Women are from Mars and men are from Venus.
I'd rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy.
Batman is the superior to Superman.
Bang goes creation.
It's the most wonderful time of the year.
T'is better to live to eat.
We are all enlisted till the conflict is o'er.
All in all we're just another brick in the wall.
Orange is the new black.
One nation, indivisible.
Your Final Argument
I will divide the class into groups of four individuals, two who will argue in favor of their resolution and two who will oppose. The resolutions will be philosophical and can be argued straight-up or can be defined.
For example, should the resolution read, "Sometimes the wrong train arrives at the right station," those arguing in favor of the resolution can define the words train and station as person and place and argue the benefits of serendipity. The opposition in turn could argue against the concept of fate, or redefine the resolution to fit a better argument. This resolution would not do well to be argued straight-up.
Should a resolution read, "Dogs are better than cats," (and we all know they are) this could be argued straight up, meaning those in favor of the resolution could actually argue in favor of canines, those opposed would have the burden of either proving that dogs are inferior to cats or that the case is inherently flawed on the basis of their reasoning.
The trick here is in how the resolution is interpreted. Those proposing the argument need to be carefully critical in how they define the case in that it upholds the intent of the resolution's argument. If they do not, and the opposition exploits their fallacy of misinterpreting the resolution the opposition can win the case without further argument.
Each group will follow this format:
1. All speakers both for and against the resolution establish argumentative ground using sound reasoning, exemplifying any of the following:
The assessment is pretty straight forward; if your team is arguing for or advancing the resolution, define and build a case based on reasoning to defend it and divide its delivery between the two of you. If your team is arguing against the case or creating a case critique, divide your case among the two of you to introduce your counter-claim or critique and then advance your argument with your second speech.
- The speaker for the resolution will present their case.
- The speaker against the proposition will present either their opposing case or their case critique (why the argument itself fails based on reasoning or why it doesn't follow the intent of the resolution).
- The second speaker for the resolution will answer the opposition's claims and advance their case.
- The second speaker against the resolution answers the second speaker's rebuttal and advances their case or case critique.
1. All speakers both for and against the resolution establish argumentative ground using sound reasoning, exemplifying any of the following:
- Parallel or Analogy
- Generalization
- Definition
- Symptomatic
- Causal
The assessment is pretty straight forward; if your team is arguing for or advancing the resolution, define and build a case based on reasoning to defend it and divide its delivery between the two of you. If your team is arguing against the case or creating a case critique, divide your case among the two of you to introduce your counter-claim or critique and then advance your argument with your second speech.
The class, also known as the House, will quickly vote at the end of each case as to the victors.
Clash
Make sure when you establish your opposing case that it is against the first constructive case, not the person delivering it.
Clash against evidence. If you find evidence that contradicts the case evidence, use it.
Clash against the reasoning. You know the fallacies - we even identified several in our last meeting.
Clash against the claim, but remember the dilemma fallacy; there are usually more than two sides to an argument.
Let's Try a Little Exercise
Were I to create an argument supporting the RAP Tax Initiative, what critical questions might I ask? (Other than what the heck is the RAP Tax Initiative.)
Please comment below.
Please comment below.
Look Harder
What I mean by this is that generally, much of the evidence I'm seeing in cases is whatever has popped up in the top five lines of your Google searches, and that's not only a lazy-ass approach to building your arguments, it circumvents one of the main objectives of critical thinking.
It's not supposed to be easy. Look harder.
Topics
Kathleen - Change the layout of the city golf course fairways that are in the Santa Clara's path.
Melodee - Welfare recipients should be drug tested.
Spencer - The bundled care payment initiative does not work.
Taylor Stout - Be aware of social media risks and recognize the dangers.
Gina - Common Core -
Trent - Government education in pre-marital counseling.
Dori - The minimum wage should be graduated.
Amber - Stem cell research should be funded.
Amber - Stem cell research should be funded.
Amanda - Immigration versus integration.
Ray - Seat belt compliance should not be mandated.
Debbie - Invoke executive order for immigration reform.
Sean - Nix the time change.
Quinn - Professional athletes earn every penny.
Meagan - Using beauty supplies increases health risks.
Karen - A viewing is beneficial to the grieving process.
Matt Mortenson - Gun regulation is unnecessary.
Doug - Assisted suicide should be an option for the terminally ill.
