捭阖杯辩论赛规则_百度文库
两大类热门资源免费畅读
续费一年阅读会员，立省24元！
捭阖杯辩论赛规则
上传于||暂无简介
阅读已结束，如果下载本文需要使用0下载券
想免费下载更多文档？
你可能喜欢看了匿名用户「断章」的文字，于是便又去读了遍当年的那几篇文章。恍恍惚5年过去了，还是有看神仙打架的感觉哈哈。匿名用户用的明明就是一整篇文章，我为什么还说是「断章」呢？因为那次讨论虽然争锋相对，但最后基本是达成共识的，分歧之处几乎人畜无害，三人互知。而此事由刘杰写奥瑞冈判准起，参赛选手和其他评委在评论区讨论之后（不独刘，每人的判准评论区都在讨论），洪一玮先另写一文讨论分歧，刘杰跟上，最后吴家麟再写一文，针对性的讨论中三人都陆续将自己对奥反计划以及相关的理论理解叙述下来，最后达成互相能接受的共识。整个讨论碰撞过程从开始到结束时长近半个月，线上线下以及各个层次辩手的讨论都非常激烈，并且都不是撕逼，不是停留在输赢高下之争，而是正儿八经的理论学习和探讨，奥圈这样规模的讨论也是不多的，对所有人来说都算得上是一次学习上的盛事。而匿名用户截取的并不是洪一玮在系统的说反计划是什么（明显的不切题啊简直），而是针对刘杰反计划理解的讨论的讨论，为了学反计划而看这段未免有误人子弟之嫌，其之中所说的「是没有道理的」在之后等都有充分的讨论而成为「有一定的道理」，所以我称匿名用户的答案为「断章」。我一向不大转篇文章什么的，但刘、洪、吴的讨论我概括不了，以下将5篇文章（其中一篇是洪手机码字的段落）按讨论的时间次序全文引于下。略长，有兴趣的自看。如果能全部看完看懂，一切疑惑自解。另外，包括像另一个匿名用户提出了洪一玮所说的「反方完全可以建立一个彻底反对现状价值和制度，但是合题的反计划，其主张的需求性和正方完全不一样」，怎么看怎么像是违背书本知识的「胡说八道」的话，不幸也是有出处的，在吴家麟文章中能找到。我的理解是，反正这类家伙装逼多半是有后路的，没事不要指望他们犯低级错误，在故意装逼欺负人的可能性更大。第一部分，社科杯开始，刘杰撰写自己的判准。本人奧瑞岡政策性辯論賽判準聲明：1、以下本人「奧瑞岡政策性辯論賽」裁判準則之內容，若與比賽規則與大會定義、決議有矛盾抵觸者，比賽規則與大會定義、決議應優先於本判准適用。2、在整體框架分、辯手分合計計算勝負的比賽中，本人所言判勝負意即決定整體框架分的歸屬。一、裁判基礎　　判決之形成以雙方場上言詞辯論內容為基礎，依照本人對其理解為限而做出，不另增減。二、程式判准　2.1.合題性　
正方採取之政策制度應合全稱命題；反方應採取之政策制度應不合題。　
(1)正方不合題或反方合題者，經對方次位辯手在質詢或申論中提出，本人直接判負。舉例而言，若反方認為正方一辯申論中所提出政策不合題，應不遲於反方一辯申論時提出。若認為反方一邊申論合題，則正方應不晚於正方二辯申論提出，以此類推。　
(2)所謂「全稱命題」，以「我國普通刑法應廢除死刑」為例，正方若僅取消海盜罪判決死刑之規定而維持殺人罪之死刑，固然普通刑法廢除了部份死刑之規定，仍非「全稱」；反之，以「我國應允許安樂死合法化」為例，「全稱命題」並不要求正方必須允許所有的安樂死申請。　
2.2.現狀與相抗計畫　反方所采新制度之變動成本高於正方計劃時，視之為相抗計畫；不被評價為相抗計畫者一律視為「維持現狀」。　
2.3.立場跳動　
雙方於一辯之後所提出之新制度若與之前主張之制度抵觸或矛盾者(立場跳動)視為拋棄前制度：原有利益亦隨之拋棄，其他利益則屬「新利益」，不予承認。
故此本人不接受反方採取純粹反對之立場，而不涉及論點跳動的純反立場與維持現狀無異，本人可以接受。　
2.4.初步成立　
變動現狀之一方必須于一辯申論結束前，在需求性、根屬性、解决力三個方面得证。　
凡初步不成立者，直接判負。　
(1) 初步成立後，一辯受質詢時其利益因受攻擊而不存在，不影響已成立之效力。　
(2) 若反方被視為「相抗計畫」則亦屬變動現狀，受「初步成立」之判准拘束。　
(3) 正方有論證命題之優先義務。故正反雙方均變動現狀且均初步不成立時，正方因違反該義務，而判正方負。三、舉證責任與實體判准　
3.1.單點舉證責任　
利益/弊害評價上為利益/弊害，或制度與利益/弊害間之因果關係、強度，其論述合於經驗法則者毋庸舉證；若不合，則應論證。　
不合經驗法則又未論證者，其論述視為未提出。一方成功舉證後，則舉證責任由他方負擔。　
(1)合經驗法則者，仍須由主張之一方清楚說明。　
(2)論證之強度，應至少使本人認為「價值可接受」、「邏輯可支持」。　
(3)因他方舉證成功而負舉證責任之一方，其論證強度須等于或大於他方前次論證之強度。　
3.2.整體舉證責任與損益比　反方維持現狀者，正方應負起整體舉證責任。　
反方采相抗計畫者，反方應負起整體舉證責任。　
比賽結束時，負整體舉證責任而未完成核心議題——需求性、根屬性、解決力和損益比較的一方將被判負。　
(1)負擔整體舉證責任之一方，須論證該方制度利大於弊；若結果為弊大於利、利弊相等或無法比較時，均未完成整體舉證責任。　
(2)負擔整體舉證責任之一方，比賽結束時若有以下情形，毋需損益比亦視為完成損益比：一方只有利益沒有弊害，該方視為完成損益比。　
(3)弊害提出方的弊端需舉證該弊端與對方所提政策之間的因果關係，否則該項弊端不予承認。以「我國普通刑法應廢除死刑」為例，反方僅以巴西廢除死刑之後，監獄接連發生暴動這一事實，在不解釋其發生原因的情況下，直接將其作為弊害進行損益比較，本人不認為其攻擊有效。四、辯手得分评分之标准，本人以场上辩士表现，依经验法则与论理法则评价所形成之自由心证为评分判断。　
4.1.个人/结辩分数　
技巧分数：规则所定辩士职责、流畅度、感染力、表达态度、论点整理能力。　
内容分数：利益/弊害与攻防成立之数量、成立之强度、损益比较能力，及正确判断论点层次与重要性之能力。結辯中提出的所有新觀點，若與原框架相違背，則視同論點跳動，若與原計劃不相違背則不計入評判。
4.2.質詢與答辯質詢：本人认为，一位选手的质询，唯有「从对方的响应中」，问到某些关键点的时候，才有价值。所以每位选手的质询分数，一律由零分起跳，再随着所问到的关键，逐步加分。此外，质询时原则上只准问问题，不准下结论。
答辯：本人认为，身为一位答辩者，其最重要且唯一的责任，就是诚实地回答质询者的所有问题。所以每位选手的答辩分数，一律由满分起跳，而随着对问题的逃避，逐步扣分。链接：评论区有一系列的讨论。第二部分，洪一玮撰文。（他自己的判准是另一篇）反计划和修改现状的判定准则这是回应刘杰的帖子后附讨论的短文，要了解起因的请看：所谓修改现状，严格说来叫做小规模修改现状，和维持现状一样享有推定优势。“小规模”的意思就是，他对于现状的修正，价值上是基于对现状内涵价值的认可“admission”而进行的改进“improvement”，在实际操作上，是“现状不合算，改改更健康”的路数。所谓反计划，不享有推定优势，需要论证反根属。其价值上，是基于对对现状内涵价值的反对“objection”而进行的主张“claim”，实际影响上，是“现状不可取，改革是必须，尔方太荒谬，我法定大局”的路数。所以，如果反方一旦改变现状了，非常容易判断他是反计划，还是修改现状。只要问他两点:如果现状不改变，你在价值上认同吗？如果现状不改变，损益比上，你会溃不成军吗？对于进行修改现状的反方，如果他可以认同现状的内涵价值，并且即便不改变，他们的各项主张论点也可以讲得通，损益比上也不至于太差，只是没有改变来的合算而已，那么这就是小规模修改，可以享受推定优势反之，如果他主张的价值和现状内涵的价值有冲突，或者如果现状不修改，他们的论点讲不通，损益比上一败涂地，那就是反计划，不享有推定优势，必须论证反根属。两居其一，就是反计划，两者都不犯，就是修改现状。说清楚上述准则之后，再来看原帖中各位的问题1， 针对刘杰的问题，所谓改变现状成本大小和反计划之间建立关联规则，是没有道理的。如果正方的计划是闹翻天的改变，反方的也是。只是正方闹得略为凶一点，反方就变成享有推定优势了？这是荒唐的。只要反方一旦反对了现状内涵的价值，对于现状的损益比守不住了要引入核心改变，这就是推翻现状，当然是反计划，不管他和正方计划改变程度和成本的大小比较如何。合题，根属之类的定性问题，好比是及格性考试，和双方的辩论互推过程无关。解决力和损益比才是定量比较问题，好比竞争性考试。你的观点是把及格性变成竞争性，这是不对的。保守主义的立场是合乎美式经典立场的，我赞同你的思路，但是现状/辩题的组合辨析规则的捍卫更加体现保守主义立场，其等级比你讲的问题更高。2， 吴举的医保的例子，是个好例子。改社保可能是修改现状，也可能是反计划。就要用我讲的两个准则去衡量。如果医保不改，维持现状就是找死，损益比上溃不成军了。那么这种医保的大改，就属于反计划。如果医保不改，有点勉强，改了更说的通一点，那么则是修改现状。3， 对于其他人讨论的需求性问题，是否承认正方需求，和反方是否主张了反计划不相关。反计划的“反”，是反现状，而不是反正方需求。反方完全可以建立一个彻底反对现状价值和制度，但是合题的反计划，其主张的需求性和正方完全不一样。如果比赛变成这样，那就要看双方的合题性，需求性，正反根属性和解决力是不是都能够初步成立。如果都过关，那最后就是大混战，双方血拼损益比。这其实已经违背了政策性辩论的初衷，变成了一出闹剧，但是确实规则允许的。好比篮球赛最后变成故意犯规拖时间大战，不符合体育精神，但是没有违反比赛规则。链接同样，评论区有讨论回应。第三部分，洪一玮对一些讨论的回应。关于反根属手机发的，写不了太多，行文可能不很流程，＠不了人。就是回答刘杰的一个问题，根属性是不是排它的。从逻辑上而言，是的。根属性是论证harm or need和status quo之间的因果关系，成立或者不成立，这是是非题。但是如果反方制定反计划，有可能发生程序上的两重成立，为了同好方便查阅，我把辩论与论辩中解释反计划的一个例子扩展来解释这个问题：辩题是美国是否应该从东欧撤军，背景是冷战结束后不久，美国在东欧有少量驻军。这时候正方指出需求是节省部分军费开支。根属性论证为：冷战都结束了，不需要东欧驻军。唯有裁掉，才能有效减少这部分的无谓军费。此时反方承认正方需求，但是不承认根属，同时也不反驳正方根属，而是选择建立反计划，论证反根属：反方说，我们也要节省军费，但是我们不裁军，反而要增加驻东欧美军。