图。在这部分中，您可以提供比喻、图表或其他设备来阐明您的立场。开始这一部分的一个好方法是“这就像”。上面例子的一个插图可能是：“这就像一个想要在罚球中表现出色的篮球运动员。他们只能通过练习这个特定技能来变得更好。”
Activities 活动
Write a SEE-I on the topic: "What is the most important reason for developing oral English skills?” 在主题上写一个 SEE-I：“发展口语英语技能最重要的原因是什么？”
Pick any of the elements of thinking and write a SEE-I on why it is important to critical thinking. 选择思维要素中的任何一个，并写一个 SEE-I，说明为什么批判性思维很重要。
Share your SEE-Is with other students in the class, using the intellectual standards to evaluate their thinking and how to improve their writing. 与班上其他学生分享你的 SEE-I，使用智力标准来评估他们的思维，并提出如何改进他们的写作。
Dereloping Effective Public Speaking Stills 发展有效的公开演讲技巧
Aristotle said that not only it is important to have something to say, but one must know how to say it. Good public speaking is essential to debate and becoming a better speaker is one of the main benefits of learning to debate. Debating is an excellent way for English language learners to develop their speaking skills. More than just having a conversation, debating requires you to analyze and evaluate situations as you speak in a spontaneous manner. Many students who have learned to debate find their oral communication skills improved as far as fluency, accuracy, and complexity of their language are concerned. 亚里士多德说过，重要的不仅是有话要说，还要知道如何说。良好的公开演讲对辩论至关重要，成为更好的演讲者是学习辩论的主要好处之一。辩论是英语学习者发展口语技能的绝佳方式。辩论不仅仅是进行对话，还要求您在讲话时以自发的方式分析和评估情况。许多学习辩论的学生发现，他们的口头交流技能在流利度、准确性和语言复杂性方面得到了提高。
To be a better debater, you need to overcome nervousness, increase credibility and convey meaning in your communication. 要成为更好的辩手，您需要克服紧张感，增加可信度，并在沟通中传达意义。
Overcoming Nervousness 克服紧张
Public speaking can be a frightening experience for most people. Most people feel nervous, or, have stage fright when they speak in front of a group. In psychology this nervousness is called "the fight or flight response." Your body tries to protect you from what your brain thinks as a dangerous situation. When speaking in public, the brain misinterprets the situation as a danger and then tries to protect you by causing chemicals to race through you body. 对大多数人来说，公众演讲可能是一种可怕的经历。大多数人在面对人群演讲时会感到紧张，甚至有舞台恐惧。在心理学中，这种紧张被称为“战斗或逃跑反应”。你的身体试图保护你免受大脑认为是危险情况的危害。在公共场合讲话时，大脑误解了情况，认为是危险情景，然后试图通过引起化学物质在你的身体中迅速传播来保护你。
The chemicals in your body will cause your heart to beat faster. It may cause your breathing to increase (some people actually become "out of breath" when speaking) and cause your stomach to feel "butterflies." The chemicals also hit the joints in your legs and arms which cause you to have extra movement. All of these reactions heat up your body and make you sweat. You could be so uncomfortable that your whole body may shake. 你体内的化学物质会使你的心跳加快。可能导致你呼吸加快（有些人在说话时实际上会“上气不接下气”），并使你的肚子感到“蝴蝶飞舞”。这些化学物质还会影响你的腿和手臂关节，导致你多出一些动作。所有这些反应会使你的身体热起来，让你出汗。你可能会感到非常不舒服，整个身体都可能会颤抖。
"The fight or flight response" is natural, but it can be controlled. Just like any skill with which we become more at ease through practice, public speaking can become easier with sufficient practice. In fact, a little bit of stress may actually enhance your performance, increase your enthusiasm and focus your attention. However, you need to ensure you have only a little stress. The best way to reduce your anxiety is still the "Five Ps": Preparation and practice prevent poor performance. "战斗或逃跑反应"是自然的，但它可以被控制。就像任何通过练习变得更加熟练的技能一样，公共演讲通过充分的练习可以变得更容易。事实上，一点点压力实际上可能会增强您的表现，增加您的热情并集中您的注意力。然而，您需要确保只有一点点压力。减轻焦虑的最佳方法仍然是“五个 P”：准备和练习防止糟糕的表现。
-Preparation -准备
There are many things you can do to prepare your body and mind for a public speaking experience. 有很多事情可以做来为公共演讲体验做好身心准备。
Preparation of your body. Whenever you are going to speak in public you will want to be at your physical and mental best. This means that you need to get a good night's sleep before your performance. You need to eat the right food and have enough energy for the time you are speaking. If you are in a tournament you need to be sure to rest between rounds and drink plenty of water. Whenever you feel anxious, relax and do some deep breathing. 准备你的身体。每当你要在公共场合演讲时，你都希望自己在身体和精神上处于最佳状态。这意味着你需要在表现之前睡个好觉。你需要吃对的食物，并且有足够的能量来演讲。如果你参加比赛，你需要确保在比赛之间休息，并多喝水。每当你感到焦虑时，放松一下，做些深呼吸。
Preparation of your mind. You can prepare with a positive attitude. Think of the way you want to perform and have the attitude that you are in a learning situation. During your speeches remember to act confidently and you will become confident. No matter how you are feeling, "fake it until you make it." Instead of worrying about how you feel, remember to focus on your audience and your message. 准备你的心态。你可以用积极的态度来准备。想象你想要表现的方式，并且拥有你正在学习的态度。在演讲中记得要表现自信，你会变得自信。无论你的感觉如何，“假装直到你成功。”不要担心自己的感受，记得要专注于你的观众和你的信息。
Practice 练习
Practice is an essential part of developing your skills and reducing your anxiety. Whenever you practice, be sure to perform the same way you want to when you are in front of the audience. This means if you are practicing alone or in a small group, say your speech aloud. Practice with the same notes you will use. Practice with all of the speaking skills, i.e. using your voice and your body to get your 练习是发展技能和减少焦虑的重要部分。每当你练习时，一定要以你在观众面前想要表现的方式进行。这意味着如果你是在独自练习或在小组中练习，要大声朗读演讲。使用你将要使用的相同笔记进行练习。练习所有演讲技巧，即使用你的声音和身体向观众传达你的意思。
meaning across to the audience. The key to practice may be the total amount of times you practice. You need to develop your own style through hours of practice. 练习的关键可能是你练习的总次数。你需要通过数小时的练习来发展自己的风格。
Increasing Credibility 提高可信度
As you speak the audience will evaluate your credibility. People usually tend to judge a person's credibility in the first few seconds and then look for reasons to support their first impression. Therefore, if you seem confident from the beginning you will have a better chance to capture the audience's interest and establish your credibility. If the audience likes your style or finds you credible they will give you positive feedback that will make you feel more comfortable and then increase your confidence. Think of it this way, there are both content and relationship aspects in communication. Besides understanding the words you are saying, the audience also has emotional responses to what you are saying. 当你讲话时，观众会评估你的可信度。人们通常倾向于在最初几秒钟内评判一个人的可信度，然后寻找支持他们第一印象的理由。因此，如果你从一开始就显得自信，你将有更好的机会吸引观众的兴趣并建立你的可信度。如果观众喜欢你的风格或认为你可信，他们会给予你积极的反馈，让你感到更加自在，从而增强你的信心。可以这样想，沟通中既有内容方面，也有关系方面。除了理解你所说的话，观众还会对你的话产生情感反应。
Your building of credibility starts with the audience when they first see you. Therefore, dress appropriately for the situation. You may be casual for a classroom debate, but in tournaments debaters often dress in what is called "business interview attire." And also, the audience will judge from your materials how organized you are. You may lose credibility if you write your notes on little scraps of paper and then look lost when you shuffle through papers to find your point. The audience will also determine if you are "likable" from the way you speak and smile. No matter how you are feeling, remember to speak and act with confidence. 建立可信度的过程始于观众第一次见到你时。因此，根据情况适当着装很重要。在课堂辩论中可能可以穿着休闲，但在比赛中，辩手们通常穿着所谓的“商务面试服装”。此外，观众会根据你的材料判断你的组织能力。如果你把笔记写在小纸片上，然后在翻找纸张时看起来很迷茫，你可能会失去可信度。观众还会从你说话和微笑的方式判断你是否“讨人喜欢”。无论你的感受如何，请记住要自信地说话和行动。
With increasing credibility also comes more effectiveness. In most public speaking situations you are trying to persuade the audience to accept your ideas. An effective delivery helps you to get your ideas across, which in turn enhances your credibility. The audience listens more attentively to engaging speakers. In fact, sometimes a better speaker may sound more persuasive to the audience in spite of the fact that their arguments may not be as good as other less effective speakers' arguments. 随着可信度的增加，效果也会更好。在大多数公开演讲场合，你都在努力说服观众接受你的观点。有效的表达有助于让你的想法传达出去，从而增强你的可信度。观众更加专心地听取引人入胜的演讲者。事实上，有时候一个更好的演讲者可能听起来更具有说服力，尽管他们的论点可能不如其他效果较差的演讲者的论点。
Conveying Meaning in Your Communication 在你的沟通中传达意义
A broad definition of communication provides that "communication happens whenever someone places meaning on something." In other words if you do something or say something and someone else thinks something about what you do or say, then it has meaning for them and communication has taken place, even though you may not have intended the meaning or been active with your actions or words. In fact, the meaning that the receiver of your message perceives might not be equivalent to what you want to send. 传播的广义定义是“只要有人对某事赋予意义，就发生了传播”。换句话说，如果你做了某事或说了某事，而别人对你的行为或言论产生了想法，那么对他们而言就具有意义，传播就发生了，即使你可能并没有打算传达这个意义或者并没有积极参与你的行动或言辞。事实上，你的信息接收者所感知到的意义可能并不等同于你想要传达的意义。
The meaning of the communication is therefore in the mind of the receiver of the message. Words themselves do not have meanings, although they do have definitions. The way you say the words actually brings them to life. Therefore, when you give a speech in a monotone, you are not doing justice to the full meaning of the language. 因此，传播的意义存在于信息接收者的头脑中。单词本身并没有意义，尽管它们有定义。你说话的方式实际上赋予了它们生命。因此，当你以单调的语调演讲时，你并没有充分展现语言的全部意义。
Of course, the meaning you want to express begins with the words you choose. But your voice, your gestures and postures, your eye contact and your facial expressions all play a part in the meaning you try to communicate. 当然，你想要表达的意义始于你选择的词语。但是你的声音、手势和姿势、眼神交流以及面部表情都在传达你尝试传达的意义中扮演着一定角色。
Voice 声音
Many people believe when they give a speech they must become an actor on stage. Sometimes passion can help to "sell" your point. However, what the audience really wants from you is enthusiasm instead of hyperbole or excessive acting. You do need to bring the words to life, and to give meaning to the words. If you speak in a monotone, the audience will think you do not care about what you say. On the other hand, the audience also wants you to be genuine. If you sound over-passionate, the audience will think you are dishonest and will not believe you as much. 许多人认为在演讲时他们必须成为舞台上的演员。有时候激情可以帮助“推销”你的观点。然而，观众真正想要的是你的热情，而不是夸张或过度表演。你需要让言辞生动起来，赋予言辞意义。如果你说话单调，观众会认为你不在乎自己在说什么。另一方面，观众也希望你真诚。如果你听起来过于热情，观众会认为你不诚实，不会那么相信你。
You can train your voice from three aspects to better convey meaning in debate: 你可以从三个方面训练你的声音，以更好地在辩论中传达意义：
Speed. Debaters sometimes are criticized for speaking too fast at the expense of conveying meaning. Debate has time restraints; therefore, before their time runs out, debaters will either have to speak faster or not cover everything they want to say. As a beginning debater you may have long pauses as you search for words. With practice, you will speak faster. You will notice that you become quicker at putting ideas together so they flow out of your mouth smoothly. However, while trying to bring more information into the debate, you need to balance your presentation with clear articulation so that others understand you. 速度。辩手有时会因为讲话过快而被批评，导致无法传达意义。辩论有时间限制；因此，在时间用尽之前，辩手要么必须说得更快，要么无法涵盖他们想要说的一切。作为一个初学者辩手，你可能会在寻找词语时停顿很久。通过练习，你会说得更快。你会注意到自己在将想法组合在一起时变得更快，以便它们顺畅地从你的嘴里流出。然而，在试图将更多信息带入辩论的同时，你需要平衡你的表达方式，以清晰地表达让他人理解。
Tone. Your tone of voice must match the emotional content of the words you are saying. Find the tone suitable for your information. If your information is sad, a lower tone may more accurately express the sadness, while a higher tone may be used to communicate excitement. 语调。你的语调必须与你所说的话的情感内容相匹配。找到适合你信息的语调。如果你的信息是悲伤的，较低的语调可能更准确地表达悲伤，而较高的语调可能用于传达兴奋。
Vocal Variety. Of course, the words you choose convey the complexity of your thoughts. But the nuances of the complexity of your language choices also come out in the way that you speak. The volume of your voice can communicate. You will need to speak loud enough for all the audience to hear, but sometimes a whisper has more meaning and intensity than shouting. It may be that the most important aspect of the argument comes in the middle of a long speech. If you know that some information has more relevance or significance, you can stress the words, pause a bit, and change the tone and volume of your voice. This is referred to as "vocal variety" and it is as important to the complexity of your language as the sophistication of diction, syntax or reasoning. 声音变化。当然，您选择的词汇传达了您思想的复杂性。但您说话的方式也会呈现语言选择的复杂性细微差别。您的声音大小可以传达信息。您需要大声说话，以便所有听众都能听到，但有时候低语可能比大声呼喊更有意义和强烈。也许最重要的论点在漫长的演讲中间部分。如果您知道某些信息更相关或更重要，您可以强调这些词语，停顿一下，并改变您的语调和声音大小。这被称为“声音变化”，它对您的语言的复杂性和词汇、句法或推理的复杂程度一样重要。
Bearing 风度态度
Nonverbal communication helps to transmit meaning from one person to another. If the audience and judge make meaning of something you do, you are communicating to them. This means that everything you do (or do not do) during a debate round could be communicating something to the audience. Be aware of how your nonverbal behavior affects the audience and the judge's evaluation of you as a speaker, especially with your confidence and credibility. 非语言交流有助于将意义从一个人传递给另一个人。如果观众和评委对你的某种行为有所理解，那么你正在与他们交流。这意味着在辩论中你所做的一切（或不做的事情）都可能向观众传达某种信息。要注意你的非语言行为如何影响观众和评委对你作为演讲者的评价，尤其是你的自信和可信度。
Conduct yourself politely and appropriately. Do not put your head on the table while the other team has the floor. Do not tell jokes to your partner or laugh at the other team. Stay involved with the ongoing debate by taking notes during the entire time. Even if you are the first speaker and may not speak again, you may still need to ask questions of your opponent team. Bear in mind that you are learning a great deal from the other speakers on how you can debate better in the next round. 有礼貌且得体地表现自己。当另一支队伍发言时，不要把头放在桌子上。不要对你的搭档讲笑话或嘲笑对方队伍。通过整个辩论时间都要保持参与，记笔记。即使你是第一发言人，可能不再发言，你仍然可能需要向对手提问。请记住，你从其他演讲者那里学到了很多，这将帮助你在下一轮辩论中表现更好。
When it is your time to speak, gather your notes and walk with confidence to the place where you will speak. Place your notes on the table or lectern. Look at the audience, take a deep breath and begin your speech with confidence. Maintain good posture. If you can't read your notes, bring them up to you. Do not block your face with your notes. If you can explain your ideas without looking at the notes, put them down, and use your hands to gesture. 当轮到你发言时，整理好你的笔记，充满信心地走向你将要演讲的地方。把你的笔记放在桌子或讲台上。看着观众，深呼吸，充满信心地开始演讲。保持良好的姿势。如果你无法阅读你的笔记，把它们举到你面前。不要用笔记挡住你的脸。如果你能够不看笔记就解释你的想法，把它们放下，用手势表达。
Body Control 身体控制
You should try to have good body control. This means to balance your weight on both feet. Sometimes when people get nervous they shift their weight from leg to leg or even move their feet back and forth. This is called "happy feet" and it undermines your credibility. Also avoid extra movement of your body or your hands. If you move your hands too much as if you are "talking of your hands," it usually communicates nervousness and causes distraction. 你应该努力保持良好的身体控制。这意味着要在两只脚上保持平衡。有时候人们紧张时会把体重从一条腿移到另一条腿，甚至来回移动脚。这被称为“快乐的脚”，会削弱你的可信度。还要避免身体或手部的额外动作。如果你过分地挥动手臂，就好像在“说话的手臂”，通常会传达紧张感并引起分心。
Gestures 手势
Gestures do not have to be dramatic. Smooth and flowing gestures just in front of your body can be more effective. You need to use your hands to help you to make a point. Do not gesture below 手势不必夸张。在身体前方平稳流畅的手势可能更有效。您需要用手来帮助您阐明观点。不要在腰部以下做手势
your waist, which is called "flick gesture." Gesturing with both hands below your waist makes you look like a penguin. ，这被称为“挥手手势”。双手在腰部以下做手势会让您看起来像一只企鹅。
Eye Contact 眼神交流
Having proper direct eye contact helps the speaker to communicate better. Initially, it may take some practice for you to become confident enough to look people directly in the eyes, but it makes a statement of your confidence. It shows you are establishing rapport with the audience and you are making a connection. Your eyes should be either looking at notes or looking at people in the eyes. You should try to give a complete thought (a sentence or two) to one person before moving on with the next idea to another person. You should make sure to look at everyone in the audience at some point during the speech. 保持适当的直接眼神交流有助于讲话者更好地沟通。最初，你可能需要练习一段时间才能足够自信地直视他人的眼睛，但这表明了你的自信。这表明你正在与观众建立融洽关系，你正在建立联系。你的眼睛应该要么看笔记，要么直视他人的眼睛。在转移到下一个想法之前，你应该尝试向一个人表达完整的想法（一两句话）。你应该确保在演讲过程中的某个时刻看向观众中的每个人。
Having good eye contact allows you to check if your message is getting through. If you look at the judge or audience and see confusion, then you may need to clarify. If the judge is taking notes, you are probably making sense. 保持良好的眼神交流可以让你检查你的信息是否被理解。如果你看到评委或观众感到困惑，那么你可能需要澄清。如果评委在做笔记，你可能在表达清楚。
Facial Expressions 面部表情
This section finishes with the need to understand the importance of facial expressions. The eyes work with the face to convey meaning. You can easily prove this to yourself with a little experiment (done best with a partner): With a big smile on your face, say loudly, "I am so happy!" Now put a big frown on your face and try to say the same thing. Notice that the muscles in your face change the tone and it doesn't sound very happy. Smiling is an important emotional communicator. 这一部分结束时需要理解面部表情的重要性。眼睛与脸部合作传达意义。你可以通过一个小实验轻松证明这一点（最好和搭档一起进行）：脸上挂着灿烂的微笑，大声说：“我很开心！”现在皱起大大的眉头，试着说同样的话。注意到你脸上的肌肉会改变语气，听起来并不是很开心。微笑是一种重要的情感传达方式。
Conclusion 结论
Developing a winning delivery style takes practice. So, whenever you are giving your speeches, either in individual practice or in the classroom, you should try to develop a good style. In every speech you should try to bring the words to life in an enthusiastic and genuine manner. Oral communication is a complete package 发展一个成功的演讲风格需要练习。因此，无论是在个人练习还是在课堂上演讲时，你都应该努力发展一个好的风格。在每次演讲中，你都应该以热情和真诚的方式让文字栩栩如生。口头交流是一个完整的包裹。
where you use all your available abilities to get your message across and persuade the audience. 在这里，你要利用所有可用的能力来传达你的信息并说服观众。
Activities 活动
The way you say your words changes the meaning. Here is a sentence: "There are 10 ways to read this sentence." Say it in 10 different ways. Change the way each time and list what meaning you have. For example: There are 10 ways to read this sentence?-Ten and only 10 ? Why not 11 ? 说话的方式改变了意义。这里有一个句子："有 10 种方法来阅读这个句子。" 以 10 种不同的方式说出来。每次改变方式，并列出你得到的意义。例如：有 10 种方法来阅读这个句子？- 十个，只有十个？为什么不是十一个？
Get an article from China Daily. Read the first paragraph of the article in a monotone with no vocal expressions. Then read the rest of the article, this time bringing the words to life with changes in tone, speed and loudness. Write comments on what meaning changes from the first paragraph to the rest of the article. 从《中国日报》获取一篇文章。以单调的语调读文章的第一段，没有声音表达。然后读完整篇文章，这次通过改变语调、速度和音量让文字生动起来。写下从第一段到整篇文章意义变化的评论。
Find a good piece of literature (a passage from a short story, a poem, etc.). Read the words and bring them to life. Express the words with meaning. Look for places for appropriate gestures. Practice this several times until you think you convey the meaning you want. 找一篇优秀的文学作品（短篇小说的片段，诗歌等）。读出文字，让它们生动起来。用意义表达文字。寻找适当的手势位置。练习几次，直到你认为传达了你想要的意义。
Impromptu and extemporaneous speeches are used as tools to develop the abilities of debaters to speak well "on their feet," which are indispensable in debating. These speeches are different from prepared speeches that are written out word for word and recited or read out from a manuscript. In the case of impromptu and extemporaneous speeches, you will use only a few notes and you won't memorize and recite the speech word for word. 即兴演讲和即兴演说被用作培养辩论者在辩论中能够熟练表达的能力的工具。这些演讲与逐字逐句书写并从手稿中背诵或朗读的准备好的演讲不同。在即兴演讲和即兴演说的情况下，您只会使用一些笔记，不会逐字背诵和朗读演讲。
Impromptu speaking (also called spontaneous speaking) allows for very little preparation time. In speech competitions students are given a topic and have a specified time limit (usually around seven minutes) to prepare and deliver the speech. While most speakers prepare for two minutes and speak for five minutes, some students think for just one minute and then speak for six minutes. Topics usually are quotations, for example, "What a delight it is to have friends come afar." Sometimes, a single word, or an object can be given as something to speak about. This type of speech uses a wide variety of examples from history, philosophy, and literature to movies, sports, and pop culture. Little preparation time only allows you to put a few words on a note card or a simple outline from which to speak. 即兴演讲（也称为即兴演说）几乎没有准备时间。在演讲比赛中，学生会得到一个主题，并有规定的时间限制（通常约七分钟）来准备并发表演讲。大多数演讲者准备两分钟，演讲五分钟，但有些学生只想一分钟，然后演讲六分钟。主题通常是引语，例如，“朋友从远方来，是一种多么美好的事情。”有时，也可能给出一个单词或一个物体作为演讲的话题。这种类型的演讲会使用从历史、哲学和文学到电影、体育和流行文化的各种例子。很少的准备时间只能让你在便签卡上写下几个词或简单的提纲来演讲。
Extemporaneous speaking usually allows for a longer preparation time. In competitions, students in the US are allowed 30 minutes to prepare a sevenminute speech. These speeches are usually based on questions about current events, i.e. "What should be done to reduce air pollution?" Students are allowed to refer to research materials and are required to cite their sources during the speech. They can bring research files and once they receive their topic, they search their files and write an outline. Since the speech is not to be written out word for word, note cards are used to write down the outline, key words, or any sources and statistics. 即兴演讲通常允许更长的准备时间。在美国的比赛中，学生被允许有30分钟的时间准备一篇七分钟的演讲。这些演讲通常基于有关时事的问题，例如“应该采取什么措施来减少空气污染？”学生可以参考研究资料，并在演讲中引用他们的来源。他们可以带着研究文件，一旦得到话题，就搜索文件并写出大纲。由于演讲不需要逐字逐句地写出，所以会使用笔记卡来写下大纲、关键词或任何来源和统计数据。
Both impromptu speaking and extemporaneous speaking develop critical thinking and oral communication skills. This type of speaking, without a manuscript, is an excellent way to practice fluency and quick thinking. Both speech types follow a linear organizational model that is often referred to as argumentative. In other words, you should take a position on the topic and then support that position with arguments in your speech. This organizational model is sometimes referred to as an "instant organizational technique" because with practice you would be able to quickly analyze a topic and clearly explain your thinking to the audience. 即兴演讲和即兴演讲都培养了批判性思维和口头沟通能力。这种演讲方式，没有手稿，是练习流利和快速思考的绝佳方式。这两种演讲类型遵循一个通常被称为辩证的线性组织模型。换句话说，你应该在话题上表明立场，然后在演讲中用论据支持这个立场。这种组织模型有时被称为“即时组织技术”，因为通过练习，你能够快速分析一个话题，并清晰地向观众解释你的思维。
Impromptu speeches use broader examples for proof, while in the extemporaneous speeches more details and evidence are required. Here is how the model works with each type: 即兴演讲使用更广泛的例证作为证据，而即兴演讲需要更多的细节和证据。以下是每种类型的工作模式：
Impromptu Speaking Model 即兴演讲模型
Introduction. In the introduction you should try to get the attention and interest of the audience. First impressions are important, so you need to establish your credibility with a relevant and clear introduction, delivered with confidence and enthusiasm. Often an example from daily life, the news, or something with which the audience is familiar is a good start for your speech. Some introductions may use a piece of literature or statistics. You should strive to engage your audience quickly within the first 30 seconds. 介绍。在介绍中，您应该努力吸引观众的注意和兴趣。第一印象很重要，因此您需要以相关和清晰的介绍来建立自己的信誉，要自信和热情地表达。通常，来自日常生活、新闻或观众熟悉的事物的例子是演讲的好开端。有些介绍可能会使用一部文学作品或统计数据。您应该在最初的 30 秒内迅速吸引观众。
State the topic. Immediately after the introduction let the audience know the specific wording of the topic. 陈述主题。在介绍之后立即让观众知道主题的具体措辞。
Provide a thesis statement. This consists of taking a position and making an argument: 提供论文声明。这包括表明立场并提出论点：
Taking a position. You should let the audience know the argumentative position you are taking on the topic. Do you agree or disagree with the topic? Do you think the topic is valid or not? 表明立场。您应该让观众知道您在该主题上持什么样的立场。您同意还是不同意这个主题？您认为这个主题是否有效？
Making an argument. State clearly why you hold your position. We call this an 提出论点。清楚地说明您持有立场的原因。我们称之为
overarching argument. You might say something like "This quotation is valid because..." and then let the audience know your thinking. This overarching argument may be several sentences wherein you give your reasons "why" the topic is analyzed the way you want to analyze it. If the topic is a single word or object, you need to come up with an argument about what you want to say that is relevant to the topic. This portion of the speech usually takes less than 20 seconds. 全面的论点。您可以说类似于“这个引语是有效的，因为…”，然后让观众知道您的想法。这个全面的论点可能是几个句子，您在其中阐述您认为该主题被分析的原因。如果主题是一个单词或对象，您需要提出一个关于您想要表达的与主题相关的论点。演讲的这部分通常不超过 20 秒。
Provide a preview. List the main points that you will use to support your overarching argument. You do not need to provide too much information here. Just let the audience know what your main points will be. It might help to use signposting by numbering each of your main points, i.e. "My first point is ...; my second point is ...; my third point is ..." 提供一个预览。列出您将用来支持整体论点的主要观点。您不需要在这里提供太多信息。只需让观众知道您的主要观点是什么。可能会有所帮助，通过对每个主要观点进行编号来使用路标，即“我的第一个观点是...;我的第二个观点是...;我的第三个观点是...”
Elaborate on the body of the speech. The body should be about of the speech and should provide the details and arguments that support your thesis statement. Each point can use supporting examples, statistics, theories, testimonials, logic, or other types of evidence for proof. Argumentation in the body of the speech is generally presented with two to five main points. Beginners usually find three main points allow them to provide enough support for their thesis statement. Each main point lasts approximately one minute. 详细阐述演讲的主体部分。主体部分应占演讲的约 ，并应提供支持您论文声明的详细信息和论据。每个观点可以使用支持性例子、统计数据、理论、证词、逻辑或其他类型的证据来证明。演讲主体中的论证通常以两到五个主要观点呈现。初学者通常发现三个主要观点足以为其论文声明提供足够的支持。每个主要观点大约持续一分钟。
Summarize the speech. After the elaboration on the body, you should restate (in the past tense) your topic, thesis statement and preview. For example, "Today, we have found that the quotation is valid because... We supported this with main point one, main point two, and main point three." 总结演讲。在对主体部分进行详细阐述之后，您应该重新陈述（用过去时态）您的主题、论文声明和预览。例如，“今天，我们发现引文是有效的，因为...我们用主要观点一、主要观点二和主要观点三来支持这一点。”
Conclude. Finish your speech in a confident manner and remind your audience about the introduction. This is why it is important to have a specific and relevant introduction so you can refer to it during your conclusion. 总结。以自信的方式结束演讲，并提醒听众关于引言部分。这就是为什么有一个具体和相关的引言部分很重要，这样你在结束时可以参考它。
An outline of impromptu speaking model looks like this: 即兴演讲模型的大纲如下：
Extemporaneous Speaking Model 即兴演讲模型
While the extemporaneous speaking model is similar to that of impromptu speaking, more depth in your argument is required. Since the topic will usually be a question about current events, it is important to be accurate and relevant with your evidence. 尽管即兴演讲模式与即兴演讲类似，但需要更深入的论证。由于主题通常是关于当前事件的问题，因此重要的是要准确和相关地提供证据。
Introduction. The introduction should be directly relevant to the topic. You may get the attention and interest of the audience in a creative way or get straight down to the topic with a statement of the current situation. Once again, first impressions are important. Let the audience know that you have done your research and understood the issue. Many times speakers will use evidence to 介绍。介绍应直接与主题相关。您可以以创造性的方式引起听众的注意和兴趣，或者直接陈述当前情况。再次强调，第一印象很重要。让听众知道您已经做了研究并理解了问题。许多时候，演讲者会使用证据来
establish the significance of or the question about the issue. However you should use no more than one minute to introduce the topic. 证明问题的重要性或问题。然而，您应该用不超过一分钟来介绍主题。
State the topic. Be sure to tell your audience the exact wording of the topic. Sometimes, the topic will be in the form of a question, such as: "What should China do about air pollution?" 陈述主题。务必告诉您的听众主题的确切措辞。有时，主题将以问题的形式出现，例如：“中国应该如何处理空气污染？”
Provide a thesis statement. After stating the topic you must provide your position and explain why you take this position. For the topic above, you could answer: "China must take a stronger position on green energy because the damage done needs new technology." It is this overarching answer that you will justify with the arguments in the body of your speech. 提供论文声明。在陈述主题之后，您必须提供您的立场并解释为什么采取这个立场。对于上面的主题，您可以回答：“中国必须在绿色能源上采取更强硬的立场，因为造成的破坏需要新技术。” 就是这个全面的答案，您将用演讲正文中的论点来证明。
Provide a preview. Just like the impromptu speech you should list the main points that you will use to support your overarching argument. Let the audience know what your main points will be briefly. It might help to signpost each main point. 提供预览。就像即兴演讲一样，您应该列出将用来支持您的全面论点的主要观点。让听众简要了解您的主要观点将是什么。可能有助于为每个主要观点做标记。
Elaborate on the body of the speech. Like the impromptu speech the body should be of your speech. You need to provide evidence to support your position. In each of the main points you will need several arguments to illustrate your point. You can organize the speech as a persuasive speech where you analyze the problem, cause, and solution. Or you can organize the speech in an informative way to educate the audience about the issue by discussing the major subtopics under the overall topic. In Chapter 3 we have discussed how arguments are constructed using claim-data-warrant. You will need to construct a series of arguments in your speech. You will need to make claims (your main points and subpoints). You will need to provide warrants (your analysis of why the argument helps to answer the question). You will need to provide data (evidence to support your claims and warrant). Don't read the evidence word for word. Instead you need to paraphrase the information. When you use some evidence from other sources, you need to tell the audience the publication information. This is called a source citation. For example, if you found some data from China 详细阐述演讲的主体部分。就像即兴演讲一样，主体部分应该是你演讲的 。你需要提供证据来支持你的立场。在每个主要观点中，你需要几个论点来阐明你的观点。你可以将演讲组织成一场说服性演讲，分析问题、原因和解决方案。或者你可以以信息性的方式组织演讲，通过讨论整体主题下的主要子主题来教育听众。在第三章中，我们已经讨论了如何使用主张-数据-保证构建论点。你需要在演讲中构建一系列论点。你需要提出主张（你的主要观点和次要观点）。你需要提供保证（你分析为什么这个论点有助于回答问题）。你需要提供数据（证据来支持你的主张和保证）。不要逐字阅读证据。相反，你需要用自己的话重新表述信息。当你使用其他来源的一些证据时，你需要告诉听众出版信息。这被称为来源引用。例如，如果你从中国找到了一些数据。
Daily, tell the audience "According to China Daily on March 5..." Usually, each main point will have at least three to five subpoints with claims, warrants and data. 每天，告诉观众“根据 3 月 5 日的《中国日报》报道…” 通常，每个主要观点都会有至少三到五个带有主张、理由和数据的子观点。
Summarize. In the past tense, you need to pose the question, along with the answer you have provided and the main supporting arguments you have offered. 总结。过去时态中，您需要提出问题，以及您提供的答案和您提供的主要支持论点。
Conclude. Refer back to the introduction as a way to show the completeness of your argument. 总结。回顾引言，以展示您论点的完整性。
Here is how the outline of an extemporaneous speech looks like: 这是即兴演讲提纲的样子：
Introduction 引言
Topic statement 主题陈述
Thesis statement 论文声明
I. Your position on the topic 一. 你对话题的立场
II. Overarching argument 二. 全面的论点
Preview of main points 主要要点预览
I. Heading of main point one I. 主要要点一的标题
II. Heading of main point two II. 主要要点二的标题
III. Heading of main point three 三、主要观点三的标题
Body 正文
I. Main point one (supporting argument) 一、主要观点一（支持论点）
A. Supporting evidence (claim-data-warrant) A. 支持证据（主张-数据-保证）
B. Supporting evidence (claim-data-warrant) B. 支持证据（主张-数据-保证）
C. Supporting evidence (claim-data-warrant) C. 支持证据（主张-数据-保证）
II. Main point two (supporting argument) 二、主要观点二（支持论点）
A. Supporting evidence (claim-data-warrant) A. 支持证据（主张-数据-保证）
B. Supporting evidence (claim-data-warrant) B. 支持证据（主张-数据-保证）
C. Supporting evidence (claim-data-warrant) C. 支持证据（主张-数据-保证）
III. Main point three (supporting argument) III. 主要观点三（支持论点）
A. Supporting evidence (claim-data-warrant) A. 支持证据（主张-数据-保证）
Practicing 练习
Both styles of speaking are ways to help you to develop as a better thinker and a better speaker. You can practice these speeches with a partner or alone. Giving impromptu and extemporaneous speeches by yourself provides you with an opportunity to think about what to say, organize your thoughts, and then explain your thoughts without the common anxiety you might experience when speaking in front of the audience. The more you practice, the better you will become at thinking, organizing your thoughts, and speaking meaningfully on your feet. Your delivery will also develop at the same time, making your speech more effective. 说话的两种风格都是帮助您成为更好的思考者和更好的演讲者的方式。您可以与伙伴或独自练习这些演讲。独自进行即兴和即席演讲为您提供了一个思考要说什么、组织思维，然后在没有常见焦虑的情况下解释您的想法的机会，这种焦虑可能在面对观众讲话时会经历。您练习得越多，您在思考、组织思维和即兴演讲方面就会变得更好。您的表达能力也会同时得到发展，使您的演讲更加有效。
Assessment 评估
Part of learning to be a better speaker and a better thinker is to be a critical listener. When other students are speaking you need to be able to make effective evaluation of what you have just heard. When providing your critique you should be able to provide reasons why the speech is good and what needs to improve. Here is a checklist to help you to determine the quality of an extemporaneous speech. Impromptu speech assessment is similar but do not need to consider cited evidence. 学习成为更好的演讲者和更好的思考者，其中一个部分就是成为一个有批判性的倾听者。当其他学生在演讲时，你需要能够对刚刚听到的内容进行有效的评价。在提供你的评论时，你应该能够说明演讲为什么好以及需要改进的地方。以下是一个检查表，可以帮助你确定即兴演讲的质量。即兴演讲评估类似，但不需要考虑引用的证据。
Speeches should be between six to eight minutes long. (Preparation time included in impromptu speech.) 演讲应该在六到八分钟之间。（即兴演讲包括准备时间。）
Speeches should follow the linear organizational model. 演讲应该遵循线性组织模型。
Introduction should gather the attention and interest of the audience. 简介应该吸引观众的注意和兴趣。
Topic should concern relevant and significant aspects of the topic area. 主题应该涉及到与主题领域相关和重要的方面。
Thesis statement should be clear. 论文声明应该清晰明了。
Preview and summary should be accurate. 预览和摘要应准确无误。
Speech needs to have logical proof for all claims. 演讲需要对所有主张进行逻辑证明。
Proof should be paraphrased. 证据应该进行释义。
Source citations need to be given for all proof. 所有证据都需要提供来源引用。
Delivery should exhibit appropriateness for the situation. 交付物应该展现出与情况相适应的特点。
Genuine and enthusiastic manner. 真诚而热情的态度。
Good vocal variety. 良好的声音变化。
Good body control. 良好的身体控制。
Good use of gestures. 善于运用手势。
Direct eye contact to the audience. 直接与观众进行眼神交流。
Good use of notes (3" card, no excessive reading, key words only). 善于使用笔记（3" 卡片，不要过度阅读，只写关键词）。
Conclusion 结论
Impromptu and extemporaneous speaking are excellent activities to develop your thinking and speaking abilities. They both use a linear organizational model which helps you to keep your arguments clear and make your thinking quicker. 即兴演讲和即兴演讲是培养思维和演讲能力的绝佳活动。它们都使用线性组织模型，帮助您保持论点清晰，加快思维速度。
Activities 活动
Find some quotations you like. Write down why you think the quotation is true or valid. Think of at least three supporting arguments. 找一些你喜欢的引语。写下你认为这句引语为什么正确或有效的理由。想出至少三个支持性论点。
Here are some quotations to get you started: 这里有一些引语，让你开始：
No pain, no gain. 没有付出，就没有收获。
A picture is worth a thousand words. 一图胜千言。
A man should not travel afar while his parents are still alive. 父母在，不远游。
If at first you don't succeed, try, try again. 失败乃成功之母。
Actions speak louder than words. 事实胜于雄辩。
Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. 己所不欲，勿施于人。
Effort is more important than brains. 努力比聪明更重要。
Women hold up half of the sky. 妇女能顶半边天。
Failure is the mother of success. 失败乃成功之母。
There should be education for everyone without distinction. 人人皆应接受教育，不分贵贱。
Skill wins over noble birth. 技术胜过贵族出身。
Practice giving impromptu speeches. Choose a topic and give an impromptu speech using the linear model. Do not worry about the time limits. Take as long as you want to prepare and speak. 练习即兴演讲。选择一个话题，使用线性模型进行即兴演讲。不用担心时间限制。尽情准备和演讲。
Pick a fresh topic and try to prepare for two minutes and speak for five minutes. Practice with a partner who can help you to measure the time and give you comments until you are confident you can do it alone. 选择一个新鲜话题，尝试准备两分钟，演讲五分钟。与一个可以帮助你计时并给予意见的伙伴一起练习，直到你有信心可以独立完成。
Read the editorial or opinion page of a newspaper. Find an article that discusses a problem, cause, and solution. Practice using source citations by saying "According to..." and give the publication information. Also practice paraphrasing by explaining the evidence in your own words. Be prepared to discuss your article in class. 阅读报纸的社论或观点页面。找一篇讨论问题、原因和解决方案的文章。练习使用来源引用，说“根据...”，并给出出版信息。还要练习解释证据的释义。准备好在课堂上讨论你的文章。
Read at least five articles on the same topic to find additional supporting evidence for the article in Activity 4. Or, find evidence on the other side of the controversy. 阅读至少五篇关于同一主题的文章，为活动 4 中的文章寻找额外的支持证据。或者，寻找有关争议另一方面的证据。
Prepare an extemporaneous speech on the topic: "What should we do about...?" Use a simple structure such as problem-causesolution. Prepare as long as you like and speak as long as you like. Once you have practiced with this technique on several different topics, give each speech again, making sure the time is between six to eight minutes. Be sure to use the winning delivery skills you have learned in Chapter 4. 就主题“我们应该怎么做…”准备即兴演讲。使用简单的结构，比如问题-原因-解决方案。准备多长时间以及演讲多长时间都没关系。一旦你用这种技巧练习了几个不同的主题，再次进行每次演讲，确保时间在六到八分钟之间。一定要运用你在第 4 章学到的获胜的表达技巧。
