英式政策辯的正確打開方式！

How to Judge Policy Debate

政策辯的正確打開方式

01前言

作為(wei) 一個(ge) 身在北美的華語辯論組織，我們(men) 的辯論文化和英式辯論有、著不可忽視曆史與(yu) 連接！

如何促進文化交流，取長補短，是我們(men) 一直希望達成的目標和理想～北美華語辯論協會(hui) 的榮譽評委製度，就是借鑒了英式辯論的評委晉級製度才得以成功的！

而對於(yu) 政策辯來說，作為(wei) 先河，英式議會(hui) 製的辯論有著很多值得我們(men) 學習(xi) 和借鑒的地方～

今天，我們(men) 請來了多倫(lun) 多大學Hart House辯論社的外國朋友，和我們(men) 一起分享一下，英式辯論中，政策辯的正確打開方式！讓我們(men) 從(cong) 評委的視角來體(ti) 驗一下，英式政策辯是怎麽(me) 評出勝負的！

02、Hart House 辯論社介紹

創立於(yu) 1919年，Hart House 辯論社是加拿大最古老和最具聲譽的辯論社之一。這個(ge) 社團給予了多倫(lun) 多大學的學子一個(ge) 可以提升演講技巧和探索新角度，新態度，和新想法的空間。

近年來，Hart House辯論社依舊斬獲了加拿大和北美辯論賽的冠軍(jun) ，包括英式議會(hui) 製，以及加拿大議會(hui) 製的辯論賽。在2023年的世界大學辯論賽（WUDC）上，我們(men) 的辯手取得了八強的好成績，以及我們(men) 的全部三名評委都晉級到了八強賽的評委團中。同時，我們(men) 的辯手還晉級到了牛津大學辯論賽的決(jue) 賽，以及在世界大學辯論賽（WUDC）上斬獲個(ge) 人分數前10的好成績！

03、正文譯文

如何解讀一場政策辯

政策辯題通常會(hui) 寫(xie) 成“This House Would [do X]” 的形式。正方需要支持政府製定X政策。這種辯題是完全規範型的；雙方不需要證明這一項政策有沒有可能在事實中被政府製定。反方可以選擇支持現狀，也可以選擇提出另外一個(ge) 相反的政策. 這一場辯論的判決(jue) 應針對正方所提出的政策的具體(ti) 內(nei) 容是否應被執行來判斷，而不是單純的去評判其背後所蘊含的理念是否是好的。舉(ju) 個(ge) 例子，例如辯題是“THW ban cigarettes”（本議院會(hui) 禁煙），那麽(me) 反方是可以同意吸煙是有害的，但反對正方所提出的戒煙政策。

在辯論時，我們(men) 應該假設具體(ti) 的政策會(hui) 以正方所提出的方式實施。但是正方不能假定所有的人會(hui) 自動支持或者遵從(cong) 正方提出的政策，就算政策真的可以按照他們(men) 的設想的那樣被實施。

視角：一個(ge) 普通選民的視角

在評判政策辯論時，評委們(men) 應該以一個(ge) 擁有普通智商的選民的視角來看待這場辯論。一個(ge) 擁有普通智商的選民會(hui) 對世界有廣泛的，但是並不深刻的了解（假定他們(men) 會(hui) 看報紙的頭條）。他們(men) 會(hui) 對世界，政治和實事新聞有一定的認知（例如，敘利亞(ya) 是一個(ge) 在中東(dong) 的國家）。但他們(men) 不會(hui) 自帶國家背景知識或者任何專(zhuan) 業(ye) 知識。

所以，他們(men) 會(hui) 知道各個(ge) 國家對新冠病毒的反應是不一樣的，（施行強製隔離的方案 vs 不施行強製隔離的方案）但是他們(men) 不會(hui) 知道每一個(ge) 國家到底采取了什麽(me) 樣的措施。但於(yu) 此同時，作為(wei) 一個(ge) 擁有普通智商的選民，評委都應該可以通過接受和分析本場聽到的辯論內(nei) 容，來理解被充分解釋過的，任何複雜的概念。

判斷：評估論點/論證的好壞

一個(ge) 論點說服力的核心是辯手提供的對其真實性和重要性的闡述（理性分析），以及他對這個(ge) 論點闡釋的清晰度和修辭力（敘事風格）。 一個(ge) 論點需要同時有分析性與(yu) 風格，兩(liang) 者不能分開看待（一個(ge) 好的論點不可能隻有好的風格，但沒有任何的理性分析）。

評委們(men) 應該以論點的證成度來判斷其說服力，也就是它的邏輯是否完整，合理且前提真實可信。

在證明一個(ge) 論點時，辯手們(men) 需要提供機理（為(wei) 什麽(me) 一個(ge) 持方/主張/論點會(hui) 如他們(men) 所講的導致他們(men) 所說的結果）和提供對其結果影響的闡述（為(wei) 什麽(me) 其結果會(hui) 導致正麵或負麵的影響，以及，為(wei) 什麽(me) 其結果是重要的，值得被我們(men) 關(guan) 注的）。