根属性：1，首先论证冷战结束不意味着俄罗斯威胁的终结，反而加剧。2，论证我们驻东欧军队太少，形同鸡肋，对俄罗斯没有威胁，驻军也是白费。如果增加到一个可以威慑俄罗斯的军力数值，就可以在边境威慑牵制俄罗斯，从而把压力扭转，解放海参威海域的军力过度投入，从而降低军费。这时候，如果正方也不反驳反方的反根属，双方的根属性均初步成立。这两个理论从根本而言，是有冲突的，但是既然双方都不攻击，评委也不能代辩论员辩论，所以判决双方需求达成共识，各自的根属都成立。胜败取决于双方各自的解决力和优劣比，于是成了计划大pk。注：必须论证反根属的反计划，是最保守最严格的要求。美国现行裁判圈确实大量存在允许反方完全承认正方的需根，但是用"我方计划更优"作为理由建立反计划的。对此我不支持，如果我做评委，不会评判该类反计划有效。原因是这样就颠覆了政策辩论对执政／在野党的模拟，把比赛变成了取消政治和价值对抗的纯政策实践技术讨论，有违政策辩论百年来作为重要民主训练方法的朴初目的。但是如果有评委支持无反根属的纯技术反计划，我可以接受。因为评委判准在符合基本规则的前提下，本身就是鼓励多元化的。而且我奉行"原教旨"，凡是美国政策辩论原有的规则制度，一律予以引进和接受。如果对某些特定内容我个人不认可，则在我自己的判准和文章中予以表现。链接第四部分，刘杰的回应。根属、反根属以及反计划声明：我不太明白反根属的意思，以我粗浅的理解来看，所谓反根属的意思是指出不能容忍之现状产生的原因不是正方指出的制度原因，而在于其他的制度性原因。当然本文事实上与反根属的定义无关。在上大传统的奥瑞冈教学中，反计划必须有反根属。在我接受的台湾改良奥瑞冈教育中，反计划（又称相抗计划）实际上是承认正方的根属的为什么会有区别？首先是定义上的区别，上大之前的教学，普遍认为，所谓根属性是不改变现行制度就无法改变现状或者说辩题的改变是解决现有问题最好的方法，在这个定义之下，事实上，反根属是必然的。然而现在，较为普遍的观点认为根属首先是狭义现状（制度）与广义现状（社会问题）之间的因果联系。先来看为什么对根属性的理解会产生变化？我觉得是这样，所谓的不改变现行的制度就无法改变现状这句话实际上是无法直接证明的，因为不可能穷举出所有的办法来一一证明不可能，所以只能通过指出一部分的问题是由于什么样的政策所造成的，而这就是现在对于根属性的理解。同样的，所谓最好的方法，简直无法证明，然而这个点构成了我写这段文字的出发点。如果我们认为，根属仅仅是因果联系本身，那么我觉得反计划不但不必要反根属，甚至是完全认同正方的根属。以我和洪一玮当天晚上讨论时所举的一个例子来看：辩题为我国大陆地区是否应设立色特需求性：降低性犯罪发生率根属性：假设正方通过一系列的证据表明，我国现有的法律对色情业全面禁止导致了一些人无法通过性交易的手段释放性欲，造成了性压抑，这种压抑有一定概率造成性侵犯的发生计划：设立特区，允许在一定范围内的性交易解决力：通过计划的实施释放了一部分性压抑，进而降低了性侵犯的发生率洪一玮认为，反方可以攻击根属，认为说虽然是现有的法律对色情也的严格管控导致了性欲得不到发泄，但是却不是主要因为对卖淫的管控导致的结果，而是因为对A片管控才是罪魁祸首。进而认为说，只要允许合理的贩卖A片就能解决问题。这个属于反计划范畴。以上，洪一玮说的都对，我和他的分歧首先属于定义上的不同，以及策略上的不同。第一、我认为在这种情况下，反方不需要提出计划，因为在根属上，反方已经击破了正方的跟属性论证。因为正方的根属性证到之前的程度也许可以过初步举证责任关，但是当反方进一步分解，提出其他可能性的时候，正方的跟属性已经不成立，所以后续的部分没有必要讨论，产生问题的原因正方都没有搞清楚，没有理由相信你的计划会有好的结果。所以，如果能证明反根属，是对正方跟属性的毁灭性打击。第二、即使采取反方计划，我也认为这个不属于反计划，而属于小幅变动现状。我对于反计划/修正现状的差异在于反方的制度变动成本和正方相比何者更大（在这个点上，社科院赛的判准引起过争议，我已经不想吐槽了）。第三、我认为什么是反计划？依然以色特为例需求性：保护妓女人生安全根属性：现有制度决定了妓女不敢报警，否则损失很大计划：设立色特，无限制的吸纳妓女解决力：在特定区域内的合法经营使得妓女敢于报警，所以较现状会得以改善反方认可正方的需根，但是认为通过色情业的全面合法化能够更好的解决问题，我认为这个才属于反计划第四、我问洪一玮，根属性到底有没有排他性，来确认反方采取反计划的情况下面，到底是对根属的攻击还是我们需要提出正方的另外一项论证义务——最优解，至于结果，大家可以看他最近的那篇日志。链接第五部分，吴家麟的文章。也谈反计划，变动成本和反根属近来，有不少同好在讨论政策性辩论中反方立场的中的“维持现状”、“修改现状”、“反计划”之间的界限问题，有人甚至还提出了“维持现状、修改现状、反计划、胡扯”的四分法，让人哭笑不得。详细的讨论请见如下链接，这里我来谈谈我的理解。一、“维 修 反”立场三分的理由现状（stats quo）指的是狭义现状，即辩题欲变更之政策现状，而非广义的社会现状。现状可以是存在某种障碍性的法令或行动（barrier），也可以是缺乏某种建设性的法令或行动（gap）。举例而言，安乐死的现状可以指的是刑法中对于医生为病人实施安乐死的行为等同于故意杀人；安乐死没有行为没有统一的合法规定等等，这是staus quo。而我国有多少癌症病人，他们怎么痛苦等等，是广义的社会现状，而非政策性辩论理论中提到的现状staus quo，本文中的现状如未加说明则一律指status quo。维持现状，就是不对现状做任何的修改，认为现状已经是最佳的结果，没有任何缺点，即使有缺点也是缺点最少效果最好的的。修改现状，英语叫做Repairs and Modifications，意思是反方可以站在现状的角度去进行小幅的改革从而去除现行政策的小缺点。反计划，英语叫做Counterplan，台湾也译作相抗计划，意思是反方可以完全抛弃对于现状的支持，在认同正方需求性的情况下建立一个更优于正方的计划来解决问题或满足需求。可以看出，三分法的核心在于反方立场和现状之间的距离。区分维持现状和修改现状不难，只要有了任何原来没有的新举措都可以算是修改现状；难点在于如何区分修改现状和反计划。举个例子，辩题是是否应实行全面医疗法案（comprehensive medical care），扩大医疗服务面积，目的是解决穷人买不起药的问题。反方提出说：这些问题只需要继续扩大现存的医药推广政策、免费诊所政策范围就能够得到解决。这种修改到底算是修改现状还是反计划？答案很可能是反方达到同样的效果准备花多少钱，如果现状的政策花费是1亿美元，那么追加100万肯能算是小修改（minor repair），再花1亿可能算是大修改（major repair），再花100亿恐怕就得算是反计划了。假设同样是花费1亿美元，可能在大城市这点点钱根本不算什么，属于很小幅度的修改现状；可在一个小镇如果要花这么多钱的话就属于天文数字了。因此，决定一种政策更动是修改现状还是反计划的标准在于双方的变动成本大小。如果反方提出的措施其变动成本和正方已经差不多，甚至更大了，那么就属于一种反计划。如果明显小于正方的计划，那就是修改现状。之所以要进行这样的区分，乃是由于辩论活动应当是正反双方的对决，因此本质上应当是评委在正方和反方所持的两套方案间选择一套。规定反方在开场前拥有整体推定优势是因为在一般状况下默认反方采取了维持现状的立场，而正方对于现状的变动存在着未知的风险，故即使新的政策看不到新的利益也看不到新的弊端时，也应当不予采纳。换言之，立场的划分决定了开场时的推定优势站在哪一方，即：如果评委对正反双方的方案都不满意的话，评委选择接受哪一方的方案。当反方实行的反计划，其对于现状的变动成本已经远远高于正方，所以也就无权享有整体的推定优势，甚至评委可能将整体推定优势给予正方，在双方都完成不了初步举证责任都在胡扯的时候把票投给正方。尽管存在争议，但这是广泛被接受的主流意见，源于传统的政策性辩论理论。关于此，认识辩论最新英文版p258. “反计划与推定”这一节中写道：One well-accepted theory holds that presumption lies with the policy incurring the least risk or the lesser change. Another is that presumption always opposes the resolution. Some traditional theorists would argue that, when the negative chooses to counterplan, it abandons presumption, which then ceases to exist or shifts to the affirmative. All of this is debatable, but it is worthwhile for the negative to develop an argument for why it retains presumption with a counterplan.因此，通过变动成本判断反方立场，从而决定整体推定优势的归属，是立场三分的意义所在。而“变动成本说”的一个好处是在场上评委易于做出判断，从而决定推定利益的归属。而所谓的“变动成本”则不仅仅包括经济成本，还应当包括价值性的弊端，变动带来的未知风险等等。所以说关于变动成本的判断标准也是在场上可以进行讨论的，正方在应对反方的反计划时可以试图争取说服评委对于变动成本的评价标准从而获取推定优势。二、反计划的成立条件和类型反方的反计划能够成功，首先要满足互斥的条件，这可以有两种方式进行满足。1. 和正方计划具有天然的互斥性（Mutually Exclusive）。此种情况下正反双方的计划不可能同时成立。而正方只要能够证明两种方式可以并行不悖，反方的反计划即告失败。例如洪一玮学长举的那个美国是不是撤军的例子，正方说撤军，反方说增兵，在同一区域从总体兵力数量来说不可能即撤军又增兵（当然如果你学到了我党辩证法的精髓那就另当别论），所以形成了天然互斥。2. 反计划虽不与正方计划互斥，但其净效益高于同时采纳正方计划和反计划，也高于纯采纳正方计划。