Chapter Appendix 1 附录 1
An Example of Impromptu Speech 即兴演讲的示例
Topic question: A man should not travel afar while his parents are still alive.-Confucius. 主题问题：孔子说：一个人在父母健在时不应远行。
Introduction: 简介：
I really enjoy traveling - the excitement of meeting new people, trying new foods, and seeing new sights. But it wasn't always as enjoyable to travel. Twenty-five hundred years ago, in the days of Confucius, longdistance travel usually meant months and years away from home and loved ones. If something went wrong, it would be a long time before the traveler could return. 我非常喜欢旅行 - 结识新朋友、尝试新食物和看到新景点的兴奋。但旅行并不总是那么令人愉快。两千五百年前，在孔子时代，长途旅行通常意味着离家和亲人数月甚至数年。如果出了什么问题，旅行者要很久才能回家。
Topic: 主题：
For this reason, Confucius warned: A man should not travel afar while his parents are still alive. 因此，孔子警告说：父母尚在世时，人不应远行。
Position and overarching argument: 立场和总体论点：
I have often traveled to China from my home in California and my 92-yearold father, so I wonder if this quotation has any validity for us today. I will argue this quotation no longer applies to us. Although it may have been 我经常从加利福尼亚的家乡去中国旅行，还有我 92 岁的父亲，所以我想知道这个引语对我们今天是否仍然有效。我会认为这个引语不再适用于我们。尽管它可能曾经是我们祖先的坚实指导，但技术已经改变了我们今天的旅行和交流方式。
solid guidance for our ancestors, technology has changed the way we travel and communicate today. 技术已经改变了我们今天的旅行和交流方式。
Preview: 预览：
In order to support this position of change, first I will talk about telephone communication, then the Internet and finally, jet transportation. 为了支持这种变革的立场，首先我将谈论电话通信，然后是互联网，最后是喷气式交通。
Main point one: 主要观点一：
In the days of Confucius getting a message home was difficult. But, nowadays almost everyone has a cellphone. In fact, China has over 500 million cellphone users. So now anyone in the country can phone home whenever they want. Text messaging may be even more convenient. It is easy to type out a message so another person can read it even without having to say anything. I am sure that if my family needed to reach me they would be able to do so any time. So not only could I know if there was an emergency, I can also make a call any time I just want to catch up. 在孔子时代，传递信息回家很困难。但是，如今几乎每个人都有手机。事实上，中国有超过 5 亿手机用户。因此，现在国内任何人都可以随时打电话回家。短信可能更方便。很容易输入一条消息，这样另一个人甚至不用说话也能读到。我相信，如果我家人需要联系我，他们随时都能做到。因此，不仅我可以知道是否有紧急情况，我也可以随时打电话，只是想聊聊天。
Cellphones make it so easy to stay in touch, so I can travel with confidence. Another technology even enables me to communicate without paying for a call and perhaps even communicate with millions at the same time. Of course, this technology is the Internet. 手机使保持联系变得如此简单，因此我可以自信地旅行。另一项技术甚至使我能够在不支付通话费的情况下进行沟通，甚至可能与数百万人进行沟通。当然，这项技术就是互联网。
Main point two: 主要观点二：
Email has made it so that I can send a longer message to several people at the same time. This way I can write a letter to my father and send it at when my father may still be sleeping in California. When he wakes up he can read my letter. I really enjoy writing reports with photos about my latest travels and sending to my father or dozens of friends so they can know about my latest experiences. The Internet has other broader opportunities. I can set up a blog and let other people read and respond to my writing. New communication technology like twitter allows people to use the Internet to communicate on their cellphones or through their 电子邮件使我能够向多人发送更长的消息。这样，我可以给我父亲写信，并在他可能仍在加利福尼亚睡觉时发送。当他醒来时，他可以阅读我的信。我真的很喜欢写带有最新旅行照片的报告，并发送给我父亲或数十个朋友，这样他们就可以了解我最新的经历。互联网还有其他更广泛的机会。我可以建立一个博客，让其他人阅读并回应我的文字。像推特这样的新通信技术允许人们使用互联网通过他们的手机或通过他们的进行沟通。
laptops. In this way people can keep up with short messages that literally can be sent to millions of people. 笔记本电脑。这样，人们可以随时跟上可以发送给数百万人的简短消息。
I don't have to worry about traveling because the Internet allows me to make quick and extensive messages. But what happens if something is wrong and I need to travel back to Los Angeles? 我不必担心旅行，因为互联网让我能够快速地发送广泛的消息。但是如果出了问题，我需要返回洛杉矶怎么办？
Main point three: 主要观点三：
In ancient days it would take weeks to travel back home if you found out there was a problem. But, now, traveling to the next village can be as simple as getting on a bus. And if I would need to travel across the ocean, modern jet transportation makes it easy. In fact, you may not know this-If there was an emergency often airlines would make special accommodations to be sure you can get on a flight, and you may even get special pricing. So, if I needed to go home quickly, I could be able to make it home in less than a day. 在古代，如果发现有问题，回家可能需要数周的时间。但是现在，前往下一个村庄可能只需要坐公交车就可以了。而且，如果需要跨越海洋旅行，现代喷气式交通工具使得旅行变得轻松。事实上，你可能不知道-如果有紧急情况，航空公司通常会提供特殊安排，确保你能搭乘航班，甚至可能享受特别价格。因此，如果我需要迅速回家，我可能能在不到一天的时间内回到家中。
Summary: 摘要：
Today we have found that Confucius may have been accurate for his time and that a man should not travel afar while his parents are still alive. But today, telephones, the Internet and jet transportation have changed things so we can travel with confidence. 今天我们发现，孔子的观点也许在他的时代是正确的，即一个人在父母仍在世时不应远行。但是今天，电话、互联网和喷气式交通工具已经改变了这一切，使我们可以自信地旅行。
Conclusion: 结论：
So whenever I travel I don't worry about leaving my father. I know if there was an emergency I would be able to respond. And if there was no emergency I know that he would like to hear the stories of the foods I eat, the sights I see, and the new friends I meet. 所以每当我旅行时，我不担心离开我的父亲。我知道如果有紧急情况，我能够应对。如果没有紧急情况，我知道他会喜欢听我吃的食物、看到的景色和结识的新朋友的故事。
Chapter Appendix 2 附录 2 章
An Example of Extemporaneous Speech 即兴演讲示例
Topic question: What should California do about its prison overcrowding crisis? 话题问题：加利福尼亚应该如何应对监狱过度拥挤危机？
Introduction: 简介：
For the state of California, 2009 was a very bad year. As the Los Angeles Times reported on June 3,2009 , the state must cut billion dollars to be able to balance its state budget. This problem was made worse with a court decision from the federal government earlier in the year. The court decided that prisons in California were so overcrowded that tens of thousands of prisoners needed to be released. As the Advertiser from Australia wrote on February 11, 2009, the court decision reported the overcrowding was so bad that it violated the rights of the prisoners. Since California cannot afford to build new facilities it is important for us to ask the question: 对于加利福尼亚州来说，2009 年是一个非常糟糕的一年。正如洛杉矶时报在 2009 年 6 月 3 日报道的那样，该州必须削减数十亿美元才能平衡其州预算。这个问题在年初联邦政府的一项法院裁决之后变得更加严重。法院裁定加利福尼亚的监狱过度拥挤，成千上万的囚犯需要被释放。正如澳大利亚的广告商在 2009 年 2 月 11 日写道，法院的裁决称监狱的过度拥挤严重到侵犯了囚犯的权利。由于加利福尼亚无法负担修建新设施，我们有必要提出一个问题：
Topic: 主题：
What should California do about its prison overcrowding crisis? 加利福尼亚应该如何应对监狱过度拥挤危机？
Position and overarching argument: 立场和总体论点:
This crisis has come about because tough laws are misguided and need to be changed. Therefore, in order to solve this problem, in the long term, California will have to take on measures to drastically reform its criminal justice system. 这一危机的发生是因为严厉的法律是错误的，需要改变。因此，为了解决这个问题，从长远来看，加利福尼亚州将不得不采取措施，彻底改革其刑事司法系统。
Preview: 预览：
In order to justify this position I will first, discuss the nature of the problem. Second, I will explain the causes of the problem. Third, I will explore the various solutions. 为了证明这个立场，我将首先讨论问题的性质。其次，我将解释问题的原因。第三，我将探讨各种解决方案。
Main peint one: 主要观点一：
In order to fully understand this problem, let's look first, to the scope of the problem, second, to the health issues and third, to the human rights abuses. 为了充分理解这个问题，让我们首先看问题的范围，其次是健康问题，第三是人权虐待。
California is the most overcrowded of all state prison systems. According to The New York Times on February 11,2009, the cells are all full and now bunks are stacked three deep and set up in gymnasiums which were not designed for sleeping. The LA Times reported on February 12, 2009 that the system was designed to hold 84,000 inmates, but now 158,000 prisoners are incarcerated. 加利福尼亚州是所有州监狱系统中最过度拥挤的。根据 2009 年 2 月 11 日《纽约时报》的报道，牢房已经全部满员，现在铺位已经堆叠成三层，并设置在原本不是用来睡觉的体育馆里。2009 年 2 月 12 日《洛杉矶时报》报道称，该系统原本设计可容纳 84,000 名囚犯，但现在有 158,000 名囚犯被监禁。
The medical conditions have deteriorated greatly. Berkeley Law Professor Franklin Zimring wrote in the LA Times on October 25, 2008 that the prisons themselves have become dungeons. The result has been a need for billion in spending to bring the medical facilities to adequate levels. As The Irish Times claimed on February 11, 2009 there is a great risk of infectious disease. As The Lancet reported on March 6, 2009, 64 prisoners died last year from a system that, at times, is outright depravity. 医疗条件已经急剧恶化。伯克利法学教授弗兰克林·齐姆林格（Franklin Zimring）在 2008 年 10 月 25 日《洛杉矶时报》上写道，监狱本身已经变成了地牢。结果是需要 十亿美元的支出来将医疗设施提升到适当水平。正如《爱尔兰时报》2009 年 2 月 11 日所称，存在感染疾病的巨大风险。正如《柳叶刀》2009 年 3 月 6 日报道的，去年有 64 名囚犯死于有时是彻头彻尾的堕落的系统。
All of these add up to a violation of the rights of the prisoners. The NY Times on February 14 quoted the Federal Court decision against California that the state had violated the constitutional rights of the prisoners. The 8th Amendment of the US Constitution forbids the use of "cruel and unusual punishment." The courts have long held that overcrowding is not acceptable. 所有这些加起来构成了对囚犯权利的侵犯。《纽约时报》2 月 14 日援引了联邦法院针对加利福尼亚的裁决，指出该州侵犯了囚犯的宪法权利。美国宪法第八修正案禁止使用“残忍和不寻常的惩罚”。法院长期以来一直认为拥挤是不可接受的。
Now that we know the scope of this problem has put prisoner at health risk and violated their constitutionally guaranteed rights let's find out how California got into this mess. 现在我们知道这个问题的范围已经让囚犯面临健康风险，并侵犯了他们在宪法中被保障的权利，让我们找出加利福尼亚是如何陷入这种困境的。
Main poincine: 主要观点：
Politicians in California trying to get reelected have passed a series of laws so they can look "tough on crime." Laws such as three strikes, mandatory minimum sentencing, and high parole standards have led to high costs. 加利福尼亚的政客们为了连任而通过了一系列法律，以便显得“对犯罪严厉”。 三罢法、强制最低刑期和高假释标准等法律导致了高昂的成本。
Three strikes laws mean that if a criminal has committed a third felony the prisoner will go to jail for 25 years. It might only be a minor offense that would normally get only a short sentence of a few years. The NY Times of February 12, 2009 reported that the 34,000 prisoners who are in California prisons because of three strikes cost million per year. 三罢法意味着如果罪犯犯下第三项重罪，囚犯将被判入狱 25 年。 这可能只是一项本来只会被判几年徒刑的轻微犯罪。 2009 年 2 月 12 日的《纽约时报》报道称，因为三罢法而被关押在加利福尼亚监狱的 3.4 万名囚犯每年造成了 百万美元的费用。
Mandatory minimum sentencing requires drug offenders with a certain amount of drugs to be sentenced without any judge discretion or reduction. This means that prisoners will go to jail for many years without parole, sometimes on a first offense. 强制最低刑期要求毒品犯持有一定数量的毒品将被判刑，没有法官的裁量权或减刑。 这意味着囚犯将在狱中度过多年，没有假释，有时甚至是在第一次犯罪时。
Parole itself is another cause. Usually, when someone gets out of prison they are paroled in California. This means a minor parole violation will put the criminal back in prison. California paroles of their prisoners. The NY Times February 22, 2009 compares this with an for the rest of the states. No wonder the article documented that 70,000 prisoners are in prison for parole violations. 假释本身是另一个原因。通常，当有人从监狱释放出来时，他们会在加利福尼亚获得假释。这意味着即使是轻微的假释违规也会让罪犯重新入狱。加利福尼亚对他们的囚犯实行假释。2009 年 2 月 22 日的《纽约时报》将这一情况与其他州进行了比较。难怪文章记录称，有 7 万名囚犯因假释违规而被关押在监狱中。
All of these have led to an overcrowded and expensive system. The LA Times February 22, 2009 provided that each prisoner costs taxpayers per year. 所有这些都导致了一个拥挤且昂贵的系统。2009 年 2 月 22 日的《洛杉矶时报》提到，每名囚犯每年为纳税人造成了一定费用。
So laws like three strikes, mandatory minimums, and high parole rates have led to high costs. What can be done about it? 因此，三罢法、强制最低刑期和高假释率等法律导致了高昂的成本。对此可以采取什么措施？
Main point three: 三个主要观点：
My solutions involve both federal and state action. 我的解决方案涉及联邦和州政府的行动。
The LA Times on February 16, 2009 recommended that California take advantage of the Rapid Repeat system. With this federal program 30,000 immigrants in the California system can agree to be deported. If immigrants in the program come back to the US they are put into federal prisons and not back into the California system. 2009 年 2 月 16 日，《洛杉矶时报》建议加利福尼亚利用快速重复系统。通过这个联邦计划，加利福尼亚系统中的 3 万名移民可以同意被驱逐出境。如果该计划中的移民回到美国，他们将被送入联邦监狱，而不是重新进入加利福尼亚系统。
The state of California certainly needs to take action to reform its laws. According to the February 10, 2009 edition of The NY Times million could be saved with reforms on sentencing. 加利福尼亚州肯定需要采取行动改革其法律。根据 2009 年 2 月 10 日《纽约时报》的报道，通过对判决进行改革，可以节省 百万美元。
As ABC News reported on March 11, 2009 perhaps the most immediate reform could take place if the Governor could pardon all parole violators except those who have committed violent or sexual crimes. 正如 ABC 新闻在 2009 年 3 月 11 日报道的那样，也许最紧迫的改革可以在州长赦免所有违反假释规定的人员，除了那些犯有暴力或性犯罪的人。
Summary: 摘要:
Today we have learned about the problem with California's prison overcrowding crisis. We have seen this problem involves the health and rights of tens of thousands of prisoners. The problem has been caused by overambitious laws and therefore, our solutions must involve reform of these laws. 今天，我们已经学习了关于加利福尼亚监狱过度拥挤危机的问题。我们已经看到这个问题涉及到数以万计的囚犯的健康和权利。这个问题是由于过于雄心勃勃的法律导致的，因此，我们的解决方案必须涉及对这些法律的改革。
Conclusion: 结论:
California is faced with financial problems and has several issues to face. However, with proper reforms California will be able to lessen its prison overcrowding crisis and hopefully have a better year in 2010. 加利福尼亚面临着财政问题，并且有几个问题需要解决。然而，通过适当的改革，加利福尼亚将能够减轻其监狱过度拥挤危机，并有望在 2010 年度有一个更好的年度。
During a debate you will do much more listening than speaking. Instead of the casual listening you do in conversations, debate requires that you do critical listening. In addition to being able to understand the arguments of other debaters, you must be able to take effective notes of those arguments so you can refute them during your own speeches. If you don't refute an argument (either because you didn't understand it or you didn't write it down and could not remember it) then your opponents will win that point. This responsibility is referred to as the "burden of refutation." If a team does not respond to arguments the other team has put forth, then "silence is admission": They have failed to refute and therefore lost on those arguments. Chapter 11 will provide details on refutation. 在辩论中，你会比说话更多地倾听。与日常对话中的随意倾听不同，辩论要求你进行批判性倾听。除了能够理解其他辩手的论点外，你还必须能够有效地记录这些论点，以便在自己的发言中驳斥它们。如果你没有驳斥一个论点（要么是因为你没有理解它，要么是因为你没有记下来而无法记住），那么你的对手将赢得这一点。这种责任被称为“反驳的负担”。如果一个团队没有回应对方提出的论点，那么“沉默就是承认”：他们未能驳斥，因此在这些论点上失败了。第11章将详细介绍反驳。
It is essential for you to listen effectively to both the other team and to your partner. However, the short-term memory or working memory of the brain is not very efficient at processing a large amount of information at any given time. We usually can only remember about seven items at a time in our short-term memory. This limited capacity of processing information means that taking notes is a vital part of active listening and debating. By taking notes you can stay involved in the debate for if you lose your attention you will probably lose the debate. 有效地倾听对于你来说是至关重要的，无论是对另一个团队还是对你的搭档。然而，大脑的短期记忆或工作记忆在任何给定时间内处理大量信息的效率并不高。我们通常一次只能记住大约七个项目在我们的短期记忆中。信息处理的这种有限能力意味着记笔记是积极倾听和辩论的重要部分。通过记笔记，你可以保持参与辩论，因为如果你失去注意力，你可能会输掉辩论。
You must take good notes of what the other team is saying. You should also make a note of your own arguments before it is your turn to speak. This very specialized skill of listening can help you to develop into a better speaker and a better thinker in a second language. 你必须仔细记录另一个团队说的话。在轮到你发言之前，你还应该记下自己的论点。这种非常专业的倾听技能可以帮助你在第二语言中成为更好的演讲者和更好的思考者。
Good notes are organized, accurate, concise, complete, and understandable. They are able to help you to tell the audience, judge, and other team exactly what argument you are discussing and how your answer refutes their argument. 好的笔记是有组织的、准确的、简洁的、完整的和易懂的。它们能够帮助你告诉观众、评委和其他团队你正在讨论什么论点，以及你的回答如何驳斥他们的论点。
Flow Sheet 流程表
The notes in a debate are taken on a flow sheet. It is called a flow sheet because the paper is divided into columns equal to the number of speeches given in a round, so that notes are written next to each other and flow across the paper. A simple flow sheet would look like this: 辩论中的笔记是在流程表上记录的。它被称为流程表，因为纸张被分成与一轮中发言次数相等的列，这样笔记就可以并排书写并在纸张上流动。一个简单的流程表看起来像这样：
First Prop speaker First Opp speaker Second Prop speaker 第一正辩手 第一反辩手 第二正辩手
The environment 环境
should be sacrificed 应该被牺牲
A bad environment 一个糟糕的环境
for the economy. 为经济。
In AP debate you may only speak from the notes you have written during the preparation time and the debate. Therefore, your flow sheet is usually the only reminder of the arguments exchanged. It is important to keep your flow sheet organized. 在 AP 辩论中，你只能从准备时间和辩论中写的笔记中发言。因此，你的流程表通常是交换的论点的唯一提醒。保持你的流程表有条理是很重要的。
Each argument needs to have its own space as it goes across the flow sheet. In order to keep it organized you may want to use several pieces of paper. This will allow you enough room to keep the arguments straight. 每个论点在流程表上都需要有自己的空间。为了保持有条理，你可能需要使用几张纸。这样可以为你提供足够的空间来保持论点清晰。
For example, let's say that you are the first propositional speaker. In your preparation time you would write an outline of your case on the far left column so that you can refer to it when speaking. The preparation time is not enough for you to write out your speech word for word, so you will have to extemporize. You should outline all of the main arguments for the first speech on your flow sheet, so that when you have finished speaking you are ready to write the responses of the Opposition. The responses of the Opposition would be written in the second column. Your team's refutation would then be written in the third column and so on. 例如，假设你是第一个陈述发言者。在准备时间里，你会在最左边的列上写下你的案例大纲，这样在演讲时可以参考。准备时间不足以让你逐字逐句地写出演讲稿，所以你需要即兴发挥。你应该在流程表上概述第一次演讲的所有主要论点，这样当你演讲结束时，你就可以准备写出反对方的回应。反对方的回应会写在第二列。你团队的反驳会写在第三列，依此类推。
When the Opposition has some direct refutation, write those arguments next to your arguments. If the other team doesn't talk about one of your arguments you will want to make note of it on your flow sheet so you can point it out to the judge. 当反对方有一些直接的反驳时，将这些论点写在你的论点旁边。如果对方没有谈论你的某个论点，你会想在流程表上做个记录，这样你可以向裁判指出。
When the other team comes up with a totally new argument, such as a disadvantage against your plan, you should write this new argument on an empty space on your flow sheet or even start with a fresh piece of paper. This allows you to track arguments in their proper place to be clear and organized with your refutation. 当对方提出全新的论点，比如反对你的计划的缺点时，你应该将这个新论点写在你的流程表的空白处，甚至可以用一张新纸开始。这样可以让你清晰有序地追踪论点，以便在反驳时清晰有条理。
If the other side listed three arguments for one claim, it would be clearer to number the arguments and refer to them by number. You may even use arrows to indicate where the arguments fit on your flow sheet. 如果对方为一个主张列出了三个论点，最好对这些论点进行编号，并通过编号进行引用。你甚至可以使用箭头来指示这些论点在你的流程表上的位置。
Sometimes debate can get a bit fast, so partners may need to cooperate with each other on their flow sheets so they don't miss any arguments. 有时辩论可能会进行得很快，所以搭档可能需要在流程表上互相配合，以免漏掉任何论点。
To see how an actual flow sheet for a complete debate looks like, you can refer to the appendicies of this chapter. 要了解完整辩论流程表的实际样子，您可以参考本章的附录。
Role of Rejoinder in Flow Sheet 回应在流程表中的作用
We have already discussed the burden of proof where "those who assert must prove" and the burden of refutation where "silence is admission." To add to that knowledge we also have the burden of rejoinder. A good debate is like a table tennis match where the ball is hit back and forth. In the same way in debate we watch an argument hit back and forth as it progresses through the round. The flow sheet should reflect the exchange of ideas. When a team serves an argument, the other team needs to respond to that argument. If they do not respond they should lose that point. If they do respond, then the first team has the responsibility to provide a rejoinder or to "answer the answer." So in this case, debaters may want to remind the judge of the flow of the arguments from both sides. 我们已经讨论了“主张者必须证明”的举证责任和“沉默即默认”的反驳责任。为了增加这方面的知识，我们还有回应的责任。一场好的辩论就像一场乒乓球比赛，球来回击打。同样，在辩论中，我们看到一个论点在回合中来回打击。流程表应该反映出观点的交流。当一个团队提出一个论点时，另一个团队需要对该论点做出回应。如果他们不回应，他们应该失去那一点。如果他们回应了，那么第一个团队有责任提供一个回应或“回答回答”。因此，在这种情况下，辩手可能希望提醒法官双方的论点流程。
The flow sheet is a tool that allows the arguments to be tracked. Many judges tell debaters they will let the flow sheet speak for them. In other words, they will be objective and only consider what they note down in their decision. Judges need to stay in the round and take notes on every speech. So should you! Even if you are done speaking, keep taking notes. In AP debate, the first speaker of each team will give the rebuttal speech to complete their case. So they must stay on top of the whole debate until the end. The second speaker, though only has one chance to speak, can still raise questions (POIs) throughout the debate round, and therefore it's important to stay in and play an active role till the end. A complete flow sheet also helps when you debrief the round with your coach after the debate. 流程表是一种工具，可以追踪论点。许多裁判告诉辩手，他们会让流程表代表他们发言。换句话说，他们会客观地只考虑他们在决定中记录的内容。裁判需要留在现场并记录每次演讲。你也应该这样做！即使你讲完了，也要继续记录。在 AP 辩论中，每个团队的第一名演讲者将发表反驳演讲以完成他们的论点。因此，他们必须一直保持对整个辩论的掌握直到结束。尽管第二名演讲者只有一次发言机会，但仍然可以在整个辩论过程中提出问题（POIs），因此保持参与并在结束前发挥积极作用非常重要。一份完整的流程表在辩论后与教练讨论这场辩论时也会有所帮助。
British Parliamentary (BP) Note-taking 英国议会制度（BP）笔记
The BP format does not necessarily follow the same guidelines above. AP format uses an inductive style with more line-by-line analysis. In BP debate, adjudicators do not have to consider the flow of the arguments, but instead deductively look to the manner and matter of each of the eight debaters. This more general approach to the philosophical issues in the debate means that notes are usually taken for each speech, independent from what the other debaters say. Many adjudicators use two sheets of paper, each divided into four quarters. Each quarter will have notes on a speech. These notes will guide their decision and oral critique. Since the adjudicator looks to the manner and matter of each speaker, the notes are aimed at highlighting strengths and weaknesses in these areas. The adjudicator may also make side notes about POIs asked and taken. BP 格式不一定遵循上述相同的指导方针。AP 格式采用归纳风格，更多地进行逐行分析。在 BP 辩论中，裁判员不必考虑论点的流程，而是从演讲者的方式和内容出发进行演绎式的审视。辩论中对哲学问题的这种更一般的处理意味着通常会为每次演讲做笔记，独立于其他辩手说的内容。许多裁判员使用两张纸，每张纸分成四个部分。每个部分都会有关于一次演讲的笔记。这些笔记将指导他们的决定和口头批评。由于裁判员关注每位演讲者的方式和内容，这些笔记旨在突出这些方面的优点和缺点。裁判员还可能在 POI 的提问和回答方面做侧面记录。
Since the holistic approach of BP debate focuses on the persuasiveness of each speaker, line-by-line analysis of the arguments is not as important. In this case, debaters may start with a few notes, but the key thing is to have a rough outline of what you plan to say during your speech, rather than a flow of ideas throughout the debate. 由于 BP 辩论的整体方法侧重于每位演讲者的说服力，因此对论点的逐行分析并不那么重要。在这种情况下，辩手可能会从几点开始，但关键是要对你计划在演讲中说的内容有一个大致的轮廓，而不是在整个辩论过程中的思路流。
Shorthand and Abbreviations 速记和缩写
Sometimes the information in debate comes rather quickly. You have little time for taking notes, so good note-taking skills are essential. These notes will only be used for a short time, so they do not have to be neat or spelled correctly. As long as you can read them for your speech the notes will serve their purpose. Regardless of the format, shorthand and abbreviations will help you in the efficiency of your note-taking. Once you get used to them they will become part of your everyday note-taking. For example, the word "because" is frequently used in debate. Shorthand for "because" is " ." If someone makes a statement and does not provide an explanation you might jot down "b/c?" as a reminder to yourself that the other debater does not provide a reason for the conclusion made during the speech. If someone uses the word "increase" it is much easier to write an up arrow than the word. Abbreviations are also common in notetaking. If someone says "the World Health Organization" it is common sense to write "WHO." Any shorthand and abbreviations you come up with will be as long as you (and perhaps your partner) can understand it. 有时辩论中的信息传递得相当迅速。你没有太多时间做笔记，因此良好的记笔记技巧至关重要。这些笔记只会用于短时间，所以它们不必整洁或拼写正确。只要你能在演讲时读懂它们，这些笔记就能发挥作用。无论格式如何，速记和缩写都会帮助你提高记笔记的效率。一旦你习惯了它们，它们就会成为你日常记笔记的一部分。例如，在辩论中经常使用单词“because”。"because"的速记是" ." 如果有人发表了一种观点但没有提供解释，你可以记下"b/c?"作为提醒，告诉自己对方在演讲中没有给出结论的原因。如果有人使用了单词“increase”，写一个向上箭头 比写单词要容易得多。缩写在记笔记中也很常见。如果有人说“世界卫生组织”，写“WHO”是常识。只要你（也许还有你的搭档）能理解，你想出的任何速记和缩写都是可以的。
Consistence in choice of shorthand is important. If you keep changing the symbols you use, sometimes you may not remember what certain symbols represent. Pick certain symbols and stick with them till you form a habit. Only when you automatically use them and recognize them instantly, do these symbols work for you. Here is a short list of symbols that might serve as hints for your own shorthand and abbreviations: 选择简写符号时要保持一致很重要。如果你不断更改使用的符号，有时你可能不记得某些符号代表什么。选择某些符号并坚持使用它们直到你养成习惯。只有当你自动使用它们并立即识别它们时，这些符号才对你有效。以下是一些可能作为您自己速记和缩写提示的符号的简短列表:
agent of action 行动的代理
A of A
because
better
billion
bil
contention
cost benefit analysis 成本效益分析
criteria
decrease
disadvantage
DA
dollar
dropped [D] 丢弃 [D]
enforcement enf 执法 enf
evidence ev 证据 ev
funding fund 资金基金
impact imp 影响 imp
increase 增加
inherency inh 内在性
is/equals = 是/等于
greater than > 大于
less than < 小于 <
linear / 线性 /
link 链接
million mil 百万
not 不是
not equal 不相等
number # 数字
observation , obs 观察，观测
policy , pol 政策
quantify 量化
question? 问题？
should s/ 应该是/
should not 不应该
significance sig 意义 sig
solvency sol 偿付能力 sol
status quo 现状
therefore 因此
thousand or M 千 或 M
topicality 时效性
uniqueness 独特性
voting issue VI 投票问题 VI
with 带有
without w/o 没有 w/o
Conclusion 结论
The ability to process information is crucial in debating, which involves both efficient listening and note-taking. You need to keep your flow sheet organized. Taking a good flow sheet in a debate round means that you can effectively listen in the round, which can help you to understand your notes and be able to paraphrase arguments, provide refutations and rejoinders. 处理信息的能力在辩论中至关重要，这涉及到高效的倾听和记笔记。你需要保持你的流程表井然有序。在辩论中准备一份良好的流程表意味着你能够有效地倾听，从而帮助你理解自己的笔记，并可以转述论点、提出反驳和回应。
Activities 活动
Flow the news. Pick an English radio or TV news program and flow the news for five minutes, 10 minutes and 15 minutes. Increase the length of the program as you practice more and get better at it. When doing it by yourself, paraphrase the news after you flow it. You can also work with a partner and retell the news to each other after taking notes. 来源新闻。选择一档英语广播或电视新闻节目，分别进行五分钟、十分钟和十五分钟的流程记录。随着练习的增多和技术的提高，可以逐渐延长节目时间。在独自练习时，在记录完后转述新闻。也可以与伙伴合作，在记笔记后相互转述新闻。
Flow a lecture. Attend a lecture. Jot down detailed notes of the entire lecture. Speak from the notes and explain to a partner the content of the lecture. 参加讲座。参加讲座。记下整个讲座的详细笔记。根据笔记讲解讲座内容给伙伴听。
Flow a debate. When watching a debate, keep a flow sheet as described in this chapter. At the end of the debate, talk to the class about your decision as to who won and explain why. Use your flow sheet to guide your decision and comments. 参加辩论。观看辩论时，按照本章描述的方式制作一个流程表。在辩论结束时，向班级讲解你认为谁赢了并解释原因。使用你的流程表来指导你的决定和评论。
Debate Flow Sheet for AP Debate Demonstration AP 辩论演示的辩论流程表
Motion: University entrance slots should be allocated to provinces proportionally based on population. 运动：大学入学名额应根据人口比例分配给各省份。
Leader of the Proposition 提案方领袖
Constructive
Leader of the Opposition 反对方领袖
Constructive
Member of the Proposition 提案的成员
Constructive
Member of the Opposition 反对派的成员
Constructive
plan pressure on Beijing 计划对北京施加压力
students = unfair 学生 = 不公平
students should compete 学生应该竞争
equally
If unequal—spend more 如果不平等—多花点时间
money on ed
same paper not feasible 相同的文件不可行
. time, money, and labor 。时间、金钱和劳动力
consuming
. no need
. we promote equal by 。我们通过促进平等
elim boundaries 消除边界
. How do you reduce . 你如何减少
discrim?
. we solve corruption . 我们解决腐败
better-no motivation, 没有动力更好，
other prov will follow 其他省份将会跟进
them
you must prove you 你必须证明你
reduce corruption 减少腐败
you provide obstacles for 你提供障碍
undevelop
. we give same equal rights 。我们给予同等权利
we migration 我们 迁移
motivation
in low pop prov less slots 在低人口省 较少名额
fight for PKU 为北大而战
first tier benchmark 第一层基准
different = unfair: 不同=不公平
Shaanxi
480 - Beijing 480 - 北京
Debate Flow Sheet for BP Debate Demonstration BP 辩论演示的辩论流程表
Motion: Environmental concerns become less important during times of economic crisis. 提案：在经济危机时期，环境问题变得不那么重要。
2. Refer to the DVD for actual BP debate demonstration. 2. 请参考 DVD 以获取实际的 BP 辩论演示。
In a general legal sense, a motion is a proposal for action made by a legislative body. Parliamentary procedures around the world use the word "motion" to indicate the subject of matter under discussion at the time. In the parliamentary system such as that of the UK, Members of Parliament come up with motions for the House of Commons to consider. In the US Congress, Senators and Representatives use motions for conducting meetings, but also debate "resolutions." Resolutions are statements of approval or rejection about an issue. 从一般法律意义上讲，动议是由立法机构提出的行动建议。世界各地的议会程序使用“动议”一词来指示当时正在讨论的议题。在英国等议会制度中，国会议员提出动议供下议院考虑。在美国国会中，参议员和众议员使用动议来进行会议，但也辩论“决议”。决议是关于某个问题的批准或拒绝声明。
In parliamentary procedures, a motion "on the floor" is open to debate between those who are in favor of the motion and those who object to it. In academic debate, teams assume propositional and oppositional sides of the motion. Depending on the type of academic debate, the motion can also be referred to as the topic, the resolution, or the proposition. 在议会程序中，一项“在讨论中”的动议可以在支持该动议和反对该动议的人之间进行辩论。在学术辩论中，团队扮演动议的提出方和反对方。根据学术辩论的类型，动议也可以被称为主题、决议或主张。
Differences in Motions of Different Formats 不同格式的动议之间的差异
In parliamentary debate, the motion changes every round. Rules actually call for an extemporaneous nature to the motion. The motion must not be disclosed in advance and should be worded differently from any other topic already debated in the tournament. Since parliamentary debate allows for a limited preparation time, the motion usually is a simple sentence. For example, "China should ban the use of plastic bags." 在议会辩论中，动议每一轮都会改变。规则实际上要求动议具有即兴性质。动议不得提前透露，且应与比赛中已经辩论过的任何其他主题有所不同。由于议会辩论允许有限的准备时间，动议通常是一个简单的句子。例如，“中国应该禁止使用塑料袋。”
In cross-examination debate the same motion is used for more than one tournament. In some cases, the motion may change monthly, while in other cases the same motion is debated for the entire year. This is also referred to as "switchsides debate" since teams have to debate on both sides of the motion throughout 在交叉审讯辩论中，同一个动议会在多个比赛中使用。在某些情况下，动议可能每月更改，而在其他情况下，同一个动议会被辩论整整一年。这也被称为“双方辩论”，因为团队必须在整个比赛中都要就动议的双方展开辩论。
the tournament. Teams in this style of debate have weeks or even months to prepare and hone their arguments. The motions need to have enough depth for long-term debating, so they are usually more complex. For example, "The United States federal government should substantially increase economic assistance to the developing countries." 在这种辩论风格中，团队有几周甚至几个月的时间来准备和完善他们的论点。动议需要具有足够的深度，以进行长期辩论，因此它们通常更加复杂。例如，“美国联邦政府应该大幅增加对发展中国家的经济援助。”
Features of a Debatable Motion 有争议动议的特点
It is important to properly "frame" the issue in question so that the motion is debatable with fair ground to both sides. On the premise of "agreeing to disagree," the debaters should try to present the best arguments for their side. If one team violates this agreement by debating something not in the motion the debate might be unfair for the other side. In effect they are not giving the other team their ground in the debate. If a team has a topic that states the UN should take action, but they change the agent of action to some other country instead, then they are not affirming the topic given to them. And also, the motion should be phrased to assure that both sides have a fair chance to debate. If the ground is unbalanced, the debate will not be a good one. For example, it wouldn't be fair for those who are on the Opposition to debate a motion: "Murder should be illegal." First, murder is already illegal. Second, there aren't a lot of good reasons to legalize murder. 重要的是要正确地“框定”所讨论的问题，使得动议具有公平的辩论基础，让双方都有发言的机会。在“同意不同意见”的前提下，辩手应该努力提出他们一方的最佳论点。如果一方违反了这一协议，辩论的内容与动议无关，那么辩论对另一方来说可能就不公平了。实际上，他们没有给对方提供辩论的基础。如果一方的话题是联合国应该采取行动，但他们把行动的主体改成了其他国家，那么他们就没有肯定给予他们的话题。此外，动议应该被表述得确保双方都有公平的辩论机会。如果辩论的基础不平衡，那么这场辩论就不会是一场好的辩论。例如，对于反对方来说，辩论“谋杀应该是非法的”就不公平。首先，谋杀已经是非法的。其次，没有太多合理的理由来合法化谋杀。
The wording of the motion should make a simple statement. Complex statements with more than one action would be much more difficult to debate. If the topic was that "China should raise taxes and cut expenses," the propositional team would have two burdens to prove. In a sense, there would be two debates going on-one on taxes and the other on expenses. So if the propositional team proves China should raise taxes, but not cut expenses, they would probably lose the debate. 动议的措辞应该简明扼要。含有多个行动的复杂陈述将更加难以辩论。如果主题是“中国应该提高税收并削减开支”，提议团队将有两个证明的负担。在某种意义上，将会有两场辩论进行——一场关于税收，另一场关于开支。因此，如果提议团队证明中国应该提高税收，但不削减开支，他们可能会输掉辩论。
Motions can be worded in a loose or tight manner, which are known as metaphorical or literal motions. A loose wording would allow for a liberal interpretation on a metaphorical motion such as "This house would go for the 动议可以以宽松或严格的方式表述，这被称为比喻性或字面动议。宽松的措辞将允许对比喻性动议进行自由解释，比如“本院将支持”
gold." The propositional team would have great latitude in deciding what type of issue to run, such as increasing Olympic sport training to increase gold medal account or changing mining regulations or banking policies on gold. A tight wording for a motion would be very specific about the action to be taken and would tolerate little digression from it. Usually this type of motion specifies who will take the action and what type of action should be taken, such as "China should reduce private automobile ownership." "黄金。" 提案团队在决定要运行的问题类型方面有很大的自由度，比如增加奥林匹克运动训练以增加金牌数量，或者改变有关黄金的采矿法规或银行政策。对于动议的措辞应该非常具体，关于要采取的行动，并且不容许偏离。通常这种动议会明确指定谁将采取行动以及应该采取什么类型的行动，比如“中国应该减少私人汽车拥有量。”
The motions to be debated should not require a great deal of specific or personal knowledge. It would be unfair if one of the debaters started debating the problems within their own family. Other debaters simply could not be expected to know such personal information. 要辩论的动议不应需要大量具体或个人知识。如果其中一名辩手开始辩论他们家庭内部的问题，那将是不公平的。其他辩手不可能知道这样的个人信息。
The motion should involve something that has significance for the debaters and the general public. For instance, a motion regarding the food preference of the mother of one of the debaters wouldn't be of interest for the other debaters. However, a discussion on whether Chinese food is better than American food might yield an excellent debate. Current events make for great topics. 动议应涉及对辩手和公众有意义的事情。例如，关于其中一名辩手母亲的饮食偏好的动议对其他辩手来说可能不感兴趣。然而，关于中国食物是否比美国食物更好的讨论可能会引发一场精彩的辩论。时事议题是很好的话题。
Types of Motions 运动类型
There are three types of propositions that come into play in motions: fact, value, and policy. In this section we will look to motions from the propositional side. Details on case development on both propositional and oppositional sides will be provided in Chapters 9 and 10. 在动议中涉及到三种命题类型：事实、价值和政策。在本节中，我们将从命题的角度来看待动议。关于命题方和反对方案的案例发展细节将在第 9 章和第 10 章中提供。
Proposition of Fact 事实命题
Debates on all types of propositions must rely upon facts that support the claims made by the debaters. 对所有类型的命题的辩论必须依赖于支持辩论者所提出的主张的事实。
A proposition of fact makes a statement that can be objectively verified. Objectivity means that the type of measurement is outside of human opinions. In other words, there is a general agreement on the type of measurement, i.e. 事实命题是可以客观验证的陈述。客观性意味着测量类型超出了人类的意见。换句话说，对于测量类型有普遍的一致意见，即一公斤有 1,000 克。要验证这个命题，首先我们需要一个陈述，然后看看测量是否与陈述相匹配。如果一个陈述说约翰体重 100 公斤，那将是一个事实命题。我们有一个带有客观测量的陈述。对于一公斤的重量有一致意见，对于 100 公斤的重量也有一致意见。
a kilo has 1,000 grams in it. To verify the proposition, first we need to have a statement and then see if the measurement matches the statement. If a statement says that John weighs 100 kilos it would be a proposition of fact. We have a statement with an objective measurement. There is an agreement on how much a kilo weighs and there is an agreement on the weight of 100 kilos.