John - The administration should be represented at the funeral of an officer.
JoDean - Uniforms are beneficial to student behavior and performance.
Rachel - Incarceration is not the answer to drug addiction.
Matt Hobson - Increasing domestic supply of oil results in economic benefits.
Angelee - Technology is inhibiting child development.
Taylor J - We get what the government would have us think.
Taylor N - StG needs to reform its alcohol laws to improve economic viability.
Polina - Climate change needs to be substantiated before it’s funded.
Sam - USWNT soccer players needs to be held to the same standard as the NFL.
Tonight...
...we will be meeting in room 121, the Boeing Auditorium, in the Hazy building for this evening's class and the next two meetings we have for COMM 1270.
There have been a number of questions about formatting case essays and posts on cogent and fallacious reasoning. I'd prefer block style formatting, which means no indent, left hand justified, 12 point font, with a line space between paragraphs. You can see an example of this on ImNoSaint.
It's MONDAY!
...and I'm a bit concerned. Almost half the class has yet to be in contact with me about their premises nor have posted anything to this end.
Let me outline what is expected for Tuesday's class:
- You will deliver your first constructive (prima facie) oral argument introducing and substantiating your case to "The House." If you cannot attend class to deliver your opening argument, record your case and upload it to your blog.
- You will post your prima facie case essay to your blog.
- You will post your first Cogent and Fallacious Reasoning in Mediated Communication assignment to your blog.
Capisce? I'm here to help.
**UPDATE**
There have been a few queries as to what I may be expecting for your four-minute oral argument. I could put forth all kinds of criteria like a clear, concise, declarative thesis, a statement of supporting reasoning for your thesis, evidence to back up your claims and your grounds, or I could suggest you look at the rubric for the activity.
What I'll do instead is ask you this - When you're getting ready to ask your boss for a raise, what do you do? When you're trying to leverage in negotiating, what do you bring to the table? When you're bargaining on a price, what's your critical process? It's all the same, coming from a position where you must prove your reasoning.
In four minutes.
DON'T PANIC
My favorite line from Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy.
Many of you are experiencing an issue with your blog. When you click the link on the class page your blog comes up looking like this:
Many of you are experiencing an issue with your blog. When you click the link on the class page your blog comes up looking like this:
For some reason, blooger.com is adding a line of code in the URL. I've highlighted it in the screenshot above in blue. If you delete just that section of code in the URL, your blog will properly display. I think that when you post to your blog, the URL will default to what its intended address.
ALSO,
Lots of questions on how to write the case versus the case outline. Refer to Chapter 9 for some great direction in how to write your case essay. Remember, the essay contains your entire prima facia case, your line of reasoning and your evidence, where your four-minute speech gives us your opening argument; the gist of your position and the highlights of your evidence.
Take Note
Such a pleasure to meet with you last night. I'm looking forward to the next three meetings.
I have updated the schedule to better reflect activities due for each week along with an, albeit obscure, outline of the topics we'll be discussing for that meeting along with the designated reading for that week.
I have added the Cogent and Fallacious Reasoning in Mediated Communication assignments to the schedule, your first post being due by next Tuesday, September 30th in addition to your first constructive. See the schedule for subsequent post due dates.
Questions? Good. You're thinking. You know how to reach me.
I have updated the schedule to better reflect activities due for each week along with an, albeit obscure, outline of the topics we'll be discussing for that meeting along with the designated reading for that week.
I have added the Cogent and Fallacious Reasoning in Mediated Communication assignments to the schedule, your first post being due by next Tuesday, September 30th in addition to your first constructive. See the schedule for subsequent post due dates.
Questions? Good. You're thinking. You know how to reach me.
Cogent and Fallacious Reasoning in Mediated Communication - Rubric
Point Value: 50 points each times four post for 200 points.
Description
Immerse yourself into the mediated fray of information and select four topics that are percolating; issues as of this writing are US involvement with ISIS, spanking children, Utah's Medicaid conundrum with Governor Herbert, and others.
Write and post about specific mediated opinions that deal with your chosen issues, identifying the media outlet, how you heard about that specific opinion, and your analysis of whether the reasoning is cogent or fallacious. In addition, comment on your peers' posts, at least four, to get some discussion going.
Rubric
You have selected a current topic opinion for analysis of its reasoning. The topics are mediated, meaning you've discovered them through different types of media and media channels, the more stratified the better. 5 Points.