例如正方计划投1亿资金用于心脏病治疗研究，而反方辩称国家资金有限，而心脏病的研究进展希望能够不大，同时艾滋病的研究取得了显著的突破，更为需要资金投入，然后换算1美元投入心脏病和艾滋病两者对于挽救生命的产出比，得出对艾滋病的投入产出比由于心脏病，也由于同时投入心脏病和艾滋病，从而形成了相抗计划。CP & CP + P (the counterplan alone is better than the counterplan plus the plan)其次，反计划必须能够证明其能够比正方更好的解决其所提出的需求，在这一点上即可能是对于正方根属性的攻击，也可能是对于正方解决力和损益比的攻击，例如通过更巧妙的计划能同样获得正方的收益却避免了正方计划的劣势（disadvantage）。细说下来，反方的反计划可以有“条件反计划”、“乌托邦式反计划”、“排除定义反计划”、“延期反计划”、“特殊群体除外反计划”、“执行主体反计划”等类型。条件反计划（Conditional Counterplans）：在一般情况下持维持现状之立场，而在某些特殊条件触发时采用反计划。采取此种立场之反方的一大难点是要在有限的时间里清晰陈述己方的主张，如陈述不清很可能被评为判负，由如正方一辩没有完成初步成立一样。乌托邦式反计划（Utopian Counterplan）：用无国界政府，共产主义理想等乌托邦理念来解决某些问题。如在处理失业，贫困等议题时归因于万恶的资本主义剥削制度，因此只有社会主义才能救美国等。延期性反计划（Delay Counterplan）：同意正方计划的一切，但觉得现在不是时候。至于等到什么时候，一般一个约定俗成的时间是至少5年以后。特殊群体除外反计划（Exceptions Counterplan）：同意正方的计划，但认为应当排除一部分受众群体。例如正方说法消费券，反方说不发给党员。施行主体反计划（Different Agency Counterplan）：正方辩题是联邦政府应当制定消费者保护法案，反方的反计划是各州政府应自行制定消费者保护法案。合正方题的反计划（Topical Counterplans）： 该类反计划符合正方的辩题，但不符合正方对辩题的操作性定义。正方通过操作性定义定义了正方计划，反方认为除了正方定义以外的计划都属于反计划的空间。例如：辩题是联邦政府是否应加强外太空探索活动。正方操作性地定义他们的计划为在月球建立基地，反方认为除了在月球建立基地外都不算是加强外太空探索活动，于是他们的反计划是在外太空建立多个宇宙空间站。我个人极不认同此种形式的反计划，而将此种形式的反计划视为反方没有完成不合题的义务。因为正方的合题性只需要满足众多合题可能性的一种，这并不意味着除了正方所选择的操作性方案以外其他的就都是不合题的。如果承认反方这种反计划，则会导致及其荒谬的现象。例如：辩题我国是否应建立色情特区，正方操作性定义为在上海建一个色特，反方基于此提出的反计划叫在北京建色特，如果这种反方都能够算完成了合题性义务，政策性辩论就沦为一种更加无聊的文字游戏，实在是太没天理了。三、关于“反根属”反根属最近大家讨论的很多，我觉得这个概念并不是特别值得单独拿出来用的一个概念，因为任何与措施有关的利益、弊端都需要论证两者之间的因果关系。这也是优势（advantage）和劣势（disadvantage）成立的最基本条件，不管正反双方都需要遵守。而强调这一概念的弊端在于会给有些同学造成“变动成本小于正方的就算修改现状，可以不用论证反根属的”错觉。其实任何的改变都需要证明其同需求之间的因果关系，从而才能够证明这种改变是能够满足需求，解决问题的。举例而言，如果开放色情特区的需求是保护性工作者人身安全，反方放出豪言壮语，说通过加强警力，加大管理力度，我们只要消除了地下卖淫现象，就没有了性工作者，更没有了他们被暴力侵犯的弊端。然后其措施是每天每个警察多加班五分钟去逛一逛红灯区。这种变动成本极小，但也需要论证警察没有加班5分钟和弊端之间的因果关系。所以，一般而言，任何对现状的变更措施，但凡宣称能够解决损害，满足需求的，都要证明根属性，不仅仅是反计划有“反根属”，修改现状也有“修改措施的根属”。最后，我认为，理论的概念只是一种工具，是人类用于某种目的的发明，因而在倡导某种概念的时候必须明确知道进行此种概念划分的用途和目的是什么。政策性辩论理论中对于概念的建构，其两个主要的目的便在于能够借助这些概念有效的评判比赛和培训选手。不同的概念划分体系如果目的不同都具有合理性，那尽可从设计者的角度说明某些概念在何种场合如何使用。而目前我看到的一些情况，尤其是在年轻的学弟学妹中出现了一个不太好的现象，他们将工具概念本身当作存在实体，仿佛概念不是被发明的，而是有一个“标准答案”从而被人们发现的。而他们的标准答案来源于他们的学长学姐，学长说的就是对的，其他不同的看法就是“学艺不精”，而不去思考为什么规则、概念应该是这个样子的。这不由让我想起了一个亲身经历：读大学的时候教研究方法的老师老喜欢考我们：某个变量到底是定距的还是定比的，后来又一次被他烦到了，就问他：老师我只知道绝大多数的时候只要搞清楚变量是连续的还是非连续的，以及非连续的变量中有没有次序的差别，你把定距和定比两者分的那么清，你告诉我社会学研究中什么模型只能用定比变量算，不能用定距变量算可以吗？他彻底哑火了，后来我才知道，他根本没有用定量的方法写过论文，所有的理论和概念只不过是他从课本的角落里找到了一个可以刁难他人的地方而已。附：辩论与论辩最新英文版中，反方策略中有关根属性攻击和反计划攻击的段落。感谢 @施云雯() 以及 @何定宇 电子书版大家可去下载。I I I . PROPOSITION OF POLICYNEGATIVE APPROACHESC. Attack InherencyNegative teams often use two types of inherency arguments: (1) The status quo has no inherent barrier blocking the achievement of the advantage, and (2) the status quo has no inherent gap preventing the attainment of the advantage. Remember that if the affirmative inherency is very strong, i that is, no plan may be able to overcome the inherency. Fiat will allow implementation, but not workability. In addition, fiating affirmative action over strong attitudinal biases or disrupting existing governmental structures may result in substantial disadvantages. Finally, if the affirmative has not clearly identified the reasons the plan has not been implemented or the root causes of the problem, it may be missing the hidden disadvantages that are the real reasons the harm continues to exist.1. Inherency of the Status Quo Barrier.2. Inherency of the Status Quo Gap.3. Repairs and Modifications. Repairs and modifications reflect an affirmative’s failure to accurately identify an inherent harm. They may also offer strategic ways that the negative may defend the status quo but not accept its flaws.Finally they can help to mitigate the need or advantage the affirmative can claim at the end of the debate.The negative can use two types of repair or modification arguments: (1) to solve harms and (2) to provide advantages. The repairs or modifications should be relatively few
