This is first in a series exploring how one's environment shapes the argumentative process. This is especially relevant to debaters just starting out in their practice. Argument as we know it usually takes the form of a confusing, tangly topic that gets systematically unravelled as an audience just sits there passively and listens. In such a lecture-y context, there are no opportunities to make rebuttals, so the lecturer anticipates them, and this usually only adds to the illusion of a complete, convincing argument. In a live debate context while anticipating rebuttal is expected, it is virtually ineffectual because of constant POI's and snide remarks from the opposition bench, meant to be "tactfully ignored", but such hackling will subconsciously undermine the gravity of what you are saying in the adj's mind. The success of a pitch lies in engaging an active, skeptical and probably hostile audience, depending on a constant alertness and lightning responses to perceived threats and doubts. Further, there are severe time constraints. So you do want to set up that puzzle that the opp has thrown you and unravel it nicely for the judges, but make do with a mini digestible one that can be summed in one or two quick points, and then smooth it out within the span of the next six minutes weaving in those threats and aversive challenges.
The crux is that most of the time, the hostile environment of a debate puts one in a pure defensive stance and frame of thought, which is mutually exclusive to constructive engagement. remember your main objective is to unravel points of confusion or doubt lingering with the adj. In later posts I will hash out structures (and their fallacious counterparts) that arise purely from defensive thinking and the structures that lend themselves to constructive, problem-solving analysis, and develop a structure that combines these approaches.
No comments:
Post a Comment