Some people will try to prove that a proposition of fact is "true." This may not be the most accurate word since all types of propositions could be claimed to look for "truth." Instead, for a proposition of fact we look to whether the proposition is "valid" or "invalid." If we say that John weighs 100 kilos and we put John on a scale and the scale says he weighs 100 kilos then we have verified that this proposition of fact is valid. If we say John is 100 kilos, but the scale says he is 115 kilos we still have a proposition of fact, but it is invalid. If we say John is at least 100 kilos and John weighs 115 kilos, our proposition of fact is valid. Since "at least" qualifies our statement, any weight over 100 kilos would be valid. 有些人会试图证明一个事实命题是“真实的”。这可能不是最准确的词，因为所有类型的命题都可以声称在寻找“真相”。相反，对于一个事实命题，我们要看这个命题是“有效的”还是“无效的”。如果我们说约翰体重 100 公斤，然后我们把约翰放在秤上，秤显示他体重 100 公斤，那么我们已经验证了这个事实命题是有效的。如果我们说约翰体重 100 公斤，但是秤显示他体重 115 公斤，那么我们仍然有一个事实命题，但是它是无效的。如果我们说约翰至少体重 100 公斤，而约翰体重 115 公斤，我们的事实命题是有效的。因为“至少”修饰了我们的陈述，任何超过 100 公斤的体重都是有效的。
When using critical thinking it is important to provide information to answer the question. When debating a fact proposition, debaters should be able to explain statistics, examples and expert testimonials that "prove" their points. 在运用批判性思维时，提供信息来回答问题是很重要的。在辩论一个事实命题时，辩手应该能够解释统计数据、例子和专家证词来“证明”他们的观点。
However, as a motion to debate, the proposition of fact is not the best choice. Usually, questions involving measurement are more simply answered by measuring rather than debating. Why would we want to debate that John is 100 kilos when we can simply get him on a scale? 然而，作为一种辩论动议，事实命题并不是最佳选择。通常，涉及测量的问题更容易通过测量来回答，而不是辩论。为什么我们要辩论约翰体重 100 公斤的问题，当我们可以简单地让他站在秤上呢？
This is not to say that propositions of facts aren't debated in legislative bodies. Before the US invaded Iraq there were many debates on whether Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction. As it turned out no weapons were found. It is important to understand how facts guide our judgments. If in fact there were no weapons of mass destruction then we might be better able to debate a value proposition on whether the war was unjustified. 这并不是说事实命题在立法机构中没有被辩论。在美国入侵伊拉克之前，关于伊拉克是否拥有大规模杀伤性武器的辩论很多。事实证明，没有找到任何武器。了解事实如何指导我们的判断是很重要的。如果事实上没有大规模杀伤性武器，那么我们可能更能够辩论一个价值命题，即战争是否不合理。
Proposition of Value 价值命题
A proposition of value can make a motion very debatable. Instead of the objective verification of fact propositions, value propositions ask to make subjective opinions or make value comparisons. Although it may be difficult to prove values the same way as we prove facts, it is important for us to come to answers about questions of value. And it is extremely important to know how we come to conclusions about whether something is good versus bad or right versus wrong. 价值命题可以使辩论变得非常有争议。与事实命题的客观验证不同，价值命题要求提出主观意见或进行价值比较。虽然可能很难像证明事实那样证明价值，但对我们来说，就问题的价值问题得出答案是很重要的。了解我们如何得出关于某物是好还是坏、对还是错的结论是非常重要的。
Consider the value motion "Technology in the classroom lessens the educational experience." The propositional team supporting the motion would need to think of the bad things of technology, while the oppositional team needs to think of the good things of technology. A good motion should have room for arguments on both sides of the issue. 考虑价值命题“课堂上的技术减少了教育体验”。支持该命题的团队需要考虑技术的负面影响，而反对方需要考虑技术的好处。一个好的命题应该为问题的双方提供论据的空间。
Several conditions need to be met to satisfy the proposition of value: definition, context, hierarchy of values, criteria, and proof. Any of these conditions may be accepted or refuted by the Opposition. 满足价值命题需要满足几个条件：定义、背景、价值层次、标准和证据。这些条件中的任何一个都可能被反对方接受或否定。
Definition. All motions call for definition of terms so that everyone knows what is being debated. In this case terms such as "technology in the classroom," "lessens," and "educational experience" all need to be clarified. It is not necessary for the propositional team to include all technologies or all educational experiences. They may narrow the motion to specific technology such as PowerPoint and specific educational experience such as developing oral communication skills. The proposition should be narrowed substantially as long as it does not unreasonably deprive the other team of its ground. 定义。所有动议都需要对术语进行定义，以便每个人都知道正在讨论的内容。在这种情况下，诸如“课堂技术”，“减少”和“教育经验”等术语都需要澄清。提案方并不需要包括所有技术或所有教育经验。他们可以将动议缩小到特定的技术，例如 PowerPoint 和特定的教育经验，比如培养口头沟通能力。只要不是不合理地剥夺了另一方的立场，提案就应该被大大地缩小。
Context. The motion can be further narrowed by discussing specific contexts. In a sense, this area is an extension of definition where the propositional team provides a contextual definition of the motion. For instance, on the motion of technology and educational experience, the propositional team could discuss PowerPoint presentations (PPT) in oral English classes in university settings. 背景。动议可以通过讨论具体的背景进一步缩小范围。在某种意义上，这个领域是定义的延伸，提案方提供了动议的背景定义。例如，在技术和教育经验的动议上，提案方可以讨论大学英语口语课堂上的 PowerPoint 演示（PPT）。
The oppositional team does have a right to argue that the context is unfair or too narrow. The oppositional team may even argue that holistically, technology helps educational experience. 反对方确实有权主张背景不公平或过于狭窄。反对方甚至可以主张，在整体上，技术有助于教育经验。
Hierarchy of values. Any motion being debated could involve many different values. Some of these values might be in conflict with each other, which means the values cannot all be achieved equally at the same time. If they are in conflict, the propositional team should set up a hierarchy of values within the framework of the context or in the order of importance. In terms of our example on technology, the highest value could be "maximizing the learning of the students." However, if PPT is used in an oral English classroom, a conflicting value may be PPT is "easier for the teacher to lecture." If the students find the PPT lecture unengaging, we need to ask in the context of an oral communication class: Which is a higher value-ease of lecturing for the teacher, or engagement of the students for maximizing the learning. 价值观的层次结构。正在讨论的任何动议可能涉及许多不同的价值观。其中一些价值观可能彼此冲突，这意味着这些价值观不能同时平等地实现。如果它们相互冲突，提议团队应在上下文框架内或按重要性顺序建立价值观的层次结构。就我们关于技术的例子而言，最高的价值可能是“最大化学生的学习”。然而，如果在口语英语课堂上使用PPT，一个相互冲突的价值可能是PPT“更容易让老师讲课”。如果学生发现PPT讲座缺乏吸引力，我们需要在口头交流课程的背景下问：对于最大化学习，哪个价值更高——老师讲课的便利性，还是学生的参与度。
Criteria. Once the hierarchy is established, how will we know whether it is met or not? In the above example, how much involvement is necessary for students to have a better educational experience for developing oral communication skills? This criterion could be established in a manner that points in a direction such as anything that reduces student discussion would lessen the educational experience. Another approach is to establish how much time should be spent in lecturing and how much time spent in activities. If the evidence says at least a involvement is best for learning, then anything less caused by technology would lessen the educational experience. 标准。一旦建立了层次结构，我们如何知道是否达到了标准？在上面的例子中，学生需要多少参与度才能获得更好的口头交流技能教育体验？这个标准可以通过一种方式建立，指向一个方向，比如任何减少学生讨论的事情都会减少教育体验。另一种方法是确定应该花多少时间讲课，多少时间进行活动。如果证据表明至少需要一定程度的参与才能获得最佳学习效果，那么任何由技术引起的减少都会减少教育体验。
Proof. The context, value and criteria set a framework for making a value judgment. Now at this point the propositional team should try to provide as many arguments as possible to support their side of the motion. The proof can be set up in the form of "contentions" that flow through the criteria. Each contention should provide analysis and examples why the value judgment is accurate. To follow the same example as above, contention one could be: Technology reduces the amount of notes the students take therefore reducing 证据。背景、价值和标准为做出价值判断建立了框架。现在，在这一点上，提议团队应尽可能提供尽可能多的论据来支持他们的立场。证据可以以“论点”的形式设置，贯穿于标准之中。每个论点都应提供分析和例证，说明为什么价值判断是准确的。以上面的例子为例，第一个论点可能是：技术减少了学生记笔记的数量，从而减少。
the information the students retain. Contention two could be: PPT focuses attention on remembering information rather than engaging the students in active learning. All contentions should be relevant to the framework set up in the first part of the speech. 学生保留的信息。争议二可能是：PPT 侧重于记忆信息，而不是让学生参与积极学习。所有争议都应与演讲第一部分设定的框架相关。
Proposition of Policy 政策提议
Both facts and values are necessary to debate policies. If a value has been established by the facts, then a logical question to ask is: "What should we do about it?" "Should" is the key word here. It means we "ought to do something different from the current policy, but not necessarily will." The word "should" allows debaters to discuss the most desirable action to take, even if they aren't in a position of authority to take such action. For example, the motion "The United States should withdraw all of its troops from Iraq" has been debated around the world for many years (since the war began!). Even though those debaters had no position of power in the US federal government, they still can debate the desirability of the action of withdrawal. 辩论政策需要事实和价值。如果一个价值已经由事实确立，那么一个合乎逻辑的问题是：“我们应该怎么做？”“应该”是关键词。这意味着我们“应该采取与当前政策不同的行动，但不一定会采取。”“应该”一词允许辩手讨论采取的最理想行动，即使他们没有权力采取这样的行动。例如，关于“美国应该从伊拉克撤回所有军队”的提案在世界各地进行了多年的辩论（自战争开始以来！）。即使那些辩手在美国联邦政府中没有权力，他们仍然可以辩论撤军行动的可取性。
The word "should" implies that a change in the status quo is needed and a new action would make the system better. The term "status quo" in Latin means "current “应该”这个词意味着需要改变现状，并且采取新行动会使系统变得更好。拉丁文中“现状”一词意味着“当前体系”或“现有事务状态”。支持该动议的团队通常会呼吁改变现状，或至少拒绝现状的价值观。提议团队需要克服现状良好的假设，即在没有论据的情况下，一切都在运作良好，应该保持不变。换句话说，当我们辩论新政策时，我们需要找到旧政策不好的原因，或者如何改进它。如果现状没有问题，或者现状有能力自我修复，那么我们为什么要辩论特定动议呢？
system" or "the existing state of affairs." The team supporting the motion will usually call for a change in the status quo or at least a rejection of the values of the status quo. The propositional team will need to overcome the presumption that the status quo is doing fine, that in the absence of arguments, everything is working and should remain the same. In other words, when we debate a new policy we need to find reasons why the old policy “应该”这个词意味着需要改变现状，并且采取新行动会使系统变得更好。拉丁文中“现状”一词意味着“当前体系”或“现有事务状态”。支持该动议的团队通常会呼吁改变现状，或至少拒绝现状的价值观。提议团队需要克服现状良好的假设，即在没有论据的情况下，一切都在运作良好，应该保持不变。换句话说，当我们辩论新政策时，我们需要找到旧政策不好的原因，或者如何改进它。如果现状没有问题，或者现状有能力自我修复，那么我们为什么要辩论特定动议呢？
is bad or how it can be improved. If there is no problem in the status quo or the status quo has the means to fix itself, then why are we debating the specific motion? “应该”这个词意味着需要改变现状，并且采取新行动会使系统变得更好。拉丁文中“现状”一词意味着“当前体系”或“现有事务状态”。支持该动议的团队通常会呼吁改变现状，或至少拒绝现状的价值观。提议团队需要克服现状良好的假设，即在没有论据的情况下，一切都在运作良好，应该保持不变。换句话说，当我们辩论新政策时，我们需要找到旧政策不好的原因，或者如何改进它。如果现状没有问题，或者现状有能力自我修复，那么我们为什么要辩论特定动议呢？
The job for the Proposition is to prove to the judge how the system could be improved with changes. If the Opposition shows that the status quo has no problem or that the plan of the Proposition does more harm than good then they have shown that the Proposition has not overcome presumption and we should not change the status quo. Proposition 的任务是向法官证明系统如何通过改变得以改进。如果反对方表明现状没有问题，或者 Proposition 的计划弊大于利，那么他们已经表明 Proposition 没有克服假设，我们不应改变现状。
If a motion has a verb calling for an action then it is a policy proposition. Sometimes the motion specifically tells us who should take the action, as in the US example above. Sometimes the motion does not specify the "doer" and allows the debaters to specify who will take the action. For example, "This house should reduce its carbon footprint." The house could be any country or entity. 如果动议中有一个要求采取行动的动词，那么这是一个政策提案。有时动议明确告诉我们谁应该采取行动，就像上面的美国例子一样。有时动议不指定“行动者”，允许辩论者指定谁将采取行动。例如，“这个团体应该减少碳足迹。” 这个团体可以是任何国家或实体。
When debating a proposition of policy debaters need to ask two main questions: "What should we do?", in other words, what is the proposed plan, and "Why should we do it?", in other words, what is the case, or the rationale of carrying out the proposed plan. 在辩论政策提案时，辩手需要问两个主要问题：“我们应该做什么？”，换句话说，提出的计划是什么，“为什么我们应该这样做？”，换句话说，执行提出的计划的理由是什么。
Plan. With a policy motion the debaters on the propositional side must defend what should be done. Of course, due to the time limits of debate, it is not possible to describe in detail the plan. But the plan must be precise enough so the other team knows what to debate. Outlining the plan in many debates takes less than a minute. It consists of the following four components: 计划。在政策动议中，提议方的辩手必须捍卫应该采取的行动。当然，由于辩论的时间限制，不可能详细描述计划。但计划必须足够精确，以便另一队知道该如何辩论。在许多辩论中概述计划不到一分钟。它包括以下四个组成部分：
Agent of action (Who will carry out the plan?). The propositional team must specifically tell us who is doing the plan. The choice of agent could be very wide, ranging from the United Nations, the government of a particular country, all the way to individuals sitting in the same room where the debate takes place. Remember that propositional team wants to prove desirability, so the appropriateness of the agent is important. If you were debating withdrawal 行动者（谁将执行计划？）。提议方必须明确告诉我们谁在执行计划。行动者的选择范围可能很广，从联合国、特定国家的政府，一直到坐在辩论举行地同一房间的个人。请记住，提议方希望证明可取性，因此行动者的适当性很重要。如果你在辩论撤军
in the war of Iraq then you would want the agent of action to be the US since another agent of action does not have authority over the US military. 伊拉克战争，那么你会希望行动者是美国，因为其他行动者对美国军队没有管辖权。
Mandate (What must be done?). This section of the plan specifies what action will be taken. This would be like the specific parts of a new law or regulation. It should offer a time frame for when the action will be taken and how long it will last. The mandate could be based on a model from some other place or be unprecedented and unique. For example, to reduce air pollution during the Olympics, Beijing implemented a policy of restricting automobiles on the streets to even and odd days according to the number of license plates. If you wanted to do the same plan in a different place you could refer to the Beijing model in your plan. Or, you may propose to ban automobiles entirely, something that may not have an applicable model. 授权（必须做什么？）。计划的这部分指定将采取什么行动。这就像新法律或法规的具体部分。它应该提供行动将在何时采取以及持续多长时间的时间框架。授权可以基于其他地方的模型，也可以是前所未有的和独特的。例如，为了在奥运会期间减少空气污染，北京实施了一项政策，根据车牌号码的奇偶日限制汽车上路。如果您想在其他地方实施相同的计划，可以在计划中参考北京的模型。或者，您可以提议完全禁止汽车，这可能没有适用的模型。
Funding (How to fund the plan, if money is needed?). If a plan is going to cost money, then it is important to specify where you will get the money to pay for it. 资金（如何为计划提供资金，如果需要资金？）。如果一个计划需要花钱，那么指定从哪里获取资金支付是很重要的。
Enforcement (How to make sure the plan is carried out effectively?). A plan is only as good as its enforcement. How do you make sure the plan can be effectively enforced? Besides money, are there adequate resources (human, technological, social and cultural) to implement the plan? If the plan is similar to an existing policy that isn't working, how is your plan different in enforcement? 执法（如何确保计划有效执行？）。计划的好坏取决于其执行情况。您如何确保计划能够有效执行？除了资金之外，是否有足够的资源（人力、技术、社会和文化）来实施计划？如果计划类似于一项无法运作的现有政策，那么您的计划在执行方面有何不同之处？
Case. Once the Proposition has a plan they need to demonstrate why the plan is desirable. The case establishes the reasons for the plan. Ultimately, the case should tell the benefits of adopting the plan or how they will improve the status quo. There are two major approaches: Those benefits could eliminate some problems, or they could be an improvement over the current practice. Depending on the subject matter of the debate there are many individual issues the debaters will discuss. But all of the smaller issues can be grouped into major categories called "stock issues." These stock issues exist in all policy debates. The 案例。一旦提案有了计划，他们需要证明为什么这个计划是可取的。案例建立了计划的理由。最终，案例应该说明采纳该计划的好处，或者如何改善现状。有两种主要方法：这些好处可以消除一些问题，或者它们可以是对当前实践的改进。根据辩论的主题，辩手将讨论许多个别问题。但所有较小的问题都可以归为称为“存货问题”的主要类别。这些存货问题存在于所有政策辩论中。
propositional team must prove all of the stock issues in order to justify a change of the status quo because if one thing is missing you haven't proven that the status quo should change. The stock issues of the case are: need, significance, inherency, solvency, and advantages. 主张团队必须证明所有的股票问题，以证明改变现状的正当性，因为如果有一件事缺失，你就没有证明现状应该改变。案件的股票问题包括：需求、重要性、固有性、解决方案和优势。
Need (Why is there a need for the plan/action?). The need section is sometimes called harms. In other words, what bad things are happening at this moment that should be corrected? Or what harm will occur if the plan/action is not taken? The partial list of harms includes death, injury, lack of equality or opportunity, and decreases in quality of life, freedom or standard of living. 需求（为什么需要这个计划/行动？）。需求部分有时被称为伤害。换句话说，目前发生了什么坏事需要纠正？或者如果不采取计划/行动会发生什么伤害？部分伤害列表包括死亡、受伤、缺乏平等或机会，以及生活质量、自由或生活水平的下降。
Significance (How important is the need?). The significance section contains the "quantity" of the need by providing statistics and the "quality" of the need by providing the values or reasons why the need is considered serious to us. Usually, the need and significance stock issues are provided at the same time. 重要性（需求有多重要？）。重要性部分通过提供统计数据来说明需求的“数量”，并通过提供价值或原因来说明需求对我们而言是严重的“质量”。通常，需求和重要性的股票问题会同时提供。
-Inherency (What barriers stop the harm from being eliminated or prevented?). This stock issue explains why the harm is not eliminated in the status quo. It may be that there is no law to take care of the problem or that the law needs to be changed, modified or better enforced to address the problem. Or it may be that even with a law/policy in place, people's beliefs and attitudes, cultural traditions are standing in the way of effective implementation of the law/policy. -实在性（什么障碍阻止了危害被消除或预防？）。这个存货问题解释了为什么危害在现状中没有被消除。可能是因为没有法律来解决问题，或者法律需要被修改、调整或更好地执行以解决问题。或者即使有法律/政策存在，人们的信仰和态度、文化传统也可能妨碍法律/政策的有效实施。
Solvency (How will the plan/action solve the problem?). This stock issue specifically shows how the plan will work to reduce or solve the need. In other words, how will the plan function to make the status quo better. 解决方案（计划/行动将如何解决问题？）。这个存货问题明确展示了计划将如何工作来减少或解决需求。换句话说，计划将如何运作以改善现状。
Advantages (What are the benefits of the plan/action?). This stock issue is added on to solving the need. It may not always be necessary to have additional advantages to the plan. Sometimes the significance of solving the need is enough. However, if you can think of additional desirable reasons to implement the plan it can add to the overall significance of your case thereby giving the judge more reasons to vote for you. For example, while reducing automobile 优势（计划/行动的好处是什么？）。这个存货问题是为了解决需求而添加的。并不总是需要为计划增加额外的优势。有时解决需求的重要性就足够了。然而，如果你能想到额外的理由来实施计划，这可以增加你案例的整体重要性，从而给法官更多投票给你的理由。例如，减少汽车
usage with an even/odd system reduces air pollution, it also reduces traffic and makes getting to work more convenient. It also reduces petroleum consumption which will help bring prices down. It also increases revenue for public transportation sections which will enable them to improve service. So by providing "advantages" you provide additional benefits of the plan besides solving the problem at hand. 使用偶数/奇数系统可以减少空气污染，同时减少交通拥堵，使上班更加便利。它还可以减少石油消耗，有助于降低价格。它还可以增加公共交通部门的收入，使他们能够改善服务。因此，通过提供“优势”，您为计划提供了除解决手头问题之外的额外好处。
Motions of policy are usually considered the best to provide clash in a debate where both sides have many arguments to choose from. However, you cannot debate a policy unless you understand the values you are trying to achieve, and you cannot understand the values you are trying to achieve without knowing the facts that support those values. To phrase this situation in a philosophical wayhaving facts alone is useless unless you are using them to make a judgment of some kind. Making judgments without trying to make a change for the better is a waste of time. Debater should strive to come up with ideas to improve life. If we know the facts and they support a value, then we should adopt a policy to make society better. 政策动议通常被认为是在辩论中提供冲突的最佳方式，双方都有许多论点可供选择。然而，除非您了解您试图实现的价值观，否则您无法辩论政策；除非您了解支持这些价值观的事实，否则您无法理解您试图实现的价值观。用哲学的方式来表达这种情况，仅有事实是无用的，除非您使用它们做出某种判断。如果不努力为改善生活想出主意，那么做出判断而不试图变得更好就是在浪费时间。辩手应该努力想出改善生活的主意。如果我们知道事实并且它们支持某个价值观，那么我们应该采取政策来使社会变得更好。
Conclusion 结论
The debate motions are designed to set up controversies. Debaters need to engage the controversy to accomplish the task of debating on a particular issue. They do not need to have personal commitment to either side of the motion; instead, they are only required to present arguments that support the side assigned to them. This type of perspective-taking allows students to critically analyze the specific motion assigned to them. 辩论议题旨在引发争议。辩手需要参与争议，以完成就某一问题展开辩论的任务。他们不需要对辩题的任何一方有个人承诺；相反，他们只需要提出支持分配给他们的一方的论点。这种透视方式使学生能够批判性地分析分配给他们的具体辩题。
Activities 活动
Develop a proposition of fact, a proposition of value, and a proposition of policy for each of the following subjects: 为以下主题中的每一个制定一个事实命题、价值命题和政策命题：
Global warming 全球变暖
Taxation 税收
Intellectual property rights 知识产权
UN peacekeeping 联合国维和
University education 大学教育
Compare and contrast your propositions with other students' propositions in class using the PEM. Pick the best wording for each proposition. 使用 PEM 在课堂上与其他学生的主张进行比较和对比。为每个主张选择最佳措辞。
Choose a proposition from the above and come up with arguments for both sides. 从上述内容中选择一个主张，为双方提出论点。
In the Toulmin Model in Chapter 2 you learned about the three parts of argument construction: claim, data, and warrant. The data portion of the argument, obtained through researching, is a vital component of a sound argument. The first important principle one should learn in debate is "those who assert must prove." This means that in a debate whoever makes a claim must provide adequate information why the claim is valid. The responsibility of providing supporting data for one's claim is called the "burden of proof." Debaters should be able to defend the evidence they present. The better the evidence, the stronger the argument. Debaters will be easily attacked by the other side if the evidence is unclear, inaccurate or irrelevant. The process of finding evidence is researching. Evidence in a debate covers a wide range of information: facts, data, statistics, documents, testimonials/expert opinions, and examples. 在第 2 章的图尔敏模型中，您了解到论证构建的三个部分：主张、数据和担保。通过研究获得的论证数据是一个健全论证的重要组成部分。辩论中一个人应该学会的第一个重要原则是“断言者必须证明”。这意味着在辩论中，无论谁提出主张都必须提供充分的信息来证明这个主张的有效性。为自己的主张提供支持数据的责任被称为“举证责任”。辩手应该能够捍卫他们提出的证据。证据越好，论证就越有力。如果证据不清晰、不准确或不相关，辩手将很容易受到对方的攻击。寻找证据的过程就是研究。辩论中的证据涵盖了广泛的信息：事实、数据、统计数据、文件、证词/专家意见和例子。
Types of Evidence 证据类型
There are three basic types of evidence used in a debate: statistics, examples, and testimonials/expert opinions. 在辩论中有三种基本类型的证据：统计数据、例子和证词/专家意见。
Statistics 统计数据
Statistics are used as evidence to "quantify" an issue. For example, if we were discussing Chinese population we could claim there are 1.3 billion people in China. Statistics often reveal the significance of the issue in discussion. Trustworthy statistics are generated by authoritative organizations or professional researchers who utilize widely acceptable methods. The better the methodology, the better we can trust the statistics generated. Debaters may not always need to analyze the specific methodology used to generate the statistics. The rule of thumb for reliability is the reputation of the source publishing the statistics. For example, if a credible publication cites statistics from government 统计数据被用作证据来“量化”一个问题。例如，如果我们在讨论中国的人口问题，我们可能会声称中国有 13 亿人口。统计数据通常揭示了讨论中问题的重要性。可信赖的统计数据由权威机构或专业研究人员利用广泛接受的方法生成。方法论越好，我们就越能相信生成的统计数据。辩论者可能并不总是需要分析用于生成统计数据的具体方法。可靠性的经验法则是发布统计数据的来源的声誉。例如，如果一个可信的出版物引用了政府的统计数据，比如预算数据，那么我们就会假设这些统计数据是可信的。
offices, such as budget figures, then we assume that the statistics are credible. 部门，然后我们会假设这些统计数据是可信的。
Examples 示例
Appropriate examples are strong evidence. The use of examples can turn something from abstract to concrete, general to specific, impersonal to private, distant to urgent. Sometimes examples can be used in combination with statistics to show how a problem exists or how a solution works. An example can also be used as a model for some action in the future (such as an even/odd license plate system to reduce air pollution used in one city might work in another city). The more relevant that the example fits the argument, the stronger the conclusion becomes. 适当的例子是有力的证据。使用例子可以将抽象的东西变得具体，将一般的东西变得具体，将不可知的东西变得私人化，将遥远的东西变得紧迫。有时，例子可以与统计数据结合使用，展示问题存在的方式或解决方案的运作方式。例子也可以被用作未来某种行动的模型（例如，一个城市使用奇偶号牌照系统来减少空气污染，可能在另一个城市也会奏效）。例子与论点的相关性越强，结论就会变得更加有力。
Beware of the pitfalls: Whenever there is an example, there is often a counterexample. Examples can only be used to "support" your argument, but they cannot replace your argument. 警惕陷阱：每当有一个例子时，通常也会有一个反例。例子只能用来“支持”你的论点，但不能取代你的论点。
Testimonials/Expert Opinions 证言/专家意见
When someone "testifies" about an issue they are said to provide testimonial evidence. If someone has experience with a particular issue they can be classified as an expert. Sometimes that experience is made from professional training where someone devotes years to a particular subject matter. Testimonials or expert opinions consist of interviews, lectures, essays, articles, and books written by those in a position to know about a subject. For example, when Al Gore did his documentary, An Inconvenient Truth, he cited several experts on climate change to show what was happening with global warming. 当有人“作证”关于一个问题时，他们被认为提供了证言证据。如果有人对特定问题有经验，他们可以被归类为专家。有时这种经验来自于专业培训，某人花费多年时间研究特定主题。证言或专家意见包括由了解某一主题的人撰写的采访、讲座、论文、文章和书籍。例如，当阿尔·戈尔拍摄他的纪录片《不方便的真相》时，他引用了几位气候变化专家，以展示全球变暖的情况。
When using testimonials or expert opinions, we need to check the degree of bias involved in them. If someone is saying something because it will benefit them they are not considered objective. Since everyone has some degree of bias, when in doubt, it's better to check multiple experts or sources of information. If a person is competent and trustworthy they can be source of powerful evidence. 在使用证言或专家意见时，我们需要检查其中涉及的偏见程度。如果有人说某事是因为对他们有利，那么他们就不被认为是客观的。由于每个人都有一定程度的偏见，当有疑问时，最好查看多位专家或信息来源。如果一个人称职且值得信赖，他们可以成为有力证据的来源。
How to Present Evidence 如何呈现证据
Audiences expect that evidence should be presented in ways appropriate for the particular style of debate. In cross-examination debate, you need to present the evidence verbatim, therefore you have to use "direct quotations." This doesn't mean you must read the entire article or paragraph to the audience; instead you should read the relevant parts of the evidence that support your argument. In parliamentary debate evidence is paraphrased. Because you cannot bring up evidence from which to speak, the evidence is presented more in a narrative form. 观众期望证据应以适合特定辩论风格的方式呈现。在交叉审问辩论中，您需要逐字呈现证据，因此您必须使用“直接引语”。这并不意味着您必须向观众朗读整篇文章或段落；相反，您应该朗读支持您论点的证据相关部分。在议会辩论中，证据是改写的。因为您不能提出要发言的证据，所以证据更多地以叙述形式呈现。
Direct Quotation 直接引语
When you have a direct quotation, the evidence is part of your argument. The following are steps to follow when citing a direct quotation. First, make a claim. Second, provide a full source citation with the name and qualifications of the author, as well as the name, date and page number of the publication where the quotation is from. If the source is electronic you should refer to the website, and have the URL available. Third, read the evidence as it appears. In other words, do not edit or cut things out from the page where the quotation is published. It is acceptable to read only the sections of the evidence relevant to your point. In that case, underline the portions you want to use, but leave the rest there on the page for the judge and the other team's reference. Fourth, in your own words explain why the evidence supports your claim. 当您引用直接引语时，证据是您论点的一部分。引用直接引语时，请遵循以下步骤。首先，提出主张。其次，提供完整的来源引用，包括作者的姓名和资格，以及引语所在出版物的名称、日期和页码。如果来源是电子的，您应该参考网站，并提供 URL。第三，按照原样阅读证据。换句话说，不要编辑或删减引语所在页面的内容。可以只阅读与您观点相关的证据部分是可以接受的。在这种情况下，请划线标记您想使用的部分，但将其余部分留在页面上供评委和其他团队参考。第四，用自己的话解释为什么证据支持您的主张。
Here is an example: 这里是一个例子：
My claim is that the Chinese government continues to support the license plate numbering system for reducing traffic in Beijing. 我的主张是，中国政府继续支持北京的车牌编号系统以减少交通拥堵。
According to ChinaDaily.com.cn on April 5, 2009: "Beijing will extend its post-Olympic vehicle restrictions for another year in an effort to ease traffic congestion and reduce air pollution, the city's traffic officials said 根据 ChinaDaily.com.cn 于 2009 年 4 月 5 日的报道："北京将延长其奥运后的车辆限行政策一年，以缓解交通拥堵和减少空气污染，该市交通官员周日表示。这一延长是被广泛预期的，因为中国首都的大多数居民支持减少道路上的汽车数量，呼吁更清洁的空气。根据车牌号码制定的限行政策，每个工作日将有 20%的城市 361 万辆车辆禁止上路。"
Sunday. The extension was widely expected as a majority of residents in the Chinese capital supported fewer cars on the road and cleaner air. The restrictions, based on license plate numbers, take 20 percent of the city's 3.61 million vehicles off roads each weekday." 这一证据表明该计划被认为可以减少交通拥堵和空气污染。
This evidence shows that the plan is considered to reduce traffic and air pollution.
Paraphrasing - - 释义 - -
In parliamentary debate, you are not allowed to read the evidence when speaking. Instead, any evidence that you use must be presented using your own words. In most cases, source citation is not required, but the steps of making claims, presenting the evidence, and explaining the relevance and significance of the evidence are to be followed. 在议会辩论中，讲话时不允许阅读证据。相反，您使用的任何证据必须用自己的话语呈现。在大多数情况下，不需要引用来源，但必须遵循提出主张、呈现证据、解释证据的相关性和重要性的步骤。
For example, you could paraphrase the above quote by saying that "in April Beijing extended the license plate system for another year as a way to reduce traffic and air pollution." 例如，您可以通过说“四月份，北京将车牌制度延长一年，以减少交通拥堵和空气污染”来释义上述引文。
Because parliamentary debate is extemporaneous, debaters are not informed of the motions in advance, therefore it is not possible to do adequate research during the preparation time which is usually 15 to 30 minutes. The rules also vary on the type of research debaters can do during the preparation time. In some cases, you may only use printed materials during preparation. In other cases computer and Internet access are allowed (be sure to check the debate rules). Regardless of how you get the information, your paraphrased information needs to be clear, accurate, and relevant. 由于议会辩论是即兴辩论，辩手们事先不知道提案内容，因此在通常为 15 至 30 分钟的准备时间内无法进行充分的研究。辩论规则也因应在准备时间内允许的研究类型而有所不同。在某些情况下，您可能只能在准备期间使用纸质材料。在其他情况下，允许使用计算机和互联网（请务必查看辩论规则）。无论您如何获取信息，您的转述信息都需要清晰、准确和相关。
Where to Find Evidence 如何查找证据
Before the Internet, brick-and-mortar libraries were the best source for information. Now, the Internet has dramatically increased individual's access to 在互联网出现之前，实体图书馆是获得信息的最佳来源。现在，互联网显著增加了个人获取信息的途径。
information. Search engines such as Google or Baidu and online encyclopedias and dictionaries have made researching for information efficient and easy. Online academic journals and databases are usually available at public or university libraries. 信息。谷歌或百度等搜索引擎以及在线百科全书和词典使得查找信息变得高效且简单。在线学术期刊和数据库通常可以在公共图书馆或大学图书馆中获取。
If you do parliamentary debate, where you debate a fresh motion each round, keeping up with current events is essential. Newspapers and magazines provide general information. Almost all major newspapers have their own websites, where you can browse past issues and search for current and historical articles that are related with a certain topic. Some people prefer to get the actual paper copy of their favorite newspapers so they can keep up with changes. Some newspapers and magazines also have an editorial page where opinions on current events or policies are offered. They provide inspirations for building a case, because they are often criticism of the status quo, and often call for an action and argue for the benefits of the action. They give a glimpse of what a prototype of a "case" is like for beginning debaters. 如果你参加议会辩论，每轮辩论都会有一个新的议题，那么跟上时事新闻是至关重要的。报纸和杂志提供一般信息。几乎所有主要报纸都有自己的网站，您可以浏览过去的问题并搜索与某一主题相关的当前和历史文章。一些人更喜欢获取他们喜欢的报纸的实际纸质副本，以便跟上变化。一些报纸和杂志还有社论版，提供对当前事件或政策的观点。它们为构建案例提供了灵感，因为它们经常批评现状，并经常呼吁行动并辩护行动的好处。它们为初学者提供了一个“案例”原型是什么样子的一瞥。
Parliamentary debate requires debaters to have a broad knowledge of current events. For this reason, it is important to have a habit of reading major news sources, including both English news sources and Chinese news sources. Since the rules over the years have not allowed for computer access in debate tournaments, you should set up files of printed material to prepare for upcoming debates. If you are preparing for an international debate event, you may need to read more international sources to get a sense of the most salient issues that the people of the world, especially those of the country where the debate event is to be held, are most concerned with. Those issues are most likely to be the topic areas. If you anticipate a topic area before the tournament, you can do more thorough research before the tournament and be more prepared. 议会辩论要求辩手对当前事件有广泛的了解。因此，重要的是养成阅读主要新闻来源的习惯，包括英文新闻来源和中文新闻来源。由于多年来的规则不允许在辩论比赛中使用电脑，您应该准备印刷材料的文件，以备即将到来的辩论。如果您正在为国际辩论活动做准备，您可能需要阅读更多国际来源，以了解世界人民，特别是即将举行辩论活动的国家的人民最关心的问题。这些问题很可能是辩题领域。如果您在比赛前预料到一个辩题领域，您可以在比赛前进行更彻底的研究，并做好更充分的准备。
How to File Evidence 如何归档证据
Quickly locating your evidence is important during debate. Preparation time is 辩论中快速找到您的证据是重要的。准备时间
limited, so you will want to "lay your hands" on your research materials within a few seconds. Currently, most tournaments will not allow you to use a computer filing system. The rationale is to have a level playing field by making sure that those who do not have computers or Internet access don't suffer a disadvantage. Many tournaments also do not want debaters to go online and find new proof during the preparation time. This means when you do research you will probably need a paper copy filing system. 现在，大多数比赛不允许使用计算机文件系统。这样做的理由是确保那些没有计算机或互联网接入的人不会受到不利影响，从而实现公平竞争。许多比赛也不希望辩手在准备时间内上网查找新的证据。这意味着在进行研究时，你可能需要一个纸质文件存档系统。
In cross-examination debate, debaters will carry many boxes of paper files with them in addition to their computer files. Tens of thousands of different pieces of evidence can be in these files. Of course, throughout the debating season, they may only use a fraction of the evidence. But when they do need certain evidence, they must be able to find it quickly and then organize it so they can read it in their speech. Since they are using direct quotation they must have the exact evidence for everyone to see. The judge may also ask to see the evidence after the round to verify the information. 在交叉质询辩论中，辩手除了电脑文件外，还会携带许多盒纸质文件。这些文件中可能包含成千上万个不同的证据。当然，在辩论赛季中，他们可能只使用其中一小部分证据。但当他们需要某些证据时，他们必须能够快速找到并组织好，以便在演讲中阅读。由于他们在使用直接引用，因此必须有确切的证据供所有人查看。裁判也可能要求在比赛结束后查看证据以核实信息。
In parliamentary debate, debaters are not allowed to read the evidence during the debate. But, they may refer to any evidence they used during the preparation time. You will need to read the evidence before the tournament begins. It will help you to quickly find the needed evidence if you highlight significant and relevant information on the page, and if major arguments for and against a position are clearly marked. 在议会辩论中，辩手在辩论过程中不允许阅读证据。但是，他们可以在准备时间内参考他们使用过的任何证据。比赛开始前，您需要阅读证据。如果您在页面上突出显示重要和相关信息，并清楚标记支持和反对某一立场的主要论点，这将有助于您快速找到所需的证据。
After you read the evidence it should go into a filing system that makes it easy to access. The simplest and most economic way is to use file folders. 阅读完证据后，应将其放入一个便于访问的文件系统中。最简单和经济的方法是使用文件夹。
Brief Articles on the Same Topic 同一主题的简短文章
You may find several articles on the same topic. In that case you can read the articles and write up a brief where you summarize the most important information from these articles. In this brief you can outline the major arguments for and against a particular issue. The brief condenses the arguments so that you will be able to look at it very quickly and then take notes for your speech. 在同一主题上可能会找到几篇文章。在这种情况下，您可以阅读这些文章，并撰写一个简要概括这些文章中最重要信息的简报。在这份简报中，您可以概述支持和反对特定问题的主要论点。简报将论点压缩，以便您能够快速查看，并为您的演讲做笔记。
File Evidence by Subject 按主题归档证据
Whether you are filing complete articles or complex briefs, your goal is to find your information quickly. Most debaters file the evidence by subject. Articles or briefs on the same subject go into the same folder. Write the subject name on the tag of the folder and arrange the folders alphabetically. If one folder gets so bulky that it becomes difficult for you to find a piece of information you want, you can subdivide the folder into two, or more folders if necessary. For example, if you start with a file on global warming you will quickly find there is simply too much information to be contained in one folder. In this case, you may subdivide the "global warming" folder into two folders and label one as "problems of global warming" and the other as "causes of global warming." If, again, the "causes" folder gets too big, you may further divide this folder into "natural causes" and "human causes" folders. In the "human causes" folder you may further divide the folder into "transportation" and "electrical generation" folders. This process can go on and on, but the point is to make sure each folder is of manageable size and you can locate the needed information very quickly. 无论您是提交完整的文章还是复杂的简报，您的目标是快速找到信息。大多数辩手按主题归档证据。相同主题的文章或简报放入同一个文件夹中。在文件夹的标签上写上主题名称，并按字母顺序排列文件夹。如果一个文件夹变得过于庞大，以至于您很难找到想要的信息，您可以将文件夹细分为两个，或者根据需要细分为更多文件夹。例如，如果您开始有一个关于全球变暖的文件，您很快会发现其中的信息太多，无法容纳在一个文件夹中。在这种情况下，您可以将“全球变暖”文件夹细分为两个文件夹，并将一个标记为“全球变暖问题”，另一个标记为“全球变暖原因”。如果“原因”文件夹再次变得太大，您可以进一步将该文件夹细分为“自然原因”和“人为原因”文件夹。在“人为原因”文件夹中，您可以进一步将文件夹细分为“交通”和“电力发电”文件夹。这个过程可以继续下去，但关键是确保每个文件夹的大小可管理，并且您可以非常快速地找到所需的信息。
There are of course other ways of filing evidence depending on individual preference. It doesn't really matter what system you use as long as you can find the right evidence quickly. 当然，根据个人偏好，还有其他方式来整理证据。重要的是，无论使用何种系统，都要能快速找到正确的证据。
How to Test Evidence 如何测试证据
Not all evidence is equal. Some evidence is better than others. In the age of the Internet anyone can put information online. There is a big difference when we compare someone's blog and a paper published in a peer-reviewed academic journal on the same topic. The main issue is credibility. In other words, how do you know that the evidence is credible? 并非所有的证据都是平等的。有些证据比其他证据更好。在互联网时代，任何人都可以在网上发布信息。当我们把某人的博客和一篇同一主题在同行评审的学术期刊上发表的论文进行比较时，就会有很大的区别。主要问题在于可信度。换句话说，你如何知道证据是可信的？
- Source of the Evidence - 证据来源
The first test of the evidence is the source of the evidence: Where is this information from? Traditional everyday sources of information are TV, radio, 证据的第一个测试是证据的来源：这些信息来自哪里？传统的日常信息来源包括电视、广播、报纸、杂志；更专业的包括政府或专业组织的报告、专业人士和学者撰写的书籍、经过同行评议的学术期刊。传统信息来源现在已经扩展到互联网，以便读者更轻松、更方便地获取信息。而互联网现在也有非传统的信息来源，比如维基百科、个人博客、网页以及各种没有纸质版本的网站。最终，我们需要知道这个信息来源是否有讲真话和使用专家信息的声誉。
newspapers, magazines; more specialized are government or professional organizations' reports, books by professionals and academics, peer-reviewed academic journals. Traditional sources of information now have expanded to the Internet for easier and more convenient access for their readership. And the Internet now also has non-traditional sources of information, such as Wikipedia, personal blogs, webpages, and various websites that do not have paper versions. Ultimately, we need to know if the source has a reputation for telling the truth and using expert information.