You've journaled how you were introduced to the topic, what channel brought the topic to light for you. I t may have been your Facebook feed or a Tweet, perhaps a story on talk radio, or an opinion piece in a newspaper. 10 Points.
You've analyzed the opinion of the topic, identifying whether the reasoning is cogent or fallacious and have described why, in your opinion. 20 Points.
You've commented on your peer's posts - honor system here. (I'll be commenting, too.) 15 Points.
Description
Immerse yourself into the mediated fray of information and select four topics that are percolating; issues as of this writing are US involvement with ISIS, spanking children, Utah's Medicaid conundrum with Governor Herbert, and others.
Write and post about specific mediated opinions that deal with your chosen issues, identifying the media outlet, how you heard about that specific opinion, and your analysis of whether the reasoning is cogent or fallacious. In addition, comment on your peers' posts, at least four, to get some discussion going.
Rubric
You have selected a current topic opinion for analysis of its reasoning. The topics are mediated, meaning you've discovered them through different types of media and media channels, the more stratified the better. 5 Points.
You've journaled how you were introduced to the topic, what channel brought the topic to light for you. I t may have been your Facebook feed or a Tweet, perhaps a story on talk radio, or an opinion piece in a newspaper. 10 Points.
You've analyzed the opinion of the topic, identifying whether the reasoning is cogent or fallacious and have described why, in your opinion. 20 Points.
You've commented on your peer's posts - honor system here. (I'll be commenting, too.) 15 Points.
As Promised...
Click the image above for the opening sequence to the series.
Turn your volume up for full effect.
Yes, this is the site.
Use it, not just as a resource, but also as way to communicate with myself and your peers. Be sure to read all the tabs above to get familiar with the syllabus, the schedule, how to find me, and for some of you, to introduce you to the Bill of Rights.
To use this page as a communication channel I'm asking you to create a blog using blogger.com. I will add to your blog to this page's blogroll. Create your blog by signing in to blogger.com using your Google or Dmail credentials and follow the prompts to set up your page. Please use your name for the name of your blog. Once you have your URL established, please email that to me at comm1270@gmail.com. When I've received your blog URL I'll add it to the class site. Your blog will be a place to post your assignments, your thoughts on issues, and your evidence of both cogent and fallacious reasoning you've identified within mediated communication.
One last thing to prepare for next week - please read The Danger of Critical Thinking, along with Chapters One and Six from the text, Logic & Contemporary Rhetoric.
Why Argumentation and Critical Thinking? Frankly, because the United States is on a course of idiocy due to the mediation of public discourse. Democracy depends on the exchange of smart, vetted, original ideas along with civil discourse that allows all views. It's my opinion that as a nation we've lost touch with this critical ability, on every level, and as a result we are at risk.
I'll be talking much more about that during the taping of TalkingPoint, the pilot episode of which will be produced Wednesday, the 17th at 4:00p in Studio A of the Jennings Building. You are invited to attend the taping and can read more about the show and its intent on TalkingPoint's Facebook page.
To use this page as a communication channel I'm asking you to create a blog using blogger.com. I will add to your blog to this page's blogroll. Create your blog by signing in to blogger.com using your Google or Dmail credentials and follow the prompts to set up your page. Please use your name for the name of your blog. Once you have your URL established, please email that to me at comm1270@gmail.com. When I've received your blog URL I'll add it to the class site. Your blog will be a place to post your assignments, your thoughts on issues, and your evidence of both cogent and fallacious reasoning you've identified within mediated communication.
One last thing to prepare for next week - please read The Danger of Critical Thinking, along with Chapters One and Six from the text, Logic & Contemporary Rhetoric.
Why Argumentation and Critical Thinking? Frankly, because the United States is on a course of idiocy due to the mediation of public discourse. Democracy depends on the exchange of smart, vetted, original ideas along with civil discourse that allows all views. It's my opinion that as a nation we've lost touch with this critical ability, on every level, and as a result we are at risk.
I'll be talking much more about that during the taping of TalkingPoint, the pilot episode of which will be produced Wednesday, the 17th at 4:00p in Studio A of the Jennings Building. You are invited to attend the taping and can read more about the show and its intent on TalkingPoint's Facebook page.