they have to be consistent there should be ample preced and they must be capable of being put into effect without any structural change in the status quo. Generally it is a superior strategy for the negative to consider repairs in the form of a counterplan, as this may provide a more consistent advocacy position (counterplans are discussed in detail later in the chapter). a. To Solve Harm. This type of argument is used when the negative is forced to admit certain shortcomings in the status quo but believes they can be repaired by status quo mechanisms. Usually the negative first seeks to minimize the harm issues and then presents its repairs. For example, in debates on the law enforcement proposition mentioned previously, some negative teams argued that the laws already on the books were adequat all that was needed were more funds to provide for better enforcement. They maintained that more funds would (1) provide more “hardware,” such as computers and mobile c (2) enable police forces to upgrade by paying higher salaries to attract and retain more able officers and to provide in- (3) provide more prosecutors and more judges, en (4) provide more effective rehabilitation and (5) provide more parole officers to supervise the prisoners after they were released. This combination of repairs—although maintaining the status quo laws—would significantly reduce crime, they argued.In debates on the “comprehensive medical care” proposition, many negative teams made effective use of repairs. If the affirmative limited its need analysis to the claim that “poor people can’t afford medical care,” the negative quickly offered repairs to extend Medicare, Medicaid, free clinics, the free care provisions of the Hill-Burton Act, and many other programs. The negative noted that all of these programs existed in the status quo, that they provided ample precedent for the government to provide free medical care for poor people, and that no structural change in any program was required.In both of these examples, if the negative can show that the amount of money needed is relatively small and can be obtained without dislocating other government programs, they are true minor repairs. But if the amount of money needed is massive and would require serious tax increases or the curtailment of other government spending, the negative will be arguing “major” repairs that might provide the affirmative with the opportunity to claim that the negative’s proposal will produce significant disadvantages.The distinction between minor and major repairs is situational. Minor repairs utilize the status quo mechanisms in a way that does not significantly alter the status quo or change its structure. Major repairs significantly alter the status quo and may require a change in its structure. A plan that provided for the federal government to spend $1 billion more in grants to the nation’s police forces would probably qualify as a minor repair. A senator once commented on the scale of federal expenditures by observing wryly, “A billion here, a billion there, and pretty soon it adds up to real money.” A $1 billion increase for police by even the largest of cities would, of course, require massive structural changes in the status quo.b. To Achieve Advantages.D. Attack SolvencyE. Prove DisadvantagesF. Develop the CounterplanThe counterplan is a strong negative strategy because it releases the negative from the need to defend the status quo and it shifts some of the argumentative ground in the debate to the negative. The counterplan is a plan presented by the negative—one that is competitive with the affirmative’s plan and is a superior policy alternative. Acceptance of the counterplan mandates rejection of the plan, and thus a negative decision. Negatives may offer a counterplan as a superior way to solve the affirmative need or as a superior policy that would be blocked by affirmative plan adoption. A benefit of the counterplan is that it may offer a way to solve the affirmative problem that uniquely avoids the disadvantages offered by the negative.1. Competition. The counterplan must compete with the affirmative plan or it is not a reason to reject the plan. Competition may be demonstrated in several ways.a. The Affirmative Plan and the Counterplan Are Mutually Exclusive. This means that the plan and the counterplan cannot simultaneously coexist. Here’s an example: Following the collapse of communism in Eastern Europe, some argued that the United States should withdraw its troops from Eastern Europe. They maintained that, because the Cold War was over, the troops were no longer needed, and the money saved could be used to reduce the national debt. The negative team disagreed with the affirmative’s justification and offered a redefined justification. It noted that the Cold War may be over but claimed that the threat of war was greater than ever. As a counterplan