Timeliness of the Evidence 证据的及时性
Life goes on and situations change constantly. For this reason, all things being equal, the most recent evidence is usually the most effective. For example, when Barack Obama became the President of the United States he promised change. If you use evidence about the US based on the policies of George W. Bush it may be outdated compared to the massive shift in policy after the change of Presidents. Check to see if the evidence is up to date, still valid, or if anything has been changed or modified. Periodicals which are published on a regular (daily, weekly, monthly) basis provide the date on all information. More and more websites are also publishing the date when they upload the information. As you are researching you should note the date on all information. 生活在不断变化的情况下继续。因此，其他条件相同的情况下，最近的证据通常是最有效的。例如，当巴拉克·奥巴马成为美国总统时，他承诺改变。如果您使用关于美国的证据基于乔治·W·布什的政策，与总统变更后政策的巨大转变相比，这些证据可能已过时。请检查证据是否是最新的，仍然有效，或者是否有任何变化或修改。定期出版（每天、每周、每月）的期刊提供所有信息的日期。越来越多的网站也会在上传信息时发布日期。在研究过程中，您应该注意所有信息的日期。
Logic of the Evidence 证据的逻辑
Good evidence should support the claim being made. When the evidence fits with the claim it is considered to be relevant. In this sense, the logic of an argument is when the evidence "hangs together" with the point the debater is trying to make. If the evidence doesn't support what the debater is saying then the debater has failed the burden of proof. The warrant of an argument within the Toulmin Model analyzes how well the data supports the claim. Even if you use evidence from a credible source, if the data does not logically support the claim, the argument is not sound. This is called a fallacy and will be explained in detail in Chapter 12. 良好的证据应支持所提出的主张。当证据与主张相符时，被视为相关。在这种意义上，论证的逻辑是指证据与辩论者试图表达的观点“相互吻合”。如果证据不支持辩论者所说的内容，那么辩论者就未能承担举证责任。图尔敏模型中的论证依据分析数据支持主张的程度。即使您使用了可靠来源的证据，如果数据在逻辑上不支持主张，那么这个论证就是站不住脚的。这被称为谬误，并将在第 12 章中详细解释。
Critical thinking can be useful in testing the credibility of information, by looking to the assumptions, the accuracy, the precision, the inference, and the point of view of the information. This type of evaluation is especially needed in this age of information overload. The better you get at critical thinking the better you will be able to test the information. 批判性思维在测试信息的可信度方面非常有用，通过审视信息的假设、准确性、精确性、推理和观点。在这个信息过载的时代，这种评估尤为重要。您在批判性思维方面的能力越强，就越能够测试信息的准确性。
Conclusion 结论
Research is an essential part of preparing for a debate. Not only will your chances for winning the debate improve with more research, you will find your confidence and credibility increase when you become a "mini-expert" on the issues being debated. You will be better able to clarify issues and provide evidence. Ultimately, you will become more persuasive. 研究是为辩论做准备的重要部分。不仅会通过更多的研究提高赢得辩论的机会，当你成为辩论议题的“小专家”时，你会发现自己的信心和可信度也会增加。你将更能够澄清问题并提供证据。最终，你会变得更具有说服力。
Activities 活动
Find an editorial from a major newspaper (printed or online). Do a deep reading to analyze and evaluate the article using the elements and standards of the PEM in Chapter 2. Take some notes and discuss with your classmates. What is the focal issue in the editorial? Why is the author supporting/opposing it? What are the reasons for the author's position? What change/action is proposed? What benefits will result from such a change/action? Are there any arguments against the author's point of view? 找一篇来自主要报纸（纸质或在线）的社论。进行深入阅读，使用第 2 章 PEM 的要素和标准来分析和评估文章。做一些笔记并与同学讨论。社论的焦点问题是什么？作者为什么支持/反对它？作者立场的原因是什么？提出了什么变化/行动？这样的变化/行动将带来什么好处？有没有反对作者观点的论据？
Start a research file revolving around the focal issue in the article you found. Find other evidence that either supports or rejects the author's position. Write briefs on both sides of the topic. Do an extemporaneous speech on the major issues in the articles. 围绕你找到的文章中的焦点问题开始一个研究文件。找到其他支持或反驳作者立场的证据。对该主题的双方进行简要陈述。就文章中的主要问题进行即兴演讲。
Generate a list of your favorite sources of evidence and websites to share with your classmates. 列出你最喜欢的证据来源和网站清单，与同学分享。
In debate, the propositional team bears the "burden of proof" by design because they are taking a position involving an action or a judgment. In other words, they are asserting something should be accepted. Those who assert must prove. Therefore, when the propositional team presents an overall "case" which argues that a certain action should be taken or a judgment should be made, they need to provide reasons why their arguments should be accepted. 在辩论中，提案方团队之所以承担“举证责任”，是因为他们在涉及行动或判断的立场上。换句话说，他们在主张某事应该被接受。主张者必须证明。因此，当提案方团队提出一个总体“案例”，主张应采取某种行动或作出某种判断时，他们需要提供为什么他们的论点应该被接受的理由。
In parliamentary debate, the propositional team will not have enough time to write out their case word-for-word. Instead, an outline of a case may be drafted out during the preparation time. Depending on personal preference, some outlines are fairly thorough and detailed while others can be very brief. The first speaker may have all subpoints listed (perhaps even numbered) so as to not confuse the organization of the speech, while later speakers may have made only a few rough notes to remind them a direction they may take. In all cases, debaters need to extemporize their speeches from their notes. Commonly, the first constructive speech is likely to be the best prepared of the entire debate. An efficient case construction allows propositional teams to quickly and clearly develop and present their arguments. 在议会辩论中，提案团队将没有足够的时间逐字逐句地撰写他们的立场。相反，在准备时间内可能会起草一个案例大纲。根据个人偏好，有些大纲非常详细，而有些可能非常简要。第一位发言人可能列出所有子要点（甚至编号），以免混淆演讲的组织，而后续发言者可能只做了一些粗略的笔记，以提醒他们可能采取的方向。在所有情况下，辩手需要根据笔记即兴演讲。通常，第一次建设性发言很可能是整个辩论中准备最充分的。高效的案例构建使提案团队能够快速清晰地发展和提出他们的论点。
This chapter will first look to case development of policy motions and then to value motions. While facts exist in all debates, fact motions are rarely debated. The specific requirements for fact cases can be found in Chapter 7. 本章首先将讨论政策动议的案例发展，然后是价值动议。虽然事实存在于所有辩论中，但事实动议很少被辩论。有关事实案例的具体要求可以在第 7 章找到。
Case Development for Policy Motions 政策动议的案例发展
Policy debate specifically involves an action to be taken and whether or not the action is desirable. This allows both sides to take clear and relevant positions to be balanced against each other. The propositional side builds a case for taking an action. The oppositional side builds a case for not taking the action or taking 政策辩论特指要采取的行动以及该行动是否可取。这使得双方能够明确和相关地提出各自的立场，以便相互平衡。提议方为采取行动建立案例。反对方为不采取行动或采取不同行动建立案例。
a different action. With policy motions the two sides weigh the impact of their respective case in the round like a scale: Which case has more benefits in consideration of their costs-"net benefits." 在政策动议中，双方权衡各自案例在辩论中的影响，就像天平一样：哪种案例在考虑成本时有更多的好处-"净利益"。
Of course, to be able to have a policy decision you must be able to understand the values behind the action since all laws and actions have values behind them. To be able to understand values you must understand the facts that support the values. So, policy motions require that debaters support a specific action that results in desirable consequences based on values proven by facts. 当然，要做出政策决定，你必须能够理解行动背后的价值观，因为所有的法律和行动背后都有价值观。要理解价值观，你必须了解支持这些价值观的事实。因此，政策动议要求辩手支持一项特定行动，该行动基于事实证明的价值观产生可取的后果。
For this reason most policy motions contain the word "should." The word "should" means we "ought to do something, but not necessarily will." When lawmakers consider what will happen when a new law takes effect, they must make sure that the positive consequences outweigh the negative consequences. Likewise, debaters can take on the role of lawmakers and argue that the new policy would be an improvement of the status quo or the current system. There are two debate concepts that allow debaters to do this role-play: fiat and presumption. 由于这个原因，大多数政策动议中都包含“应该”这个词。 “应该”这个词意味着我们“应该做某事，但不一定会做”。 当立法者考虑新法律生效时会发生什么时，他们必须确保积极后果超过负面后果。 同样，辩手可以扮演立法者的角色，并辩称新政策将改善现状或当前体系。 有两个辩论概念允许辩手扮演这个角色：假设和推定。
- Fiat - 假设
Fiat is Latin which means "let it be done." The concept of fiat in debate assumes that the propositional team has the power to put the plan into effect as long as they can justify the benefits of the plan. It is assumed that all of the conditions have been satisfied to put the plan in place. Debaters do not debate that the plan would be passed for sure, only that it should be passed because it would be desirable. In other words, fiat means we don't have to prove that a governmental action "would" put the plan in place, but that they "should" because of the benefits of the action. For example, if the US Congress were going to pass a bill there is a long process. First, a bill comes from a member of the House of Representatives. The bill must be approved by the Speaker of the House and submitted to a committee for approval. The committee sends it to the Speaker of the House who then puts it up for a vote. If it passes, the US Senate must follow 菲亚特是拉丁语，意为“让它成为现实”。辩论中的菲亚特概念假定提议团队有权力将计划付诸实施，只要他们能证明计划的好处。假定所有条件都已满足以实施计划。辩手并不争辩计划一定会通过，只是应该通过，因为这是可取的。换句话说，菲亚特意味着我们不必证明政府行动“会”实施计划，而是因为行动的好处而“应该”实施。例如，如果美国国会要通过一项法案，这是一个漫长的过程。首先，一项法案来自众议院的一名成员。法案必须获得众议院议长的批准，并提交给委员会审批。委员会将其送交众议院议长，然后进行投票。如果通过，美国参议院必须遵循类似的程序，并通过具有相同措辞的法案。如果众议院和参议院都通过了法案，然后法案将提交给总统签署成为法律。
a similar process and pass a bill with the same language. If both the House of
Representatives and the Senate approve, then it goes to the President who can sign it or veto it. If signed the bill becomes law. Anywhere along this political process the bill could be stopped. If debaters had to prove that the US "would" pass a bill, then the debaters would be debating the political process. This type of debate would be difficult and really not worth much. However, if debaters had to prove the US "should" pass a bill then they are not debating the politics, but instead are trying to weigh up the good and bad of the bill. 众议院和参议院批准后，将提交给总统，总统可以签署或否决。如果签署，该法案将成为法律。在整个政治过程中，法案可能会被阻止。如果辩论者必须证明美国“将”通过一项法案，那么辩论者将在辩论政治过程。这种辩论类型将会很困难，并且实际价值不高。然而，如果辩论者必须证明美国“应该”通过一项法案，那么他们并非在辩论政治，而是在权衡法案的利弊。
Fiat allows debaters to understand major issues and develop skills to weigh up costs and benefits. 虚拟允许辩论者了解主要问题，并培养权衡成本和收益的技能。
Presumption 推定
Presumption means that we assume the status quo is good in the absence of arguments against it. We presume a law cannot be improved unless there is a good argument made for improvement or to reduce harm. For example, we presume that murder is bad and should be punished. We have a law against murder and that law stays in place and is enforced until someone argues against it. To extend this example, many countries used to have capital punishment for murder. However, they found that some innocent people were executed so they changed the law to ban capital punishment. For example, EU members have prohibited capital punishment. In other cases, some countries had laws restricting capital punishment, but then chose to expand capital punishment to additional crimes. For example, the US federal government under President Clinton expanded federal capital crimes from three to 55 . 推定意味着在没有反对意见的情况下，我们假设现状是好的。我们认为除非有改进或减少伤害的充分理由，否则法律不能得到改善。例如，我们认为谋杀是不好的，应该受到惩罚。我们有反对谋杀的法律，并且该法律保持有效并得到执行，直到有人提出反对意见。延伸这个例子，许多国家过去对谋杀实行死刑。然而，他们发现有些无辜的人被处决，因此他们改变了法律，禁止了死刑。例如，欧盟成员国已经禁止了死刑。在其他情况下，一些国家曾经有限制死刑的法律，但后来选择将死刑扩大到其他犯罪行为。例如，克林顿总统领导下的美国联邦政府将联邦死刑罪名从三项扩大到55项。
In debate, since the propositional team says we should take an action, the oppositional team has the presumption that the status quo is doing fine. What the propositional team needs to do in the first speech is provide all of the reasons to support change and overcome the presumption that we should keep the status quo. 辩论中，由于提案方表示我们应该采取行动，反对方有一个假设，即现状良好。提案方在第一次发言中需要提供所有支持变革的理由，并克服我们应该保持现状的假设。
To summarize fiat and presumption: Fiat is a pre-condition for the Proposition to argue something should be done and not have to prove it will certainly happen. Presumption is a pre-condition for the Opposition to argue against any (unnecessary) changes if the status quo is good. 总结决策和假设：决策是提案方主张应该采取某种行动的先决条件，无需证明一定会发生。假设是反对方主张反对任何（不必要的）变化的先决条件，如果现状良好的话。
Stock Issues 存货问题
The stock issues are issues that the propositional team in all debates needs to address regardless of the motions. These categories of arguments prove the status quo could be improved and thereby overcome presumption. They include resolutional analysis, need for change, significance, inherency, plan, solvency, and advantages. 股票问题是所有辩论中建议团队需要解决的问题，而不管提案如何。这些类别的论据证明了现状可以得到改善，从而打破假设。它们包括决议分析，改变的必要性，重要性，固有性，计划，解决方案和优势。
Resolutional analysis. This section sets the ground for the debate with several subpoints. 决议分析。这部分为辩论奠定了基础，具有几个副标题。
First, define the key terms so that there won't be any confusion or misunderstanding about the motion. If the motion calls for "the house" to do something, the house may be defined as a particular government or organization. 首先，定义关键术语，以便不会对动议产生混淆或误解。如果动议要求“议院”做某事，议院可以被定义为特定的政府或组织。
Second, indicate the type of motion by analyzing the wording of the motion (usually a policy motion has an action verb, while a value motion involves a comparison). For example, the propositional team could literally say "This is a policy motion because the term 'should change' is an action verb which requires us to present a policy." 其次，通过分析动议的措辞来指示运动类型（通常政策动议具有动作动词，而价值动议涉及比较）。例如，提案团队可以直接说“这是一个政策动议，因为术语‘应该改变’是一个需要我们提出政策的动作动词。”
Third, set up the criteria for the debate, by which the judge can weigh the arguments of both sides and make a decision. For example, in some cases the team may set a criterion of who best improves human rights as the only area for the judge to consider. In that case, other issues, such as cost, would not be relevant unless specifically linked to human rights. 第三，建立辩论的标准，裁判可以通过这些标准权衡双方的论点并做出决定。例如，在某些情况下，团队可能将谁最能改善人权作为裁判考虑的唯一领域的标准。在这种情况下，其他问题，如成本，除非明确与人权相关联，否则将不相关。
Need for change. In this section the propositional team must point out the harms in the statues quo. There may be many problems that exist in a case. These harms can be any of the bad things that happen to us such as death, injury (physical or psychological), decreased quality of life, decreased standard of living, loss of freedom or unfairness. While this is not an exhaustive list, most harms could be placed under these categories. For example, a damaged environment might relate to death or quality of life; family relations could cause physical or psychological harm. Of course, there could also be several moral issues involved such as animal rights. The harm could even be extended into future harm such as what environmental destruction will do to future generations. 需要改变。在这一部分中，提案团队必须指出现状中的危害。一个案例中可能存在许多问题。这些危害可以是发生在我们身上的任何不好的事情，比如死亡、受伤（身体或心理）、生活质量下降、生活水平下降、自由丧失或不公平。虽然这不是一个详尽的列表，但大多数危害可以归类到这些类别之下。例如，受损的环境可能涉及死亡或生活质量；家庭关系可能导致身体或心理伤害。当然，还可能涉及一些道德问题，比如动物权利。危害甚至可能延伸到未来的危害，比如环境破坏对未来世代的影响。
Significance. In this stock issue the propositional team must show the extent of the need for change. Usually the need and the significance can be shown at the same time. In other words, a case must show that there is a need to change and at the same time the need is significant. There are two ways to show significance: qualitative and quantitative. 意义。在这个股票问题中，提案团队必须展示改变的必要程度。通常，需要和意义可以同时展示。换句话说，一个案例必须表明有必要改变，同时这种需要是重要的。展示意义有两种方式：定性和定量。
Qualitative significance regards the underlying values. Even though there can be many values to consider we usually put human life as the most important value, with quality of life close behind it. Maybe you will want to show the specific effect of something like breathing polluted air on the quality of life. The value may be even more specific by showing that the people who are harmed are from a specific class of people. Perhaps the poor are being hurt more than people with money, or children are more prone to be the victims of the harm. There may even be a potential destruction of the environment that will affect future generations which would relate to life and quality of life and the fairness of doing something harmful to the next generation. 定性意义涉及潜在价值观。尽管可能有许多要考虑的价值观，但我们通常将人的生命视为最重要的价值观，其次是生活质量。也许你会想展示像呼吸污染空气对生活质量的具体影响。价值可能更具体，显示受害的人来自特定的人群。也许穷人受到的伤害比有钱人更大，或者孩子更容易成为受害者。甚至可能会对环境造成潜在破坏，影响未来的后代，这将与生命、生活质量和对下一代做某些有害的事情的公平性有关。
Quantitative significance shows the size, scale or scope of the harm. If we were discussing air pollution somewhere and we had evidence that about 400,000 people die per year from air pollution, then we would be showing quantitative significance. If we inferred from statistics that the average lifespan there would 定量意义显示了伤害的大小、规模或范围。如果我们在某个地方讨论空气污染，并且有证据表明每年有大约 40 万人因空气污染而死亡，那么我们将展示出定量意义。如果我们根据统计数据推断出那里的平均寿命会缩短 5 年，也是定量意义的一种形式。
be five years shorter because of air pollution that would also be a form of quantitative significance. 定量意义显示了伤害的大小、规模或范围。如果我们在某个地方讨论空气污染，并且有证据表明每年有大约 40 万人因空气污染而死亡，那么我们将展示出定量意义。如果我们根据统计数据推断出那里的平均寿命会缩短 5 年，也是定量意义的一种形式。
Inherency. In this stock issue the propositional team must show why the status quo is not solving the harm. The problem may come from people's attitudes like greed, ignorance, or apathy. But, usually, inherency means that a law has not kept up with a need to change. This means the structure of no law or a bad law stops the status quo from working to make things better. For example, before the Beijing Olympics there was a concern about air pollution from automobiles. The law, however, allowed automobiles to travel freely on every day. This means the traffic and pollution were inherent problems because the law allowed unlimited driving. 固有性。在这个股票问题中，提议团队必须展示为什么现状不能解决问题。问题可能来自人们的态度，比如贪婪、无知或冷漠。但通常，固有性意味着法律没有跟上变化的需要。这意味着没有法律或糟糕的法律结构阻止了现状的工作，使事情变得更好。例如，在北京奥运会之前，人们担心汽车尾气污染。然而，法律允许汽车每天自由行驶。这意味着交通和污染是固有问题，因为法律允许无限驾驶。
Plan. The propositional plan should specify who will take the action, what they will do, how they will pay for it, and how it will be enforced. For example, a plan could expand the odd/even license plate plan from Beijing to Shanghai by saying:" The agent of action is Shanghai government. The mandate is that Shanghai will use the odd/even license plate plan to reduce automobile traffic. The funding will be Shanghai governmental funds. The enforcement will be Shanghai traffic control." 计划。提议计划应明确指定谁将采取行动，他们将做什么，如何支付，以及如何执行。例如，一个计划可以通过以下方式将北京的单双号限行政策扩展到上海："行动代理是上海政府。任务是上海将使用单双号限行政策来减少汽车交通。资金将来自上海政府资金。执行将由上海交通管理部门负责。"
Solvency. In this stock issue the propositional team shows how the plan will work to "solve" the harm and therefore become a reason to adopt the plan. If pollution and traffic are problems, then a new law that allows vehicles to travel only on odd or even days corresponding to their license plates might help to solve the harm by reducing automobile pollution. This new rule was effective in reducing pollution during the Beijing Olympics. 偿付能力。在这个股票问题中，提议团队展示了计划如何“解决”问题，从而成为采纳该计划的理由。如果污染和交通是问题，那么一项新法律允许车辆只在与其车牌对应的奇数或偶数日行驶，可能有助于通过减少汽车污染来解决问题。这项新规定在北京奥运会期间有效地减少了污染。
Advantages. In addition to solving the harm, the propositional team may build up the significance of their plan and give the judge additional reasons to vote for them. There could be many advantages in addition to solving the harm. For example, in addition to reducing pollution the first independent advantage of the 优势。除了解决问题外，提议团队还可以增加他们计划的重要性，并为法官提供额外的理由支持他们。除了解决问题外，还可能有许多优势。例如，除了减少污染外，第一个独立优势可能是奇偶号牌计划还减少了交通，使生活更轻松、更高效（至少对于那些开车的人来说，不再花费时间在交通拥堵中）。第二个优势可能是减少了因交通事故造成的伤害。第三个优势可能是鼓励公共交通带来更多资金，从而提供更好的服务。
odd/even license plate plan may be that the plan also reduces traffic which makes life easier and more productive (less time spent in traffic jams at least for those who drive). A second advantage may be a reduction in the amount of injury because of fewer traffic. A third advantage may be encouragement of public transportation brings in more money that will allow for better service. 奇偶号牌计划还可能减少交通事故造成的伤害。第三个优势可能是鼓励公共交通带来更多资金，从而提供更好的服务。
Structure of the Case 案例结构
The arguments can be structured using a linear organization. Usually teams will number their arguments so that everyone who is following the debate will know where to place the arguments on the flow sheet. The main point of the stock issues can be labeled as "observation" within the case structure. 论点可以通过线性组织进行结构化。通常团队会为他们的论点编号，这样所有跟进辩论的人都能知道在流程表上放置论点的位置。股票议题的主要观点可以在案例结构中标记为“观察”。
Observation one: Resolutional analysis 观察一：决议分析
I. Definition of key terms I. 主要术语的定义
II. Type of motion 运动类型
III. Criteria for decision 决策标准
Observation two: Need for change and significance 观察二：变革的必要性和意义
I. Harm 1 and significance I. 危害 1 和意义
II. Harm 2 and significance II. 危害 2 和意义
Observation three: Inherency 观察三：固有性
I. Attitude 一、态度
II. Structure that allows the harms 二、允许危害的结构
Observation four: Plan 观察四：计划
I. Agent of action (Which legal body will pass the plan?) 行动的代理人（哪个法定机构将通过该计划？）
II. Mandate (What will the plan do?) 授权（该计划将做什么？）
III. Funding (How the plan will be paid for?) 资金（该计划将如何支付？）
IV. Enforcement (How will we enforce the plan?) 执法（我们将如何执行计划？）
Observation five: Solvency 观察五：偿付能力
I. Evidence 1 that the plan will solve the harms. 证据 1：计划将解决危害。
II. Evidence 2 that the plan will solve the harms. 证据表明该计划将解决问题。
Advantages (not listed as observations, but separate advantages): 优势（不列为观察，而是单独的优势）：
I. Independent reason 1 独立理由 1
II. Independent reason 2 II. 独立理由 2
A comparative advantage structure is a viable alternative organizational structure to the stock issues approach above. The same issues are handled, only with a different organization. 与上述股票问题方法相比，比较优势结构是一种可行的替代组织结构。相同的问题得到处理，只是采用了不同的组织形式。
With this type of organization the background of the status quo discusses the stock issues of need, significance and inherency. This background section is more narrative. It may be told more like a narrative than an outline. The solvency of the plan is combined with advantages to provide independent benefits. The list of the independent benefits shows the significance the propositional team expects to get from the plan. The strategy behind using a comparative advantage case structure is that the advantages are independent and therefore if the propositional team is defeated on one of the advantages, the other advantages may still provide enough significance for the team to win the debate. 在这种类型的组织中，现状的背景讨论了需求、重要性和固有性的股票问题。这个背景部分更具叙事性。它可能更像叙述而不是大纲。计划的可行性与优势相结合，提供独立的好处。独立好处的列表显示了提案团队期望从计划中获得的重要性。使用比较优势案例结构的策略是，优势是独立的，因此如果提案团队在其中一个优势上失败，其他优势仍然可能为团队赢得辩论提供足够的重要性。
Observation one: Resolutional analysis 观察一：决议分析
I. Definition of terms 一、术语定义
II. Type of motion 二、运动类型
III. Criteria for decision 三、决策标准
Observation two: Background of the status quo 观察二：现状背景
I. Need for change 一、变革的必要性
II. Significance 二、意义
III. Inherency 三、固有性
Observation three: Plan 第三观察：计划
I. Agent of action 行动的代理人
II. Mandate 授权
III. Funding 资金
IV. Enforcement 执行
Benefit one: 优点一：
I. Assertion I. 主张
II. Reasoning (contained within the reasoning is a cause-effect relationship, consequences, and magnitude of the consequences) II. 推理（推理中包含因果关系、后果及后果的重要性）
III. Evidence III. 证据
IV. Impact IV. 影响
Benefit two: 好处二：
I. Assertion I. 主张
II. Reasoning (contained within the reasoning is a cause-effect relationship, consequences, and magnitude of the consequences) II. 推理（推理中包含因果关系、后果以及后果的重要性）
III. Evidence 证据
IV. Impact 影响
Benefit three: 第三个好处:
I. Assertion I. 断言
II. Reasoning (contained within the reasoning is a cause-effect relationship, consequences, and magnitude of the consequences) II. 推理（包含因果关系、后果和后果的重要性）
III. Evidence III. 证据
IV. Impact IV. 影响
The stock issues are covered in both case structures. The first type of case structure has more specific harm, significance and inherency. The second type of case structure places emphasis on benefit analysis. The usage of either style is a matter of preference for the debaters. 股票问题在两种案例结构中都有涵盖。第一种类型的案例结构具有更具体的危害、重要性和固有性。第二种类型的案例结构强调利益分析。使用任一风格取决于辩手的偏好。
Case Development for Value Motions 价值动议的案例发展
Debating subjective value motions can be difficult. Most people seem to have their own opinion about the issues in a debate. Value debates ask us to make comparisons and come to value conclusions. Anytime we want to make value judgments about something being "right" or "wrong," "good" or "bad" we need to be able to justify our arguments. 辩论主观价值议题可能很困难。大多数人似乎对辩论中的问题有自己的看法。价值辩论要求我们进行比较，并得出价值结论。每当我们想对某事物做出“对”或“错”，“好”或“坏”的价值判断时，我们需要能够证明我们的论点。
When building a value case several steps will help to clarify your position so that you can better defend your value judgment: 在构建一个价值案例时，有几个步骤可以帮助澄清您的立场，以便更好地捍卫您的价值判断：
Observation one: Resolutional analysis 观察一：决议分析
In this observation the Proposition will set the ground of the debate. It contains the major definitions, the type of motion being debated, context, values, and the criteria for judgment. 在这个观察中，命题将为辩论奠定基础。它包含了主要定义、辩论中讨论的动议类型、背景、价值观和评判标准。
Definition of key terms. In this section you should define key terms within the motion. 关键术语的定义。在这一部分，您应该定义动议中的关键术语。
Type of motion. Point out the type of motion by analyzing its wording. For example, "This is a value motion as it requires making a comparison to prove that something "does more harm than good." 动议类型。通过分析动议的措辞来指出动议的类型。例如，“这是一个价值动议，因为它要求进行比较以证明某事‘弊大于利’。”
Context of the value judgment. Explain the time and space of the value judgment. In other words, in what situation are we placing the value judgment? 价值判断的背景。解释价值判断的时间和空间。换句话说，我们在什么情况下进行价值判断？
Hierarchy of values. Any single value judgment will contain other values within it. Only the most important value should be presented here. The logic here is that lesser values, while important, should not take precedence over the 价值观的等级。任何单个价值判断都会包含其中其他价值观。这里只应呈现最重要的价值观。这里的逻辑是，次要的价值观虽然重要，但不应优先考虑
stronger values. For example, most debaters would contend that life is a higher value than the quality of life. 更重要的价值观。例如，大多数辩手会认为生命比生活质量更重要。
Criteria. Establish the specific standards for fulfillment of the value judgment. In this section you need to indicate how the motion will be measured. 标准。建立价值判断履行的具体标准。在本节中，您需要指出如何衡量动议。
Observation two: Contentions of proof 观察二：证据的争论
In this section you should provide the proof to fulfill the criteria that satisfies the highest values within the context of the motion. There may be several independent justifications. 在本节中，您应提供证据，以满足在动议背景下最高价值的标准。可能有几个独立的理由。
Here is an example of how a value case would work with the motion: Cats are better pets than dogs. 这是一个关于价值案例如何与运动结合的示例:猫是比狗更好的宠物。
Observation one: Resolutional analysis 观察一:决议分析
I. Definition of terms 一. 术语定义
A. Cats: common household pets in the feline family including Siamese and Tabby, excluding lions and tigers. A. 猫：家庭中常见的哺乳动物，包括暹罗猫和虎斑猫，不包括狮子和老虎。
B. Dogs: common household pets in the canine family including German Shepard and Chihuahua, excluding wild dogs and dingos. B. 狗：家庭中常见的犬科动物，包括德国牧羊犬和吉娃娃，不包括野狗和澳洲野狗。
C. Pets: domesticated animals who live with their owners. C. 宠物：与主人一起生活的驯养动物。
II. Type of motion 运动类型
This is a value motion because it calls for a comparison of two things to prove that one thing is better than another. 这是一种价值判断，因为它要求比较两件事情，以证明一件事情比另一件更好。
III. Context of the value judgment 价值判断的背景
In this case, Chinese urban areas could be the context. This is justified because most urban people live in apartments and therefore the comparison of cats and dogs in that living arrangement would be appropriate. 在这种情况下，中国的城市地区可能是上下文。这是有道理的，因为大多数城市人住在公寓里，因此在这种居住安排中比较猫和狗是合适的。
IV. Hierarchy of values IV. 价值观的层次结构
Since many values can be considered when talking about pets, we would like to clarify which values are the most important. In this 由于在谈论宠物时可以考虑许多价值观，我们想澄清哪些价值观最重要。在这
case, since people can get satisfaction and love from either cats or dogs, we argue that the highest value is the "convenience" of caring for the animal. 情况，因为人们可以从猫或狗中获得满足感和爱，我们认为最高价值是照顾动物的“便利性”。
V. Criteria 标准
Our job today is to show that cats are better pets than dogs in terms of the convenience of caring for them when living in an apartment. 我们今天的任务是展示，在公寓中生活时，猫比狗更适合作为宠物，因为照顾它们更加方便。
Observation two: Contentions of proof 证据争论二：证据的内容
Contention one: Cats are more convenient when it comes to feeding. 争论一：在喂养方面，猫更方便。
I. Cats can be left alone for several days without eating all of their food immediately. 一、猫可以连续几天不吃完所有食物就被留下。
II. Dogs will immediately eat all the food you give them, and vomit it. II. 狗会立即吃掉你给它们的所有食物，并吐出来。
III. This makes cats much more convenient when having to be away for a few days. III. 这使得猫在离开几天时更加方便。
Contention two: Cats are more convenient when it comes to waste elimination. 争议二：在处理废物排泄时，猫更加方便。
I. Cats will use a litter box where all waste is left in one spot for convenient clean-up. I. 猫会在猫砂盆中留下所有废物，方便清理。
II. Dogs will leave their waste wherever they please and make clean-up very difficult. II. 狗会随地大小便，让清理变得非常困难。
III. This makes cats a joy to have around since clean-up can be as simple as a scoop away. III. 这就是为什么养猫是一件快乐的事情，因为清理只需要一勺就可以搞定。
Contention three: Cats are more convenient for exercising. 争论三：猫更方便锻炼。
I. Cats will exercise by themselves. They never have to be taken out for a walk. 一、猫会自己锻炼。它们从不需要遛出去散步。
II. Dogs always demand walks even in the dead of winter. While on the walks they will leave their waste, which responsible owners will have to inconveniently pick up. 二、狗即使在严寒的冬天也总是要求遛。在散步时它们会留下排泄物，负责任的主人不得不不方便地清理。
III. This makes cats much easier to deal with on cold days when you just want to stay in. III. 这使得在寒冷的日子里，你只想待在家里的时候，更容易应对猫的问题。
Note that three contentions all "flow" through the value of convenience. If the Proposition selected a different value, then the contentions should flow through that value. 请注意，三个争论都“流”经过方便的价值。 如果提出选择了不同的价值，那么争论应该经过该价值。
Conclusion 结论
Case development allows propositional teams to clearly present their arguments. When preparing for the parliamentary debate the propositional team must work very quickly. An organizational structure can allow for a quick identification of specific issues. With policy motions the propositional team analyzes the motion and provides the stock issues of need, significance, inherency, plan, solvency, and advantages. With value propositions the propositional team sets the ground of the debate along with the contentions that fit within the framework of the case. Using proper organizational structure allows propositional teams to effectively use preparation time to quickly develop relevant and significant arguments for the first speaker to present in a logical progression. 案例开发允许主张团队清晰地提出他们的论点。在为议会辩论做准备时，主张团队必须工作得非常迅速。组织结构可以快速识别特定问题。在政策动议中，主张团队分析动议并提供需求、重要性、固有性、计划、解决方案和优势的基本问题。在价值主张中，主张团队为辩论奠定基础，并提出符合案例框架的争议点。使用适当的组织结构可以让主张团队有效利用准备时间，快速发展相关和重要的论点，供第一发言人以逻辑顺序呈现。
Activities 活动
Develop a case on a policy motion. 在政策动议上开发一个案例。
Develop a case on a value motion. 制定一个关于价值动议的案例。
Oppositional Counter-Gase Develonment 反对方反案的制定
