外研社思辨精英平台将为大家带来BP新规的精华摘要（第一部分-赛事规则相关）：

Teams win debates by being persuasive with respect to the burdens their side of the debate is attempting to prove, within the constraints set by the rules of BP Debating.

1. One could stand up in a debate and be persuasive about anything, but this will not help to win a debate unless it is relevant to the burdens teams are seeking to prove.

2. The rules of debating constrain legitimate ways to be persuasive. For example, in the absence of rules, the Opposition Whip could often be very persuasive by introducing entirely new arguments, but the rules prohibit this. As such, elements of a speech can only help a team win a round if they are both persuasive and within the rules.

The persuasiveness of an argument, in BP debating, is rooted in the number of plausible reasons that are offered to show that it is true and important (which we term ‘analysis’ or ‘matter’), and the clarity and rhetorical power with which these reasons are explained (which we term ‘style’ or ‘manner’).It is crucial to understand that in BP debating, analysis and style are not separate criteria on which an argument is assessed.

1. In particular, BP debating does not consider it possible for an argument to be persuasive merely because it was stylish. There is nothing persuasive in speaking a sentence clearly and powerfully if that sentence is not in fact a reason for an argument.

2. And equally, reasons for an argument that cannot be understood by a judge cannot persuade them.

Reasons can support arguments in a number of different ways, none of which is, in itself, “better” or “more important”. Reasons might:

1. logically explain why an argument is true

2. present empirical evidence for an argument

3. describe causally why a certain outcome will come about

4. identify widely shared moral intuitions in favor of an argument

5. expose a damaging logical implication of a contrasting argument

6. identify an emotive response that encourages us to care about a certain outcome

7. or do various other things that encourage the ordinary intelligent voter to believe that an argument is true and important to the debate

Reasons themselves may be stronger or weaker according to a number of important criteria, including:

1. the precision of what the speaker says and

2. the detail with which relevant logical claims, empirical evidence, causal processes, moral intuitions, logical implications or other elements are explained

Certain things do not matter (in themselves) in evaluating how good a speaker's analysis was:

1. the number of arguments the speaker makes

2. how clever/innovative the argument was

3. how interesting the argument was

What matters, once an argument is made, is how important its conclusion seems to be in the debate with respect to the burdens that each side is trying to prove, and the extent to which it seems to be analyzed and responded to (and how well it withstood or was defended against such responses).

Good style is about conveying reasons effectively.Reasons are thus more compellingly delivered to the degree that:

1. They are comprehensible. Speaker’s claims must be comprehensible to the judges to be evaluated. Technical jargon, speaking too fast, speaking too quietly, slurring words, or jumbling sentences could all make an argument impossible to understand, and therefore unpersuasive

2. They clearly and precisely convey the speaker's meaning. Vagueness, ambiguity and confusing expressions necessarily make judges uncertain over the nature of the reasons the speaker is offering and how they support the speaker’s argument. The more clearly and precisely speakers can convey their reasoning, the more persuasive it is. Intelligent use of language may make a speaker more able to communicate their precise point, and as such may have a persuasive effect, though it should not be rewarded just because it “sounded intelligent.”

3. They effectively convey the emotional, moral, practical or other significance of the speaker's claim. Blandly informing an ordinary intelligent voter that a certain policy will cause “a rise in subsistence level deprivation amongst lower decile groups” does not communicate a real world effect, and doesn’t make as many normative appeals explicit, as a statement that “this policy will push some of the most impoverished and neglected individuals into society into life-threatening poverty”. It is beguiling but erroneous to think that arguments in debating can be assessed through pure, cold, emotionless logic unaffected by language or tone. Making and assessing arguments is impossible unless one attaches a certain significance to outcomes, principles or claims, and appropriate use of language and tone of delivery can efficiently convey such significance

宏辞论道，纵横天下

思辨精英：china_debate