The Danger of Critical Thinking
From ImNoSaint.wordpress.com, December 29, 2013
It’s been a week of polarizing, at least according to my Facebook newsfeed. In the wake of the overturning of Utah’s third amendment that defines marriage as exclusively between a man and a woman, opinions and positions packed the feed, my own included, as we both celebrated and complained about U.S. District Court Judge Robert J. Shelby overturning the amendment on the grounds that it is unconstitutional.
Our brains defaulted to our own automatic attitudinal responses, in neurological speeds that don’t account for a suspension of bias or any tolerance for ambiguity. We aligned with primary certitudes about gay marriage that have become increasingly cured like hot cement that never had the pressure of a provisional footprint.
Primary certitudes drive our automatic attitudinal responses. We come by these in an interesting and pervasive process as a result of being raised in a strong content culture where we get the same messages and values over and over, becoming so saturated with the content that we surrender any provisional perspective. I’ve written an example of this in Smoking at Legoland where primary certitude resulted in an prejudiced evaluation. In a strong content culture that demonizes cigarette smoking through repetitive messages weekly in religious and cultural gatherings the outcome tends to result in a relationship between smoking a cigarette and being bad.
I grew up the same way, with the same cultural conditioning about people who smoke, but the primary certitude never cured in my brain because of the paradox I lived with, my parents. As parents do, they established the foundation for my moral compass, built character, instilled in me the golden rule, taught me tolerance, all the while smoking cigarettes.
There is no relationship between smoking and character, a strong content culture created that relationship through the force of repetition. Similar relationships have been established with the concepts of divorce, holidays, chastity, birth control, pork, alcohol, giving blood, as well as charitable donations, going to mass, taking the sacrament, reading scriptures, except on these latter, the relationship is between good and those mentioned actions where, again we abandon a provisional perspective. We’ve all been surprised to find out that a church-going person did something contrary to what we think a church-going person should do. That surprise is an affective result of our primary certitude.
A couple of behavioral tendencies grow out of cultural conditioning. One is hidden presumptions, beliefs that are so ingrained as fact that we do not believe they need to be proven at all. The other is ethnocentrism, the belief that our way of life or our culture is better than all others, the very conditioning from which stemmed the justification for the woman who walked into a train station this morning in Russia and detonated explosives killing sixteen people.
Hidden presumptions not only stem from primary certitude, they come from prejudice, intolerance of ambiguity and defensiveness. Our own prejudices prohibit us from hearing new information or ideas that are different from our own pre-determined standpoint. If messages are unclear or misunderstood, hidden presumption results in an intolerance of ambiguity, no patience with, nor critical attention to the question at hand, just defaulting to a polarized, pre-critical position. This results in the either/or fallacy where there are only two sides given to an issue, where in fact there are many more ways to see that issue. Defensiveness comes from acting on little information, jumping to conclusions on insufficient evidence and responding with our dukes up, ready to fight.
What all three of these have in common in sustaining our hidden presumptions is that they forbid or extinguish critical thinking, the provisional perspective.
Ethnocentrism is the result. If you’re not with us, you’re against us. Ethnocentrism is the single most divisive influence in any strong content culture. It’s the reason our political process appears to be in shambles – a default attitudinal response. It’s the reason faith has been replaced by certainty – a primary certitude. It’s the reason why discrimination is justified, it’s why the prestige of the appearance of morality prevails in the intolerance of ambiguity. It’s the reason why we don’t treat others with differing opinions as equal.
This is nothing new. It’s just amplified now through the channels of social media. And that requires us to become more critical than ever, to create a provisional perspective.
Before you stop reading, allow me to assure that to create a provisional perspective does not require you to abandon your belief system. In fact, doing so has as much potential to strengthen your position as it does to reconsider it.
The provisional perspective is cultivated through a practice of critical thinking. This practice includes considering the sources of any position, of any evidence, any argument. Critical thinking identifies assumptions and presumptions, both your own and those of others. It has the ability to defend more than one side of an argument. The provisional perspective asks questions, it experiments and designs, it’s creative and definitional, it’s well informed, and it staves off conclusions until it’s satisfied that all the evidence has been considered.
That’s a lot of work. The automatic attitudinal response isn’t, it’s simply a default. The provisional perspective takes time and care. It’s considerate of others.
It’s also dangerous, with enough power to jack-hammer away at strong content cultural conditioning, leaving you with your own standpoint.