這些論點的構成部分的質量比其數量更加重要（也就是，少量，機理明確的論點要好於(yu) 大量沒有解釋清楚的論點）。兩(liang) 方都需要證明他們(men) 機理和他們(men) 機理的影響的合理性和規模。而對方可以選擇反駁其一個(ge) 論點的一個(ge) 組成部分，例如，機理，影響，或者其他前提。但反駁掉了一個(ge) 論點，不一定等於(yu) 獲得了比賽勝利。（因為(wei) 殘留的論點可能依然可以證成持方）

評委需要盡可能減少心證，就算聽上去很荒謬的論證，在沒有被反駁的前提下，都不應該被評委所忽視 - 雖然這樣的論點應該說服力不強。

判斷：勝利的隊伍

一個(ge) 隊伍的勝利條件是，其說服了評委他們(men) 成功的證明了，他們(men) 的持方需要他們(men) 證明的內(nei) 容。在政策辯裏，隊伍需要證明他們(men) 的政策，帶來了獨特的利好，或者對方的政策帶來了獨特的壞處。

僅(jin) 僅(jin) 是證明了自己的持方有一定的利好是不夠的，隊伍必須和對麵進行比較（例如，證明己方的影響更大，更深遠，或者更高級*）。所以，這代表，一個(ge) 隊伍不能通過自己做的某一件獨立的事情而獲得勝利，例如，僅(jin) 僅(jin) 是立論好，或者僅(jin) 僅(jin) 是反駁好。評委需要結合隊伍給出的明確論證，反駁，和比較來給出判決(jue) 。

在有可能的情況下，評委需要按照隊伍給出的判準進行判決(jue) （例如：隊伍給出判準 - 受益人數的多少是最重要的）隻要隊伍可以證明其判準是適用於(yu) 這個(ge) 辯論的（以及對方不能證明其判準不合適，或者，不能提供另外一個(ge) 同樣合理/適用的判準）。判準在整場比賽中，都可以被雙方爭(zheng) 奪/辯論。

如果情況不允許，（例如：隊伍沒有明確的判準）評委可以通過隊伍的論證來推斷其判準（例如：如果一個(ge) 隊伍認為(wei) 他們(men) 的政策的影響力很大是因為(wei) 其能夠解決(jue) 現在最大的問題，而對手沒有證明這個(ge) 邏輯有問題，則解決(jue) 當下問題可以被認定是其判準）。但是屬於(yu) 特殊情況，正常來講，評委應該避免過度解讀辯手發言（例如：腦補前提，腦補論證，等）。評委不應該用自己的心證來作為(wei) 比賽的判準。

點評：常見問題

1）籠統的概括論點，但不給出任何具體(ti) 的場上細節

雖然評委可以說，他認為(wei) 一個(ge) 論點整體(ti) 很不錯，但是他必須明確的指出具體(ti) 哪一個(ge) 場上細節比較好（例如：具體(ti) 的一段論證/分析/論據）來輔助他的點評。

2）帶入個(ge) 人知識

評委不應該以自身的專(zhuan) 業(ye) 知識作為(wei) 場上論點的說服力的評判（例如：經濟學碩士的評委不應該用自己對經濟學的理解來反對一個(ge) 場上觀點，因為(wei) 一個(ge) 普通智商的選民不會(hui) 具備這樣的知識）。

同樣，評委不應該在評議的時候帶入自己對本場比賽的預期來進行判決(jue) （例如：一個(ge) 隊伍不應該因為(wei) 說了“這個(ge) 持方下最好的/最正確”的論點而額外得分。

3）隻看形式不看內(nei) 容

評委不應該以辯手的角色帶入，發言時間，發言架構，等因素進行評議，除非這極大程度影響到了辯手發言內(nei) 容的質量。一個(ge) 簡短的發言有可能存在缺少反駁等情況，但是不應該因為(wei) 沒有用掉所有的時間而直接扣分。如果其包含了足夠的反駁，依然有機會(hui) 贏得比賽。

引用

以上內(nei) 容很多來自世界大學辯論賽，辯論和評議指南World Universities Debating Championships Debating and Judging Manual

04、結語

在第六屆北美國際華語辯論賽中，我們(men) 會(hui) 繼續嚐試融入一定數量的政策辯場次，借鑒英式辯論的評議方式進行評議！

敬請期待！

05、附正文原文

Understanding Policy Debates

Policy motions take the form “This House Would [do X]” where Government argues that they should be enacting policy X. These debates are purely normative -- teams do not need to discuss whether the policy is likely to be enacted in the real world or whether policy X is status quo. Opposition teams may choose to defend the status quo or propose a counter-proposition. The question of the debate is whether or not the policy should be enacted in the manner that the Government team has set out, not just about whether the idea behind the policy is good. For example, for "THW ban cigarettes," the opposition team can agree that cigarettes are bad, but oppose the policy of banning cigarettes altogether.