In Chapter 9 we discussed how to build a case from the perspective of the propositional team. When on the oppositional side you will have the responsibility to refute the case of the Proposition and build a counter-case. Typically, the goal of the Opposition is to demonstrate that the proposed plan will not work to solve the problem, or that the plan will cause more harm than the status quo, or that the Opposition has a better plan to offer. The Opposition attacks the Proposition's case by providing direct refutation, while their counter-case specifically attacks the Proposition's plan. The judge will weigh the arguments of both sides to determine who has more compelling arguments. When on the Opposition, your job will be to try to reduce the significance of the propositional case and increase the significance of your own counter-case. 在第 9 章中，我们讨论了如何从提案团队的角度建立一个案例。当你在反对一方时，你将有责任驳斥提案方的案例并建立一个反案。通常，反对方的目标是证明所提议的计划无法解决问题，或者该计划会比现状造成更多伤害，或者反对方有更好的计划提供。反对方通过直接驳斥来攻击提案方的案例，而他们的反案则专门针对提案方的计划。裁判将权衡双方的论点，以确定谁有更具有说服力的论点。当你在反对方时，你的工作将是试图减少提案案例的重要性，并增加你自己反案的重要性。
In parliamentary debate even though the oppositional team has the same preparation time before the debate, they often have less time to plan their counter-case. The reason for this is that the Proposition's case is not always predictable before the first speaker of the Proposition gives the constructive speech. During the preparation time, the oppositional team may anticipate what possible cases the Proposition could run and brainstorm as many reasons to reject the motion as possible. But not all of the arguments the Opposition prepares will be relevant and used in the debate. This chapter explains the various options for preparation of the Opposition's counter-case. The next chapter will discuss direct refutation. 在议会辩论中，尽管反对方团队在辩论前拥有相同的准备时间，他们经常没有足够的时间来规划他们的反方案。造成这种情况的原因是，在提出辩证性讲话之前，议案的情况并不总是可以预测的。在准备时间内，反对方团队可能会预料到提案方可能会提出什么可能的情况，尽可能地想出拒绝动议的理由。但并非所有反对方准备的论点都会在辩论中被使用。本章将解释反对方反方案准备的各种选项。下一章将讨论直接驳斥。
Counter-case Strategies for Policy Motions 政策动议的反方案策略
The Opposition has many options to argue against the propositional plan, such 反对方有许多选项来反驳提案方的计划， such
as disadvantages, feasibility, case turn and counter-plan. 作为缺点，可行性，案例转折和对策。
Disadvantages 缺点
The most inviting argument against a plan is a disadvantage. A disadvantage refers to the harm, negative consequences, or costs that would result from the Proposition's plan of action. Basically, you could try to think of reasons why it would be bad to adopt the Proposition's plan. Disadvantages could involve the same type of significance and harm as the propositional case. In other words, disadvantages concern things such as death, low quality of life or living standards, physical or psychological injury or other things that we value. For the Opposition, it is a very effective strategy to have strong disadvantages of the proposed plan to win over the judge. In fact, if the oppositional team cannot present and win any disadvantage arguments, the judge will have little reason to vote against the propositional plan. 对一个计划最具诱惑力的论点是一个缺点。缺点指的是提案行动计划可能导致的伤害、负面后果或成本。基本上，你可以尝试想出为什么采纳提案计划会是不好的理由。缺点可能涉及与提案案例相同类型的重要性和伤害。换句话说，缺点涉及诸如死亡、生活质量低下或生活水平低下、身体或心理伤害或其他我们重视的事物。对于反对方来说，拥有对提议计划的强有力缺点是赢得裁判的有效策略。事实上，如果反对方团队无法提出并赢得任何缺点论点，裁判就没有太多理由反对提案计划。
Disadvantage arguments only work when there is a cause and effect relationship between the plan and the suggested disadvantages. In effect, a disadvantage sets up a chain of arguments that says the plan will cause this and this will cause that and that is bad. The oppositional team must be able to explain the cause-effect relationship in this chain. 缺点论仅在计划和建议的缺点之间存在因果关系时才有效。实际上，缺点设立了一系列论点，表明计划会导致这个，这个会导致那个，而那个是不好的。反对方必须能够解释这一连锁中的因果关系。
There are two types of disadvantages: linear and nonlinear. A linear disadvantage means that as a plan is implemented, a series of problems will gradually follow. This is like putting on weight. As the weight gain continues, bad things happenthe person cannot walk as long without being winded, clothes no longer fit, and eventually heart problems may occur. The weight gain gradually influences many other aspects of life for this person. 有两种类型的缺点：线性和非线性。线性缺点意味着随着计划的实施，一系列问题将逐渐出现。这就像增加体重。随着体重的增加，不好的事情会发生，人不能再走很长时间而不喘气，衣服不再合身，最终可能会出现心脏问题。体重的增加逐渐影响了这个人生活的许多其他方面。
A nonlinear disadvantage means that a plan may only do a small action, but that action will have great problems. To return to the weight example, as a person puts on weight, plaque builds up in the blood vessels. No problem occurs until a bit of plaque breaks off and travels to the heart, causing a heart attack which may 非线性缺点意味着一个计划可能只做一个小动作，但这个动作会带来巨大的问题。回到体重的例子，当一个人增加体重时，血管中的斑块会积聚。直到一小部分斑块脱落并流向心脏，引发心脏病发作，才会出现问题。
result in death. Just before the heart attack everything was fine, then one little action causes a big impact. 导致死亡的结果。就在心脏病发作之前一切都很好，然后一个小动作引起了巨大的影响。
Oppositional teams can use either or both types of disadvantages depending on the plan and the arguments they can construct. Here is how each disadvantage works in a debate round. 反对团队可以根据计划和他们能够构建的论点使用任一或两种类型的劣势。以下是辩论中每种劣势的工作原理。
Linear Disadvantage 线性劣势
The first subpoint of a linear disadvantage should be an external link. You need to start the disadvantage by telling the judge what exactly in the plan will be the cause of the problem. This may also be called "uniqueness" because you are describing what part of the plan will uniquely lead to the problem. If the plan does not uniquely lead to the problem then perhaps the same problem already exists in the status quo or will exist regardless of the plan. For example, if you say the plan allows automobiles to be sold in Beijing, that would not be a unique external link since the status quo allows automobiles to be sold. This means that the plan and the status quo both cause the disadvantage so nothing will change with or without the plan. If on the other hand the plan forbids the sale of automobiles in Beijing, this is not the status quo and therefore would be a unique external link for the disadvantage. 线性劣势的第一个子点应该是外部联系。您需要通过告诉法官计划中的具体部分将导致问题来开始劣势。这也可以称为“独特性”，因为您正在描述计划的哪一部分将独特地导致问题。如果计划并不独特地导致问题，那么也许相同的问题已经存在于现状，或者无论是否有计划都会存在。例如，如果您说计划允许在北京出售汽车，那将不是一个独特的外部联系，因为现状允许在北京出售汽车。这意味着计划和现状都导致了劣势，因此无论是否有计划，都不会发生变化。另一方面，如果计划禁止在北京出售汽车，这就不是现状，因此将是劣势的一个独特外部联系。
The next subpoint should be an internal link or several internal links in a chain of arguments. The external link states what the plan does. In the internal link you explain how this external link will lead to something else. To continue our automobile example, if no automobiles can be sold in Beijing (external link) this will cause less automobiles to be built (internal link), and this could lead to increased unemployment (another internal link). 下一个子点应该是一条内部链接或一系列论点链中的几个内部链接。外部链接说明计划的作用。在内部链接 中，您解释这个外部链接将如何导致其他事情发生。继续我们的汽车示例，如果北京无法销售汽车（外部链接），这将导致建造的汽车减少（内部链接），这可能导致失业率上升（另一个内部链接）。
The last subpoint would be the impacts. If the cause-effect relationship is valid you need to describe the bad things that will happen. Just as in the propositional case you should describe the harm and significance. The Opposition should not just assume that impacts are bad. To use the prior example, if someone loses 最后一个子点将是影响。如果因果关系有效，您需要描述将发生的不良后果。就像在命题案例中一样，您应该描述伤害和重要性。反对方不应该仅仅假设影响是不好的。使用先前的例子，如果有人失去
weight it could be good or bad. If overweight, perhaps it would stop a heart attack or other health problems. But if a person were starving, weight loss may be fatal. 体重，这可能是好事或坏事。如果超重，也许会阻止心脏病发作或其他健康问题。但如果一个人处于饥饿状态，体重减轻可能是致命的。
Let's see the same example where driving is regulated for odd and even days in the structure of a linear disadvantage. 让我们看一个相同的例子，在线性劣势结构中，驾驶受到奇数和偶数日的限制。
Disadvantage one: The plan offered by the other team (the Proposition) hurts the automobile industry. 劣势一：另一支球队提出的计划（提案）伤害了汽车行业。
I. External link-The plan limits automobile driving to odd and even days. I. 外部链接-该计划将汽车驾驶限制在奇数和偶数日。
II. Internal link—Limiting automobiles will discourage people from buying more automobiles. 二、内部联系-限制汽车数量会阻止人们购买更多汽车。
III. Internal link—When people buy less automobiles the automobile manufacturers will need to reduce its workforce. 三、内部联系-当人们购买更少汽车时，汽车制造商将需要减少其员工人数。
IV. Impact-Reduction of workforce is bad. 四、影响-减少员工人数是不好的。
A. More unemployed workers cannot feed their families. A. 更多失业工人无法养活家人。
B. More children of unemployed families get less education. B. 更多失业家庭的孩子接受较少教育。
Nonlinear Disadvantage 非线性劣势
A nonlinear disadvantage reasons that small cause can have a big effect. In this type of disadvantage, the Opposition adds an extra subpoint called "brink," which means that the current system is on the edge of some major problem. Visualize a person standing on the edge of a cliff where one more step will cause a fatal fall. This person is on the brink of danger. Recall the example of a person who might have a heart attack due to plaque in blood vessels. As plaque builds up in blood vessels there is usually little harm. Right before the heart attack, the person was "on the brink" of a problem, even if totally unaware of the circumstances. The little piece of plaque pushes him over the brink. It is said that the person is on the threshold of the problem, even if the time on the threshold lasts for several years. The old saying "the straw that breaks the camel's back" implies a nonlinear advantage. The last straw does not weigh any more than the others; it just passes the brink of what the camel could bear. 一个非线性的劣势原因是小的原因可能会产生重大影响。在这种类型的劣势中，反对方增加了一个额外的子观点，称为“边缘”，这意味着当前系统正处于某个重大问题的边缘。想象一个人站在悬崖边缘，再走一步就会导致致命的坠落。这个人处于危险的边缘。回想一下，一个人可能因为血管中的斑块而发生心脏病发作的例子。当血管中的斑块堆积时，通常不会造成太大伤害。在心脏病发作之前，这个人“处于边缘”问题的边缘，即使完全不知道情况。一小块斑块将他推到边缘之外。据说这个人正处于问题的门槛，即使在门槛上的时间持续数年。古话说“压垮骆驼的最后一根稻草”暗示了非线性优势。最后一根稻草的重量并不比其他的重，它只是超过了骆驼所能承受的极限。
Here is an example of a nonlinear disadvantage using the automobile example: 这里有一个使用汽车例子的非线性劣势的例子：
Disadvantage two: The plan causes social unrest. 劣势二：该计划引起社会动荡。
I. External link--The plan limits automobile usage. 一、外部链接-该计划限制了汽车使用。
II. Internal link-Limiting automobiles will discourage people from buying more automobiles. 二、内部链接-限制汽车将阻止人们购买更多汽车。
III. Internal link-When people buy fewer automobiles the automobile manufacturers will need to reduce its workforce which will push the country over the brink. 三、内部链接-当人们购买更少的汽车时，汽车制造商将需要减少其员工，这将推动国家走向崩溃。
IV. Brink-The economy is on the threshold of an economic depression. IV. 崖口-经济正处于经济大萧条的边缘。
V. Impact-Economic depression is bad. V. 影响-经济大萧条是不好的。
A. Lead to social unrest. A. 导致社会动荡。
B. Lead to reduction of social programs, i.e. education. 导致社会项目减少，例如教育。
C. Lead to violence. 导致暴力。
Notice the two disadvantages are based on the same plan-reducing usage of automobiles. One disadvantage has a linear impact and the other has a nonlinear impact with brink analysis. 请注意，这两个缺点都是基于同一个计划-减少汽车使用。一个缺点具有线性影响，另一个具有非线性影响，并带有边缘分析。
The disadvantage argument is the chief strategy of the Opposition. It undermines the significance of the Proposition's case. Without disadvantages, the Proposition's case will have some significance regardless and therefore will have a reason for the judge to vote for them. Judging is like a scale where the significance of one side is weighed against the significance of the other. The Opposition should try to put as much significance on their side of the scale as possible. 反方的劣势论是其主要策略。它削弱了提案方案的重要性。没有劣势，提案方案将无论如何具有一定的重要性，因此对评委有理由投票支持他们。评判就像一架天平，其中一方的重要性与另一方的重要性进行比较。反方应该尽可能多地在天平的一侧赋予重要性。
Feasibility 可行性
In a feasibility argument the oppositional team contends that the plan would not work or that it would be infeasible. Sometimes this argument is called a "workability" argument, meaning the plan would be unworkable. Feasibility means that other factors will not allow the plan to be able to capture the significance claimed by the propositional team. 在可行性论证中，反对方团队主张该计划不会奏效或不可行。有时这个论证被称为“可行性”论证，意思是该计划将不可行。可行性意味着其他因素将导致该计划无法捕捉提案方案声称的重要性。
An example of a feasibility argument could contend that banning automobiles would not be feasible since so many people depend on automobiles to get to work. If they all had to abandon automobiles at once the public transportation system would not be able to accommodate them all. 一个可行性论证的例子可能是认为禁止汽车不可行，因为有那么多人依赖汽车去上班。如果他们都必须立刻放弃汽车，公共交通系统将无法容纳他们。
There are many ways to attack the feasibility of a plan. You may provide some reasons for the harm in the case that the propositional plan does not consider. Since the plan does not deal with these "counter-causes," the problem will still exist and the harm will not be solved. For example, if someone wanted to lose weight but they only stopped eating ice cream, then all of the other things the person ate may still cause the person to gain weight. Another way to show a lack of feasibility is that the agent in the plan does not have the authority, the money, or the enforcement power to undertake the plan. For example, if a plan wanted the United Nations to give foreign aid to feed all of the people in the world it would be infeasible because the United Nations does not have enough money. 有许多攻击计划可行性的方法。您可以提供一些原因，说明如果提议的计划没有考虑到，可能会造成伤害。由于计划没有处理这些“反因素”，问题仍将存在，伤害也不会得到解决。例如，如果有人想减肥，但只停止吃冰淇淋，那么这个人吃的其他所有东西可能仍会导致这个人增重。显示缺乏可行性的另一种方法是计划中的代理人没有权力、资金或执行力来执行计划。例如，如果一个计划希望联合国提供外国援助以供养全世界的人民，这是不可行的，因为联合国没有足够的资金。
Case Turn 案例反转
Case turn is a key strategy for both teams in the debate. "Turn" is short for "turn the tables" on the other side. Picture yourself at a large dinner table with a lazy susan to spin in the middle for sharing dishes. A criminal interrupts your party and demands all of your money. When he is emptying your wallet, he places the gun on the lazy susan. You are quick in moving the lazy susan to spin the gun to your side. You grab the gun and save the day. You have now turned the tables on him, or have used his "argument" - having the gun — against him. 案例转折是辩论中双方的关键策略。"转折"是指在对方身上"扭转局面"。想象一下自己坐在一个大餐桌旁，中间有一个懒人苏珊可以旋转，用来共享菜肴。一个罪犯打断了你的聚会，并要求你所有的钱。当他在清空你的钱包时，他把枪放在了懒人苏珊上。你迅速地转动懒人苏珊，把枪转到了你这边。你抓住了枪，挽救了这一天。你现在扭转了局势，或者说是利用了他的"论点" - 拿枪这一点 — 来对付他。
A case turn claims that instead of solving the harm, the plan will make it worse. If you can turn the solvency, you are telling the judge the Proposition's plan does not work because it will be better just to keep things the same. For example, if the price of bus 案例转折声称，与其解决问题，计划会让情况变得更糟。如果你能扭转可行性，你就在告诉法官，提案的计划不起作用，因为保持现状会更好。例如，如果公交车的价格降低以减少私家车拥有量，实际上可能会导致公共交通变得拥挤，从而鼓励人们购买更多的汽车。
transportation is lowered to reduce private automobile ownership it may actually cause public transportation to be so crowded that people would be encouraged to buy more automobiles. 交通运输费用降低以减少私家车拥有量，实际上可能会导致公共交通变得拥挤，从而鼓励人们购买更多的汽车。
Though turns were not mentioned when introducing propositional case development, it is important to note that turns can be effectively used by both teams. Turns can be argued by the propositional team against the Opposition's disadvantages. The argument could turn the link or turn the impact. 虽然在介绍命题案例发展时没有提到轮次，但重要的是要注意，轮次可以被两支队伍有效地使用。命题队可以针对反对方的劣势进行辩护。该论点可能会扭转联系或扭转影响。
Let's look at our example above. A disadvantage could say the plan will hurt the automobile industry and that causes linear unemployment. An impact turn could contend this is actually a good thing. The argument may be that when growth is too fast, the economy is too "hot." When reducing the amount of jobs in the automobile industry it may actually impact the economy in a good way in the long run with more secure employment in better industries such as green technology. 让我们看看上面的例子。一个劣势可能会说计划会伤害汽车工业，导致线性失业。一个影响扭转可能会争辩这实际上是一件好事。论点可能是，当增长过快时，经济会过热。当减少汽车工业的工作岗位时，实际上可能会对经济产生积极影响，从长远来看，更多的就业机会将出现在绿色技术等更好的行业中。
If the disadvantage links reduced automobile ownership to social unrest, then a link turn would say that the plan will actually lead to increased automobile ownership. In this case, if an owner can only drive an auto on odd days, then another car would be purchased for even days. So this means the plan increases automobile ownership and therefore stops social unrest. 如果劣势将减少汽车拥有量与社会动荡联系起来，那么一个联系扭转将会说计划实际上会导致汽车拥有量增加。在这种情况下，如果一个车主只能在奇数日驾驶汽车，那么另一辆车将被购买用于偶数日。因此，这意味着该计划增加了汽车拥有量，从而阻止了社会动荡。
Counter-plan 对策
With policy motions, the Proposition is assigned the task of improving the status quo. The Opposition may defend the status quo, or they may also abandon the status quo and come up with a better plan to improve the status quo, which is called a counter-plan. What the Opposition is asking the judge to do is to weigh the plan of the propositional team versus the counter-plan of the oppositional team and determine which would be more beneficial. The requirements for a counter-plan strategy are text, non-topicality, competitiveness, mutual exclusivity, and net benefit. These requirements work like the stock issues for a propositional team. 在政策动议中，提案方被赋予改善现状的任务。反对方可以维护现状，也可以放弃现状并提出改善现状的更好计划，这就是所谓的对策。反对方要求评判员比较提案方的计划和反对方的对策，确定哪个更有利。对策策略的要求包括文本、非主题性、竞争性、互斥性和净利益。这些要求与提案方的基本问题类似。
Text means the actual wording of the counter-plan. You will need to be very clear and precise when you state the text of the counter-plan just like the propositional team needs to clearly state the text of their plan. The text should provide the agent of action, mandate, funding, and enforcement (see the specifics needed for a plan in last chapter). 文本指的是对策的实际措辞。在陈述对策文本时，您需要非常清楚和准确，就像提案方需要清楚陈述他们计划的文本一样。文本应提供行动代理、授权、资金和执行力（请参阅上一章对计划所需的具体信息）。
Non-topicality 非主题性
Many judges believe the Opposition's counter-plan should not support the motion. Since the Proposition is asked to affirm the motion, the Opposition is asked to negate the motion. If the oppositional team has a counter-plan that asks for the motion to be adopted then the judge would need to vote for the motion. Since the propositional team is the one assigned to support the motion then a vote for the motion is a vote for the propositional team. For example, if the motion asks for reduced automobile usage the propositional team may run the odd/even license plate system as a plan. If the Opposition limited automobiles to one per family that would also reduce automobile usage and therefore the judge may vote for the motion even if the Opposition's counter-plan may be superior. 许多裁判认为反方的对策不应支持动议。由于要求提案方肯定动议，反方被要求否定动议。如果反方团队有一个要求通过动议的对策，那么裁判就需要投票支持动议。由于提案方团队被指定为支持动议的一方，因此支持动议就是支持提案方团队。例如，如果动议要求减少汽车使用，提案方团队可能会提出奇偶号牌系统作为一个计划。如果反方将汽车限制为每家一辆，那也会减少汽车使用，因此裁判可能会支持动议，即使反方的对策可能更优秀。
Competitiveness 竞争力
To be competitive a counter-plan must solve the same harm that the plan solves. Let's say the plan reduces air pollution and saves 100,000 lives. Let's say the counter-plan doesn't do anything about air pollution, but instead bans smoking and saves 200,000 lives. In effect the counter-plan is really arguing a separate harm that they are solving-smoking-and not taking on the issue in the debate-air pollution. In other words, the counter-plan has to directly compete against the plan. To be competitive, the counter-plan must solve the problem with the status quo that is brought up by the propositional team. For example, with a motion to save the planet through reduced production the propositional 要有竞争力的对策必须解决计划解决的同样问题。假设计划减少空气污染并挽救了 10 万人的生命。假设对策并没有解决空气污染问题，而是禁止吸烟并挽救了 20 万人的生命。实际上，对策实际上是在解决一个与辩论中提出的问题不同的问题-吸烟问题，而不是辩论中的空气污染问题。换句话说，对策必须直接与计划竞争。为了有竞争力，对策必须解决提出团队提出的现状中存在的问题。例如，对于通过减少生产来拯救地球的动议，提出团队可以通过减少汽车销售来减少空气污染，而反对方的对策可以提供免费公交车乘坐。任何一项计划都可以减少空气污染。
team could reduce air pollution through the reduced sale of automobiles, while the oppositional counter-plan could offer free bus rides. Either plan would work to reduce air pollution. 互斥性
Mutual Exclusivity
To be mutually exclusive, the counter-plan must be such that it couldn't be done at the same time as the plan. A debate should be a clash over a controversy. The propositional team presents a plan to solve a need in the controversy. If the oppositional team presents a counter-plan that addresses the controversy, but can be done at the same time as the plan (and get twice the benefit), why wouldn't we want to do them both? For example, let's say that a man wants to lose weight and his plan is to go on a diet. If the counter-plan was to exercise, it wouldn't be mutually exclusive since the man could diet and exercise at the same time and lose even more weight. 为了互相排斥，反计划必须是这样的，即它不能与计划同时进行。辩论应该是对一个争议的冲突。提议团队提出了一个解决争议中需求的计划。如果反对团队提出了一个解决争议的反计划，但可以与计划同时进行（并获得两倍的好处），为什么我们不想同时做呢？例如，假设一个人想减肥，他的计划是节食。如果反计划是锻炼，那么它就不是互相排斥的，因为这个人可以同时节食和锻炼，减肥效果会更好。
Net Benefit 净利益
Most policy debates will compare the propositional plan and the oppositional counter-plan. Both teams explain why their plan is more beneficial. The judge considers their arguments and subtracts the disadvantages from the advantages and arrives at a "net" benefit. If there is a counter-plan offered in the debate, the judge must consider the advantages and disadvantages of the oppositional counter-plan compared to the advantages and disadvantages of the propositional plan. Usually in a debate, the Opposition will need to point out why the counterplan is net beneficial and why the judge should vote for the counter-plan without accepting the propositional plan. 大多数政策辩论将比较提案计划和反对对抗计划。双方都会解释为什么他们的计划更有利。裁判会考虑他们的论点，将不利因素减去有利因素，得出“净”收益。如果辩论中提出了反对对抗计划，裁判必须考虑反对对抗计划的优势和劣势，与提案计划的优势和劣势相比。通常在辩论中，反对方需要指出为什么对抗计划具有净利益，以及裁判为什么应该投票支持对抗计划而不接受提案计划。
Counter-case Development for Value Motions 价值动议的反对案发展
Just as with policy propositions, the oppositional team can have a direct refutation of the arguments in the propositional case and then present a set of 正如政策提案一样，反对方团队可以直接驳斥提案案例的论点，然后提出一组
arguments independent of the propositional case structure. The oppositional counter-case has its own structure and presents reasons to vote against the propositional case. Specific areas to refute in a value case are: 不依赖于命题案例结构的论据。对立的反案例有其自身的结构，并提出反对命题案例的理由。在价值案例中要反驳的具体领域包括：
Resolutional Analysis 决议分析
The Opposition may attack any aspect of the interpretation of the motion by the Proposition (as in the motion "Cats are better pets than dogs" in last chapter). 反对方可以攻击提案方对动议解释的任何方面（如上一章中的动议“猫比狗更适合做宠物”）。
Definition. A definition that is unfair to the Opposition can be attacked. The definition of cat might be unacceptable if the Proposition only included lions and tigers. This type of definition might make it difficult for the Opposition to defend. 定义。对反对方不公平的定义是可以被攻击的。如果提案只包括狮子和老虎，那么对猫的定义可能是不可接受的。这种类型的定义可能会使反对方难以辩护。
Type of motion. If the Opposition wants to attack the propositional analysis of the type of motion, they must give a reason. For example, if there is an action verb calling for a policy and the Proposition calls it a value motion, then it would be appropriate to point out that the team is wrong. 动议类型。如果反对方想要攻击动议类型的提案分析，他们必须给出理由。例如，如果有一个要求政策的动词，而提案将其称为价值动议，那么指出团队错误是合适的。
Context of the motion. The Opposition can argue that the motion is not narrowed appropriately. If the Proposition narrows the motion to those households where children are allergic to dogs, there would be no controversy. The general public already has a consensus that dogs would not be good if people were allergic to them, so there is no reason to debate the issue. Once again, the context needs to provide fair ground to the Opposition. 动议的背景。反对方可以主张动议没有适当地缩小范围。如果提案将动议缩小到那些家庭中孩子对狗过敏的情况下，就不会有争议。一般公众已经达成共识，如果人们对狗过敏，那么狗就不好，所以没有理由争论这个问题。再次强调，背景需要为反对方提供公平的立场。
Hierarchy of values. If the Proposition thinks that "convenience" is the highest value, the Opposition has the option to accept or reject it. However, if the Opposition substitutes the value with "protection," they might have a better chance at winning. If the Opposition wants to present other arguments on another value, then they must argue that the counter-value is more importanthigher on the hierarchy. Therefore, the Opposition will need to consider the values and how they are weighed very carefully. The Opposition will have to be 价值观的等级。如果当事人认为"便利"是最高的价值，反对方可以选择接受或拒绝它。然而，如果反对方用"保护"代替这个价值，他们可能会有更大的机会获胜。如果反对方想就其他价值观提出争论，那么他们必须争辩说反方的价值观在等级上更重要。因此，反方必须非常仔细地考虑这些价值观及其权衡。反方必须能够解释为什么当事人的价值观不如他们想要捍卫的价值重要。如果你认为家里有一只狗保护家庭比拥有一只猫的便利更重要，那么你应该能够捍卫这个等级和推理。
able to explain why the Proposition's value is not as important as the value they want to defend. If you think that having a dog to protect the family is a higher value than the convenience of owning a cat, then you should be able to defend the hierarchy and the reasoning. 能够解释为什么当事人的价值观不如他们想要捍卫的价值重要。如果你认为家里有一只狗保护家庭比拥有一只猫的便利更重要，那么你应该能够捍卫这个等级和推理。
Criteria. What measurements will be used to confirm the facts of the case? In other words, how will the judge measure the arguments in the round to know who won? For example, if the criterion to measure convenience of a pet is the amount of time that is spent taking care of it, then any argument on the money being spent would not fit the criterion. The Opposition has a choice to flow their arguments through the criteria of the Proposition or they can choose to substitute them with their own criteria which they can argue as more appropriate. 标准。用什么衡量标准来确认案件事实？换句话说，法官将如何衡量辩论中的论点，以知道谁赢了？例如，如果衡量宠物便利性的标准是照顾它所花费的时间，那么任何关于花费的论点都不符合标准。反对方可以选择通过提议方的标准来展开他们的论点，或者他们可以选择用自己认为更合适的标准来替代它们，并将其作为更合适的论据进行辩论。
Counter-case Contentions 反方案争论
Counter-case contentions need to flow through the criteria and the hierarchy of values. In effect, they function the same way disadvantages do in plan attacks. In other words, they serve as independent reasons against the value judgment advanced by the propositional team. Oppositional teams can structure their arguments as such: 反方案争论需要通过标准和价值观的层次流动。实际上，它们的功能与计划攻击中的劣势相同。换句话说，它们作为独立理由反对提议团队提出的价值判断。反对方团队可以将他们的论点结构化为：
Counter-contention one: Dogs are more convenient when they get out. 反驳一：狗出去更方便。
I. Dogs will come to their masters when called. 一、狗被叫时会来到主人身边。
II. Cats will ignore their masters' call. 二、猫会无视主人的召唤。
III. Therefore, it is more convenient to get dogs to come inside when outside. 因此，当外面时更方便让狗进来。
Counter-contention two: Dogs are more convenient to control because they are easier to train. 反对观点二：狗更容易控制，因为它们更容易训练。
I. Dogs are famous for their ability to perform at their masters' command. 狗以能够按照主人的命令表演而闻名。
II. Cats are infamous for the ability to ignore anyone's command. 猫以无视任何人命令的能力而臭名昭著。
III. Therefore, dogs are better at getting them to stay in place when needed. 因此，狗更擅长让它们在需要时保持原地。
Challenging Definition or Topicality 挑战定义或主题性
In BP and AA debate, a challenge of the definition is a way to point out to the judge that the propositional team has provided a definition of any motion (fact, value, or policy) that is unreasonable and not debatable. In the US the issue is called topicality and it is compared to "technicality" in the US court system. This is an issue of fair-mindedness. A topicality argument claims that if someone does not fairly follow the rules, they should not be allowed to win their case. The first rule of debate is "two sides agree to disagree about a specific topic." If the propositional team uses an unreasonable definition they really aren't debating the assigned motion. The challenge of the definition or topicality provides a way for the oppositional team to stop the abuse. When the oppositional team challenges the propositional case in terms of topicality, they must follow 在 BP 和 AA 辩论中，对定义的挑战是向法官指出提议方提供了不合理和无法辩论的任何动议（事实、价值或政策）的定义的一种方式。在美国，这个问题被称为话题相关性，并与美国法院系统中的“技术性”进行比较。这是一个公正性问题。话题相关性论证声称，如果有人不公平地遵循规则，他们就不应被允许赢得他们的案件。辩论的第一个规则是“双方同意在特定议题上有不同看法”。如果提议方使用不合理的定义，实际上他们并没有讨论被分配的动议。对定义或话题相关性的挑战为反对方提供了一种阻止滥用的方式。当反对方团队就话题相关性挑战提出时，他们必须遵循
the following guidelines: 以下准则：
Timing. The first oppositional speaker must be the one to advance the definitional challenge. The reasoning is that if the first speaker does not attack definition, then the first speaker has tacitly approved the definition. If the second oppositional speaker offers a challenge then it is an inconsistent position by the Opposition. This creates a contradiction in the oppositional team. A contradiction is one of the most damaging conditions for a team. Since the judge cannot tell which position the team supports, usually both sides of the argument of the Opposition are excluded. The judge may even rank the team lower because inconsistency means the team does not have continuity in their arguments. 时间。第一个反对发言人必须是提出定义挑战的人。理由是，如果第一个发言人不攻击定义，那么第一个发言人就默认批准了这个定义。如果第二个反对发言人提出挑战，那么反对方的立场就是不一致的。这会在反对方团队中造成矛盾。矛盾是团队最具破坏力的条件之一。由于裁判无法确定团队支持的立场，通常会排除反对方论点的双方。裁判甚至可能会因为不一致意味着团队在论证中缺乏连贯性而对团队评分较低。
Counter-definition. Whichever term is under contention, the first oppositional speaker must provide a counter-definition which the oppositional team will defend as better. For example, if a motion defined by the propositional team is 反定义。无论争议涉及哪个术语，第一个反对发言人必须提供一个反定义，反对方团队将辩护为更好的定义。例如，如果由提议方团队定义的一个动议是
Africa, then the counter-definition would be on the word "increase." 非洲，那么反定义将涉及到“增加”这个词。
Violation of a standard/criterion. The first oppositional speaker must point out how their counter-definition should be evaluated as better. There are many options for the oppositional attack of the Proposition's definition though the Opposition only needs one. 违反标准/准则。第一个反对方发言人必须指出他们的反定义应该如何被评估为更好。虽然反方对提案的定义有许多攻击选项，但反方只需要一个。
The meaning and grammar of the definition are not proper and have no understandable relationship to the motion. 定义的含义和语法不恰当，与议题没有可理解的关系。
The definition does not match the one established in a dictionary. 该定义与词典中建立的定义不匹配。
The definition sets up a truism that is undebatable. 该定义建立了一个无可争议的真理。
There is no controversy set up by the definition. If the motion ends up as a consensus because of the definition of the propositional team then it has failed to give the oppositional team any ground to debate. 该定义没有引起任何争议。如果动议最终因为提案团队的定义而达成共识，那么它未能给反对团队任何辩论的立足点。
The definition is not based on general knowledge that an educated person would be able to know. 该定义不是基于受过教育的人能够知道的常识。
The definition is restricted to an isolated location or time frame. 该定义仅限于孤立的地点或时间范围。
Counter-case arguments. The oppositional speakers can offer arguments consistent with their counter-definition to demonstrate the reasonableness of their position. 反例论证。反对方发言人可以提出与他们的反定义一致的论点，以证明他们立场的合理性。
Differences Between BP and AP Debate BP 辩论和 AP 辩论之间的区别
BP debate has four teams, so winning a challenge of the definition does not necessarily mean that oppositional teams will take the top rank. It is only one argument among many. If arguing a new definition, the Opposition should provide a better definition and argue from the new definitional stance. If argued successfully, the challenge has a tendency to raise the first Opposition and lower the first Proposition in ranking. BP 辩论有四支队伍，因此赢得对定义的挑战并不一定意味着反对方队伍会获得第一名。这只是众多论点中的一个。如果辩论一个新的定义，反对方应提供一个更好的定义，并从新的定义立场进行辩论。如果辩论成功，挑战往往会提升第一反对方并降低第一提议方的排名。
In AP debate, a topicality argument has much more weight. Teams will still advance the counter-definitions, standards and violations, but need to add an 在 AP 辩论中，合法性论点具有更大的分量。队伍仍会提出反定义、标准和违规行为，但需要增加一个额外要求，称为“投票问题”。从字面上讲，反对方认为提议方违反了辩论规则，应该输掉这一轮。在大多数情况下，反对方声称合法性是“先验的”，希腊语中意为“这是首要的”。换句话说，先验问题意味着裁判应该首先考虑这个论点。如果反对方赢得合法性论点，他们就不需要赢得任何其他论点。即使反对方输掉了合法性论点，提议方仍然必须赢得他们的案例才能赢得辩论。
additional requirement called a "voting issue." Literally, the Opposition argues that the Proposition has violated the rules of debate and should lose the round. In most cases, the Opposition claims that topicality is "a-priori" which in Greek means "this comes first." In other words, an a-priori issue means the judge should look to this argument first. If the Opposition wins the topicality argument, they do not need to win any other argument. Even if the Opposition loses the topicality argument, the Proposition must still win their case to win the debate.