The First Constructive (Prima Facie) Template
Introduction - The rhetorical demand, justifies the topic and its relevancy.
Thesis Proposition - Declarative sentence, neutrally phrased, indicating direction of change from status quo.
Define key terms
Issue A: A significant Phenomenon exists.
Claim 1: North Korea is turning hostile.
Warrant 1: Evidence of missile and rocket testing. (Remember there can be more than one warrant labeled a, b, c, and so on. Tell us the reason the claim is true. Link the evidence with the claim.)
Grounds 1: Testing indicates aggressive posturing. (Grounds should be associated with with the relevant warrant. Don't list the warrants and then the grounds, integrate them: Warrant 1A with Grounds 1A, then Warrant 1B with Grounds 1B, etc.)
Claim 2: (The phenomenon is significant) NK's hostilities could be turned on South Korea.
Warrant 2: (There are commonly two warrants here: short term, long term.) Immediate harms include..., long reaching harms include...
Grounds 2: (There should be figures and stats here, research with specific examples, narratives about impacts or social issues.)
Issue B: The phenomenon's cause can be identified.
Claim 3: Kim Jong-il is the reason for this aggression.
Warrant 3: There may be multiple causes and they should have their own warrants with appropriate grounds for each, ie; W3a-G3a, W3b-G3b, etc.
Grounds 3: Evidence, testimony.
Underview or Conclusion: Summarize keys points, relate back to the thesis and show that you've made your point. Close with a statement of significance. NO VALUES, NO SOLUTION HERE. That comes in the second constructive. Draw an objective conclusion about what the facts reveal.
Remember:
Make sure your case is balanced and you're using factual evidence to support your claims.
Construct preemptive arguments to anticipate counter constructives.
The Anatomy of Argument
Making an Argument - The Toulmin Model
The unstated warrant is: “by lifting state controls on alcohol sales you eliminate the need to travel to drink.”
The claim usually is the first part of the argument, the proposition or the resolution.
Be careful not to reduce a claim to an assertion. Whereas claims are supported by warrants, assertions are based on opinion. Opinions are based on belief systems, frames of reference. Successful claims (the winning arguments) are the ones with the most solid reasoning and valid evidence.
Rhetoric
One third of the Trivium, the other two being grammar and logic, rhetoric is the art of using language as a means to persuade.
Persuasion is the motivational or ideological impetus in changing thought, the very vehicle by which an argument is achieved.
Aristotle taught that in order to truly move an audience, your rhetoric had to involve appeals, methods of connecting intellectually (logos), emotionally (pathos), and credibly (ethos).
Rhetoric is a tool, an instrumental communication devised to the end of reaching social change.
So persuasion is an attempt to convince (cognitive effect) and motivate (affective and psychomotor) and rhetoric is adapting persuasive messages to all the contexts of delivery.
Critical Thinking
The reason you're here, the skill you must develop and hone, the asset you will use to be successful - thinking for your self, searching out your own truth with the open-mindedness to see if it makes sense, if it endures your crisis of faith, and if it does not, why not!
The critical thinker
Sounds dangerous.
Critical thinking...
And what are those Attitudes?
Pre-critical (prejudice) that does not allow us to hear new information. In order to hear new ideas different from our own we need to adjust our ability to listen to them.
Primary certitude is the answer that people have for certain "concrete" issues (abortion, gay marriage, the right to bear arms) and they have no tolerance for any other view of that issue.
Open-mindedness is your willingness to listen to ideas you may not agree with while maintaining your spine.
Closed-mindedness leads to oversimplification which leads to polarizing issues, either/or fallacious thinking.
Tolerance of ambiguity suspends judgment when we're faced with conflicting ideas until we have more information/evidence to reach a conclusion.
Reaction formation is an affective consequence to an idea that offends our own certitude.
Defensiveness occurs when our own views or certitude is challenged, the trick is to remember that we are not our arguments and that it is not a personal attack if someone disagrees with our own convictions.
Argumentation v. Aggression
Argumentative people are open-minded, assertive and ready to engage in dialog.
Aggressive people argue against the person (ad hominem) instead of the idea.
Aggressive people use aggressive paralinguistics and nonverbal behaviors, some even resort to violence.
