Resolutions

29

1.3.2. Organizing an opinion in the affirmative

In debate, reasons are usually given names to make it easy for the debaters to refer to, and for the judges to remember. These names are called SIGNPOSTS. A signpost should be short and easy to remember, like in the following example speech: ”Thank you, Ladies and Gentlemen! We are debating the resolution SOCCER IS BETTER THAN BASEBALL. We, on the affirmative side, strongly support this resolution. We have four reasons: COST, EXCITEMENT,

SIMPLICITY, and COLOR.”

The first speech in a debate is called FIRST AFFIRMATIVE CONSTRUCTIVE speech, or 1 AC. It is called a constructive speech because it begins construction of the affirmative case. The 1AC has 3 parts: THE INTRODUCTION, to introduce your opinion to the judges and the audience, THE AFFIRMATIVE POINTS, to give reasons and supports, and THE CONCLUSION, to finish your speech:

“Thank you, Ladies and Gentlemen! Today we are debating the resolution

SOCCER IS BETTER THAN BASEBALL. We, on the affirmative side, strongly support this resolution. We have four reasons: COST, EXCITEMENT, SIMPLICITY, and COLOR.

Our first point is COST. Soccer tickets are much cheaper than baseball tickets. In this city, the price of a ticket to a baseball game is about three times higher than the price to a soccer game.

Our second point is EXCITEMENT. Soccer is much more exciting than baseball. In baseball, 90 % of the time the players are just standing around waiting. Soccer has action all the time.

Our third point is SIMPLICITY. Soccer is much easier than baseball. Baseball rules take hours to explain and you need a bat, gloves, and baseball diamand to play. Soccer rules are easy and all you need is a soccer ball and a field.

Our fourth reason is COLOR. Soccer uniforms are much more colorful than baseball uniforms. The New York Yankjees, for example, have one of the most boring uniforms in the world.

We have talked about cost, excitement, simplicity, and color. We have shown that soccer is a much better sport than baseball. For these reasons, we beg to propose.

1.3.3. Refuting explanations

There are to sides to every story. For every opinion, there is an opposite opinion. For every reason to believe in an opinion , there is also a reason not to believe it.

Refutation, which means to negate or deny something, is used in debate to tell why the opposing team’s point is either not true, or not important. More

30

specifically, a point can be refuted by saying that it is not true, or that it is not always true, which means that there are some important exceptions. Or we can say it is not necessarily true, means that there is some doubt about the supporting evidence. If a point is not important, it may be unimportant because it has nothing to do with the resolution and is thus not relevant, or it may be a very small numerical difference an is thus not significant, or finally, it may be a problem that has a simple solution and is thus easy to solve.

The example-phrases of refutation of the negative side speaker:

-That is not a significant difference!

-That’s not always true!

-That’s not true!

-That’s easy to solve!

-That’s not relevant!

-That is not necessarily true!

-That’s not important because the difference is not significant!

-That’s not important because it’s not relevant to the topic!

-That’s not important because it misses the point!

-That’s not important because it is easy to solve!

-Sometimes it is also true, but …

-There is no connection between …

-The difference is too small to be important!

1.3.4. Organizing an opinion in the negative

The negative is not just destructive. The negative doesn’t simply attack the affirmative’s points with refutations. The negative must be constructive and offer a countercase to the judges as well. This is where the real debate begins.

The negative team gives the second speech of the debate, the FIRST NEGATIVE CONSTRUCTIVE, or the 1NC. The 1 NC consists of 4 arts: THE INTRODUCTION, THE REFUTATIONS, THE TRANSITION, THE NEGATIVE POINTS, and THE CONCLUSION.

The INTRODUCTION introduces your opinion to the judges and audience. The REFUTATIONS attack the 1AC, the first affirmative speech. The TRANSITION links the refutation portion with the negative case.