Conclusion 结论
Regardless of the type of motion, the Opposition needs to provide arguments that the motion should not be affirmed. Many of these arguments can be thought out during the preparation time, while others are developed as the debate unfolds. The judge looks to the type of arguments you have chosen in determining if you should win the round. Being able to present the counterarguments in a coherent and consistent manner is essential for the Opposition. 无论是什么类型的动议，反方都需要提出论据证明该动议不应被肯定。这些论据中的许多可以在准备时间内思考出来，而其他一些则是随着辩论的展开而发展出来的。裁判会根据您选择的论据类型来判断您是否应该赢得这一轮。能够以连贯一致的方式提出反驳论点对于反方至关重要。
Activities 活动
Use the policy motion from the exercise of last chapter. Research the disadvantages of the plan for the motion. Write up the disadvantages to share with the class. 使用上一章练习中的政策动议。研究该动议计划的缺点。写下这些缺点与班级分享。
Work with a partner on a strategy against a propositional case. 与伙伴合作制定对抗提案案例的策略。
This can be done with any motion already being used in class. 这可以使用班上已经在使用的任何动议来完成。
Refutation, the heart of debating, is where you explain why your ideas are better than the other team's ideas. Refutation is the main way debaters test out their arguments to see who is doing the better critical thinking. The propositional and oppositional first speakers advance case and counter-case arguments. The rest of the debate should then be like a table tennis match with refutation of arguments going back and forth between the teams. If your refutation is stronger than the other side's refutation then you have a better chance of winning the argument. But unlike table tennis match, debate is not just a battle of winning the most points (quantity), it is more of a contest of who has the most important points (quality). The debate may even have arguments and refutation why an argument is more important than another. Therefore, it is important to be able to explain your critical thinking with any refutation you offer. 反驳，辩论的核心，是你解释为什么你的想法比对方的想法更好的地方。反驳是辩手测试自己论点的主要方式，以确定谁在进行更好的批判性思考。提议方和反对方的第一发言人提出案例和反案例的论点。辩论的其余部分应该像乒乓球比赛一样，双方之间的论点反驳来回进行。如果你的反驳比对方的反驳更有力，那么你就有更大的机会赢得争论。但与乒乓球比赛不同，辩论不仅仅是争夺最多分数（数量）的战斗，更多的是一个谁拥有最重要论点的比赛（质量）。辩论甚至可能有关于为什么一个论点比另一个论点更重要的论点和反驳。因此，能够解释你提出的任何反驳的批判性思维是很重要的。
Burden of Refutation 反驳的责任
, and AA debate treat refutation differently. AP debate is more inductive and favors a line-by-line analysis. Any point that is not refuted goes to the other team. The saying in the US is "a dropped point is a conceded point" or "silence is admission." This burden of refutation means that if you are silent, you are, in effect, admitting the other team is right and you will lose that point in the debate. If both teams drop the point, then they are actually communicating the argument is not important. If there is a double drop where both consecutive and opposing speeches do not discuss the point, the argument then becomes "moot" which means the argument is still up for debate, but cannot be counted for either side. 在辩论中，AP 辩论更具归纳性，偏爱逐行分析。任何未被驳斥的观点都会被归入另一方。美国有句谚语是“被忽略的观点就是被认可的观点”或“沉默就是承认”。这种驳斥的责任意味着，如果你保持沉默，实际上是在承认对方是正确的，你将在辩论中失去那一点。如果双方都忽略了这一点，那么他们实际上在传达这个论点并不重要。如果出现双方都忽略的情况，即连续的对立演讲都没有讨论这一点，那么这个论点就变得“无效”，这意味着这个论点仍然可以被辩论，但不能计入任何一方。
This means in AP debate it is important to "go down the flow" and in an organized way to refute each argument. If you come to an argument on your flow 这意味着在 AP 辩论中，重要的是“按照逻辑顺序进行辩驳”，有条不紊地反驳每个论点。如果你到达了你的逻辑顺序中的一个论点
sheet that the other team has dropped, then all you have to do is remind the judge that the other team has conceded the argument and you have won the point. This type of response is not called a refutation; instead it is called an "extension" because you aren't really refuting anything, just extending the argument of your speech on the flow sheet so the judge will know you are winning that point. 如果对方队伍放弃了某个观点，你只需要提醒裁判对方队伍已经放弃了这个观点，你就赢得了这个分数。这种类型的回应不叫反驳；而是叫做“延伸”，因为你并没有真正反驳任何观点，只是延伸你演讲中的论点，让裁判知道你正在赢得这个分数。
BP debate is more deductive and looks to bigger, theoretical or thematic approaches that may be more philosophical in nature. BP debaters are evaluated on the basis of manner and matter, so teams are not required to employ direct refutation as much as they are concerned on how well their speeches advance their positions. This may mean that a team will only generally refer to larger case issues as a way to set up their own arguments. If they "rebut" (the term for "refutation" preferred in BP debate) anything specifically, it is done to support their overarching theme. Arguments from the other team may be ignored if they don't fit into the strategy your team develops. BP 辩论更具演绎性，更注重更大、理论性或主题性的方法，可能更具哲学性质。BP 辩手根据方式和内容进行评估，因此团队不需要像直接反驳那样频繁地使用，而是关注他们的演讲如何推进自己的立场。这可能意味着一个团队只会一般性地提到更大的案例问题，作为建立自己论点的一种方式。如果他们“反驳”（BP 辩论中更喜欢的“反驳”术语）任何具体观点，那是为了支持他们的总体主题。如果对方的论点不符合你的团队制定的策略，那么可能会被忽略。
In AA debate, debaters are expected to win the debate on substantive arguments. This means as the arguments are debated the judge looks to the flow sheet to determine who is winning the arguments and how important the arguments weigh in the debate. Therefore, issues are important and need to advance the position of each team. But, in addition to deciding a winner, the judge are supposed to assign speaker points based on manner, matter, and method so that the winning team also has the most amount of points. 在辩论中，辩手被期望通过实质性论点赢得辩论。这意味着随着论点的辩论，裁判会查看流程表来确定谁在赢得论点，以及这些论点在辩论中的重要性。因此，问题很重要，需要推动每个团队的立场。但是，除了决定胜者外，裁判还应根据态度、内容和方法给予发言者分数，以便获胜团队也获得最多的分数。
Burden of Rejoinder 反驳的责任
The burden of rejoinder advances the concept of refutation one step further. Actually, rejoinder is a refutation of a refutation. It involves considering the refutation of the other team and then answering to prove that your original point is stronger. Often the mistake made by beginning debaters is to merely repeat the original argument and not refute the refutation of the other team. For example, Team A (first speaker) presents an argument that air pollution from factories 反驳的责任将反驳的概念推进了一步。实际上，反驳是对反驳的反驳。它涉及考虑对方团队的反驳，然后回答以证明您的原始论点更有力。通常，初学者辩手犯的错误是仅仅重复原始论点，而不反驳对方团队的反驳。例如，A 团队（第一发言人）提出一个关于工厂排放空气污染的论点。
is harmful. Team B (first speaker) refutes the argument by saying that the vast majority of air pollution in the area that Team discusses comes from automobiles and the plan doesn't solve automobile air pollution. If Team A (second speaker) insists that air pollution from factories is harmful, the answer is merely a repeat of the original argument. Team B (second speaker) can then provide a rejoinder that extends the automobile argument on the flow sheet since Team A has dropped it. 有害。团队B（第一发言人）反驳这一论点，称团队A讨论的区域中绝大部分空气污染来自汽车，而该计划并不能解决汽车尾气污染。如果团队A（第二发言人）坚持认为工厂排放的空气污染有害，答案只是对原始论点的重复。团队B（第二发言人）随后可以提出一个反驳意见，延伸汽车论点，因为团队A已经放弃了这一点。
So why would rejoinder be so vital in debate? Judges look for the synthesis of arguments. Even if the argument starts with solid analysis and evidence, the other team may offer excellent refutation. They may even decide to offer two or three arguments to refute each of the points. As the arguments progress, the judge must evaluate whose arguments are better. In most debates both sides will win some arguments. The judge must then look to the balance of the arguments, how they are impacted in the rejoinder and then make a decision. Your job as a debater is to provide the best rejoinder so that your synthesis of the arguments is stronger. You won't win a debate by merely repeating the original ideas. You need to answer the answer. 那么为什么辩论中的答辩如此重要呢？评委们寻求论点的综合。即使论点以扎实的分析和证据开头，对方团队可能会提出出色的反驳。他们甚至可能决定提出两到三个论点来驳斥每一个观点。随着论点的发展，评委必须评估哪方的论点更好。在大多数辩论中，双方都会赢得一些论点。评委随后必须看论点的平衡，它们在答辩中受到的影响，然后做出决定。作为辩手，你的工作是提供最好的答辩，使你对论点的综合更加强大。仅仅重复原始观点是赢不了辩论的。你需要回答这个回答。
Refutation Strategies 反驳策略
Focus on Stock Issues 专注于股票问题
In focusing on the stock issues you are pointing out to the judge that there is no reason to adopt the plan. If you win any stock issue you should win the debate. You should try to point out why there is no harm, why the harm is not significant, how the status quo can fix the harm and why the plan will not solve the harm or have any other benefits. In direct refutation of the case you are trying to reduce the reasons for voting for the other team. 在关注股票问题时，您正在向法官指出没有理由采纳该计划。如果您赢得任何股票问题，您应该赢得辩论。您应该尝试指出为什么没有伤害，为什么伤害不重大，现状如何可以解决伤害以及为什么该计划不会解决伤害或带来任何其他好处。在直接反驳案例时，您试图减少投票给另一支球队的理由。
Group Arguments 团体论证
In grouping arguments together a common refutation may apply to several 将论点分组在一起，一个常见的反驳可能适用于几个。
arguments from the other side. If the propositional team lists several harms from air pollution, the oppositional team may group all of the harms together and provide an answer, such as "the status quo has already passed laws to take care of these harms in the future." 对方的论据。如果提议方团队列举了空气污染造成的几种危害，反对方团队可以将所有危害归为一类，并提供一个回答，比如“现状已经通过法律来解决这些危害了。”
For example, suppose a team argues that ground level air pollution kills thousands of people every year. This argument can be supported with data. But what if the team also argues that is produced when burning fossil fuels? This can also be supported with data. However, you can grant the argument of because is not the harmful substance in air pollution that kills people; it is not directly connected to human health in regards to air pollution. So, unless the team provides some link of to harm, the argument of can be granted without any bad effect on your arguments. 例如，假设一个团队主张地面空气污染每年导致数千人死亡。这个论点可以用数据支持。但是如果团队还主张 是燃烧化石燃料时产生的呢？这也可以用数据支持。然而，你可以接受 的论点，因为 并不是导致人们死亡的空气污染有害物质；它与空气污染对人类健康的直接联系不大。因此，除非团队提供了一些 与危害的联系，否则 的论点可以被接受，而不会对你的论据产生任何不良影响。
Number Arguments 数字论据
An argument presented by the other team may be so flawed that you may see a strategic value in presenting many arguments against a single point. If you are going to have three arguments against one point, be sure to tell the judge the amount of arguments. For example, "I have three responses to this point." You can also assign "first," "second," "third," to each point respectively so the judge can follow them more easily. 对方提出的论点可能存在严重缺陷，你可能会看到在针对一个观点提出多个论点的战略价值。如果你要对一个观点提出三个论点，一定要告诉评委这些论点的数量。例如，“我对这个观点有三个回应。”你也可以分别给每个观点指定“第一个”，“第二个”，“第三个”，以便评委更容易跟上。
Standards of Refutation 反驳的标准
Chapter 2 explained the PEM of critical thinking (analysis and evaluation) and the Toulmin Model of argument construction (claim-data-warrant). Therefore, your job in refutation is to apply the standards of critical thinking to point out 第二章解释了批判性思维的 PEM（分析和评估）和图尔敏论证模型（主张-数据-保证）。因此，你在反驳中的任务是应用批判性思维的标准指出。
the flaws of the arguments of the other team and the strengths of your own arguments. 其他团队的论点缺陷和自己论点的优势。
Clarity. Sometimes this deals with unclear definition of terms. Other times the plan may be not detailed enough to understand. If the plan was vague it would be unfair to the oppositional team. In other words, if an oppositional team attacks a plan based on what they think the propositional team means and then the propositional team says they mean something else they would be a "moving target." This means the team is being vague to take the ground away from the other team. For example, if a team said they would have a governmental agency implement the plan, but did not tell you which government and what agency, they would be vague. 清晰度。有时这涉及术语定义不清晰。有时计划可能不够详细以便了解。如果计划模糊不清，就会对对立团队不公平。换句话说，如果对立团队攻击一个计划，基于他们认为提议团队的意思，然后提议团队说他们的意思是别的，他们将是一个“移动目标”。这意味着团队使用模糊的表述，以夺取对立团队的立场。例如，如果一个团队说他们将让一个政府机构执行计划，但未告诉你是哪个政府和哪个机构，他们就会模糊。
Accuracy. If the information is wrong, it means that the claim is unsupported. This can happen in a variety of ways. For example, if a team is talking about aid in Africa, but uses statistics about South America it probably wouldn't be accurate. If the other team provides more accurate information then their claim would be better supported. 准确性。如果信息是错误的，就意味着主张是毫无支撑的。这可以以各种方式发生。例如，如果一个团队在谈论非洲的援助，却使用南美的统计数据，那就可能是不准确的。如果其他团队提供更准确的信息，那么他们的主张将得到更好的支持。
Precision. If a team needs to provide the exact information and does not, they may open themselves up for more precise information from the other team. For example, when a team in their plan wants to increase spending for a program they should know the precise amount it will cost so they will have enough money in the budget. 精确性。如果一个团队需要提供确切的信息，但未能做到，他们可能会为另一个团队提供更精确的信息。例如，当一个团队在他们的计划中想要增加一个项目的支出时，他们应该知道它将花费的确切金额，这样他们就会在预算中有足够的资金。
Relevance. The argument must be "on point." Sometimes a team can provide significant and accurate information, but it simply does not have anything to do with the logic of the argument. For example, if a team claims that Western movies corrupt Chinese culture, data given on South Korean TV soap operas would be irrelevant on two levels: South Korea is not a Western country and TV soap operas are not movies. 相关性。论点必须“切题”。有时一个团队可以提供重要和准确的信息，但它根本与论点的逻辑无关。例如，如果一个团队声称西方电影腐蚀了中国文化，提供有关韩国电视连续剧的数据将在两个层面上无关紧要：韩国不是西方国家，电视连续剧不是电影。
Significance. The argument must have "weight" in the round. Why is it important? Sometimes a team can reduce the significance of the other team's argument. This is called mitigation. If a team claims a harm of 10,000 people being affected, but the other team shows there are only 2,000 people being affected, then they have mitigated the significance of the opponent team. 重要性。论点在辩论中必须具有“分量”。为什么这很重要？有时一个团队可以降低另一个团队论点的重要性。这被称为减轻。如果一个团队声称有 1 万人受到伤害，但另一个团队显示只有 2,000 人受到伤害，那么他们已经减轻了对手团队的重要性。
Depth. Is the argument only on the surface? Are there other factors involved that influence the decision? This could happen when a team only mentions one cause of a problem when several other causes might be involved. In a debate on global warming if a team only mentioned automobiles as a cause of greenhouse gases they would be missing other significant causes such as livestock, industry, and natural causes like melting tundra. 深度。这个论点只停留在表面吗？还有其他因素影响了决定吗？当一个团队只提到问题的一个原因时，可能有其他几个原因参与其中。在全球变暖的辩论中，如果一个团队只提到汽车是温室气体的原因，他们会忽略其他重要的原因，比如牲畜、工业，以及像融化的冻土这样的自然原因。
Breadth. Are there other issues that influence the main issue? Are there other causes outside the main issue that might stop a plan from working? For example, when trying to solve the problem of poor education it might not be enough to just provide money to build schools, especially if there are not enough teachers for the schools or textbooks are poor or children are too isolated to attend the school. 广度。还有其他问题影响主要问题吗？主要问题之外还有其他原因可能阻止计划实施吗？例如，当试图解决教育质量差的问题时，仅仅提供资金建设学校可能不够，特别是如果学校没有足够的教师，教科书质量差，或者孩子们太偏远无法上学。
Logic. Does the argument make sense? Are there any counter-causes that aren't discussed by the other team? Are they committing any fallacies? 逻辑。这个论点是否合理？其他团队没有讨论的反因素有哪些？他们是否犯了任何谬误？
Fairness. Is the information being phrased in an objective manner? Is there obvious bias? Is the other team fair in the way they set up the case or is there a lack of ground for the other team to defend? If a motion asks a team to defend "expand university opportunities" and their case merely mentions McDonald's hamburgers at the canteen it would hardly be a fair interpretation of the motion. 公平性。信息是否以客观的方式表达？是否存在明显的偏见？另一支队伍在构建案例时是否公平，或者另一支队伍是否缺乏立场来进行辩护？如果一个命题要求一支队伍为“扩大大学机会”进行辩护，而他们的案例仅仅提到了食堂里的麦当劳汉堡，这几乎不是对命题的公平解释。
Presenting the Refutation 提出反驳
Clarity is the first critical thinking standard in presenting the refutation. There are many ways to make your refutation clear. The "Three Rs plus I" can help: Repeat, Refute, Replace, and Impact. 清晰度是在提出反驳时的第一个关键思维标准。有许多方法可以使你的反驳清晰。"三个 R 加上 I"可以帮助：重复、反驳、替换和影响。
Repeat. Whenever you are speaking you want the judge to understand the argument you are discussing. The first thing is to tell the judge the argument you are discussing by indicating where the argument is placed and what it is labeled. You may say something like: "The first harm is that people die from air pollution. In this argument they said that 400,000 people die each year from air pollution related diseases." 重复。每当你发言时，你希望法官能够理解你正在讨论的论点。首先要告诉法官你正在讨论的论点，指出论点的位置和标签。你可以说类似这样的话：“第一个危害是人们死于空气污染。在这个论点中，他们说每年有 40 万人死于与空气污染有关的疾病。”
Refute. The second thing to say is the refutation of the original argument. For example, "The data the other team is using is all about pollution, but their case is only about air pollution from automobiles." 反驳。第二件要说的事是反驳原始论点。例如，“对方团队使用的数据都是关于污染，但他们的案例只涉及汽车尾气的空气污染。”
Replace. The third thing is to replace the argument of the other team with your position. For example, "The evidence is that death from automobile pollution is much less, and may not be significant in rural areas." 替换。第三件事是用你的立场替换对方团队的论点。例如，“证据表明，汽车尾气污染导致的死亡率要低得多，在农村地区可能并不显著。”
Impact. The fourth thing is to explain the impact of your argument by telling the judge why the argument is important. For example, "The plan only goes into effect in rural areas, and since there is no harm from automobile pollution in rural areas, the other team is not solving any harm and therefore has no significance for you to vote for." 影响。第四点是通过告诉法官为什么这个论点很重要来解释你的论点的影响。例如，“这个计划只在农村地区生效，由于农村地区没有汽车污染的危害，因此另一支队伍没有解决任何危害，因此对你来说没有任何重要性。”
Impact is very important for refutation. You should always provide the impact of your own arguments. You should always try to point out that the other team does not have any impact or has a lesser impact. 影响对于反驳非常重要。你应该始终提供自己论点的影响。你应该始终试图指出另一支队伍没有任何影响或影响较小。
Final Rebuttal Speeches 最终反驳发言
Debate rules call for new arguments only in constructive speeches. No new arguments are allowed in rebuttal speeches (usually the last two speeches). What this means is that the rebuttal speakers must be able to synthesize the arguments relying on things already said without adding anything new. This rule provides 辩论规则要求在建设性发言中只能提出新论点。反驳性发言中不允许提出新论点（通常是最后两个发言）。这意味着反驳发言者必须能够综合已经说过的观点，而不能添加任何新内容。这条规则提供了
fairness since it wouldn't be a very good debate if the last speaker waits until the final speech to bring up all of the good arguments. 公平性，因为如果最后一个发言者等到最后一次发言才提出所有好的论点，那这场辩论就不会很好。
The rebuttal speakers review the way the debate has advanced and isolate the reasons why their side is winning. This is not a time to provide a line-by-line analysis of all the arguments. It is preferable to provide larger arguments called "voting issues" where you tell the judge two or three main arguments you are winning and why they are reasons to vote for you. This is called "issue selection" because only the top issues are presented for the judge to consider. It may be that the final oppositional speaker has three voting issues (although they may only need one). The final propositional speaker refutes the voting issues (using only arguments brought up in constructive speeches) and then has two or three voting issues for the propositional side with explanations why their arguments are winning the debate. 反驳发言人回顾辩论的进展方式，并找出他们一方正在取得胜利的原因。现在不是提供所有论点逐条分析的时候。最好提供称为“投票问题”的更大的论点，在那里告诉裁判你正在赢得的两三个主要论点以及为什么它们是支持你的理由。这被称为“问题选择”，因为只有最重要的问题被呈现给裁判考虑。最终反对方的发言人可能有三个投票问题（尽管他们可能只需要一个）。最终支持方的发言人驳斥投票问题（只使用在建设性发言中提出的论点），然后提出两三个支持方的投票问题，并解释为什么他们的论点正在赢得辩论。
An oppositional rebuttal may list their voting issues like this: 反对方的反驳可能会列出他们的投票问题如下：
Oppositional voting issue one: The harm is not significant. 反对方的投票问题一：伤害不重要。
Oppositional voting issue two: The plan will not work. 反对投票问题二：计划不会奏效。
Oppositional voting issue three: The plan has a serious disadvantage. 反对投票问题三：计划存在严重缺陷。
A propositional rebuttal can have refutation of the oppositional voting issues and present voting issues for their side: 提出性反驳可以反驳反对投票问题，并为他们一方提出投票问题。
Refutation of oppositional voting issue one: The harm is significant. 反对性投票问题一的反驳：危害重大。
Refutation of oppositional voting issue two: The plan will work. 反对性投票问题二的反驳：计划将奏效。
Refutation of oppositional voting issue three: The plan has no disadvantage. 反对性投票问题三的反驳：计划没有任何不利之处。
Propositional voting issue one: The plan will solve the harm. 命题性投票问题一：该计划将解决危害。
Propositional voting issue two: The plan will have other advantages. 命题性投票问题二：该计划将具有其他优势。
Being able to provide solid refutation is an essential skill for succeeding as a debater. In attacking the ideas of the other side you must be able to analyze and evaluate their strengths and weaknesses and be able to effectively explain your thinking to the judge. The techniques taught in this chapter can also be utilized when creating your own arguments so they will withstand the attacks of the other team. 能够提供坚实的反驳是作为辩手成功所必备的技能。在攻击对方的观点时，你必须能够分析和评估他们的优势和劣势，并能够有效地向评委解释你的思路。本章教授的技巧也可以在制定自己的论点时使用，以便它们能够经受住对方团队的攻击。
Activities 活动
Find an editorial whose arguments you don't agree with. Write a refutational paper to explain the weaknesses of it. Be very specific about your analysis. 找一篇你不同意观点的社论。写一篇反驳性论文，解释其中的弱点。对你的分析要非常具体。
Listen to a debate. Point out the arguments and refutations. Defend who did the better job on each point. 听一场辩论。指出论点和反驳。为每个观点上表现更好的一方辩护。
When constructing arguments for a position you will want to use the best reasoning you can. Reasoning literally means providing reasons for something. When the argument has good reasons it is said that the reasoning is "sound." An argument can be considered unsound when it contains a fallacy or provides bad reasons. The catalog of fallacies will forever remain incomplete since people are always inventing new ways of going astray in their reasoning! Therefore, any discussion of fallacies could not exhaust what can be said about unsound modes of thinking. 在构建立场论点时，您会希望使用尽可能好的推理。推理字面上意味着为某事提供理由。当论点有充分的理由时，就说推理是“有力的”。当论点包含谬误或提供糟糕的理由时，可以认为论点是无效的。谬误目录将永远不完整，因为人们总是在他们的推理中创造新的误入歧途的方式！因此，任何关于谬误的讨论都无法穷尽对无效思维方式的讨论。
PEM and Fallacies PEM 和谬误
PEM is a system of analysis and evaluation that makes spotting fallacies easier. PEM 是一种分析和评估系统，可以更容易地发现谬误。
In the broadest context, the nine standards of evaluation of the PEM in Chapters 3 and 11 provide categories where thinking may be sound or where it may contain fallacies. Most fallacies could be broadly categorized under one or more standards. These intellectual standards can guide your response even if you cannot provide a specific label for a fallacy. For example, if the evidence used does not support the claim, then "relevance" would be the area where you can point out a fallacy. It may also be that the critique could fall under "logic" since fallacy could also deal with the logic of an argument. 在最广泛的背景下，第 3 章和第 11 章中对 PEM 的九项评估标准提供了思维可能正确或可能包含谬误的类别。大多数谬误可以广泛归类为一个或多个标准。即使您无法为谬误提供具体标签，这些智力标准也可以指导您的回应。例如，如果使用的证据不支持主张，那么“相关性”就是您可以指出谬误的领域。批评也可能属于“逻辑”，因为谬误也可能涉及论证的逻辑。
The elements of analysis in the PEM also allow for proper placement of a fallacy attack. For example, Chapter 3 mentioned an element called "purpose." If you wanted to place an attack against "purpose," you could have many different standards to choose from. For example, if the "purpose" of an argument is not known, then the missing part could prove the rest of the case "irrelevant" or "unclear" or "insignificant." PEM 中的分析要素还允许正确地定位谬误攻击。例如，第 3 章提到了一个名为“目的”的要素。如果您想对“目的”提出攻击，您可以选择许多不同的标准。例如，如果论证的“目的”不明确，则缺失部分可能证明其余部分“不相关”、“不清楚”或“不重要”。
With the eight elements and nine standards you should have 72 different ways to pinpoint where arguments are strong and where they are weak. 有了八个要素和九个标准，您应该有 72 种不同的方式来确定论点的强弱。
- Toulmin Model and Fallacies - 图尔敏模型和谬误
Argument construction according to the Toulmin Model starts with the triad of claim, data, and warrant. These three things fit together to make an argument, although often debaters will not specifically state one of the parts. For example, warrants may be implied, requiring the audience to make the link between the claim and data. Warrant analysis can be used to evaluate whether the link is sound or not. 根据图尔敏模型构建论点始于主张、数据和担保的三元组。这三个要素结合在一起形成一个论点，尽管辩手们通常不会明确陈述其中的某一部分。例如，担保可能是暗示的，需要观众将主张和数据之间的联系联系起来。担保分析可用于评估这种联系是否合理。
Additionally, the claim of one argument may be part of a chain of several arguments. If you discover the weakness in one argument it may mean the entire chain is broken. A fallacy can occur in any of these parts. 另外，一个论点的主张可能是几个论点链中的一部分。如果你发现一个论点的弱点，这可能意味着整个链条被打破。谬误可能发生在这些部分中的任何一个。
Fallacies are often complex and do not lend themselves to neat and tidy classification. It may be that something fallacious in one context may be sound in another, or one argument can commit several different fallacies. However, There is a list of fallacies that have been persistently and widely acknowledged. The following are some common fallacies committed in debate. In Appendix 2 of the book you will find an extended list of fallacies. 谬误通常是复杂的，不容易被简洁地分类。也许在一个语境中是谬误的东西，在另一个语境中可能是正确的，或者一个论点可能涉及多种不同的谬误。然而，在谬误清单中有一些一直被广泛认可的谬误。以下是辩论中常见的一些谬误。在书的附录 2 中，您将找到一个扩展的谬误清单。
Fallacies Involving Claim 涉及主张的谬误
Often when someone commits a fallacy involving a claim they are being unclear with their language. This lack of clarity can be grouped under ambiguities. 经常当有人涉及一个涉及主张的谬误时，他们的语言不够清晰。这种缺乏清晰度可以归为模糊。
Amphibole. This fallacy involves logical ambiguity in sentence structure, i.e. faulty grammar or inappropriate punctuation. An example is "The class will meet Friday with Ms Chen broken into three parts." The claim meant to say the class would be broken into three parts, not Ms Chen. 两义性。这种谬误涉及句子结构中的逻辑模糊，即错误的语法或不恰当的标点符号。一个例子是“班级将在星期五与陈女士分为三部分。”声明本意是说班级将分为三部分，而不是陈女士。
Equivocation. This fallacy occurs when the claim uses the same word in an inconsistent manner. For example, when Barack Obama was first elected President one newsperson said he would need lots of discipline to be successful. The next newsperson agreed and said that he would need to discipline the Democratic Party. 模棱两可。当声明以不一致的方式使用同一个词时，就会发生这种谬误。例如，当巴拉克·奥巴马首次当选总统时，一位新闻人士说他需要很多纪律才能成功。下一个新闻人士同意并说他需要纪律民主党。
Accent. This fallacy occurs when there is a misplaced emphasis on a claim. Since part of communication is the way we say something, meaning can be changed if you place the emphasis on a different word or phrase. Consider the sentence: "He should not have treated his wife that way in public." What meaning is intended? Does it mean "he" instead of someone else? Does it mean "his wife" instead of someone else's? "In public" instead of in private? A meaning can be skewed when the emphasis is misplaced. 重音。当对声明进行错误的强调时，就会发生这种谬误。由于沟通的一部分是我们说话的方式，如果将重点放在不同的词或短语上，意义可能会发生变化。考虑这句话：“他不应该在公共场合那样对待他的妻子。”意图是什么？是指“他”而不是其他人吗？是指“他的妻子”而不是其他人的吗？是指“在公共场合”而不是在私下吗？当重音放错时，意义可能会被扭曲。
Fallacies Involving Data 数据涉及的谬论
The use or misuse of evidence can be a prime place to spot fallacies. These fallacies can come from the lack of evidence, or the use of irrelevant evidence or evidence that is simply defective. 证据的使用或误用可能是发现谬论的主要地方。这些谬论可能来自证据的缺失，或者使用不相关的证据或简单有缺陷的证据。
Missing evidence. This fallacy occurs when someone uses a claim without any proof at all. This is called an assertion. Remember: " Those who assert must prove." 缺少证据。当有人没有任何证据地使用主张时，就会出现这种谬论。这被称为断言。记住：" 断言者要有证据。"
Begging the question. This fallacy uses evidence that is merely the claim. For example, "He told us the truth because he wouldn't lie to us." 提出问题。这种谬误使用的证据仅仅是主张。例如，“他告诉我们真相，因为他不会对我们撒谎。”
Tautology. This fallacy involves a definition that is circular. For example, "A hardworking student is a student who works hard." 同义反复。这种谬误涉及一个循环的定义。例如，“一个用功的学生就是一个努力学习的学生。”
Evading the issue. This fallacy presents evidence that does not link to the claim. This also happens when someone "sidesteps" a question by not answering it. 逃避问题。这种谬误提供的证据与主张没有联系。当有人通过不回答问题来“绕过”问题时，也会发生这种情况。
Straw man argument (also called a straw argument). This fallacy refutes an argument the other side never presents, based on the misinterpretation of the other side's position. If the first team has an argument, the second team does not refute the original argument, but instead creates a different argument and defeats the "made-up" argument, this means the second team creates a weak argument that is easily defeated. This is like someone building a straw man to be able to beat up to impress or frighten someone. For example, in a debate one side may bring up the harm of air pollution. If the other team brings up plans to reduce water pollution and says that the problem has been solved, they are creating an argument the other team does not have and then beating the argument. This means they are trying to create an illusion they have refuted something while actually they have dropped the other team's argument on air pollution. 稻草人论点（也称为稻草论点）。这种谬误是基于对对方立场的错误解释，来反驳对方从未提出的论点。如果第一方提出了一个论点，第二方并不反驳原始论点，而是创造一个不同的论点并击败这个“虚构”的论点，这意味着第二方创造了一个容易被击败的弱论点。这就像有人制造一个稻草人，以便打败它来给某人留下印象或吓唬某人。例如，在辩论中，一方可能提出空气污染的危害。如果另一方提出减少水污染的计划，并表示问题已经解决，他们就是在创造一个对方没有的论点然后击败这个论点。这意味着他们试图制造一种假象，表明他们已经反驳了某事，而实际上他们已经放弃了对方关于空气污染的论点。
Red herring. To divert attention from the main argument to something insignificant is called using a red herring. For example, if the argument is about bad drinking water and the other team asks questions about how swimming pools are filled, they are using a red herring. 赤鲱。将注意力从主要论点转移到无关紧要的事物被称为使用赤鲱。例如，如果论点是关于糟糕的饮用水，而另一队问到游泳池是如何填充的，他们就在使用赤鲱。
Ad hominem attack. To attack the debater and not the argument is an ad hominem attack. For example, if someone says "He doesn't know what he is talking about because he is a boy," they are using an ad hominem attack. 人身攻击。攻击辩论者而非论点是一种人身攻击。例如，如果有人说“他不知道自己在说什么，因为他是个男孩”，他们就在使用人身攻击。
Appeal to the people. To say that something is true because the majority of people support it is an appeal to the people. Popularity doesn't necessarily make something true. For example, saying that millions of people like to eat fast food, so it must be good for them is an appeal to the people. 诉诸民众。说某事是真的，因为大多数人支持它是一种诉诸民众。流行并不一定意味着某事是真的。例如，说数百万人喜欢吃快餐，所以它一定对他们有好处是一种诉诸民众。
Argument from ignorance. This fallacy tries to reason from the opposite. This is where someone proves something is true because the other team cannot disprove it. This trivializes the concept of evidence so that nothing needs to be proven. If you say that evolution must be true because you cannot disprove it you 无知论证。这种谬误试图从相反的角度推理。这是指有人证明某事为真，因为对方无法证伪。这贬低了证据的概念，使得没有必要证明任何事情。如果你说进化必须是真的，因为你无法证伪它，那么你就是在从无知中争辩。记住“举证责任”-主张者必须证明。
would be arguing from ignorance. Remember the "burden of proof"-those who assert must prove. 匆忙归纳。这种谬误要求我们基于过少的样本或非代表性样本得出结论。例如，如果你根据你自己班级的男女比例来做出关于高等教育中学生男女比例的决定，那么你就是在匆忙归纳。
Hasty generalization. This fallacy asks us to jump to conclusion based on too few samples or nonrepresentative samples. For example, if you make a decision on the male/female ratio of students in higher education based on the situation of your own class you would be making a hasty generalization.
Accident. This fallacy is the opposite of hasty generalization. In this case the argument is based on a rule that is valid in general, but fails to consider where the case in question may fall under exception to that rule. When you meet calm debaters and you come to the conclusion that all debaters are calm you might be committing this fallacy, since even some good debaters might be nervous. 事故。这种谬误是匆忙概括的反面。在这种情况下，论点基于一般有效的规则，但未考虑到所讨论的案例可能属于该规则的例外情况。当你遇到冷静的辩手，并得出结论所有辩手都很冷静时，你可能会犯这种谬误，因为即使一些优秀的辩手也可能紧张。
Excluded evidence. This fallacy overlooks important information that might change the outcome of the study. If someone quoted some evidence on people who died of air pollution, but failed to tell you they were all smokers they would be excluding evidence. 排除证据。这种谬误忽视了可能改变研究结果的重要信息。如果有人引用了一些关于死于空气污染的人的证据，但未告诉你他们都是吸烟者，他们就会排除证据。
Fallacies Involving Warrant 涉及授权的谬误
These fallacies occur when an argument has a claim and data, but the analysis linking the two is not clear or commonly accepted. 这些谬误发生在一个论点和数据都存在时，但连接两者的分析不清楚或不被普遍接受。
False analogy. We have learned how to use illustrations in SEE-Is. Metaphors are effective when trying to clarify something or transfer meaning. However, analogies make weak arguments for proof in a debate. They don't provide appropriate analysis since differences can always be found. All analogies are false analogies. Because they confuse illustration and proof, they can either be a fallacy of evidence or a fallacy of warrant. 虚假类比。我们已经学会了如何在 SEE-Is 中使用例证。当试图澄清某件事或传递含义时，隐喻是有效的。然而，在辩论中，类比并不是令人信服的证据。它们不提供适当的分析，因为总是可以找到不同之处。所有的类比都是虚假的。因为它们混淆了例证和证据，它们可能是证据谬误或保证谬误。
False cause. This fallacy is about cause-effect relationship. Often debaters base their arguments on what they think will happen from an action. For example, 虚假因果。这个谬误涉及因果关系。经常辩论者根据他们认为将发生的行动的结果来阐述自己的论点。例如，
sometimes negative consequences are claimed from a plan (disadvantages). There are many ways to make a fallacious cause-effect relationship. Two of the most common of the false cause involve time and correlation. Here are some types of false cause fallacies: 有时候会从一个计划中声称出现负面后果（缺点）。有许多方法可以制造一个谬误的因果关系。两种最常见的错误因果关系涉及时间和相关性。以下是一些错误因果关系的类型：
-Post hoc ergo propter hoc. This Latin phrase means "first this therefore that": because something comes first we mistake it for cause. When we mistake time (temporal succession) alone for cause we could be committing this fallacy. We see Gary come into a room and then we hear thunder and see lightning. If we say Gary brings thunder and lightning, we would be fallacious. There is no relationship between Gary and the weather. -因果关系倒置。这个拉丁短语意思是“先有这个，所以有那个”：因为某事先发生，我们误以为它是原因。当我们仅仅因为时间（时间顺序）而误认为是原因时，我们可能会犯这种谬误。我们看到 Gary 走进一个房间，然后听到雷声，看到闪电。如果我们说 Gary 带来了雷声和闪电，那就是错误的。Gary 和天气之间没有关系。
Mistaking correlation for cause. Correlation means that two things occur but are both caused by a third factor. A favorite example of mistaking correlation for cause is that increased ice cream sales in New York cause increased murder rates. Actually, these two things just correlate and are caused by an increased temperature. 将相关性误认为原因。相关性意味着两件事情发生，但都是由第三个因素引起的。一个常见的将相关性误认为原因的例子是纽约冰淇淋销量增加导致谋杀率增加。实际上，这两件事情只是相关，并且都是由气温升高引起的。
Denying equifinality. This fallacy asserts that there is only one cause to each effect. This is like saying that only eating ice cream causes someone to put on weight. 否认等效性。这种谬误断言每个效果只有一个原因。这就好比说只有吃冰淇淋才会导致体重增加。
Complex cause. This fallacy confuses a contributory factor with the only one cause. Many things may be necessary for a car to be able to travel, i.e. gasoline, tires, engine, but one condition may cause the car to stop working, i.e. a broken belt in the engine. 复杂原因。这种谬误将一个促成因素与唯一原因混淆。汽车能够行驶可能需要许多条件，比如汽油、轮胎、发动机，但一个条件可能导致汽车停止工作，比如发动机中的皮带断裂。
Slippery slope. This fallacy arises when asserting that an argument follows a cause-effect chain to unreasonable results. This is like saying that when we pass one law many bad things will follow. For example, an even/odd license plate plan will lead to laws to eliminate cars which will lead to people not able to get around. 滑坡。这种谬误是在断言一个论点遵循一个因果链到不合理的结果。这就好比说我们通过一个法律后会发生许多坏事。例如，奇偶号牌计划将导致废除汽车的法律，这将导致人们无法出行。
Using Fallacies During Refutation 在反驳过程中使用谬误
Pointing out fallacies is a very effective weapon in argumentation. You need to present your ideas clearly so the judge can understand your point. 指出谬误是辩论中非常有效的武器。您需要清晰地表达您的观点，以便评委能够理解您的观点。
In Chapter 11 you learned about the "three Rs and I" of refutation (repeat, refute, replace, impact). With fallacies in the other team's argument, you can advance your refutation by considering the following four concepts: 在第 11 章中，您学习了反驳的“三个 R 和 I”（重复、反驳、替换、影响）。通过考虑对方论点中的谬误，您可以通过以下四个概念推进您的反驳：
Burden of proof. Accept the burden of proving that what you claim as a fallacy is fallacious in this circumstance. Do not just say something is a fallacy and leave it at that. Your mindset should be that you have a burden to explain your reasoning against the fallacy of the other team. In other words, if you want to indict the other team for committing a fallacy you will need to let everyone know the basis of your argument. 举证责任。接受证明你所声称的谬误在这种情况下是谬误的责任。不要只是说某事是一个谬误，然后就此打住。你的心态应该是你有责任解释你反驳对方谬误的理由。换句话说，如果你想指控对方犯了谬误，你需要让每个人都知道你的论据。
Identification. Provide an identification of the argumentative flaw of the other team. This is often called a "tag." Be very precise with your label. Don't just say "This is a fallacy." Instead say "This is a hasty generalization fallacy." Then provide an explanation of your reasoning. You can use short tags so that your judge can make specific notes about your argument. 识别。提供对对方辩论缺陷的识别。这通常被称为“标签”。对你的标签要非常精确。不要只说“这是一个谬误”。而是说“这是一个仓促概括的谬误”。然后解释你的理由。你可以使用简短的标签，这样你的评委可以对你的论点做具体的笔记。
Impact. Indicate the impact of your argument. Why is the issue under question worthy of consideration? Why would the judge consider the specific point? You should say something like "This fallacy means they no longer have any evidence to support their claims. They have failed their burden of proof and have lost this point." 影响。说明你的论点的影响。为什么被质疑的问题值得考虑？为什么评委会考虑这个具体的观点？你应该说类似于“这个谬误意味着他们再也没有任何证据来支持他们的主张。他们未能承担举证责任，因此失去了这一点。”
Weigh the argument. State explicitly how the fallacy undermines the overall position you are refuting. Say "This now means that our argument is better on this point and we have won a major stock issue (like inherency)." 权衡论点。明确陈述谬误如何削弱了您反驳的整体立场。说“这意味着我们的论点在这一点上更好，我们赢得了一个重要的股票问题（比如固有性）”。
Fallacies are around us in everyday life. In debate, knowledge about fallacies helps you to construct better arguments and refute the arguments of your opponents. As you practice in debate, you will be able to improve your reasoning and be a better thinker. 谬误无处不在，贯穿我们的日常生活。在辩论中，了解谬误有助于您构建更好的论点并驳斥对手的论点。随着您在辩论中的实践，您将能够提高您的推理能力，成为更好的思考者。
Activities 活动
Construct a fallacy notebook. Look through magazines and newspapers to find 10 examples of unsound reasoning. Advertisements are especially good sources of fallacies. Share your fallacies in class. 构建一个谬误笔记本。浏览杂志和报纸，找到 10 个不合理推理的例子。广告是谬误的特别好来源。在课堂上分享你的谬误。
Find an editorial you don't agree with. Write an argumentative essay on the fallacies you find in the article. 找一篇你不同意的社论。写一篇关于你在文章中发现的谬误的论证性文章。
Reread the SEE-Is you have written for this course. Spot your own fallacies and correct them. 重新阅读你为这门课程写的 SEE-Is。发现你自己的谬误并加以纠正。
Competing in Dehate rouriaments 参加辩论比赛
Debate is a competitive activity. Classroom debating provides an environment for you to train your thinking in spontaneous oral communication. Additionally as a competitive activity, debate tournaments present opportunities for a different educational environment other than the classroom. First, there is more formality. Strict rules are to be followed. Teams may be from other schools. For the most part, judges and teams are strangers or friends in the making. A schedule must be followed. Decisions are tracked. Awards are given. Second, competition encourages motivation. Debaters are more likely to practice to perfect their skills. They will collaborate more with each other to make the best of the team performance. The most important reason for a tournament is that "real world" practice is encouraged. If debate is designed to increase thinking and speaking, then tournaments provide multiple opportunities to test those skills and have others assess your performance. Ultimately, no matter who wins the tournament, the educational value can be strong for everyone. Failure in this context is not failure, but only one more opportunity to develop your debating skills. 辩论是一项竞争性活动。课堂辩论为您提供了一个培养思维和口头沟通能力的环境。此外，作为一项竞争性活动，辩论比赛提供了一个不同于课堂的教育环境。首先，比赛更加正式。必须遵守严格的规则。参赛队可能来自其他学校。在很大程度上，评委和参赛队是陌生人或正在成为朋友。必须遵循一项时间表。决定会被记录。会颁发奖项。其次，竞争激励动力。辩手更有可能练习以完善他们的技能。他们会更多地合作，以使团队表现最佳。比赛最重要的原因是鼓励“现实世界”的实践。如果辩论旨在增强思考和演讲能力，那么比赛提供了多次机会来测试这些技能，并让他人评估您的表现。最终，无论谁赢得比赛，教育价值对每个人都是强大的。在这种情况下，失败并不是失败，而只是发展您辩论技能的又一次机会。
Before the Tournament 比赛前
The invitation. Each tournament will have a set of rules in an invitation. This is a good place to begin to understand what you are expected to do. You will find out the debate format and time limits to be followed. You will discover whether the topic areas are published to allow you to prepare arguments in advance. Preparation time will be outlined along with whom you are allowed to prepare. The invitation may also specify how many judges you must provide and the total amount of rounds. Some tournaments could have four rounds only. Others may have six to eight rounds with elimination rounds that declare a champion. 邀请。每场比赛都会在邀请函中列出一套规则。这是了解你应该做什么的好地方。您将了解到应遵循的辩论格式和时间限制。您将发现主题领域是否已发布，以便您提前准备论据。将概述准备时间以及您被允许准备的人。邀请函还可能指定您必须提供多少名评委以及总轮数。有些比赛可能只有四轮。其他比赛可能有六到八轮，其中包括宣布冠军的淘汰赛轮次。
Research. If you are allowed to research topic areas for the tournament you may divide up duties with other team members. This way you can share the information you gather and be even more ready for the competition. Some tournaments allow you to bring evidence as reference during the preparation time. Be sure to check the rules because some tournaments allow only printed materials while others also allow computer files. If the tournament does not publish topic areas, then you will have to guess about the motions. A good start may be editorials which provide excellent opportunities for getting familiar with social, political and economic current events. Perhaps the same thing you practice will show up as a motion in the tournament. In parliamentary debate you are supposed to have a breadth of knowledge, so a wide understanding of current events, politics, social issues, and philosophy could all come in handy. 研究。如果允许你研究比赛主题，你可以与其他队员分工合作。这样你可以分享所收集的信息，并更好地为比赛做准备。一些比赛允许你在准备时间带来证据作为参考。请务必查看规则，因为有些比赛只允许印刷材料，而其他一些也允许电脑文件。如果比赛没有公布主题领域，那么你将不得不猜测辩题。一个好的开始可能是社论，这为你熟悉社会、政治和经济时事提供了绝佳机会。也许你练习的内容会在比赛中出现为辩题。在议会辩论中，你应该具备广泛的知识，因此对当前事件、政治、社会问题和哲学的广泛理解都可能派上用场。
Physical preparation before the tournament. Get a good night's sleep before the tournament. Be sure to have a dictionary, plenty of paper and pens. You may want to bring water and snacks with you in case they are unavailable. Some competitors relieve their stress on the day of the tournament by setting out the appropriate clothing the day before. Have some comfortable shoes along. If the tournament is away from your city you may need to stay overnight, so have enough clean clothes to see you through the tournament. 比赛前的身体准备。比赛前要保证睡个好觉。确保带上字典、大量纸张和笔。你可能想带上水和零食，以防它们不可用。一些竞争者在比赛当天通过提前一天准备适当的服装来减轻压力。准备一双舒适的鞋子。如果比赛地点离你所在城市较远，你可能需要过夜，所以要准备足够的干净衣服度过比赛。
During the Tournament 比赛期间
Stay rested. Since most tournaments last for a full day it is like a marathon. You will have to get up early and stay late. If the tournament lasts for several days it could really take you away from other things you have to do. So bring homework and reading with you. Tournaments can be very social affairs. So have fun, but stay ready for other things. 保持休息。由于大多数比赛持续一整天，就像马拉松一样。你将不得不早起和晚睡。如果比赛持续几天，可能会让你无法完成其他事情。所以带上作业和阅读。比赛可以是非常社交的活动。所以尽情享乐，但要随时准备其他事情。
Be an attentive competitor. Be sure to be the best you can in every round. This means really listening and taking notes. Be a good audience member for the other debaters. Pay attention. Don't do things that distract them. Stay in the 做一个专注的竞争者。确保在每一轮比赛中尽力做到最好。这意味着真正倾听并做笔记。成为其他辩手的好观众。集中注意力。不要做会让他们分心的事情。一直留在辩论中，直到最后一个辩手完成。每场你参与或观察的辩论都是学习的机会。
debate until the last debater finishes. Every debate in which you participate or observe is an opportunity to learn. 保持时间表。了解时间表很重要，以免迟到比赛。比赛将会按时宣布辩题，并发布显示谁在辩论、在哪一边、在哪个房间的信息。仔细阅读发布的信息，确保知道辩论的地点和开始时间。如果你迟到比赛，你将会失去一些准备时间，甚至可能被取消该轮比赛或整个比赛。做一个聪明的竞争者的重要部分是提前预料。提前考虑食物、上厕所和比赛之间的旅行时间。
Stay on schedule. It is important to know the schedule to keep yourself from being late to the rounds. The tournament will try to announce motions on time and have postings that show who is debating, on what side, and in which room. Read the postings carefully to make sure the location and starting time of the debate. If you show up late for the round, you will lose some preparation time, or even be disqualified from the round or the tournament. An important part of being a smart competitor is to anticipate. Think ahead about food, toilet breaks, and traveling time between rounds.
