Questions. No Answers
Here's an interesting article on the "New Atheists" that questions their confrontational tactics. The claim is that being more friendly and open will convince more people, rather than just preaching to the choir.
This raises a number of questions.
1) When you argue, are you doing it to convince others, or to put your argument as well as possible? Is a good argument one that convinces others?
2) What sort of argument convinces others? Does it matter who you're trying to convince?
3) Should you actually change your argument if you think it'll be more convincing, even if you find it less convincing? Even if you don't believe it yourself?
PS I see I forgot to link the article. Worse, I've forgotten where the article is. How about this one, though it's not really the same thing. Or this one.
posted by LAGuy @ 12:24 AM
1 Comments:
I have never been on a debating team. In fact, I don't think I have watched a formal debate (I havethe film "The Great Debaters" on my list of DVDs to watch).
It would seem to me, in a formal debate (that needs to be graded), the measure of success is point/counterpoint. Any point or argumentthat remains unrefuted is a "point" for that side.
But in the real world of argument - the purpose of the argument is to affect someone else's behavior or beliefs - why else engage in the argument? The best debating tactics may or may not be the most efective means to change someone's beliefs or behavior, and indeed I'm sure it depends on the audience what works best.
For me, a debate style argument works best, but I'm sure appeals to emotion, self-interest, and other factors may be more effective in many cases.
Post a Comment
<< Home