1.3.5. Evaluating the debate

Today there are standard criteria for evaluating the debating skills of this or that team, group or just individuals, that is the degree of analysis made before and during the debates, the standard of speech organization according to the rules and guidelines, the speech delivery, the refutation skills, cross-

31

examination participation, i.e. asking and answering questions during the debates as well as using the opponents’ replies to make one’s position even stronger in further speeches and refutations, and finally the number and weight of the evidence and materials used for making speeches and debating. See the approximate Debate ballot that can be used to evaluate each individual’s and the whole team’s results in this or that debate:

Debate Ballot

Scientific Experiments on Animals Should Be Forbidden

Date: Judge:

Grades: 1 – Poor; 2 – Fair; 3 – Good; 4 – Excellent; 5 – Superior

Analysis

Organization

Delivery

Refutation

Cross examination

Materials, evidence

Individual totals

Final team totals

The better debating was done by team:

32

Part II. Discussing and debating social, political and economic issues

2.1. Environmental problems in business and society

Text 1.

A Growing Coral Crisis

Overfishing and global warming are killing reefs around the world. Is it too late to save them?

By Thomas Hayden

Always wanted to go scuba diving on a coral reef but never quite found the time? You might want to book your flight fast,like right now. Hit hard by pollution, distructive fishing and rapidly warming seas, coral reefs are among the most endangered ecosystems on the planet. How bad is it? According to a report released this week at a meeting of coral-reef scientists in Bali, fully a quarter of the world's reefs are already effectively gone. If global warming continues as expected, says Australian marine biologist Ove Hoegh-Guldburg, "there's a very good probability that coral reefs as we know them now will be gone in 30 to 50 years.

Reefs are being hammered by a daunting array of really poor resourcemanagement choices.( One example: fishers in Indonesia and the Phillipines use cyanide or dynamite to stun live reef fish - highly prized in Cantonese cuisine and the aquarium trade - then smash the reefs apart to pull the comatose animals from the crevices where they hide.)Less than 1 percent of reefs are protected from such practices worldwide, says Jane Lubchenco, a marine ecologist at Oregon State University, making strict "no take" marine reserves "the single most useful action we can take" to preserve them.But all the local conservation efforts in the world - and there are many - may not be enough on their own to save reefs from an even more menacing threat : global warming.

Corals are odd creatures, and that may be their undoing. The tiny animals, living by the millions on the rocky structures they produce, capture single-celled algae, forcing the plants to make their food like galley cooks on a slave ship. Maybe global warming is the algae's revenge: heat boosts the plants' metabolism, so they generate more oxygen. At about 85 degrees, the animal cells start to suffer from oxygen poisoning, so they spit out the algae. The corals are left chalky-white - it's called bleaching - and unable to grow. If the water stays warm, the corals eventually die.

33

In 1998 scientists got a disturbing look at what might lie ahead. The strong El Nino that year warmed tropical waters from Africa through Indonesia and the Phillipines and out into the Pacific, leading to the worst bleaching episode on record. Clive Wilkinson, a marine biologist at the Australian Institute of Marine Science and the lead author of the new report, says that with time, 20 to 50 years say, many of the areas hit in 1998 should eventually recover. Unless they are hit by another heat wave or a bad storm first. Given that water temperatures in the tropical Northern Hemisphere have jumped upward by nearly a degree per decade since1984 - 10 times the global average - and both El Ninos and severe storms are expected to be more frequent with global warming, they almost certainly will be." If you get bleaching mortality every three or four years," says Hoegh-Guldburg, "you simply don't have corals anymore.

Incomplete scientific data and the fuzzy nature of climate models provide easy ammunition for skeptics, but many scientists are convinced that the crisis is real." It's all too easy to get lost in a maelstrom of ambiguity," says California State University Northbridge, marine biologist Peter Edmunds. " We need a strong statement to motivate politicians to do something about global warming." HoeghGuldburg hopes that's exactly what he'll get from the 1400 scientists gathering in Bali this week - after sharing their latest data, the group will draft a "clear, nearuniversal statement" on the connection between global warming and bleaching. After surveying data collected by thousands of researchers and volunters , the scientists are ready to sound the alarm. The question is, will anyone be listening?

Glossary

to go scuba diving endangered ecosystems to release a report effectively gone

a marine biologist

to be hammered by sth. a daunting array cyanide [´saienaid]

to stun crevice

a menacing threat odd

undoing single-celled algae

galley cook to spit sth. out bleaching eventually

34

to jump upward mortality

fuzzy

maelstrom [´melstroum] ambiguity

to draft a statement on sth. near-universal

to survey the data to sound the alarm

Task 1. Define the words from the glossary, find them in the text and describe the situation they are used in.