Attend the awards ceremony. At the end of the tournament awards ceremony can be either simple or elaborate. The tournament hosts may award trophies, plaques, or certificates to speakers in addition to teams. Judges may also be recognized for their efforts. Be a good audience member. 参加颁奖典礼。在比赛结束时，颁奖典礼可以简单或华丽。比赛主办方可能会向演讲者和团队颁发奖杯、奖牌或证书。评委也可能会因他们的努力而受到表彰。做一个好的观众。
After the Tournament 比赛结束后
After the tournament you may have a chance to review the ballots judges have written. You may compare the final results, discussing how well the other teams perform and assessing how well the judges assess the debate. This process is called debriefing. In debriefing you are actually trying to find suggestions on how you can improve for the next competition. Many debaters consider this to be where the most important learning takes place. 比赛结束后，你可能有机会查看评委们写的选票。你可以比较最终结果，讨论其他团队的表现以及评委们如何评价辩论。这个过程被称为总结。在总结中，你实际上是在寻找建议，以便在下一次比赛中提高自己。许多辩手认为这是最重要的学习过程。
Judges 裁判员
Finding enough judges for a tournament can be the greatest challenge. For this reason, schools are required to bring enough judges to cover their "commitment." With AP or AA debate this may mean one judge for each two teams. In BP the requirement may be one judge per four teams. 为比赛找到足够的裁判员可能是最大的挑战。因此，学校需要带足够的裁判员来满足他们的“承诺”。在 AP 或 AA 辩论中，这可能意味着每两个队伍需要一个裁判员。在 BP 中，每四个队伍可能需要一个裁判员。
Judges may be teachers, coaches or experienced debaters. If judges do not have expertise they are called "lay" judges. Regardless of knowledge, judges should try to be as objective as possible. They are supposed to make decisions based on what they hear in the round. Even if they feel favorable about a motion or the school the team is from, they must try to be unbiased. 裁判员可以是老师、教练或有经验的辩手。如果裁判员没有专业知识，他们被称为“普通”裁判员。无论知识水平如何，裁判员都应尽量客观。他们应该根据在辩论中听到的内容做出决定。即使他们对一个议题或者队伍所属的学校有好感，他们也必须尽量做到公正。
At the beginning of the round you should try to understand the experience level of the judge. This can be done by politely asking "Can you tell us about your debating experience?" or "Can you tell us about your judging philosophy?" Depending on their answer you will know if you can be a bit more sophisticated in your theory and arguments. 在辩论开始时，你应该尝试了解评委的经验水平。可以礼貌地询问“您能告诉我们您的辩论经验吗？”或者“您能告诉我们您的评判理念吗？”根据他们的回答，你会知道是否可以在你的理论和论点中更加复杂一些。
Judges decide who did the better job of debating. In AP or AA debate, a win and loss must be given. In BP debate, teams must be ranked first through fourth. The judge must also assign speaker points to each debater. These points determine speaker awards and may be used to break ties. 评委决定谁在辩论中表现更好。在 AP 或 AA 辩论中，必须给出胜负结果。在 BP 辩论中，团队必须排名第一至第四。评委还必须为每位辩手分配发言人积分。这些积分决定了发言人奖项，并可能用于打破平局。
At the end of the round the judge may be required to provide an oral critique and disclose the decision. During this time it is important to listen and take notes. If the decision does not go as you expect, please do not argue with the judge. The debate is over, now it's time for learning. The judge will tell you how to improve for the next round. 在辩论结束时，评委可能需要提供口头批评并公布决定。在这段时间里，倾听和做笔记很重要。如果决定不符合你的期望，请不要与评委争论。辩论已经结束，现在是学习的时候。评委会告诉你如何在下一轮中改进。
Conclusion 结论
Debate tournaments may be rewarding in many ways. You can try out your skills and receive objective feedback for improvement. The competition may actually be the best educational opportunity to improve your thinking and speaking skills. And if you win, you will be able to list an award on your resume. 辩论比赛在许多方面都可能是有益的。您可以尝试您的技能，并获得客观反馈以改进。比赛实际上可能是提高您的思维和口才技能的最佳教育机会。如果您获胜，您将能够在简历上列出一个奖项。
Debating to become a better speaker and a better thinker has been the goal of this book. Whether you debate in class or in a tournament, you have an opportunity to improve your skills. Good luck and good debating. 辩论成为更好的演讲者和更好的思考者一直是本书的目标。无论您是在课堂上还是在比赛中辩论，您都有机会提高自己的技能。祝您好运，辩论愉快。
Appendix 1 附录 1
Glossary of Debate Terms 辩论术语表
Adapting 调整
Trying to debate in a way that pleases the judge. 试图以取悦裁判的方式进行辩论。
Adjudicator 裁判员
The judge in a round who will decide who won and assign speaker points to each debater. 在一轮辩论中决定谁获胜并为每位辩手分配演讲分数的裁判。
Advantage 优势
The part of the propositional policy case that demonstrates the positive effects of the propositional plan. 提案政策案的一部分，展示提案计划的积极影响。
Affirmative 肯定的
The side or team in a debate that supports the motion. 辩论中支持动议的一方或团队。
Agent of action 行动的代理人
When explaining a plan of action, this describes who will perform the action (usually a government). 在解释行动计划时，描述谁将执行行动的角色（通常是政府）。
American parliamentary debate (AP) 美国议会辩论（AP）
A debate format in which two teams debate on a different motion for every round. The winner and loser must be decided by a judge. 一种辩论形式，两支队伍每轮就不同议题展开辩论。胜负由裁判决定。
Analysis 分析
When you make statements to show how the facts are connected to the claim or provide the reasoning for your arguments. Also called a warrant. The elements of the Paul Elder Model of critical thinking provide eight ways of analysis. 当您进行陈述以展示事实与主张之间的联系或为您的论点提供推理时。也称为担保。保罗·埃尔德批判性思维模型的要素提供了八种分析方式。
Appropriate 适当
What is the most suitable or fitting for the context (time and place). 对于上下文（时间和地点）而言，什么是最合适或最恰当的。
Argument 参数
A statement taking a position, frequently called a claim, supported by data 表达一个立场的陈述，通常称为主张，由数据（证据）和授权支持。一个论点的质量可以通过保罗·埃尔德批判性思维模型中的智力标准来衡量。
(evidence) and a warrant. The quality of an argument can be considered through the intellectual standards in the Paul Elder Model of critical thinking. 论证的质量可以通过保罗·埃尔德批判性思维模型中的智力标准来考虑。
Argument construction 论点构建
The process of creating an argument that occurs when you are "making" an argument for or against some viewpoint. 在你为某个观点“辩护”或反对时发生的创建论点的过程。
Articulate 表达清晰
To pronounce or say words clearly and slowly. 清楚、缓慢地发音或说话。
Assertion 断言
A point in an argument. 争论中的一点。
Ballot 选票
A sheet of paper on which the judge records the decision (who won the debate or the ranking of multiple teams) and speaker points awarded to each debater. In some cases constructive criticism or reasons for the decision are offered. 一张纸，裁判在上面记录决定（谁赢得了辩论或多个团队的排名）以及给予每位辩手的发言者积分。在某些情况下，还会提供建设性批评或决定的理由。
Brainstorming 集思广益
A process of listing as many ideas on a topic as you can think of. 列出尽可能多关于某一主题的想法的过程。
Brief 简要
A legal term for a written, shortened version of an argument; arguments with evidence prepared in advance of a debate for quick reference. Often teams will list the advantages and disadvantages of taking a specific action. 一个法律术语，指的是一个论点的书面、缩短版本；事先准备好的带有证据的论点，供辩论时快速参考。通常团队会列出采取特定行动的优缺点。
British parliamentary debate (BP) 英国议会辩论（BP）
A debate format in which four teams compete on a different motion for every round. Two teams are on the propositional side and two teams are on the oppositional side. The adjudicator must rank the teams from first to fourth. 一种辩论格式，每轮有四支团队就不同议题展开竞争。两支团队持正方观点，另外两支持反方观点。裁判必须根据表现对团队进行排名。
Burden of proof 举证责任
The requirement to provide evidence to support a claim. 支持主张所需的证据。
Burden of refutation 反驳的责任
The requirement to provide an argument against an argument advanced by the other team. 提供反驳对方团队提出的论点所需的论据。
Burden of rejoinder 答辩责任
The requirement to provide the latest argument in a chain of arguments, to refute the other team's refutation. 在一系列论点中提供最新论点的要求，以反驳对方团队的反驳。
Case 案例
The arguments given to support a proposition. 支持命题的论据。
Cause-effect argument 因果论证
In a refutation against an off-case argument, this is a type of disadvantage. The plan is the cause; the effect is the negative impact of the argument. 在反驳反方案论证时，这是一种劣势类型。计划是原因；论证的负面影响是结果。
Claim 主张
A controversial statement an arguer supports using reason. Claims can be fact claims, value claims, or policy claims. 一个有争议的陈述，支持者使用理由支持。主张可以是事实主张、价值主张或政策主张。
Clash 冲突
Directly answering the other team's argument in a debate. 在辩论中直接回答对方团队的论点。
Con
The oppositional team. 反对方团队。
Constructive criticism 建设性批评
Positive comments about a performance to motivate and educate. 积极的评论，以激励和教育。
Constructive speech 建设性的言论
A speech that presents a debater's basic arguments for or against a motion; new arguments are allowed. 一篇演讲，展示辩手对某一动议的基本论点；允许提出新的论点。
Contention 争议
See observation. 见观察。
Counter-case 反例
Arguments presented by the Opposition to respond to the Proposition's case. 反对方提出的论据，以回应正方的论点。
Counter-plan 反方案
An alternative plan proposed by the oppositional team. 反对团队提出的另一种计划。
Credibility 可信度
Something you have when the audience thinks you know what you are talking about. 当观众认为你知道自己在说什么时拥有的东西。
Criteria 标准
A standard by which something can be judged or the most important values or standards in a debate that must be met to win the debate. 可以用来评判某事物的标准，或者辩论中必须满足以赢得辩论的最重要的价值观或标准。
Critical thinking 批判性思维
A system of analysis and evaluation of thinking. 一种分析和评估思维的系统。
Critique 评论
A judge's comments about a debate. 法官对辩论的评论。
Cross-examination 盘问
A period during the debate when a member of one team asks questions of a member of the opposing team. 辩论中一队成员向对方成员提问的阶段
Debate 辩论
The process of two sides agreeing to disagree about a specific topic and the judge deciding the outcome. 两方就特定主题达成不同意见的过程，由裁判决定结果。
Debate format 辩论格式
The arrangement of a debate with rules establishing time limits, speaking order, and manner by which a debate will be conducted. Various formats of debate exist, each with its own way of debating. 辩论的安排，规定时间限制、发言顺序和辩论方式的规则。存在各种不同格式的辩论，每种都有其独特的辩论方式。
Decision 决定
The win or loss given by a judge in a debate; speaker points for each debate may also be part of the decision. 辩论中由裁判员给出的胜负；每场辩论的演讲者得分也可能是决定的一部分。
Decision rule 决策规则
A way argued by the teams for the judge to weigh the round and decide who won the debate. 辩方提出的一种方式，让评委权衡辩论回合，并决定谁赢得了辩论。
Direct quotation 直接引用
To read evidence word for word to support a claim. 逐字阅读证据，以支持主张。
Direct refutation 直接反驳
A refutation in which you point out the flaws in the opponent's argument. 一种指出对手论点缺陷的反驳。
Disadvantage 不利因素
The harms or costs that will come from a plan. 计划中将产生的危害或成本。
Division 分部
Category in a competition such as novice, junior, or open. 比赛中的类别，如新手、初级或公开。
Dropped argument 放弃的论点
When a team does not refute what the other team has said it is said they have dropped the point. The team who dropped the argument loses that point. 当一个团队不反驳另一个团队所说的内容时，就说他们放弃了这一点。放弃论点的团队将失去该点。
Elimination rounds 淘汰赛阶段
The debate rounds that determine the winner of a tournament. The teams with the best records in the preliminary rounds are selected to debate in the elimination rounds. Only winning teams get to advance during the elimination rounds. 决定比赛胜利者的辩论轮次。在预赛轮次中表现最佳的队伍被选中参加淘汰赛。只有获胜的队伍才能在淘汰赛中晋级。
Evidence 证据
Different types of data (statistics, examples, or expert opinions/testimonials) used to support arguments. 用于支持论点的不同类型数据（统计数据、例子或专家意见/证词）。
Expert opinion/testimonial 专家意见/推荐
Evidence given to support a claim from a source that has credibility because of education, study, research, or experience in the field. 为支持来自具有教育、研究或领域经验的来源的主张提供的证据。
Fair ground 公平的基础
When a motion has enough arguments on both sides the debate is fair. 当一场辩论双方都有足够的论据时，辩论就是公平的。
Fiat 法定
In debate theory it is what allows the propositional team to claim their plan is desirable without proving it could be passed by the legal body in charge of the action. Fiat means that propositional teams have to prove that a plan "should" be adopted, not that it "would" be adopted. 在辩论理论中，这是允许提案团队声称他们的计划是可取的，而无需证明它能够被负责行动的法定机构通过。法定意味着提案团队必须证明一个计划“应该”被采纳，而不是“会”被采纳。
Fight or flight response 战斗或逃跑反应
A response dating from our ancestors who had to protect themselves from wild animals by fighting or running away. In modern times the brain considers a speaking situation as dangerous, so it signals the body to increase strength through a faster heartbeat, increased oxygen in the body, and anxious movements, causing a feeling of nervousness. 一种源自我们祖先的反应，他们必须通过战斗或逃跑来保护自己免受野生动物的伤害。在现代，大脑认为说话情境是危险的，因此它向身体发出信号，通过加快心跳、增加体内氧气和焦虑的动作来增强力量，导致紧张感。
Flow/Flowing 流动/流动
When you write down the arguments in a debate. 当你在辩论中写下论点时。
Flow sheet 流程图
Notes taken during a debate, usually written in columns so that arguments from each team can be written next to each other and can flow across the page. 辩论期间记录的笔记，通常以列的形式书写，以便每个团队的论点可以相邻书写，并且可以在页面上流动。
Format 格式
The speaking positions and time limits in a debate. 辩论中的发言位置和时间限制
Funding 资金
The method of paying for a proposed plan. 支付拟议计划的方法。
Government 政府
The propositional side of a debate supporting the motion. Abbreviated as Gov. 辩论中支持动议的提案方。缩写为 Gov.
Grouping 分组
To answer a set of arguments with one or more arguments rather than a line-byline refutation. 用一个或多个论点回答一组论点，而不是逐行驳斥。
Harm 伤害
A problem that currently exists in the status quo because of attitudes or laws that permit it. The harm shows a need to change. 因为允许它的态度或法律而存在于现状中的问题。伤害表明需要改变。
Impact 影响
Explanation of why an argument is important. 为什么一个论点重要的解释。
Impromptu speaking 即兴演讲
When you speak with little or no preparation time. 当你在准备时间很少或几乎没有准备时说话。
Inherency 固有性
Attitudes or laws that allow a condition (harm) to exist; the cause of the problem. 允许某种情况（伤害）存在的态度或法律；问题的根源。
Invalid 无效
When a measurement does not support the statement made in a fact proposition. 当一个测量结果不支持事实命题中所述的陈述时。
Invitational tournament 邀请赛
Tournament in which debate teams participate by invitation. 辩论队通过邀请参加的比赛。
Judge 裁判
An observer of a debate who has the responsibility of deciding which team has done a better job of debating. 一位辩论观察员，负责决定哪个团队在辩论中表现更出色。
Lay judge 外行评委
A judge who has never seen a debate before or is not an expert debate judge. 一个从未见过辩论或不是专业辩论评委的评委。
Leader of the Opposition 反对党领袖
The first oppositional speaker in parliamentary debate. 议会辩论中的第一位反对派发言人
Lincoln-Douglas debate 林肯-道格拉斯辩论
This debate format has only one person on a team. The same topic can be debated throughout the year. 这种辩论形式只有一个团队中的一个人。同一个话题可以在整年内进行辩论。
Linear 线性
The presentation of something in a straight line. The linear way of organizing means that you present one idea after another in a specific way so that the audience can follow the line of ideas you are using to prove your arguments. 将某物以直线方式呈现。线性组织的方式意味着你按照特定方式一个接一个地呈现观点，以便观众能够跟随你用来证明论点的思路。
Line-by-line refutation 逐行驳斥
When a team refutes every point in the opponent's case. 当一个团队驳斥对手案例中的每一点。
Mandate 授权要求
The specific action a plan requires. 计划需要的具体行动。
Member of the Government 政府成员
The propositional speaker who speaks after the Leader of the Opposition in parliamentary debate. 议会辩论中在反对党领袖之后发言的提案发言人。
Member of the Opposition 反对派成员
The oppositional speaker who speaks after the Member of the Government in parliamentary debate. 在议会辩论中，在政府成员发言后发言的反对派发言人
Monotone 单调
A manner of speaking in which the tone and volume remain the same. 说话的方式，语调和音量保持不变。
Moot 无实际意义的
When an argument is still up for debate usually because both sides do not discuss or drop the argument. 当一个论点仍然有争议时，通常是因为双方没有讨论或放弃这个论点。
Motion 运动
A topic of the debate, also called a proposition or a resolution. 辩论的一个话题，也称为命题或决议。
Narrative 叙事
A way of presenting information like telling a story in your own words. 以自己的话讲述故事的方式呈现信息。
Need 需要
The part of the propositional case about policies that identifies a certain problem in the status quo that the existing system cannot solve. Also called a harm. 关于政策的命题案例的一部分，指出现有体制无法解决的特定问题。也称为伤害。
Negative 否定的
The side in a debate that rejects the motion. 辩论中拒绝提案的一方
Novice 新手
A beginning debater, usually in their first year of competition. 一名初学辩手，通常是在他们第一年的比赛中。
Objective verification 客观验证
This occurs when we make a statement and then have some agreed measurements to prove the truth of that statement. 当我们提出一个陈述然后有一些约定的测量来证明该陈述的真实性时，就会发生这种情况。
Observation 观察
Specific point addressed in a debate. 辩论中讨论的具体观点
Off-case argument 非案例论证
An oppositional argument against a plan that has its own organization, usually flowed on separate paper from the case. 一个反对计划的对立论点，通常在与案例分开的纸上流动。
On-case argument 在案例中的论点
An oppositional argument against the issues advanced in the first propositional speech. 对第一个主张性发言中提出的问题的反对论点。
Open debater 开放辩手
A debater with the highest level of experience in tournaments, separate from the novice and junior divisions. Anyone can compete as an open debater, even a novice, but it is generally harder for a novice to win as an open debater. 在比赛中具有最高经验水平的辩手，与新手和初级组别分开。任何人都可以作为开放辩手参赛，即使是新手，但一般来说，新手要在开放辩手中获胜更加困难。
Opponent 对手
The term used for the other team, regardless of what side you are debating. 无论你在辩论中站在哪一边，都用来指代对方团队的术语。
Opposition 反对方
The team negating the motion in parliamentary debate. 在议会辩论中是否定提案的团队。
Oral critique 口头批评
The judge's oral explanation of the decision and comments for improvement given right after the debate. 辩论结束后，裁判对决策的口头解释和改进意见。
Outlining 概述
Writing notes in an organized way. 以有条理的方式写笔记。
Paraphrasing 改写
Explaining evidence in your own words. Also called a narrative approach. 用自己的话解释证据。也称为叙述方法。
Plan 计划
A course of action proposed by the propositional team when debating a 在辩论时由提议团队提出的行动方案
"harm" arguments. “伤害”论点。
Planks 木板
The individual points of a plan: agent of action, mandate, funding, and enforcement. 计划的个体要素：行动代理、授权、资金和执行。
Point 点
An idea or argument made by a debater. 辩论者提出的观点或论点。
Point not well-taken 观点不被接受。
When a team calls for a Point of Order and the judge decides to allow the argument to stay in the round. 当一支队伍要求提出议事规则并且裁判决定允许该论点留在比赛中。
Point of Information 信息点
To seek permission to interrupt the speaker for the purpose of asking a question or clarifying or making a point during a parliamentary debate. 寻求在议会辩论期间打断发言者以提问、澄清或发表观点的许可
Point of Order 规则点
To interrupt a speaker in a rebuttal speech to ask the judge to make a decision about whether a new argument is offered in the rebuttal speech. Points of Order are allowed in AP debate only. 在反驳演讲中打断发言者，要求裁判就反驳演讲中是否提出了新论点做出决定。只有在 AP 辩论中允许提出议题。
Point well-taken 观点很中肯
When a team calls for a Point of Order and the judge decides that it is a new argument and does not allow the argument. 当一支队伍提出议题时，裁判认为这是一个新的论点并不允许这个论点。
Policy debate 政策辩论
A debate format in which opponents debate a policy (usually a governmental policy) currently in effect. Typically debaters have the same topic for the entire school year and read evidence word for word. 一种辩论形式，对手辩论当前生效的政策（通常是政府政策）。通常，辩手整个学年都有相同的主题，并逐字阅读证据。
Preliminary rounds 预赛阶段
The beginning rounds in a tournament before the elimination rounds. All teams compete in the preliminary rounds. Four to eight preliminary rounds are standard for most tournaments in the US. 锦标赛中淘汰赛之前的初赛。所有队伍都参加初赛。大多数美国锦标赛通常有四到八轮初赛。
Preparation time in cross-examination debate 十字审讯辩论中的准备时间
The time allotted to each team for preparation in between speeches during the debate. 辩论中每队在发言之间准备的时间。
Preparation time in parliamentary debate 议会辩论中的准备时间
The time allotted to each team for preparation after the motion is announced. 在动议宣布后，每个团队被分配的准备时间。
Presumption 推定
The assumption that the status quo is good until an argument is made that it should be changed. 认为现状良好，直到提出应该改变的论点。
Prima facie
Latin for "on first face"; a requirement of cases presented that means that all necessary issues are present. 拉丁文，意为“在第一视角”; 提出的案例必须包含所有必要问题。
Prime Minister 总理
The first propositional speaker in parliamentary debate. 议会辩论中的第一提案发言人
Pro
The propositional team. 提案团队
Proposition 命题
A claim made by a debater and supported by a combination of claims; a statement to be proven (fact, value, or policy). 辩论者提出的主张，并由一系列主张支持；需要证明的陈述（事实、价值或政策）。
Proposition of fact 事实命题
A statement that can be proven with some kind of objective measurements. 可以通过某种客观测量证明的陈述。
Proposition of policy 政策建议
A statement that makes a recommendation that a certain action should be taken. 提出某种行动应该被采取的建议性陈述。
Proposition of value 价值主张
A statement that tries to prove a subjective opinion. 试图证明主观意见的陈述。
Qualitative significance 定性意义
This statement describes in words why a value is important in a debate. 这个声明用文字描述了为什么在辩论中一个价值是重要的。
Quantitative significance 定量意义
This statement provides numerical or statistical evidence of why an issue is important in a debate. 这个声明提供了为什么一个问题在辩论中重要的数值或统计证据。
Reasoning 推理
The process used to connect evidence to a claim; providing reasons for something. See warrant. 将证据与主张联系起来的过程；为某事提供理由。参见授权。
Rebuttal speeches 反驳性发言
The speeches in a debate that challenge and defend arguments introduced in the constructive speeches; no new arguments are allowed in rebuttal speeches. 辩论中挑战和捍卫在建设性发言中提出的论点的发言；反驳发言中不允许提出新的论点。
Recent, relevant, and reliable 最近的、相关的和可靠的
Three tests for all evidence that examine the age of the evidence, whether the evidence proves a point, and whether the source can be trusted. 对所有证据进行的三项测试，检查证据的年龄、证据是否证明了一个观点以及信息源是否可信。
Refutation 辩驳
The process of attacking and defending arguments. 攻击和辩护论点的过程
Refute 反驳
To prove something wrong. 证明某事是错误的。
Rejoinder 回应
An argument given, regarding the last argument of the other team, about why they are wrong, why you are right, and the impacts of your argument. 给出的论点，关于对方团队最后一个论点的理由，为什么他们是错误的，为什么你是正确的，以及你的论点的影响。
Research 研究
The process of locating and selecting evidence in preparation for debate. 准备辩论时查找和选择证据的过程
Resolution 决议
A debate topic specifically worded to make for a fair debate. 一个专门用来进行公平辩论的辩题。
Resolutional analysis 决议分析
An observation that provides the framework for the propositional case; it may include definition of terms, context, criteria, value, and decision rule. 为提案案例提供框架的观察；可能包括术语定义、背景、标准、价值和决策规则。
Rounds 轮次
When all of the teams are debating at the same time. 当所有队伍同时辩论时。
Shorthand 简称
A system of writing that uses abbreviated words and symbols to rapidly record what is being said. 使用缩写词和符号迅速记录所说内容的书写系统。
Significance 意义
Importance of an issue. 问题的重要性。
Signpost 指示牌
To provide the order of the organization of the arguments to be presented. 提供要呈现的论点组织顺序。
Solvency 偿付能力
Arguments that explain why a plan will cure the harm. 解释为什么一个计划会治愈伤害的论据。
Speech anxiety 演讲焦虑
Nervousness about speaking or giving a speech in public. 对在公共场合演讲或演讲感到紧张。
Statistics 统计
Evidence expressed in numbers. 用数字表达的证据
Status quo 现状
The course of action that currently exists, i.e. the present system or law. 目前存在的行动方案，即当前的系统或法律。
Stock issues 股票问题
The main arguments necessary to prove a case; in policy debate the stock issues for the Proposition are need, significance, inherency, plan, and solvency. 证明案件必要的主要论点；在政策辩论中，提案方的基本问题包括需求、重要性、固有性、计划和解决方案。
Style 风格
The language, voice, and body language used by a debater. 辩论者使用的语言、声音和肢体语言。
Subjective opinion 主观意见
A belief or attitude based on the values of the individual. 基于个人价值观的信念或态度。
Talking with your hands 用手说话
The act of constantly moving your hands when you talk. 在说话时不断地动手的行为。
Term 术语
Word or phrase. 单词或短语
Testimonial 推荐书籍
An expert opinion in support of a fact or claim. 支持事实或主张的专家意见。
Theory 理论
A statement that explains other facts or that predicts the occurrence of events. 解释其他事实或预测事件发生的陈述。
Thesis statement 论文声明
At the beginning of a debate or speech, a statement given to let the audience know exactly what your speech is about. It tells the audience the purpose of the speech: to inform, to persuade, or to entertain. 辩论或演讲开始时提供的一句话，让观众清楚地知道你的演讲内容。它告诉观众演讲的目的：是为了通知、说服还是娱乐。
Threshold 阈值
The point in an argument at which you have provided enough evidence to prove your argument. 在论点中提供足够证据证明你的论点的那一点。
Topic 主题
An area for discussion or debate. 讨论或辩论的领域。
Topicality 话题性
An issue advanced by the Opposition to contend that the Proposition is not giving a reasonable or debatable definition of the motion. 反对方提出的一个问题，以争辩称提案未给出合理或可辩论的动议定义。
Toulmin Model 图尔敏模型
A model of argument developed by philosopher Stephen Toulmin. The basic model includes claim (statement), data (evidence), and warrant (analysis). 由哲学家斯蒂芬·图尔敏（Stephen Toulmin）发展的论证模型。基本模型包括主张（陈述）、数据（证据）和保证（分析）。
Tournament 锦标赛
A debate competition. 辩论比赛。
Triad 三合会
Three main parts of an argument in the Toulmin Model: claim, data, and warrant. 图尔敏模型中论点的三个主要部分：主张、数据和保证。
Value case 价值案例
A case supporting a proposition of value usually calls for a comparison or evaluation of values. 支持某一价值主张的案例通常需要比较或评估价值观。
Violation 违反
Way that the other team has not met the standard of the topic. 对方团队未达到主题标准的方式。
Voting issue 投票问题
A summary of the winning arguments in a rebuttal speech. 反驳演讲中获胜论点的总结。
Warrant 担保条件
Stated or unstated reasoning process that explains the relationship between the data and the claim. 陈述或未陈述的推理过程，解释数据与主张之间的关系。
Appendix 2 附录 2
Fallacy List 谬误列表
Abstraction to entity 实体的抽象
This type of fallacy involves an attempt to take a concept that is an abstraction and quantify or objectify it. 这种谬误类型涉及试图将一个抽象的概念量化或客观化。
Accent 口音
This fallacy of language involves a statement which, when taken literally, means one thing, but just within the context of the conversation. It arises from an ambiguity produced by a shift of spoken or written emphasis. 语言谬误涉及一个陈述，如果字面上理解，意思是一回事，但只是在对话的语境中。这是由口头或书面强调转移产生的歧义引起的。
Accident 意外
This fallacy mistakes an event that happens by chance for one caused by some effect. 这种谬误将偶然发生的事件错误地视为受某种影响引起的事件。
Ad baculum (threat) 威胁（Ad baculum）
This fallacy uses threats to win an argument instead of basing the evaluation on the merits of the argument. 这种谬误使用威胁来赢得论点，而不是基于论点的优点进行评估。
Ad hominem 针对人身（Ad hominem）
This fallacy attacks the person rather than the position taken by the person. 这种谬误攻击的是人而不是人所持的立场。
Ad hominem (circumstantial) 人身攻击（情况）。
This form of ad hominem attack is based on circumstances of a person's life rather than the position held by the person. 这种形式的人身攻击是基于一个人生活的环境而不是这个人所持的立场。
Ad novarum 对新事物的推崇
This fallacy urges the acceptance of something based on the newness of it. 这种谬误是基于事物的新颖性而促使接受它。
Ad populum 人民的意见
This argument relies on the popular appeal of a proposition to gain support. 这个论点依赖于一个命题的普遍吸引力来获得支持。
Affirming the consequent 肯定后果
This fallacy asserts that where the sign is present the cause can be assumed. For example, "If it's raining, then the streets are wet. The streets are wet. Therefore, it's raining." 这种谬误断言存在迹象时可以假定存在原因。例如，“如果下雨，那么街道就会湿。街道是湿的。因此，正在下雨。”
This fallacy makes a comparison but leaves unstated exactly what is used to make the comparison. 这种谬误进行比较，但未明确说明用于比较的内容。
Amphibole 闪石
This fallacy involves a statement which can be interpreted in multiple ways. 这种谬误涉及可以有多种解释的陈述。
Appeal to anger 恐惧诉求
This fallacy occurs when the arguer capitalizes on the outrage associated with an issue rather than on the issue itself. 当辩论者利用与问题相关的愤怒情绪而不是问题本身时，就会出现这种谬误。
Appeal to authority/ad verecundiam/Ipse Dixit (he himself said it) 权威诉求/权威论/他亲自说过
This fallacy believes a statement is correct because it is made by a person or source that is commonly regarded as authoritative. Another abuse of it is to hide behind the qualifications of source. 这种谬误认为一个陈述是正确的，因为它是由一个被普遍认为具有权威性的人或来源所做的。另一个滥用它的方式是隐藏在来源的资格背后。
Appeal to consequences 后果诉求
This fallacy points to the disagreeable consequences of holding a particular belief in order to show that this belief is false. 这种谬误指出持有特定信念的令人不快的后果，以显示这种信念是错误的。
Appeal to emotion 情感上诉
This fallacy occurs when the emphasis of the presentation or refutation is placed on the emotive qualities of the argument rather than on its merits. 当演讲或驳斥的重点放在论点的情感特质上而不是其优点上时，就会出现这种谬误。
Appeal to fear 恐惧上诉
This variation of appeal to emotion attempts to "scare people away" from supporting an argument. 这种情感上诉的变体试图“吓跑”支持一个论点的人。
Appeal to humor/ridicule 幽默/嘲讽上诉
This fallacy attempts to belittle or mock a position instead of addressing the issue. 这种谬误试图贬低或嘲笑一个立场，而不是解决问题。
Appeal to ignorance 无知诉求
This fallacy maintains that a statement must be true if it has not been proven false or is false if it has not been proven true. 这种谬误认为，如果一个陈述尚未被证明为假，那么它必须是真的，或者如果一个陈述尚未被证明为真，那么它必须是假的。
Appeal to numbers/bandwagon 数字诉求/随波逐流
This fallacy implies that something is right because everybody believes or is doing so. For example, "But mom, everyone's doing it...", the boy whines. To which mom responds with "If everyone was jumping from a cliff would you do it too?" 这种谬误意味着某事是正确的，因为每个人都相信或这样做。例如，“但妈妈，每个人都在这样做...”，男孩抱怨道。妈妈回应道：“如果每个人都从悬崖上跳下来，你也会这样做吗？”
Appeal to pity 同情上诉
This fallacy does not address facts or arguments, but rather it attempts to persuade by unquantifiable pathos. 这种谬误不涉及事实或论点，而是试图通过无法量化的感情来说服。
Appeal to tradition 传统诉求
This fallacy occurs when it is assumed that something is better or correct simply because it is older, traditional or "always has been done." We've always done it that way is not always a compelling reason. You may have always been wrong. 当假设某事物更好或更正确只是因为它更古老、更传统或“一直以来都这样做”时，就会出现这种谬误。我们一直这样做并不总是一个令人信服的理由。你可能一直都错了。
Arguing in a circle 循环论证
This fallacy uses a premise to prove a conclusion, and then uses the conclusion to prove the premise. For example, "So and so must be guilty, she was just arrested. 这种谬误使用前提来证明结论，然后再使用结论来证明前提。例如，“某某一定有罪，她刚刚被逮捕了。”
So why was she arrested? Obviously, because she was guilty." 那么她为什么被逮捕？显然是因为她有罪。
Authority (connected) 权威（相关）
This fallacy occurs when a position is held simply because an authority says so, while the expert's reason for having that position is not examined. 这种谬误发生在一个立场仅仅因为权威说过而被持有的情况下，而专家持有该立场的原因并未被审查。
Authority (disconnected) 权威（脱节）
This fallacy uses an expert in one field to justify something that is foreign to that field. 这种谬误利用一个领域的专家来证明与该领域无关的事情。
Bad baseline 不良基线
This fallacy is the result of deriving an interpretation from an inappropriate comparison. 这种谬误是从不恰当的比较中得出解释的结果。
Baiting 诱饵
This distraction technique involves the attempt to get the opponent to lose their temper. 这种分散注意力的技巧涉及试图让对手失去冷静。
Biased methodology 偏见方法论
This fallacy involves an inappropriate means of gathering or interpreting the data collected in order to bias the results. 这种谬误涉及使用不恰当的方法来收集或解释收集的数据，以偏倚结果。
Biased sample 偏倚样本
This fallacy occurs when a conclusion is drawn about a population based on a sample that is biased or prejudiced in some manner. 当基于某种方式偏见或偏见的样本得出关于人口的结论时，就会发生这种谬误。
Changing the question 改变问题
This fallacy attempts to avoid answering an argument by answering something else. 这种谬误试图通过回答其他问题来回避一个论点。
Common cause 共同原因
This fallacy occurs when one phenomenon is assumed to cause another, when in fact they do not influence each other, but occur together. 当一个现象被假定导致另一个现象时，而实际上它们并不相互影响，只是同时发生时，就会出现这种谬误。
Complex cause 复杂原因
This fallacy confuses a contributory factor with the only one cause. 这种谬误将一个促成因素与唯一原因混淆。
Complex question 复杂问题
This fallacy assumes an answer to the question being asked. For example, "Have you stopped smoking?" 这种谬误假定了问题被问时的答案。例如，“你戒烟了吗？”
Composition 组成
This fallacy assumes that a property held by its parts is true for the whole. 这种谬误假定部分拥有的属性对整体也成立。
Conflict of interest 利益冲突
This fallacy involves the use of an expert who has vested interest in the outcome of the evidence. 这种谬误涉及利益相关者对证据结果的利益。
Confusing correlation with causation 将相关性与因果关系混淆
This fallacy occurs when an arguer forgets that a correlation suggests a relationship but does not imply a cause-effect relationship. 这种谬误发生在辩论者忘记了相关性表明了一种关系，但并不意味着因果关系的情况下。
Converse accident 逆转灾难
This fallacy draws a general conclusion based on one or several atypical instances. 这种谬误基于一个或几个非典型实例得出一个普遍结论。
De facto reasoning 实际推理
This fallacy is committed when a positive value is placed on something simply because it is the status quo. 当仅仅因为某事物是现状而给予其积极价值时，就会出现这种谬误。
Definition too broad 定义过于宽泛
This fallacy occurs when a term is defined in such a way that the definition creates a category larger than the term warrants. 这种谬误发生在一个术语被定义成一个更大范畴的方式时。
Definition too narrow 定义过窄
This fallacy uses a definition of a term that is so restrictive that the essential qualities of the term are excluded. 这种谬误使用了对术语的定义过于限制，以至于排除了术语的基本特征。
Denying a valid conclusion 否认有效结论
This fallacy grants the facts of an argument, finds no flaw with the manner in which the conclusion is derived, yet refuses to accept the outcome. 这种谬误承认了一个论点的事实，找不到结论推导方式的缺陷，但拒绝接受结果。
Denying equifinality 否认等效性
This fallacy asserts that there is only one cause to each effect. 这种谬误声称每个效果只有一个原因。
Denying the antecedent 否定前提
This type of fallacy involves denying that something occurs based on the fact that a sign is missing. For example, "If A then B, if not then not B." 这种谬误涉及否认某事发生的事实，基于某个标志缺失。例如，“如果 A，那么 B，如果不是，则不是 B。”
Distortion 扭曲
This type of fallacy refutes an argument in a manner other than the way the originator intends. The argument, or part of it, has been changed to make the refutation easier. 这种谬误以一种非原始作者意图的方式驳斥论点。论点或其中的一部分已被改变，以使驳斥更容易。
Division 分裂
This fallacy assumes a property that is held by the whole is true for its parts. 这种谬误假设整体拥有的属性也适用于其部分。
Double standard 双重标准
This tactic involves setting one standard for yourself and another for your opponent. 这种策略涉及为自己设定一个标准，为对手设定另一个标准。
Dysphemism 贬义词
This fallacy distorts the meaning of something by negative exaggeration. 这种谬误通过负面夸大来扭曲某事物的含义。
Emotive language 情感语言
This fallacy uses psychologically loaded language to evoke response, also called baiting an opponent. For example, in abortion issue terms like "fascist" and "baby killers" sometimes cloud the issue. 这种谬误使用心理上带有负累的语言来唤起反应，也被称为引诱对手。例如，在堕胎问题中，“法西斯主义”和“杀婴者”等词有时会混淆问题。
Equivocation 模棱两可
This type of fallacy is committed when a term is used with more than one meaning. 当一个术语使用多个含义时就犯了这种谬误。
Euphemism 委婉语
This fallacy uses language to make a situation seem better than it is. 这种谬误利用语言使情况看起来比实际情况更好。
Excluded evidence 排除证据
This fallacy overlooks important information that might change the outcome of the study. 这种谬误忽视了可能改变研究结果的重要信息。
This fallacy uses superlative terms, words like "all" or "very" (extreme quantifiers) and "absolutely" or "certainly" (extreme intensifiers), without qualification. 这种谬误使用最高级词语，如“所有”或“非常”（极端量词）和“绝对”或“肯定”（极端强调词），而没有限定条件。
False analogy 伪类比
This fallacy involves an unjustified inference drawn on the similarities between two items or types of items. 这种谬误涉及对两个项目或类型之间的相似之处进行不合理的推断。
False charge of a fallacy 谬误的错误指控
This is often used when an arguer does not have any response to an argument and falsely accuses their opponent of poor argumentation. 当辩论者对一个论点没有任何回应并错误地指控对手辩论能力差时，经常会使用这种手法。
False consolation 虚假的安慰
This fallacy attempts to mitigate a bad situation by asserting that it could be worse. 这种谬误试图通过断言情况可能更糟来缓解糟糕的情况。
False dilemma/Bifurcation 虚假二难/二分法
This fallacy assumes that there are a limited number of choices in instances where more choices are available, claiming it must either be A or B. For example, "America_Love it or leave it." 这种谬误假设在更多选择可用的情况下，存在有限数量的选择，并声称必须是 A 或 B。例如，“爱美国或离开它。”