Argumentative people know how to critically respond:
Cultural Conditioning - the eight hundred pound gorilla
Our bags come packed. We are all culturally conditioned by the way we're raised to see the world by the culture we live in - family, school, church, neighborhood, the times.
Strong content cultures engage in force of repetition, where we get the same messages and values over and over, and because we're so saturated with it, we don't question it.
Two behavioral tendencies grow out of cultural conditioning:
To justify ourselves we often use terms of extreme or absolutes such as always or never, or draw stereotypes that "everyone is like that," when we really don't know that to be the case.
This exaggeration and stereotyping leads to sweeping generalities and racial slurs.
Urban legends are also an example of exaggeration and yet rarely are they ever exposed. Still have your kidneys?
Euphemisms are another underhanded way to be aggressive, bless your heart, you vertically challenged, hygienically deficient, intellectually underfunded BYU coed. (Sorry. Are my biases seeping through?)
Propaganda
Its etymological roots grew in Catholicism when it was recruiting new members, propaganda, thanks to Hitler, Kin Jong Il and Bill O'Reilly now has a very negative connotation of an extreme persuasive practice that uses language and image to manipulate public opinion.
Propaganda uses glittering generalities, what Kenneth Burke calls "God terms" and jingoisms - cute little ethnocentric catch phrases that stick, are easy to remember and say, and oversimplify complicated issues. America, love it or leave it. Leave Free or Die.
Disinformation is another tactic using false information or rumors to convince people to see your standpoint. (Weapons of mass destruction in Iraq as justification to go to war, Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda, torturing detainees at Guantanamo...)
Demonization is the last tactic, reducing the other side to stereotypes and negative images.
Ethics
What are the motivations inherently in our arguments? Impeccable or guileful?
What is the veracity of our evidence and sources? Original or plagiarized?
Ethics in rhetoric and persuasion:
- Claim: the position or claim being argued for; the conclusion of the argument.
- Grounds: reasons or supporting evidence that bolster the claim.
- Warrant: the principle, provision or chain of reasoning that connects the grounds/reason to believe the claim.
- Backing: support, justification, reasons to back up the warrant.
- Rebuttal/Reservation: exceptions to the claim; description and rebuttal of counter-examples and counter-arguments.
- Qualification: specification of limits to claim, warrant and backing. The degree of conditionality asserted.
The unstated warrant is: “by lifting state controls on alcohol sales you eliminate the need to travel to drink.”
The claim usually is the first part of the argument, the proposition or the resolution.
Be careful not to reduce a claim to an assertion. Whereas claims are supported by warrants, assertions are based on opinion. Opinions are based on belief systems, frames of reference. Successful claims (the winning arguments) are the ones with the most solid reasoning and valid evidence.
Rhetoric
One third of the Trivium, the other two being grammar and logic, rhetoric is the art of using language as a means to persuade.
Persuasion is the motivational or ideological impetus in changing thought, the very vehicle by which an argument is achieved.
Aristotle taught that in order to truly move an audience, your rhetoric had to involve appeals, methods of connecting intellectually (logos), emotionally (pathos), and credibly (ethos).
Rhetoric is a tool, an instrumental communication devised to the end of reaching social change.
So persuasion is an attempt to convince (cognitive effect) and motivate (affective and psychomotor) and rhetoric is adapting persuasive messages to all the contexts of delivery.
Critical Thinking
The reason you're here, the skill you must develop and hone, the asset you will use to be successful - thinking for your self, searching out your own truth with the open-mindedness to see if it makes sense, if it endures your crisis of faith, and if it does not, why not!
The critical thinker
- considers the sources,
- identifies assumptions,
- judges the quality of the argument,
- develops and defends a position on an issue,
- asks questions,
- experiments and designs,
- defines meaning in terms appropriate for the context,
- is open-minded,
- well informed,
- concludes with care and time,
- is impeccable with their word,
- never assumes,
- doesn't take anything personally,
- and always does their best.
Sounds dangerous.
Critical thinking...
- identifies presumption, assumptions without proof,
- applies sound logic to problem solving, avoiding fallacies,
- structures arguments,
- understands the meaning in quotidian arguments,
- builds issue-oriented syntax,
- develops and manages attitudes for fair, nonjudgmental engagement.
And what are those Attitudes?
Pre-critical (prejudice) that does not allow us to hear new information. In order to hear new ideas different from our own we need to adjust our ability to listen to them.
