Проводимой в рамках Программы темпус IV витебск, 6 8 октября 2010 г. Витебск уо «вгу им. П. М. Машерова» 2010
| Вид материала | Документы |
| Петрашко Т.Н.УО «ВГУ им. П.М.Машерова», Витебск Формирование коммуникативной компетенции студентов языковых специальностей посредством художественного перевода поэзии |
- Курс лекций Витебск Издательство уо «вгу им. П. М. Машерова» 2006, 1428.84kb.
- Программа тура 1 день Приезд в Витебск. Завтрак. Обзорная экскурсия «Витебск- культурная, 265.92kb.
- Программы Выпуск 7 г. Витебск, 837.73kb.
- Библиотека, 520.44kb.
- Библиотека, 151.84kb.
- Учебно-методическое пособие Витебск 2010 удк 61: 371. 388: 001., 342.46kb.
- Методические рекомендации по учебной практике по уходу за больными (терапия) для студентов, 193.97kb.
- Отчет о результатах самообследования Негосударственного образовательного учреждения, 1742.39kb.
- Исх. №877 от 17. 05. 2010, 40kb.
- Уп «Полимерконструкция» Республика Беларусь, 210017, г. Витебск, ул. Гагарина,, 26.95kb.
Петрашко Т.Н.
УО «ВГУ им. П.М.Машерова», Витебск
Debate is a decision making tool used in a variety of argumentative settings. These settings are grouped into three spheres or communities: the personal, the technical and the public. These communities have different standards for distinguishing good arguments from poor ones, for deciding which debating techniques are appropriate or inappropriate, and for deciding acceptable norms of conduct.
Debates in personal settings include arguments between husbands and wives, parents and children, roommates and the like. We use debate in these personal spheres to negotiate our way through disagreements that arise in everyday life. The processes of critical and creative thinking that debate teaches help us act in ethical and effective ways in these personal disagreements.
Debate also functions in the technical sphere. Arguments in technical communities involve participants who share common areas of expertise. For instance, arguments occur between and among individuals in the legal profession, among scientists, among physicians and among engineers. To have a voice in debates in these technical communities the participants must share extensive knowledge about their subjects as well as precise vocabulary necessary to communicate about technical concepts.
In each of these spheres – technical and personal – the debates engage a limited audience. In the personal sphere only a limited number of people know the issues and are interested in the debate. In the technical sphere only the limited technical community is engaged. Our interests lie in the public sphere where a much larger audience may be involved. To be more precise, our interests lie in the educational sphere of language teaching, where advanced students apart from improving there speaking can acquire good debating techniques which will help them in their future lives and careers.
Competitive debate is directly modeled on debate in the political world. In a very sense students who participate in debate are preparing themselves for citizenship. They are preparing themselves to participate in the political life of the society in which they live. This does not mean that they will necessarily become politicians and civil servants, although they may. It does mean that they will have a better understanding of political issues and conflicts that they read and hear about in their daily lives.
In a more general way, students who participate in debate learn how to think critically. Thinking critically does not mean finding faults with things. It means analyzing and synthesizing ideas. Critical thinkers learn to go below the surface of an argument. They learn how to articulate unstated assumptions and to test the importance of logical consistency. Above all critical thinkers learn how to think abstractly. They are able to see that conflicts are not always about money, personal feelings or struggles for power – although they may seem to be on the surface. They learn, instead, that conflicts are often animated by differences of values and principle.
Critical thinking, however, is not simply a skill that is useful for debate. It is, rather, a general intellectual skill that is valued throughout the curriculum. Critical thinkers are able to articulate meanings that lie behind the text. The thinking skills acquired in debate are important and useful in other activities. The same may be said of the oratorical skills that are fostered by participation. Debaters learn hoe to think on their feet and to express themselves clearly in front of an audience. These skills can serve them throughout their academic careers but they are also fundamentally important in a variety of professions, teaching being one of the most important. So there are broad educational benefits to participating in debate. Debate is not a closed isolated skill. Students who participate learn how to debate, but they learn far more as well.
Once debate is understood as an activity that is educational and intellectually beneficial, it is clear that it should be offered broadly. In our society education does not belong to a privileged minority, it embraces more than just the talented students or those who can succeed brilliantly. Some students will contest after contest, while others will never make it to a final round. But participation in debate is beneficial for all of them, both the winners and the losers.
We are going to concentrate on more practical things applicable in debate preparation, the first stages of it. The central point of debate is argumentation which includes evidence, reasoning and claims. Argumentation is defined as the process whereby the humans use reason to communicate claims to one another. The focus of reason becomes the feature that distinguishes argumentation from other modes of rhetoric. When people argue with one another, not only do they assert claims, they also assert reasons that they believe that claims are plausible or probable.
Argumentation is critical in activities like negotiation and conflict resolution because it is the primary means people can use to help find ways to resolve their differences. But in some of these situations differences cannot be resolved internally and an outside adjudicator must be employed. In educational debate is usually the teacher. These situations are called debate. According to this view, debate is defined as the process of arguing about claims in situations where an adjudicator must decide the outcome.
A simple argument consists of a single claim leading from a single piece of evidence accompanied by perhaps (but not always) a single reservation. A claim and proposition is a controversial statement that a debater intends to support (or oppose) using reasoned arguments. They are functionally the same. A proposition is always a claim but all claims are not propositions. Let’s give an example of a simple argument. The evidence is “Harry was born in Bermuda” (persons born in Bermuda are generally British citizens), the claim is “Harry is a British citizen”, the possible reservation – “Unless Harry’s parents were US citizens”.
A convergent argument is one wherein two or more bits of evidence converge with one another to support a claim. In other words, when a single piece of evidence is not sufficient, it must be combined with another piece of evidence to support the claim. To illustrate a convergent argument we have chosen a claim that “Placebos should not be used in medical research”. According to this argument, the use of placebos (e.g. sugar pills) in drug testing research involves lying because some of the subjects are led falsely to believe they are receiving real drugs. Therefore, researchers should not use placebos unless they are the only method available to test potentially life-saving drugs. The two bits of evidence necessary here are: “Lying generally is an immoral act” and “Using placebos in medical research involves lying to some of the research subjects”. The first bit of evidence involves the value statement consistent with the audience’s values about lying. The second bit of evidence is the factual statement. The claim results from a convergence of the pieces of evidence. If the debater wishes to define specific situations in which the claim does not hold, he adds a reservation to the argument. In this case a reservation seems appropriate. Even though the arguer may generally object to lying and to the use of placebos, he may wish to exempt situations where the use of a placebo is the “only method of testing a potentially life-saving drug”.
The unique feature of the convergent argument is that the arguer produces a collection of evidence that, if taken together, supports the claim. The structure of the argument is such that the audience must believe all of the evidence in order to support the argument. If the audience does not accept any one piece of evidence, the entire argument structure falls.