False implication 错误暗示
This fallacy states that something is true in order to make one think something else is false. 这种谬误陈述某事是真的，以便使人认为其他事情是假的。
Faulty signs 有错误的迹象
This fallacy occurs when events are mistakenly taken as indicators of something. 当事件被错误地视为某事的指标时，就会发生这种谬误。
Gambler's fallacy 赌徒谬误
This type of fallacy occurs when statistics are used inappropriately to justify the chance for something happening or not happening. 这种谬误发生在统计数据被不当使用来证明某事发生或不发生的机会时。
Genetic fallacy 遗传谬误
This is a fallacy of irrelevance where a conclusion is suggested based solely on something or someone's origin rather than its current meaning or context. 这是一种与结论无关的谬误，仅基于某事物或某人的起源而不是其当前含义或背景来暗示结论。
Guilt by association 附带罪名
This is a particular form of circumstantial ad hominem, which focuses on the relationship that a person has rather than on the issue. For example, "Person A dislikes accepting claim , therefore is false." 这是一种特殊形式的间接人身攻击，侧重于一个人的关系而不是问题本身。例如，“人 A 不喜欢接受主张 ，因此 是错误的。”
Hasty conclusion 草率结论
This argument uses relevant but insufficient evidence to support the conclusion. 这个论点使用相关但不足的证据来支持结论。
Hasty generalization 草率概括
This fallacy involves the use of an insufficient number of examples or nonrepresentative examples to justify placing an attribute on a category. 这种谬误涉及使用不足数量的例子或非代表性例子来证明在一个类别上放置属性的合理性。
Humor and ridicule 幽默和讽刺
This fallacy consists in injecting humor or ridicule into an argument in an effort to cover up an inability or unwillingness to respond appropriately to the opponent's criticism or argument. 这种谬误在于将幽默或讽刺注入论点中，试图掩盖对对手批评或论点无法或不愿适当回应的能力。
Hyperbole 夸张手法
This fallacy consists in over-exaggerating in order to make the claim more significant. 这种谬误在于夸大其词，以使主张更加重要。
Incomplete evidence/small sample 证据不完整/样本过小
This fallacy occurs when a study employs an insufficient amount of data to justify a conclusive result. 当一项研究使用不足的数据量来证明一个结论时，就会出现这种谬误。
Indirect proof 间接证明法
This fallacy uses a proven claim as evidence for an unproven one when the relationship between the proven one and the unproven one does not warrant such a claim. 这种谬误将一个已被证明的主张作为一个未被证明的主张的证据，当已被证明的主张和未被证明的主张之间的关系不支持这样的主张时。
Innuendo 暗讽
This fallacy causes the listener/reader to make judgments (usually derogatory) based on the way words are used. The accusation is not stated but the way a person says a statement makes the meaning clear. 这种谬误会导致听众/读者根据词语的使用方式做出判断（通常是贬义的）。 指责没有明确表达，但一个人说话的方式使意思变得清晰。
Lack of proportion 比例不当
This fallacy entails false claim that something has more significance than it does. 这种谬误涉及虚假主张，声称某事比实际更重要。
Limited depth 有限深度
This fallacy employs the use of a study to a degree which the study wasn't intended. 这种谬误在某种程度上使用了一项研究，而这项研究并非旨在如此。
Limited scope 有限范围
This fallacy occurs when the application of a study goes beyond what the study was intended. 这种谬误发生在研究的应用超出了研究的意图的情况下。
Like false dilemma, this presents a questionee with two unfair options. For example, "Have you stopped beating your wife yet?" Such a yes/no question presupposes that you in fact beat your wife. 像伪困境一样，这给被询问者提出了两个不公平的选择。例如，“你停止打你妻子了吗？”这样的是/非问题预设你实际上打你的妻子。
Minimizer 最小化者
This fallacious device is used to mask the need for support. 这个错误的设备用来掩饰对支持的需求。
Non sequitur (it does not follow) 不合逻辑结论（不符合逻辑的结论）
This fallacy occurs when the conclusion does not follow the premises or evidence. For example, "She must be a terrific debater. Look how nice her leather notepad is." 这种谬误发生在结论不符合前提或证据的情况下。例如，“她一定是个了不起的辩论者。看看她漂亮的皮制记事本。”
Only game in town 唯一的选择
This fallacy supposes that since there is only one available explanation, this explanation is therefore the correct one. 这种谬误认为，由于只有一个可用的解释，因此这个解释就是正确的。
Persuasive definition 说服性定义
This type of fallacy presents a term in a non-objective manner. 这种谬误以非客观的方式呈现一个术语。
Phantom distinction 幻觉区别
This fallacy uses language to imply a difference between two things that really does not exist. 这种谬误使用语言暗示两者之间实际上并不存在的差异。
Poisoning the well 毒害井水
This fallacy attempts to discredit an argument before it has a chance to be presented. 这种谬误试图在论点被提出之前就将其抹黑。
Positioning 定位
This fallacy attempts to build credibility with the audience by "dropping names" so that the arguer is associated with someone of good repute. 这种谬误试图通过“挂名”来向观众建立信誉，以便让辩论者与有声望的人联系起来。
Post hoc ergo propter hoc (after this, therefore because of this) 因果关系混淆（因为这个，所以由于这个）
This fallacy involves mistaking sequence with causation. In other words, it asserts the action that occurs first causes the following action. 这种谬误涉及将顺序误认为是因果关系。换句话说，它声称首先发生的行为导致随后的行为。
Prejudicial language 有偏见的语言
This fallacy uses assumption or emotionally loaded language to attach a meaning which flows from the language not the argument. 这种谬误使用假设或情绪化的语言来附加一个意义，这个意义来自于语言而不是论点。
Priori 先验
This fallacy is a preconceived notion or worldview. For example, most people hold such strong opinions about abortion, it is very difficult for them to divorce the underlying fundamental percepts that originally led them to hold these opinions in the first place. 这种谬误是一种预设观念或世界观。例如，大多数人对堕胎持有如此强烈的意见，他们很难摆脱最初导致他们持有这些观点的根本观念。
Provincialism 地方主义
This fallacy relies on in-group loyalty in order to make their argument. For example, "You should vote for Joe. He's black and you're black. We have to support our own." 这种谬误依赖于内部群体忠诚来支持他们的论点。例如，“你应该投票给乔。他是黑人，你也是黑人。我们必须支持自己。”
Puffery 夸大之词
This fallacy occurs when vague terminology is used to create excitement. 当使用模糊术语制造兴奋时会出现这种谬误。
Question begging 问题乞求
This type of argument assumes that all or part of the argument in question is true and uses the assumed portion of the argument as proof for a conclusion. 这种类型的论点假设所讨论的全部或部分论点是正确的，并使用假设部分作为结论的证据。
Questionable classification 可疑的分类
This fallacy occurs when things are grouped together while they don't belong to the same category. 当将不属于同一类别的事物归为一组时就会出现这种谬误。
Quibbling 吹毛求疵
This fallacy uses a technical or obscure definition of a term in order to "get around" answering or addressing the point in question. 这种谬误使用一个术语的技术性或模糊定义，以便“绕过”回答或处理问题的要点。
Red herring 赤鲷
This fallacy is used when an arguer points to something within an argument which has relatively little significance and focuses on that rather than on the "main thrust" of the argument. 当辩论者指出辩论中相对不重要的事物并将注意力集中在这一点上，而不是放在辩论的“主要观点”上时，就会使用这种谬误。
Reductio ad absurdum (reduction to the absurd) 归谬法（归谬到荒谬）
This fallacy is committed by carrying an argument to an absurd conclusion. 这种谬误是通过将一个论点推向荒谬的结论而犯下的。
While there can be examples of strings of causation and various sequential occurrences, it is often over-claimed. 虽然可能存在因果关系的一系列例子和各种连续发生的事件，但通常被过度宣称。
Rhetorical question 修辞问句
This fallacious type of question has the answer "built in" so that it uncritically reinforces some type of assumption. 这种谬误类型的问题已经“内置”了答案，因此它毫不批判地强化了某种假设。
This fallacy argues that something causes something else but to an over-estimated extent. 这种谬误认为某事导致了另一件事，但程度被高估了。
Slippery slope 滑坡
This fallacy arises when the result of an argument follows a cause-effect chain to unreasonable results. For example, "Does denying certain types of pornography kill free speech?" Like the Reductio ad absurdum, it is frequently mishandled, yet could happen. The difference is the importance of the first step which starts the next string of events into motion. 这种谬误是由于论点的结果遵循因果链导致不合理的结果而产生的。例如，“否认某些类型的色情会损害言论自由吗？”就像归谬法一样，它经常被处理不当，但确实可能发生。不同之处在于第一步的重要性，它启动了下一系列事件的发展。
Social identification 社会认同
This fallacy excludes some people from an argument on the basis of some socially distinguishing feature, such as ethnicity or race or gender or membership in some social group, etc. 这种谬误基于某些社会上的区别特征，如种族、种族、性别或某些社会群体的成员资格，排除了一些人参与讨论。
Special pleading 特殊情况辩护
This fallacy urges for an exception to an accepted line of reasoning. 这种谬误主张对已被接受的推理提出例外。
Spectrum 光谱
This fallacy assumes that just because the difference between two sequential items in a set is almost undistinguishable everything in that set is the same. 这种谬误认为，只因为集合中两个连续项目之间的差异几乎难以区分，那么该集合中的所有东西都是相同的。
Straw man argument 打靶人论证
This fallacy refutes an argument that is never issued by the opponent. It ignores the posed issue and instead creates a similar but beatable position. 这种谬误驳斥了对手从未提出的论点。它忽视了提出的问题，而是创造了一个类似但可以被击败的立场。
Style over substance 形式胜于内容
This type of distracter is used when an arguer's presentation skills and ability to "talk smoothly" outweigh their critical thinking ability. 当辩论者的表达技巧和“说话流利”的能力超过他们的批判性思维能力时，就会使用这种类型的干扰因素。
Substituting bombast for argument 用夸大其词替代论点
This fallacy is a popular tactic that is used to cover up the fact that the advocate is lacking in evidence or analysis by employing noisy distracters. 这种谬误是一种常用策略，用来掩盖辩护者缺乏证据或分析的事实，通过使用喧闹的分散注意力者。
Suppressed evidence 被压制的证据
This is a form of excluded evidence, but the information is not only left out but hidden as well. 这是一种被排除的证据形式，但信息不仅被遗漏，而且也被隐藏起来。
Tautology 同义反复
This fallacy uses a term to define itself. 这种谬误使用一个术语来定义自身。
Testimonial 推荐书籍
This fallacy uses anecdotal or non-expert experiences to justify the effectiveness or validity of something. 这种谬误使用个人经历或非专家经验来证明某事的有效性或有效性。
Traditional wisdom 传统的智慧
This fallacy supports the traditional way of doing things because of the reasons it was originally adopted. 这种谬误支持传统的做事方式，因为最初采用它的原因。
Tu quoque (You, too / You, also) 你也是
This fallacy attempts to discredit the opponent's position by asserting their failure to act consistently with that position. 这种谬误试图通过声称对手未能与该立场保持一致来抹黑对手的立场。
Untouchable authority 不可触及的权威
This fallacy employs the use of appealing to the source of authority, for example, a political office, as a reason why a person ought not to be criticized. 这种谬误运用诉诸权威的手法，例如政治职位，作为一个理由，为什么一个人不应该受到批评。
Verbalism 言辞主义
This fallacy occurs when a great deal of words are used but no information is transmitted through them. 这种谬误发生在使用大量词语但没有传达任何信息的情况下。
Weasel word 避重就轻之词
This fallacy uses vague words or expressions in order to evade responsibility for an implied claim. 这种谬误使用模糊的词语或表达方式来逃避对暗示性主张的责任。
Wrong direction 错误的方向
This fallacy mistakes effect for cause or vice versa. 这种谬误将效果误认为原因，或者反之亦然。
How to Conduct a Debate Tournament 如何举办辩论比赛
Before the Tournament 比赛前
Get Permission of the Administration and a Budget 征得管理部门许可和预算
If you decide you would like to host a tournament you will need permission of the administration and a budget, although it is possible to keep tournaments at a very low cost. 如果您决定举办比赛，您将需要管理部门的许可和预算，尽管也有可能以非常低的成本举办比赛。
Determine the Type of the Tournament 确定比赛类型
Determine if this will be an "intramural" tournament involving only students on your campus or an "intercollegiate" tournament involving students from other universities. Do you want this to be a simple tournament or something really big? What format will be used? 确定这将是一个仅涉及您校学生的“校内”比赛，还是一个涉及其他大学学生的“校际”比赛。您希望这是一个简单的比赛还是一个非常大型的比赛？将使用什么格式？
Intramural Tournament 校内比赛
This type of simple tournament can involve students on one campus who want to learn how to debate better. Typically, a training session happens on one weekend and the tournament on the next, although a simple two-round tournament could happen in half a day. Intramural tournaments can also be conducted among the classes currently taking a debate class. Topics can be assigned before the tournament (perhaps during training) to allow teams to research. Usually, this type of tournament doesn't need official awards. The experienced debaters can serve as judges and the rounds are mostly designed as mentoring experiences. You may even decide to only give mentoring comments for improvement at the end of the debate, rather than a decision. 这种简单类型的辩论赛可以让一个校园里想要更好地学习如何辩论的学生参与。通常，一个训练课程在一个周末进行，下一个周末进行比赛，尽管一个简单的两轮比赛可以在半天内完成。校内辩论赛也可以在当前正在上辩论课的班级之间进行。在比赛之前（也许是在训练期间）可以分配主题，以便团队进行研究。通常，这种类型的比赛不需要官方奖项。经验丰富的辩手可以担任裁判，比赛大多设计为指导经验。您甚至可以决定仅在辩论结束时给予改进的指导意见，而不是做出决定。
Intercollegiate Tournament 大学间辩论赛
When many universities are invited to debate, the tournament needs to be restricted in terms of size and length of time. 当许多大学受邀参加辩论时，比赛需要在规模和时间上受到限制。
One-day invitational tournament. This type of tournament allows for maximum practice for everyone in a four-round tournament. Often the tournament is "preset" so that all of the match-ups are known when the tournament begins. In a pre-set tournament a team is randomly assigned a number or a code to show what side they are on and in which room they will have the debate. Teams would arrive in the morning, debate two rounds, have lunch, and then debate another two rounds in the afternoon. At the end of the tournament, awards are given to the top teams based on their win/loss records. The awards can be certificates printed out in advance. This can be a very low-cost way to have a competition. One-day invitational tournament is a low-maintenance tournament because not a lot of work is involved. 一日邀请赛。这种类型的比赛允许每个人在四轮比赛中进行最大限度的练习。通常比赛是“预设”的，这样当比赛开始时，所有的对阵都是已知的。在预设比赛中，一个团队会被随机分配一个数字或代码，以显示他们在哪一边，以及他们将在哪个房间进行辩论。团队会在早上到达，进行两轮辩论，吃午饭，然后在下午进行另外两轮辩论。比赛结束时，根据他们的胜负记录给予前几名团队奖项。奖项可以提前打印出来的证书。这是一个非常低成本的比赛方式。一日邀请赛是一个低维护的比赛，因为涉及的工作不多。
Here is a sample schedule for a four-round tournament: 这是一个四轮比赛的示例时间表：
8:00 am-8:30 am 早上 8:00-8:30
Registration
8:30 am-10:00 am 上午 8:30-10:00
General meeting and Round 1 全体会议和第一轮
10:15 am-11:45 am 上午 10:15-11:45
Round 2
11:45 am-1:15 pm 上午 11 点 45 分至下午 1 点 15 分
Lunch
1:15 pm-2:45 pm 下午 1 点 15 分至下午 2 点 45 分
Round 3
3:00 pm-4:30 pm 下午 3 点至下午 4 点 30 分
Round 4
Awards ceremony 颁奖典礼
Multi-day championship tournament. This type of tournament is designed to attract a large number of debaters. The tournament consists of six or eight preliminary rounds. The first two rounds are pre-set; in the later rounds the best teams are paired against each other, while the weaker teams debate against each other (called power-matching). Usually, this work is done by software developed specifically for debate tournaments. At the end of the preliminary rounds the top teams are selected for the elimination rounds. When a team loses they are then 多天的锦标赛。这种类型的比赛旨在吸引大量辩手。比赛包括六或八轮预赛。前两轮是预设的；在后续轮次中，最优秀的队伍会相互对阵，而较弱的队伍会相互辩论（称为强弱对抗）。通常，这项工作由专门为辩论比赛开发的软件完成。在预赛结束时，顶尖队伍将被选入淘汰赛。当一支队伍失败时，他们将被淘汰。
eliminated from the tournament until a champion remains, who receives the cup. This type of tournament involves more planning and expenses than a one-day tournament because there may be a banquet, special awards, and extra items. 直到冠军留下来才被淘汰出比赛，冠军将获得奖杯。这种类型的比赛需要比一天比赛更多的计划和费用，因为可能会有宴会、特别奖项和额外物品。
Here is a sample schedule for a three-day tournament: 这是一个三天比赛的示例时间表：
Note: Awards ceremony would take place at 5:00 pm if an additional elimination round is added. 注意：如果增加额外的淘汰赛轮次，颁奖典礼将在下午 5:00 举行。
Decide the Format and Rules 确定格式和规则
Choose the format and publish some rules about the tournament. BP is the most popular format around the world. It is also easier to administrate since it uses half as many rooms as AP does. In a one-day tournament the pre-set is also very easy since numbers or codes can be randomly assigned to each team. With BP format each team gets to debate in each of the four positions. Since AP declares a winner it may be easier to power-match teams with winners against winners in the later rounds. 选择比赛格式并发布一些关于比赛的规则。BP 是全球最流行的格式。由于使用的房间数量只有 AP 的一半，因此管理起来也更容易。在一天的比赛中，预设也非常简单，因为可以为每个团队随机分配数字或代码。在 BP 格式中，每个团队都可以在四个位置中辩论。由于 AP 会宣布一个胜利者，所以在后续轮次中更容易匹配胜者对阵胜者。
Prepare the Facilities 准备设施
Set a room for each debate. A large-size tournament can take about 20 classrooms (for 80 debaters in AP, 120 in AA, 160 in BP). You will also need an announcement room where all debaters can meet at the same time. Often this would be a large lecture hall or an auditorium with a projector and screen to show any announcements or pairings. You will also need a room for tabulation with a computer and printer. 为每场辩论设置一个房间。一个大型比赛可能需要大约 20 间教室（AP 80 名辩手，AA 120 名辩手，BP 160 名辩手）。您还需要一个公告房间，所有辩手可以同时聚集在一起。通常这将是一个大型讲堂或带有投影仪和屏幕的礼堂，用于显示任何公告或配对信息。您还需要一个带有计算机和打印机的计分房间。
Invite the Teams 邀请团队
Once you have made decisions about the kind of tournament you want, it is time to invite other teams. An official invitation needs to be sent out to appropriate administrators (See the sample letter at the end of this chapter.). 一旦您已经就您想要的比赛类型做出决定，就是邀请其他团队的时候了。需要向适当的管理员发送正式邀请函（请参阅本章末尾的示例信函）。
Prepare a "To Do" List 准备一个“待办事项”清单
It is important to have all work assigned and completed before the tournament begins. A "To Do" list might help in preparation. Here is a sample "To Do" list for BP debate: 在比赛开始之前，确保所有工作都已分配并完成。准备工作中可能会有一份“待办事项”清单。以下是 BP 辩论的样本“待办事项”清单：
"To Do" List for the Tournament 比赛的“待办事项”清单
People 人员
Chief Adjudicator (CA) who serves as the director of the tournament 总裁判（CA）担任比赛的主任
Director of volunteers to train and coordinate volunteers 志愿者总监，负责培训和协调志愿者
Volunteers to serve as time-keepers and to run ballots back to CA 志愿者担任计时员，并将选票送回总裁判处
Two students/coaches to tabulate the results 两名学生/教练负责整理结果
Escorts at the campus gate to greet debaters and give directions 在校门口迎接辩论者并指引的护送人员
Someone to serve as chair of hospitality 有人担任款待主席
Adjudicators 裁判
Recruit teachers and experienced debaters to serve as adjudicators. 招募老师和有经验的辩手担任裁判。
Require all teams to bring adjudicators. 要求所有队伍带裁判。
Ask the coaches to serve as adjudicators. 要求教练担任裁判。
Provide training for adjudicators. 为裁判提供培训。
Things needed 所需物品
Awards/certificates 奖项/证书
Ballots for adjudicators. Need one per adjudicator in each round. (See sample ballots at the end of the chapter.) 评委的选票。每轮每位评委需要一张。 (请参考本章末尾的示例选票。)
Computer (with excel or tournament software) and printer 电脑（带有 Excel 或比赛软件）和打印机
Timers for volunteers 志愿者的计时器
Facilities 设施
Rooms for tournament 锦标赛用房间
Projector/computer in the announcement room 公告室的投影仪/电脑
General meeting room open early 一般会议室提前开放
Hospitality 款待
Lunch 午餐
Refreshments for tournament staff 为比赛工作人员提供茶点
Banners 横幅
Big banner over entrance 入口处的大横幅
Big banner in the announcement room 公告室的大横幅
Banner or sign showing maps of rooms for debate rounds, restaurants, campus stores, etc. 展示辩论轮次、餐厅、校园商店等房间地图的横幅或标志
During the Tournament 在比赛期间
It is important to have an accurate list of the debate teams and judges for the tournament. Coaches will provide names of the teams or debaters in advance to be entered into the tournament software or excel spreadsheet. On the day of the tournament, coaches will need to check the list at registration to make any name changes or drop teams. Once the names are verified the tournament is ready for the first round. 对于比赛，准确记录辩论队伍和裁判的名单非常重要。教练会提前提供队伍或辩手的名字，以便输入到比赛软件或 Excel 电子表格中。在比赛当天，教练需要在注册时检查名单，以便进行任何姓名更改或取消队伍。一旦名单经过验证，比赛就准备好进行第一轮了。
Postings and Pairing 公布和配对
Before the debate round happens, the debate match-ups (also called pairings) are posted so that teams can check their side, room and name of the judge. Teams are given a code which is usually the initials of their school name and the initials of the family name of each debater. The judge's family name is spelled out. Teams usually take a note of this information so they don't end up in the wrong room or prepare for the wrong side! Since AP and AA have two teams debating, the Proposition and Opposition are listed against each other with the judge listed: 辩论轮开始之前，辩论比赛的对阵（也称为配对）会被公布，以便队伍可以查看他们的辩方、房间和裁判的姓名。队伍会得到一个代码，通常是学校名称的首字母和每位辩手姓氏的首字母。裁判的姓氏会被拼写出来。队伍通常会记录这些信息，以免进入错误的房间或为错误的辩方做准备！由于 AP 和 AA 有两支队伍在辩论，所以提案方和反对方会被列在一起，并标明裁判：
Posting for AP/AA Debate AP/AA 辩论公布
Room
Prop
Opp
Judge/Adjudicator 裁判/评判员
S 101
BFSU XQ
CNU BL
Wang-PKU
S 102
THU ZD
XISU HC
Zhao-CNU
Note: BFSU: Beijing Foreign Studies University 注意：BFSU：北京外国语大学
CNU: Capital Normal University CNU：首都师范大学
THU: Tsinghua University THU：清华大学
XISU: Xi'an International Studies University 西安外国语大学
BP format has four teams listed so it is important to let debaters know the room and the position they will be debating. Each team can be randomly assigned a number or their actual team name could appear: BP 格式列出了四支队伍，因此重要的是让辩手知道他们将辩论的房间和位置。每支队伍可以被随机分配一个编号，或者他们的实际队名可以出现：
Posting for BP Debate BP 辩论发布
Room
B101
B102
B103
B104
Opening Prop
1
5
9
13
Opening Opp
2
6
10
14
Closing Prop
3
7
11
15
Closing Opp
4
8
12
16
In a pre-set tournament all of the rounds are determined in advance so that teams will get an even opportunity to debate in all positions. In AP and AA it is easy to move the teams between the Proposition and Opposition. In BP a team will move into a new position for the next round, so that if they were Opening Proposition in the first debate they would be Opening Opposition in round two, Closing Proposition in round three and Closing Opposition in round four. 在预设的比赛中，所有的轮次都提前确定，这样各队就能有均等的机会在所有位置进行辩论。在 AP 和 AA 中，很容易将队伍在提议方和反对方之间移动。在 BP 中，一支队伍会在下一轮中移动到一个新的位置，这样，如果他们在第一场辩论中是开场提议方，他们将在第二轮中成为开场反对方，在第三轮中成为闭幕提议方，在第四轮中成为闭幕反对方。
In power-matched tournaments, teams are matched against each other based on their records. This means the first two rounds are pre-set and round three to six would be power-matched. To be specific, in round three all teams who had two wins would debate against other teams with two wins; those with only one win hit others with one win; those with no win hit each other. Within the 2-0 brackets teams are matched based on their speaker points. The highest point earner with a 2-0 record will hit the lowest point earner with a 2-0 record; second highest hits second lowest, and so on. 在实力匹配的比赛中，队伍会根据他们的战绩进行匹配。这意味着前两轮是预设的，第三轮到第六轮将进行实力匹配。具体来说，在第三轮中，所有有两场胜利的队伍将与其他有两场胜利的队伍辩论；只有一场胜利的队伍将与其他只有一场胜利的队伍对决；没有胜利的队伍将互相对决。在 2-0 的范围内，队伍将根据他们的发言分数进行匹配。得分最高且战绩为 2-0 的队伍将与得分最低且战绩为 2-0 的队伍对决；第二高的队伍将与第二低的队伍对决，依此类推。
This seems like a lot of work, but computer programs have been designed to make it easier. If the tournament is pre-set, then all of the work has been done in advance and only results need to be computed using an excel spreadsheet. If the tournament is power-matched, as records are entered for one round, the program automatically figures out who will debate against each other in the next round, in which room and with which judge. Postings and ballots then can be printed out for debaters to check and for judges to complete. At the end of the tournament all results are displayed and printed out for each team to see. 这似乎是很多工作，但计算机程序已经被设计得更容易。如果比赛是预先设置的，那么所有工作都已经提前完成，只需要使用 Excel 电子表格计算结果。如果比赛是按实力匹配的，当一轮的记录被输入时，程序会自动计算出下一轮谁将与谁辩论，在哪个房间，与哪位裁判。然后可以打印出发帖和选票供辩手检查，供裁判完成。在比赛结束时，所有结果都会显示并打印出供每个团队查看。
Making the Tournament Run Smoothly 使比赛顺利进行
The Chief Adjudicator or Tournament Director needs to keep the tournament on schedule, write and announce motions and perhaps even judge. Usually, with a large tournament other staff members are needed to assist in the smooth running of the tournament. The Chief Adjudicator will be sure to hand out ballots to judges and make any substitutions needed. The Tabulation Director needs to enter the results and make sure the next round is ready. A host will be sure to arrange the hospitality issues. 总裁判或比赛总监需要保持比赛按时进行，撰写和宣布议题，甚至可能担任裁判。通常，在大型比赛中，需要其他工作人员协助比赛顺利进行。总裁判将确保向裁判分发选票并进行任何必要的替换。计分主管需要输入结果并确保下一轮准备就绪。主持人将确保安排好款待问题。
At the End of the Tournament 在比赛结束时
In a pre-set tournament without any elimination rounds, the top teams are determined by their win/loss records. In the case of a tie, the points determine the position (higher points mean a higher award). It may not be this precise with any tournament. If you are giving certificates to approximately the top of the teams, you may not need to even determine the speaker points. 在没有任何淘汰赛轮次的预设比赛中，顶尖团队是通过他们的胜负记录来确定的。如果出现并列情况，积分将决定排名（更高的积分意味着更高的奖励）。在任何比赛中可能不会如此精确。如果您要向大约前 的团队颁发证书，您甚至可能不需要确定发言者积分。
After the last preliminary round the top teams will be announced to enter into the elimination rounds. In a small tournament only two teams may go into a final round or perhaps four teams into a semi-final round. If the tournament is large you may have "octo-final" debate rounds with eight debates happening in the first elimination round. In AP or AA this would mean 16 teams, in BP it would be 32 teams. Teams would be paired against each other in power-matched rounds. As teams are eliminated they are out of the tournament. The winners in each bracket will debate against each other until the ultimate winner surfaces after the final round. 在最后一轮预赛之后，将宣布顶尖团队进入淘汰赛。在小型比赛中，只有两支团队可能进入决赛轮，或者四支团队进入半决赛轮。如果比赛规模较大，您可能会有“八分之一决赛”辩论轮，第一轮淘汰赛中会有八场辩论。在 AP 或 AA 中，这意味着 16 支团队，而在 BP 中则是 32 支团队。团队将在强强对话的轮次中配对。随着团队被淘汰，他们将退出比赛。每个组别的获胜者将在最终轮之后辩论，直到最终冠军出现。
While the elimination rounds are taking place, the Tabulation Director can determine the top speakers according to their speaker points (usually the highest and lowest scores for each debater are eliminated). At the awards ceremony, speaker awards may be given along with awards for those who advance into the elimination rounds. 在淘汰赛进行时，计分主任可以根据选手的发言积分确定前几名选手（通常会剔除每位辩手的最高分和最低分）。在颁奖典礼上，除了晋级淘汰赛的选手外，还可能颁发演讲者奖项。
After the awards ceremony, a packet should be given to each team. Inside the packet there should be a copy of the results of the tournament and speaker awards along with copies of the ballots (if the ballots were used to make comments). 颁奖典礼结束后，每个队伍应该收到一个文件包。文件包内应包含比赛结果和演讲者奖项的副本，以及裁判表的副本（如果裁判表用于做评语）。
Chapter Appendix 1 章节附录 1
Sample Confirming Invitation 样本确认邀请
November 4, 2007 2007 年 11 月 4 日
To all interested English speaking debaters: 致所有对英语辩论感兴趣的人：
This past weekend the School of English and International Studies held a training workshop for British parliamentary debate at Beijing Foreign Studies University (BFSU). Over 350 students and instructors attended. Many of them will use their skills at the upcoming IDEA/FLTRP British Parliamentary Tournament to be held on December 7-9, 2007 on the East campus of BFSU. Registration for entered schools will be held on the 2nd floor of the Sir Run Run Shaw Building (3rd Lecture hall theater) at 11:00 am on December 7. 上周末，北京外国语大学英语与国际研究学院举办了一场针对英国议会辩论的培训研讨会。超过 350 名学生和教师参加了活动。其中许多人将在 2007 年 12 月 7 日至 9 日在北京外国语大学东校区举行的 IDEA/FLTRP 英国议会辩论比赛中运用他们的技能。参赛学校的注册将于 12 月 7 日上午 11:00 在邵逸夫楼二楼（第三讲堂剧场）举行。
Since we have a limited number of rooms available, we must NOW stop taking any new entries. Currently, we have 128 teams from 37 schools. If you believe you have signed up for the tournament, but you are not on the list below, you need to immediately contact Gary Rybold, Tournament Director, at grybold@ivc.edu. Except in the case of tournament administration error, we will be unable to accept any additional entries. 由于我们可提供的房间数量有限，我们现在必须停止接受任何新的报名。目前，我们有来自 37 所学校的 128 支队伍。如果您认为自己已经报名参加比赛，但在下面的名单中找不到自己的名字，请立即联系比赛总监 Gary Rybold，邮箱为 grybold@ivc.edu。除非是比赛管理错误的情况，否则我们将无法接受任何额外的报名。
Here is the list of schools who have already filed paperwork to sign up for the tournament. These schools are currently entered. 以下是已经提交文件报名参加比赛的学校名单。这些学校目前已经报名参赛。
Beijing Foreign Studies University 北京外国语大学
Beijing Jiaotong University 北京交通大学
Beijing Language and Culture University 北京语言文化大学
Beijing Sports University 北京体育大学
Beijing University of Aviation and Aeronautics 北京航空航天大学
Beijing University of Technology 北京工业大学
Capital Normal University 首都师范大学
Capital University of Economics and Business 首都经济贸易大学
Central University for Nationalities 中央民族大学
Central University of Finance and Economics 中央财经大学
China Agriculture University 中国农业大学
China Women's University 中国女子大学
Communication University of China 中国传媒大学
Dalian University 大连大学
Guangxi University 广西大学
Hebei Normal University of Science and Technology 河北科技师范大学
Huazhong Normal University 华中师范大学
Huazhong University of Science and Technology 华中科技大学
Hubei University of Economics 湖北经济学院
Inner Mongolia University 内蒙古大学
Jiujiang University 九江学院
Nanjing University 南京大学
Nan Kai University 南开大学
North China University of Technology 华北理工大学
Northeast University 东北大学
Northeastern University at Qinhuangdao 秦皇岛东北大学
Peking University 北京大学
Tianjin Normal University 天津师范大学
University of International Relations 国际关系学院
University of Science and Technology Beijing 北京科技大学
University of Shanghai for Science and Technology 上海理工大学
Xi'an International Studies University 西安外国语大学
Xi'an Jiaotong University 西安交通大学
Xiamen University 厦门大学
Please let me apologize if you are not entered in the tournament. One month ago we publicized that schools needed to inform us if they wanted to enter the training or the tournament. The schools on the list are the only ones who officially entered their teams with us. If you think we left you off the list by mistake, please let us know NOW. 如果您没有参加比赛，我在这里向您道歉。一个月前，我们公布了学校需要告知我们他们是否想要参加培训或比赛。名单上的学校是唯一与我们正式报名参赛的学校。如果您认为我们误将您漏掉，请立即告诉我们。
For those coming to the tournament let me clarify some issues. 对于参加比赛的人，请让我澄清一些问题。
First, let me stress how essential it is to have adjudicators for the tournament. Therefore, in order to enter the tournament you must have ONE adjudicator for every TWO debate teams you enter. NO entry will be accepted without adjudicators. If an adjudicator does not show up to judge the round, the two teams being covered will be dropped from the tournament. 首先，让我强调为比赛拥有裁判是多么重要。因此，为了参加比赛，您必须为每两支辩论队伍配备一个裁判。没有裁判的参赛申请将不被接受。如果一名裁判没有出现来裁决比赛，被裁决的两支队伍将被取消比赛资格。
If your adjudicators did not attend the adjudicator training on November 3 or at BFSU they need to attend adjudicator training on December 7, 10:00 am-11:00 am at BFSU. 如果您的裁判没有参加 11 月 3 日或 BFSU 的裁判培训，他们需要参加 12 月 7 日的裁判培训，时间为上午 10:00 至 11:00，地点在 BFSU。
All adjudicators are required to give an oral critique at the conclusion of every round (after completing the ballot). In NO cases are debaters allowed to argue with adjudicators. All complaints should be brought directly to Gary Rybold by coaches or adjudicators. 所有裁判都必须在每轮结束时（填写完裁判表后）进行口头评述。在任何情况下，辩手都不得与裁判争论。所有投诉应由教练或裁判直接向 Gary Rybold 提出。
Second, since we are making this a free tournament you must be responsible for your own meals, lodging and transportation. We have many eating places close to the tournament headquarters and we have allowed plenty of time for lunch on Saturday. We have already requested that out of town teams make their own lodging arrangements. 其次，由于我们将这场比赛设为免费比赛，您必须自行负责自己的餐饮、住宿和交通。我们在比赛总部附近有许多餐厅，并且我们已经为周六的午餐留出了充足的时间。我们已经要求外地队伍自行安排住宿。
Third, we will use IDEA's four-team parliamentary debate rules published at www.idebate.org. Teams may consult materials (printed or digital) during the preparation time. BUT, only notes written by the debaters during the preparation time or during the debate may be used for speaking purposes. To clarify, debaters may not take any printed material up to speak from. Nothing prepared before the actual round may be used when the debater is speaking. Dictionaries may be consulted at any time. 第三，我们将使用 IDEA 的四人团队辩论规则，发布在 www.idebate.org 上。队伍在准备时间内可以查阅材料（印刷或数字版）。但是，在准备时间或辩论期间由辩手书写的笔记才可以用于发言。为了澄清，辩手不能拿任何准备好的印刷材料来发言。在辩手发言时，不能使用在实际辩论轮之前准备的任何材料。可以随时查阅字典。
Fourth, to encourage knowledgeable debaters, topic areas used for the tournament are listed below. ALL topics will be from these areas. Please let all debaters know what current events they can research: 第四，为了鼓励知识渊博的辩手，以下是比赛所使用的主题领域。所有主题都将来自这些领域。请告知所有辩手可以研究哪些时事新闻：
The Middle East 中东地区
Israel and a two-state solution 以色列和两国解决方案
Iran's nuclear program 伊朗的核计划
Iraq 伊拉克
UN peacekeeping 联合国维和
Drawbacks of World Bank projects 世界银行项目的缺点
Technology in the classroom 课堂中的技术
Reduced private automobile ownership 减少私人汽车拥有量
Flaws in Western developmental models 西方发展模式中的缺陷
Schedule 日程安排
All Activities take place on the East campus of BFSU. Announcements will be on the 2nd floor of the Sir Run Run Shaw Building. All debates will take place in the School of English and International Studies Building. 所有活动将在北京外国语大学东校区举行。公告将在邵逸夫楼二楼发布。所有辩论将在英语与国际研究学院大楼举行。
Friday December 7 12 月 7 日星期五
10:00 am Adjudicator training (Sir Run Run Shaw Building) 上午 10:00 裁判培训（邵逸夫爵士楼）
11:00 am Coaches register their teams (Sir Run Run Shaw Building) 上午 11:00 教练注册他们的队伍（邵逸夫爵士楼）
1:00 pm General meeting and Topic announcement & Round 1 (Sir Run Run Shaw Building) 下午 1:00 全体会议和题目公布 & 第一轮比赛（邵逸夫爵士楼）
This tournament will offer many opportunities to learn about debate and make new friends. We hope that all involved will have a rewarding experience. Please communicate directly with Gary Rybold if you have any questions. 本次比赛将提供许多学习辩论和结交新朋友的机会。我们希望所有参与者都能有一次有意义的经历。如果您有任何问题，请直接与 Gary Rybold 联系。
Gary Rybold Karen Zhou Vincent Bai 加里·赖博尔德 卡伦·周 文森特·白
Chief Adjudicator Tournament Co-director Governor, FLTRP CUP 首席裁判比赛联合主任 FLTRP CUP 主办方
Sample British Parliamentary Debate Ballot 样本英国议会辩论投票
Team Total 团队总分
(140-200)
Closing Prop Team # (1-4, no ties) 结束支持团队＃（1-4，不得并列）
Closing Prop First Speaker 结束道具第一发言人
Closing Prop Second Speaker (70-100) 结束道具第二发言人 (70-100)
Team Total (140-200) 团队总计 (140-200)
Team Total 团队总分
(140-200)
Rank Closing Opp Team # Rank (1-4, no ties) 排名结束对手团队＃排名（1-4，不允许并列）
Closing Opp First Speaker (70-100) 结束对手第一发言人（70-100）
Closing Opp Second Speaker (70-100) 结束辩手二的结论（70-100）
Points 分数
Team Total 团队总分
Notice: 注意：
Team points must match ranks, i.e. 1st must have the most points, 4th must have the least points. 团队积分必须与排名相匹配，即第一名必须有最多的积分，第四名必须有最少的积分。
Complete this ballot and give it to time-keeper before providing oral critique. Oral critique must be given. Please disclose the ranking (1-4) but do not discuss points. 在提供口头评论之前，请完成此选票并交给计时员。必须提供口头评论。请公布排名（1-4），但不要讨论积分。
Adams, J. M. & Carfagna, A. (2006). Coming of age in a globalized world: the next generation. Bloomfield, CT: Kumarian Press. 亚当斯，J. M. & 卡法尼亚，A. (2006). 在全球化世界中成长: 下一代. 布卢姆菲尔德，康涅狄格州: 库马里安出版社.
Lantolf, J. P. & Johnson, K. E. (2007). Extending Firth and Wagner's (1997) ontological perspective to L2 classroom praxis and teacher education. The Modern Language Journal (91) 882. 兰托夫，J. P. & 约翰逊，K. E. (2007). 将 Firth 和 Wagner (1997) 的本体论视角扩展到第二语言课堂实践和教师教育。现代语言杂志 (91) 882.
Before 2010, the FLTRP CUP did not allow for a Point of Order to be called. Instead, the rules specify that the judge should determine if a new point is made in the rebuttals and exclude it from the decision. 在 2010 年之前，FLTRP CUP 不允许提出议事规则。相反，规则规定裁判应确定辩驳中是否提出了新观点，并将其排除在决定之外。
Full credit for this critical thinking tool-the Paul-Elder Model or PEM—is given to Dr. Richard Paul and Dr. Linda Elder. Their website is: www.criticalthinkingfoundation.org. 这个批判性思维工具- 保罗-埃尔德模型或PEM- 的全部功劳归功于理查德·保罗博士和琳达·埃尔德博士。他们的网站是：www.criticalthinkingfoundation.org。