Task 2. Make up your own sentences with the words from the vocabulary list. Task 3. Translate:

1.Коралловые рифы – одна из экосистем планеты, которая больше всего подвергается опасности уничтожения.

2.На прошлой неделе научное общество выпустило доклад известного биолога-океанолога.

3.Мы бы хотели научиться нырять с аквалангом.

5.На сегодняшний день коралловые рифы практически исчезли.

6.Чрезвычайно большое количество соли цианистой кислоты погубило животных.

6.Гибель одноклеточной морской водоросли представляет опасную угрозу для моря.

7.Эффект выбеливания в конечном счёте приведёт к гибели рифов.

8.Смертность в этой стране быстро растёт.

9.Вихрь неопределённых фактов приводит к двусмысленности.

10.После изучения всех фактов учёные пришли к универсальному выводу.

11.Настало время, чтобы учёные подняли тревогу по поводу проблемы коралловых рифов.

Task 4. Answer the questions about the article

1.What condition are coral reefs in now? What are the reasons for it?

2.What does a report released this week say?

3.What does an Australian marine biologist say may happen if global warming continues?

4.What are reefs being hammered by?

5.What examples of poor resource-management does the author give?

6.How many reefs are protected from such practices?

7.What is an even more menacing threat for reefs ?

8.What is the undoing of corals?

35

9.Where do the corals live?

10.What plants do the corals capture?

11.What does the heat do to the algae and then to the corals?

12.What is bleaching?

13.What happens if the water stays warm?

14.What happened in 1998?

15.What does Clive Wilkinson say?

16.What will happen if bleaching mortality is repeated every 3 or 4 years?

17.What does incomplete scientific data provide?

18.What do the marine biologists need to motivate the politicians do something about global warming?

19.When will the scientists be ready to sound the alarm?

20.What problem are the scientists afraid of?

Task 5. Questions for discussion

1.How can people save the corals?

2.If you were a marine biologist what would you say to the fishers to stop overfishing and thus save the corals? What would say to the politicians?

3.If you were a fisher what would you do to change the situation?

4.If you were a politician what measures would you suggest?

Text 2

Making Decisions - Responding to Environmental Concerns

Read the case. Comment on the quality of Akzo’s business decisions

Not long ago, protecting the environment was the concern of a small group of people on the radical edge of society. Now, the environment is at the center of public debate. And as Akzo’s experience shows, environmental concerns can have a very large impact on business.

Compliance with environmental regulations is a major concern of any manufacturing company. The number and strictness of regulationson the national and international level will continue to grow. Akzo, for example, must comply with Dutch law, but it also must follow regulatory trends in the European Community. So far, the law in both cases considers the polluter strictly liable for air pollution, soil contamination, and hazardous waste disposal. If manufacturing operations pollute, the business must pay for environmental clean-up. In addition, it must pay a fine, which can be a large sum of money. Many businesses discover that simply reacting to regulations is not cost-effective. They do better to invest in significant changes in their operations. Akzo, for example, realized that end-of-pipe solution,

36

treatments of chemical waste would not be adequate for envronmental protection. Instead, it would make more business sense to reduce the amount of waste and recycle any waste that was produced. Ideally, the company would take “Cradle-to- grave” responsibility for all materials it uses or produces. It would see that the chemicals were handled responsibly at every stage, from raw materials through final disposal. These policy goals, which are part of Akzo’s product life-cycle management plan, are being applied to chlorine, a high-risk substance, that is central to Akzo’s business.

Forward-looking companies realize that the environment will continue to be a big issue and that they can benefit from environmental concerns. Industry can cause environmental damage, but it may also be able to repair or prevent it. Furthermore, industry makes our modern life possible. As a result, policymakers in many nations agree that efforts should focus on sustainable business development. In other words, national as well as international policies should balance the need to protect the environment and conserve nonrenewable resources with the need to reproduce and expand. Market-sensitive companies like Akzo see business opportunities in developing environmentally safe products and processes for the new era of sustainable development.

Glossary

To have a large impact on business

Compliance with the law

To comply with the regulations

To consider sb. strictly liable for sth.