It is assumed that the policy will be implemented in the manner that the Government team sets up (also known as fiat). However, Government cannot control reactions to their policy and cannot assume that everyone will behave in a compliant manner once the policy is passed.

The Ordinary Intelligent Voter

Judges should take the perspective of a hypothetical "ordinary intelligent voter" who has broad, but not necessarily deep, knowledge of the world (i.e., they read the headlines of a major international newspaper). This person would be aware of basic facts about the world and about major current events (e.g.: “Syria is in the Middle East”). However, they do not have an ethnic or national background, nor do theyhave expertise in any particular subject. Thus, they know that countries haddifferent models of response to COVID-19 (deprioritizing the economy and implementing lockdowns vs. keeping the economy open and relying on individual social distancing), but they do not know the specifics of individual models each country has implemented. The average intelligent voter is fully capable of logically following and analyzing a debate and understanding complex concepts when explained.

Evaluating Arguments

The persuasiveness of an argument is rooted in the plausible reasons that are offered to show that it is true and important (analysis), and the clarity and rhetorical power with which these reasons are explained (style). Analysis and style are not separate criteria on which an argument is assessed (i.e.: it is not possible for an argument to be persuasive merely because it was stylish).

Judges should evaluate the persuasiveness of an argument based on its soundness, that is, whether it is logically coherent and plausible. In order to prove a claim, a team needs to provide mechanisms (steps to show how the motion leads to the outcome) and impact (why the outcome is good or bad, why we ought to care about the outcome). The quality of these components is more important than quantity (i.e.: fewer, more likely mechanisms are more valuable than many, poorly explained mechanisms). Teams need to prove the plausibility and scale of both their mechanisms and their impacts. Sufficient refutation from opposing teams will target and disprove these aspects. Refutation may defeat specific mechanisms, impacts, or other premises while not necessarily defeating the entire argument as a consequence (i.e.: if one mechanism is successfully refuted but another sound explanation is left, the claim may still stand).

Judges must exercise the minimum of personal evaluation, and even seriously implausible arguments cannot be disregarded entirely by the judge if they haven’t been rebutted – though they may have little persuasive value.

Determining Winning Teams

A team wins a debate by being persuasive with respect to the burdens their side of the debate is attempting to prove. For policy motions, a team needs to successfully prove that the policy uniquely leads to positive or negative outcomes relative to theother side. It is not enough for a team to prove favorable outcomes on their side, they must be comparably more compelling (i.e.: have a greater impact in terms of magnitude or level of change). Crucially, this means that teams cannot win or lose debates for isolated things they did, like setting up the debate well or contradicting another team on their side. Judges should consider constructive argumentation,

rebuttal, and explicit weighing that was presented in the debate.

When possible, judges should view the debate according to the weighing metrics provided by the teams in the debate (e.g.: teams explain that the quantity of people benefiting from the policy is the most important consideration) insofar as they are successfully applied in the debate (i.e.: other teams fail to disprove the weighing metric or provide an equally valid alternative). Weighing metrics must be argued and can be disputed by teams throughout the round. Judges should defer to metrics given by debaters. If this is not possible, judges can use implicit weighing metrics embedded in teams' analysis (e.g.: if a team argues their impact is important because it solves the biggest problem and other teams fail to disprove the logic, then resolving an issue can be used as a weighing metric). This is highly contextual and judges should avoid being overly interventionist (i.e.: crediting unspoken assumptions, inserting analysis to fill in arguments, etc.). Judges should not apply their own preferred criteria to adjudicate the round.

Common Errors

1) Using generalities without referencing specific

details of the round Although it is fine to summarize a decision by saying an argument was generally persuasive, judges must be able to identify details (i.e.: specific lines of analysis) to support that decision.

2) Bringing in external knowledge

Judges should not evaluate the persuasiveness of an argument based on prior, specialized knowledge (e.g.: a master's level understanding of economics should not be used to disprove a claim that is logically sound to the ordinary intelligent voter). Judges also should not adjudicate based on how they think the round should have gone (e.g.: teams should not be penalized for running the "correct" or "best" argument for their side).

3)Judging format rather than content

Judges should not evaluate a team's position based on role fulfillment, length of speaking time, or speech organization unless these components impacted the quality of the contents of a speaker's speech. A short speech may be disadvantageous if it lacks refutation to a persuasive opposing argument, but there are no "automatic fourths" for failing to fill time. If a shorter speech contains sufficient content to refute the opposing case, it can win the debate.