against this case, it argued that America should increase its troops in Europe. It held that the collapse of communism created a volatile situation and that wars might break out in the newly liberated nations. The presence of increased U.S. military forces in Europe, it maintained, would be a deterrent to such wars. It argued that, when the advantages and disadvantages of the plan and counterplan were weighed, there was a net benefit in favor of the counterplan. Obviously the United States cannot simultaneously withdraw its troops from Europe and increase its troops in Europe. The plan and counterplan are mutually exclusive.The affirmative may seek to illustrate noncompetition of the counterplan by permuting its plan to adapt to the counterplan and argue that adoption of both the plan and the counterplan is feasible. A permutation is a tes it is the illustration (not the advocacy) that the plan and counterplan can be combined. The affirmative will win if it can establish that the plan and counterplan are not mutually exclusive and that adopting both is superior to adopting the counterplan alone.b．The Counterplan Alone Is Superior to Simultaneous Adoption of the ffirmative Plan and the Counterplan. It is often impossible to construct a counterplan that cannot simultaneously exist with the affirmative plan. Another measure of competition is the net benefits standard. Here the negative seeks to demonstrate that it would be better to adopt only the counterplan than it would be to adopt the combination of counterplan and plan. This might be the case if the counterplan better solves the affirmative need. In addition, the counterplan alone may be superior if it uniquely avoids disadvantages presented by the negative.Formula for Net BenefitCP & CP + P (the counterplan alone is better than the counterplan plus the plan)For example, the affirmative might argue that heart disease is the nation’s leading killer and so we should appropriate $1 billion for research on heart disease. The negative might argue that the government has already spent billions on heart disease, but with only modest results. AIDS, it might maintain, is a more urgent problem and so we should spend the $1 billion on AIDS research. An affirmative meeting this counterplan might agree that both diseases are terrible and permute its case by proposing the appropriation of $2 billion for research: $1 billion for heart disease, and $1 billion for AIDS. If the affirmative can show that simultaneously adopting its plan and the counterplan is possible (they are not mutually exclusive) and more desirable (they provide a greater net benefit) than adopting the counterplan alone, it will win. Given the size of the federal budget, it probably would be possible to add $2 billion without making disastrous cuts in other desirable programs or raising taxes to a level that would damage the economy. For the negative to win, it must establish that funding AIDS research alone would provide a greater net benefit. It could do so if it could demonstrate that funding in excess of $1 billion would be uniquely disadvantageous. In meeting affirmative permutations of this sort, the negative must be able to argue permutation standards and present good reasons that the affirmative cannot permute its case to include the counterplan or prove that the counterplan alone is superior.The negative may establish that its counterplan is nontopical and mutually exclusive in a number of ways. It may argue that the counterplan should be carried out by a different level of government than the resolution calls for (for example, the states rather than the federal government), or that a different agency should carry out the counterplan (for instance, it should be voluntary rather than mandated by law), or that finite funds should be used in a different way (for example, the funds available for space research should be used to send a probe to Mars rather than to Venus). In debates on the mass media proposition, negative counterplans often called for a voluntary agency such as the National Association of Broadcasters (NAB), rather than an agency of the federal government, to regulate television. Similarly, in debates on the “consumer product safety” proposition, some negative counterplans called for action by the states rather than the federal government. A wide range