Soil contamination

Hazardous waste dsposal

Manufacturing operations

To pay for environmental clean-up

To pay a fine

To be cost-effective

End-of-pipe solutions

Cradle-to-grave responsibility

Final disposal

37

Product life-cycle management

Forward-looking companies

Sustainable business development

To conserve nonrenewable resources

Market-sensitive companies

Task 1. Give definitions to the words and word-combinations from the glossary list. Describe situations from the case in which they are used

Task 2. Answer the questions based on what you have learnt

1.In some cases, business people may confront a difficult decision: comply with costly environmental regulations or risk paying for environmental clean-up later. How would Akzo executives make the choice? How would you make it?

2.In the European Community, the law says that polluters are strictly liable for the damage they cause and must clean it up. What problems might arise with enfiorcing this law?

3.In environmental policy, Akzo moved from reactive end-of-pipe solutions to strongly proactive product life-cycle management. What are some of the challenges of this new policy? Why life-cycle management of chemicals, for example, is very coplex ?

4.Sustainable business development will help some businesses and some nations, but it will hurt others. Why ?

Task 3. Making up environmental projects.

Choose an international company to approach for sponsorship for your environment-protecting project. Discuss what your project can offer them and prepare the arguments that you will use to persuade them to sponsor your project. Look at the checklist of questions opposite that a company will ask itself before sponsoring a project. How will your project satisfy the company with respect to these questions?

1.Will the project appeal to our customers?

2.Does it have a logical link with our company? If not, could one be developed?

38

3.Is it unique or one of many similar things on offer?

4.Will there be other sponsors ?If so, are they our competitors?

5.What kind of media coverage does the project offer?

6.If our sponsorship is a success , will there be future opportunities to continue our connection with the project/

7.Does it present an opportunity to invite our employees or shareholders as observers or participants?

8.Are any of our customers involved directly or indirectly in this project?

2.2. Scientific experiments on animals

Viewpoint

LIVE AND LET LIVE!

Sir,

I am writing to protest at the way scientists use animals for cruel experiments. Scientists say that these experiments are conducted” for the benefit of mankind”.

But there is no argument which can justify the unnecessary suffering inflicted on animals. And further, scientists know very well that most of their experiments on animals can benefit no one. Indeed, some experiments ( like grafting a second head onto a living creature) are so grotesque that they diminish the dignity of man.

Animals are abused and exploited, yet – without realizing it – they can only depend on us for protection. If we don’t protect them, who will? If you saw a man publicly beating a dog, you would be shocked and angry. But a scientist can perform all kinds of unspeakable horrors in the privacy of his laboratory in the name of “research”.

It’s time animals were allowed to enjoy the gift of life as much as we are and they will only do so when “scientific experiments” are banned for ever.

Yours, John Walton

39

Task 1. What’s your opinion? Give reasons

1.Do you agree with the writer of the letter?

2.If you do, then perhaps you believe that new medicines, for example, should be tried out on human beings. Would you volunteer or allow a member of your family for such experiments?

3.If you don’t agree with the writer, would you allow scientists to perform experiments on your pets?

Task 2. Talking points

1.Talk about the many different ways in which we use, abuse or exploit animals. Talk about cattle, dolphins, elephants, horses, dogs, rats, mice, monkeys, pigeons and others. Can one defend a distinction between pets, domestic animals and animals for ‘research’?

2.A close relative of yours is seriously ill. A cure has been found , but it has not yet been proved safe by experiment. The doctors want to try it out on your relative. It’s the only hope. What would you say? Why?

Document 1

Swiss Academy of Medical Sciences and Swiss Academy of

Sciences

Ethical principles and guidelines for experiments on animals

The following ‘Ethical principles and guidelines for scientific experiments on animals’ are reprinted here with the kind permission of the Commission appointed to formulate the guidelines and both Swiss Academies represented on the Commission. They form the basis on which Editors and referees judge whether studies involving experimentation on animals can be considered for our journal. Authors are asked to adhere strictly to these rules. CMLS fully endorses article 5.7 wherein “Scientific journals are urged not to accept the results of such experiments [i.e. those which contravene the ethical principles and the present guidelines] for publication”.

40

Preamble

These present guidelines issue from the recognition that man, in his need to solve the problems of his existence, cannot dispense with experimentation on animals, while on the other hand the ethical principle of reverence for life lays upon him the charge of protecting animals.

They reflect the conviction that scientists, as responsible members of the community, should of their own accord devise, implement, and ensure the observance of the measures necessary to achieve the optimal resolution of this conflict.