Primary certitude is the answer that people have for certain "concrete" issues (abortion, gay marriage, the right to bear arms) and they have no tolerance for any other view of that issue.
Open-mindedness is your willingness to listen to ideas you may not agree with while maintaining your spine.
Closed-mindedness leads to oversimplification which leads to polarizing issues, either/or fallacious thinking.
Tolerance of ambiguity suspends judgment when we're faced with conflicting ideas until we have more information/evidence to reach a conclusion.
Reaction formation is an affective consequence to an idea that offends our own certitude.
Defensiveness occurs when our own views or certitude is challenged, the trick is to remember that we are not our arguments and that it is not a personal attack if someone disagrees with our own convictions.
Argumentation v. Aggression
Argumentative people are open-minded, assertive and ready to engage in dialog.
Aggressive people argue against the person (ad hominem) instead of the idea.
Aggressive people use aggressive paralinguistics and nonverbal behaviors, some even resort to violence.
Argumentative people know how to critically respond:
- thesis (your standpoint)
- antithesis (listen to their standpoint)
- synthesis (see what overlaps)
Cultural Conditioning - the eight hundred pound gorilla
Our bags come packed. We are all culturally conditioned by the way we're raised to see the world by the culture we live in - family, school, church, neighborhood, the times.
Strong content cultures engage in force of repetition, where we get the same messages and values over and over, and because we're so saturated with it, we don't question it.
Two behavioral tendencies grow out of cultural conditioning:
- Hidden presumptions - Beliefs that are so ingrained as fact that we do not believe they need to proven at all. Sometimes what is so obvious keeps us from seeing the truth, like relationships for example.
- Ethnocentrism - The belief that our way of life or our culture is better (truer) than all others, the very conditioning from which stemmed the justification for the suicide bombing that happened this morning.
To justify ourselves we often use terms of extreme or absolutes such as always or never, or draw stereotypes that "everyone is like that," when we really don't know that to be the case.
This exaggeration and stereotyping leads to sweeping generalities and racial slurs.
Urban legends are also an example of exaggeration and yet rarely are they ever exposed. Still have your kidneys?
Euphemisms are another underhanded way to be aggressive, bless your heart, you vertically challenged, hygienically deficient, intellectually underfunded BYU coed. (Sorry. Are my biases seeping through?)
Propaganda
Its etymological roots grew in Catholicism when it was recruiting new members, propaganda, thanks to Hitler, Kin Jong Il and Bill O'Reilly now has a very negative connotation of an extreme persuasive practice that uses language and image to manipulate public opinion.
Propaganda uses glittering generalities, what Kenneth Burke calls "God terms" and jingoisms - cute little ethnocentric catch phrases that stick, are easy to remember and say, and oversimplify complicated issues. America, love it or leave it. Leave Free or Die.
Disinformation is another tactic using false information or rumors to convince people to see your standpoint. (Weapons of mass destruction in Iraq as justification to go to war, Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda, torturing detainees at Guantanamo...)
Demonization is the last tactic, reducing the other side to stereotypes and negative images.
Ethics
What are the motivations inherently in our arguments? Impeccable or guileful?
What is the veracity of our evidence and sources? Original or plagiarized?
Ethics in rhetoric and persuasion:
- Each party has an equal voice
- All claims should be backed
- Paraphrase feedback as closely as possible
- Be relevant in defending claims
- Don't misinform or use false claims
- Avoid ambiguity
- Admit lack of evidence is applicable
- Stick to the point of argumentation
Team Debate Resolutions
TH believes that executive office to be the most powerful.
TH would repeal don’t ask, don’t tell.
TH believes women are not responsible for what a man thinketh.
Attendance should not be grading criteria.
TH would equalize marriage privileges.
DSC should allow sorority/fraternity organization.
TH would be for the spirit of the law.
DSC students should have a louder voice.
Revolution is the duty of the college student.
Rules on Point in Parliamentary Debate
- Point of Privilege: Pertains to noise, personal comfort, etc. - may interrupt only if necessary.
- Point of Information or Clarification: Generally applies to information desired from the speaker: "I should like to ask the (speaker) a question."
- Point of Order: Infraction of the rules, or improper decorum in speaking. Must be raised immediately after the error is made.
- Point of Contention: Where the speaker misquotes or misrepresents previous content in the case, this can be called out by the contender.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)