of mechanisms is available to the negative for developing a no these will be discussed in the section “Topical Counterplans.” In fact, once the affirmative has operationally defined the resolution, almost any mutually exclusive plan can constitute grounds for a counterplan. Careful examination of the problem area of the proposition and its context will help the negative choose the most effective one.The negative has to demonstrate that its counterplan provides the best balance of risks and advantages when compared to the plan of the affirmative. In debates on the mass media proposition, negatives calling for the NAB to regulate television violence often argued that the risk of loss of First Amendment freedoms would be reduced if a voluntary agency, and not the federal government, regulated television violence. On the “consumer product safety” proposition, negatives using a “states” counterplan argued that the states rather than the federal government should regulate a particular consumer product. If a plan turned out to be undesirable, less harm would be done than if the plan were nationwide. And if the plan turned out to be desirable, other states would adopt it.2. Integration of the Counterplan. Advocates using the counterplan negative case must carefully integrate their positions. Although the counterplan should be planned in advance, the decision to use it in an actual debate usually should be made only after the first affirmative presentation. Because the counterplan has to be perfectly adapted to the specific affirmative case under attack, this adaptation frequently requires a good deal of during-the-debate coordination by the negative speakers. Not only must they integrate their counterplan with the needs or goals as they have redefined them, they also must carefully integrate their indictment of the affirmative plan to make sure one speaker’s plan attacks on the affirmative cannot be applied with equal force to the counterplan.3. Conditional and Dispositional Counterplans. The conditional counterplan is a counterplan offered as part of an if-then statement by the negative: If the status quo cannot solve the problem, then or, if the counterplan fails, we will rely on the status quo. In developing this type of case, the negative argues that (1) the status quo can solve the problem, and (2) if the status quo can’t solve the problem, it will advocate the negative counterplan. Such a strategy allows the negative to discard advocacy of the counterplan or the status quo depending on how the argumentation plays out in the debate.Student debaters should consider two important constraints before selecting this approach. First, the time constraints of academic debate may make it extremely difficult to adequately develop both the defense of the status quo and the counterplan. Second, conditional arguments have to be presented with great clarity. This requirement for clarity, when combined with the difficult-in-itself counterplan, makes for a doubly complex problem for the debater.The negative may also offer its counterplan as a dispositional counterplan. This is a special type of conditional argument in which the conditions for advocacy are predetermined. If a counterplan is dispositional, the negative may abandon advocacy of it unless it is turned—that is, unless it is compelled to answer disadvantages to the counterplan.4. Utopian Counterplan. In developing the utopian counterplan, the negative typically mandates in a single plank that the nation or world will be arranged in a manner consistent with anarchy, world government, socialism, authoritarianism, or some other future strategy and claims that this strategy will better solve the problem than the federal government or whatever agency of change is provided in the proposition under debate.2 In debating the “guarantee employment opportunities” proposition, some negative teams using a utopian counterplan argued that a Socialist government rather than the federal government could better provide such a guarantee. In debating the “federal government should increase exploration and/or development of space” proposition, some negatives used a world government utopian counterplan.For the negative the attraction of utopian counterplans is twofold: (1) Utopia is defined as “a place of ideal perfection, especially in laws, government, and