The Swiss Academy of Medical Sciences and the Swiss Academy of Sciences have therefore jointly formulated the following ethical principles and guidelines for scientific experiments on animals, which were adopted at the meetings of their Senate in the spring of 1983 and are to serve as a code of conduct for all scientists and members of allied professions practising in Switzerland.

I. Legal Bases

1.1. Animal Protection Act of March 9th, 1978, lays down principles (Article 2) for the treatment of vertebrate animals, according to which:

no person may, without justification, inflict pain, suffering, or

injury upon an animal, or cause it fear. In Section Six, conditions governing experiments on vertebrates are set forth: according to Article 12, experiments on animals are to be construed as: any procedures in which live animals are used for the purpose of testing a scientific theory, acquiring knowledge, obtaining or testing a substance, or determining the effect of a particular procedure on the animal, as well as any use of animals in experimental behavioural research.. Articles l3 and 14 contain statutory regulations according to

which:

experiments, which cause the animal pain may not be performed without permission from the authorities and must be limited to the essential minimum.

1.2. Scientists are under obligation to conduct experiments on animals in conformity with the Act and the appurtenant Statutory Regulations of May 27th, 1981. These legal provisions, however, admit of considerable latitude in their interpretation, which has to be narrowed, on the one hand by the authorizing bodies and the organs

41

of jurisdiction and, on the other hand, by scientists themselves within their own responsibility.

II. Ethical Principles

2.1.Being endowed with the faculties of reason and reflection, man is answerable for his actions. In these actions, it is his duty to seek the greatest good of all concerned. Life confronts man with ineluctable problems to solve which, failing ready resources, he must contrive to augment the range and the fullness of his knowledge. At the same time, it is also man’s duty to respect, to preserve, and to care for the gifts of nature, and the ethical principle of reverence for life demands that man should protect his fellow-creatures, the animals.

2.2.Experimental investigations in animals are often of decisive importance for the understanding of vital phenomena. They represent a particular form of man’s age-long practice of using animals for the sake of his own self-preservation and welfare. Knowledge acquired through experimentation on animals is of service to man in protecting life, in alleviating suffering, and in ensuring his survival. The right claimed by man to use animals is, however, inseparable from the duty to avoid abuse of that right.

2.3.The ethical problems of experimentation on animals arise from the conflict between the endeavour to realize the above-mentioned human values, on the one hand, and ethical principles such as reverence for life and abstinence from acts inflicting pain and suffering, on the other hand. This conflict is unavoidable: it can only be responsibly settled by weighing the mutually opposing values.

2.4.The ethical principle of reverence for life of man and animals demands, in particular, that experiments on animals should be restricted as far as possible, without, however, denying man the fulfilment of his own claims to security.

III. Ethical Requirements for the Legitimation of Experiments on Animals

3.1.The requirement that experiments on animals must be justified on the grounds of greater good imposes upon scientists the duty of adducing proof of the necessity and the suitability of each experiment to be performed.

3.2.The more essential is the knowledge to be gained from experiments on animals and the greater its import for the upholding of human values, the more plainly justifiable are such experiments:

42

to protect human life and to mitigate severe suffering are not merely prerogatives that man may exercise but obligations he must fulfill.

3.3.The greater the suffering an experiment is apt to inflict upon an animal, the more acute becomes the question of its justifiability.

3.4.Experimentation on animals must conform to the established principles and precepts of science. In particular, the results sought must extend clearly beyond the confines of present knowledge, the assumption to be tested must be reasonable, and the procedure chosen must be likely to achieve success and consistent with the existing state of research.

3.5.Experiments on animals which are of direct and readily perceptible benefit to the life and health of man and animals are ethically legitimate. These include experiments directed towards prophylactic, diagnostic and therapeutic ends in medicine, or serving the interests of safeguarding against dangers. Experimental investigations in human beings can, in many fields, only be performed if they are warranted by the results of experiments on animals (cf. article 11.3 of “Richtlinien für

Forschungsuntersuchungen am Menschen”, published by the Swiss

Academy of Medical Sciences, December 1st, 1970).

3.6.Experiments on animals are ethically legitimate if even without being of immediately appreciable benefit to life and health they serve the end of acquiring new knowledge, for instance if they can in all probability be expected to contribute significantly to our knowledge of the make-up, function, and behaviour of living creatures.