social conditions”—certainly a desirable locale for one’s plan—and (2) the utopian counterplan may be the ultimate generic argument in that it can be applied to an almost unlimited variety of affirmative cases.Note that some judges object to utopian counterplans and are easily convinced to vote against them. They hold that such counterplan that is, they may be used against any affirmative policy and so are of dubious educational value, because debaters using them no longer have the incentive or need to research new topic-specificarguments.5. Topical Counterplans. Once the affirmative has operationally defined the resolution, almost any mutually exclusive plan may constitute grounds for a counterplan. Thus a topical counterplan is one that might be used as an affirmative plan under some definitions of the resolution but is nontopical with regard to the operational definition the affirmative has chosen to use. Put another way, the affirmative, by offering its plan, sets the parameters for the debate, defining the re thus anything that is not the plan is nontopical.The negative may use a topical counterplan if the affirmative operationally defines the resolution as its plan. In debating the proposition “Resolved: That the United States should significantly increase exploration and/or development of space beyond the earth’s mesosphere,” the affirmative had a wide range of possible plans. One affirmative said, “We define ‘increased exploration and development’ to mean that the United States should establish a manned colony on the moon.” The affirmative went on to provide a detailed statement of the plan and cited the advantages that would flow from the plan.A negative team meeting this case eagerly accepted the affirmative’s definition and claimed that, because the affirmative had operationally defined the resolution as “establish a moon colony,” anything other than a moon colony was inconsistent with the now-defined resolution and available to the negative as a counterplan. The negative then presented as a counterplan the plan it used when it debated as an affirmative team. Specifically it called for the United States to establish a number of manned and unmanned space stations to detect and provide early warning of approaching extraterrestrial aliens. It also provided a detailed statement of its counterplan and advantages.The counterplan was, when presented as an affirmative case, clearly topical. The negative argued that the counterplan was clearly nontopical with regard to the resolution as defined by opponent’s affirmative plan. The negative went on to argue that the plan and counterplan were mutually exclusive because each would cost over a trillion dollars, and it would be impossible to fund both simultaneously. The negative maintained as well that its counterplan provided net benefits. The affirmative claimed economic advantages from the moon colony. The negative claimed that early-warning space stations would save humankind from destruction by hostile aliens.Wise debaters find it desirable to become familiar with such counterplans, because even if they do not decide to use them, they may encounter their like.6. Other Counterplans. Other forms of counterplans include (1) the delay counterplan, (2) the exceptions counterplan, and (3) the plan-inclusive counterplan. The delay counterplan advocates waiting some period of time before adopting the affirmative plan. The rationale for delay is based on avoiding a disadvantage that would uniquely occur from immediate plan adoption. The exceptions counterplan advocates that the plan be adopted but that some jurisdiction or group of people be excluded from the plan mandates. For example, during the civil rights debates negatives advocated that affirmative plans be adopted but exclude regulations that would apply to Puerto Rico, Japan, or Native American jurisdictions. These counterplans claimed to avoid disadvantages unique to those groups or states so regulated. Both of these counterplans were types of planinclusive counterplans, which incorporate the good portions of the plan into a competitive counterplan.7. Counterplans and Fiat. It is generally (but not universally) accepted that negatives have some ability to assume fiat for implementation of their counterplans. One approach to negative fiat is to assume that it is reciprocal: If the affirmative can fiat federal government action, so can the negative. Another is to assume that the negative’s fiat ground is based in alternative agents: If the affirmative uses the federal government, the negative can use the states or the United Nations. Remember that fiat is not a magic wand, that fiat must assume some normal means of implementation, and that one cannot fiat workability.8. Counterplans and Presumption. here are also several ways to view the convention of presumption as it applies to counterplan debates. In a debate in which the negative defends the status quo, it is generally accepted that presumption favors the negative. But what happens if the negative defends a counterplan? One well-accepted theory holds that presumption lies with the policy incurring the least risk or the lesser change. Another is that presumption always opposes the resolution. Some traditional theorists would argue that, when the negative chooses to counterplan, it abandons presumption, which then ceases to exist or shifts to the affirmative. All of this is debatable, but it is worthwhile for the negative to develop an argument for why it retains presumption with a counterplan.G. Developing the Kritic (Critique)EXERCISES链接结束。
谢邀，吴家麟说的很清楚了&br&一、我有没有水平我是不知道的&br&二、没有反根属这个说法&br&三、承认10年的时候对根属性了解受台湾人的影响，有所偏颇（所以还是要看原典），之后的理解，徐纯的文章说得很好，没什么要补充的，但是徐纯注销了人人，谁有的请帖出来&br&四、我现在看反计划和修正现状的区别，一样按照变动成本来看&br&五、当年的分歧是，当反方采取反计划的时候，在正反双方打平的时候，或者是双方都没有完成初步举证的情况下，应该怎么判输赢。我认为反方变动更大，所以反方承担的风险更大，所以判正方胜。上大传统认为即使这样也应该判反方赢。这个分歧的根本是，在这里我采取的是policy maker典范，上大传统是核心议题典范罢了。
谢邀，吴家麟说的很清楚了一、我有没有水平我是不知道的二、没有反根属这个说法三、承认10年的时候对根属性了解受台湾人的影响，有所偏颇（所以还是要看原典），之后的理解，徐纯的文章说得很好，没什么要补充的，但是徐纯注销了人人，谁有的请帖出来四、我…
&a data-hash=&1d5a6d91d92c430e8c48c& href=&///people/1d5a6d91d92c430e8c48c& class=&member_mention& data-editable=&true& data-title=&@Phantom& data-tip=&p$b$1d5a6d91d92c430e8c48c&&@Phantom&/a& 和匿名用户引述的资料有点老，我来说点比较新的结论。&br&&br&================================================================&br&&br&一、五年前圈里讨论这个问题时，有个致命的认识不足使得结论普遍都不成熟&br&&br&当时大家对「根属性」的理解集体存在认识偏差。哪怕知道根属性是「需求（弊害）」与「现状」之间的联系，在意识里仍将其同特定的「手段（resolution）」进行联系。&b&从而，根属性的定义从「现状与弊害之间的因果关系」，被错误地理解成了「弊害与缺乏特定新政策（即辩题）的因果关系」。&/b&&br&&br&直到数月之后，徐纯的文章发表，大家普遍赞同，这才就根属性的认识达成一致。顺带的，许多原先有争议的难题也就迎刃而解，这也是为什么徐纯那篇文章在圈里如此为人称道的原因。&br&&br&================================================================&br&&br&二、国内评判实践中，以「变动成本」划分是最简单的操作办法&br&&br&由于国内的政策性辩论普遍采取台湾引进并进行本土化之后的「标准奥瑞冈」赛制，&b&发表一个完整的立论时间由「美国标准赛制」的两轮共18分钟，被压缩到了「台湾奥瑞冈赛制」的一轮共5分钟&/b&。这就使得正反双方立论结构的复杂性大为降低，其结果是：正方一辩的时间只够完成一个方向的初步举证责任，即单一需求性下的一套合、需、根、解。&br&&br&而反方提出反计划，几乎也完全是建立在「认同正方需求和根属」，转而在解决力和损益比的层面论证己方计划更优的模式上的。&br&&br&换言之，理论上提出反计划的反方应当论证「不合题性」、「反需求」、「反根属」、「反解决力」，只不过在国内比赛的一般情况下「反需求」=「正需求」；「反根属」=「正根属」。因而，持「反计划」立场的反方只需要论证其反计划的「解决力」即可通过初步举证。&br&&br&在这种情况下，&b&由于「修改现状」也需要证明「修改现状」的解决力，因而反方修改现状失败和反方反计划初步不成立的条件是一致的，即「反方的修改方案缺乏解决力论证」&/b&，此时区分反方持「修改现状」还是「反计划」立场的唯一意义在于：&br&&br&当正方初步不成立，而反方也缺乏解决力论证时，若反方立场为「修改现状」则毫无争议判反方胜；若反方立场为「反计划」，则需要进一步区分，如反计划的变动成本大于正方则判正方胜，如反计划的变动成本小与正方则反方胜。&br&&br&&b&唯一事关胜负判断的，是「正反双方谁的变动成本更大」。&/b&&br&&br&因此将「修改现状还是反计划」、「反计划还是正计划变动成本更大」、「变动成本更小的一方是否因享有推定优势」这三个问题，简化成「变动成本更大的视为反计划，不享有推定优势」这一个简单清晰的判罚原则，是合理且高效的。&br&&br&================================================================&br&&br&三、「变动成本说」的局限之处&br&&br&前面说了，国内基本上所有持反计划的反方都是建立在认同正方需求的基础上的。然而在国外的比赛中，出现反计划有两种可能性：&br&&br&1. Negatives may offer a counterplan as a superior way to solve the affirmative need. &br&反方提出反计划作为解决正方需求的「更优先方案」。&br&&br&&b&2. Negatives may offer a counterplan as a superior policy that would be blocked by affirmative plan adoption.&/b&&br&&b&反方提出的「更优先方案」被正方计划所阻碍。&/b&&br&&br&第二种情况极其罕见，指的是：反方提出一个有别于正方的、全新的「需求性」，极其所关联的一整套「需根解损」。这种情况下反方认不认同正方的需和根都可以，只是认为正方计划的实行妨碍了解决更重要的弊端、获得更大的利益。举例而言：&br&&br&背景：某公司业务转型，库存量锐减，空出一间仓库，会上就此进行讨论。&br&&br&正方：公司员工下午肚子饿（需），周围连个叫外卖的地方都没有（根），所以搞个喝下午茶的地方吧（解），大家加起班来会更有动力呢（优）。&br&&br&反方：我觉得应该搞个健身房（反解），大家工作没精神（反需），主要是没人强迫他们进行有效体育锻炼（反根），搞了健身房以后规定每天跑步那工作效率还不蹭蹭往上涨（反优）。&br&&br&此时正方和反方的「需根解损」完全是不同的东西，所以像「反方根属」（即洪一玮说的反根属）以及「反方需求」、「反方解决力」、「反方优势」的概念在这个角度上是成立的。只是从来没人提出来这么用。&br&&br&在这种情况下，反方的变动成本有可能比正方更小，如果因此就把反方视为「修改现状」就意味着不对「反方需求」和「反方根属」有初步举证要求。这显然是不合理的，也是「变动成本」说行不通的地方。&br&&br&最后再次强调，如上所说「非单一需求性」的打法在美国的标准政策性辩论赛制中是可行的，但也不多见。国内打台湾奥瑞冈的各位同学请勿轻易尝试，5分钟内做完多套需根解损而初步成立的可能性，绝对是小概率事件。
和匿名用户引述的资料有点老，我来说点比较新的结论。================================================================一、五年前圈里讨论这个问题时，有个致命的认识不足使得结论普遍都不成熟当时大家对「根属性」的理解集体存在认识偏差。哪…
已有帐号？
无法登录？
社交帐号登录
油～～～～～