3.7.Experiments on animals which under the Animal Protection Act require official authorization are ethically legitimate as part of the curricula of universities and other institutes of higher learning for students of medicine, dental surgery, veterinary medicine, pharmacy, and biology, and in the vocational training of laboratory technicians and paramedical staff, provided that no alternative possibilities exist for them to acquire the necessary, more profound understanding of vital phenomena, or be trained in the skills needed for the performance of experiments.

3.8.Experiments on animals are not ethically legitimate if sufficiently conclusive alternative methods exist of acquiring the knowledge sought. Experiments on animals which have already been competently performed may not be repeated without adequate grounds.

43

IV. Ethical Requirements for the Conduct of Experiments on Animals

4.1.The ethical principle of reverence for life demands that the greatest possible gain in knowledge should be achieved at the cost of the fewest possible experiments and animals, and of the least possible suffering of the latter.

4.2.It is the duty of all persons participating in experiments on animals to be heedful of the well-being and assure the least possible suffering of the experimental animal. The decisive criterion on which the fulfilment of this duty depends is their professional competence and express acceptance of their responsibility towards the animal.

4.3.Experiments apt to inflict pain must be performed under general or local anaesthesia, unless anaesthesia is precluded by the purpose of the experiment (Animal Protection Act, article 16.2).

4.4.If pain, suffering, or fear are inevitable accompaniments of an experiment, all possible measures must be taken to limit their duration and intensity to the essential minimum. The animal must be able to give expression to its sensations and, whenever possible, able to avoid painful stimuli. For this reason, the use of paralysant substances without narcosis is forbidden.

4.5.In all experiments which lead to chronic suffering or necessitate repeated interventions, every possible measure must be taken to mitigate suffering and to dispel anxiety. It is particularly important in such cases that the animal should be carefully accustomed to the experimental conditions and cared for in the proper fashion before, during and after the experiment.

4.6.Experiments apt to cause the animal severe suffering must be avoided by modifying the hypothesis to be tested in such a way that other criteria of the successful conclusion of the experiment can be applied, or by foregoing the anticipated gain of knowledge. Severe suffering is to be construed as any state which in man would be qualified as unbearable without palliative measures.

4.7.Continued physical restraint must only be resorted to after procedures have been considered and found wanting. All possible measures must be taken to alleviate anxiety, including in particular careful and gentle accustoming of the animal to the experimental conditions.

44

4.8. Animals on which experiments are to be performed should, as a rule, originate from special laboratory-animal breeding units. Animals of unknown origin must not be used. Particular reservation is called for in the case of species living in the wild. Experiments on species threatened with extinction are only justifiable if they contribute towards the preservation of those species.

V. Responsibilities

5.1.The scientific, moral, and legal responsibility for the legitimation, planning, and performance of experiments on animals is borne by the scientist-in-charge. All other persons participating in the experiment share the moral responsibility: they must therefore have complete freedom to voice their opinions and, if need be, refuse their co-operation.

5.2.In consequence of his insight and within the bounds of his knowledge, each individual scientist is responsible for ensuring that, within his own sphere of influence, the Animal Protection Act and the present guidelines are duly observed.

5.3.It is the duty of all scientists to take and to support all conceivable measures towards the restriction of experiments on animals, in particular through the development of alternative methods and the constant improvement of test systems in order to augment the relevance and validity of experiments on animals. It is their further duty to contribute towards the avoidance of unnecessary experiments on animals by promoting the development and operation of information systems and data banks as well as appropriate means for the communication of the results of experiments on animals, including those of experiments with a negative or inconclusive outcome.

5.4.Scientists are duty-bound to subject to constant, critical scrutiny the relevance and validity of experiments on animals stipulated by existing legal provisions enacted to protect mankind from danger, and, whenever necessary, to use their best resources to bring about amendments to these regulations.

5.5.Scientists are urged to exploit the findings of behavioural research in order to hasten the development of new experimental strategies which, in experiments causing pain and anxiety, could diminish or eliminate the animal’s perception of pain.

5.6.It is the duty of scientists and of institutions for the advancement of science constantly to promote the training of persons participating in experiments on animals, to oversee their knowledge and