There were a couple of terms I found in this chapter that I wish were explained a little more.
First, the concept of uncritical responses to refutation is only covered briefly. I think that this is one of the most fundamental barriers to effective public argumentation in the United States right now. I find this issue most concerning for the liberal party. Recalling the last election and the concept of 'incremental' argumentation, I feel that people demonstrated a massive failure of critical thinking by voting for third parties or not voting. People who were disappointed with Hillary Clinton's candidacy in place of Bernie Sanders decided to either continue voting for Bernie or not vote altogether. Neither of these strategies amounted to effective support of their cause, and they constitute the uncritical "knee-jerk" reaction described in this chapter. In this case, uncritical response to opposition worked directly against the interests of the decision-makers.
Additionally, relating to the concept of uncritical argumentation, I find a long list of issues with debate leagues. From my experience working as a debate judge I witnessed a complete lack of critical thinking or creative argumentation. Instead of supporting effective and constructive argumentation, participants' behavior resembled punditry. In these debates there is no incentive to learn or win from the opponent in a constructive way. In fact, it is often an accelerated way of arguing in a completely uncritical way. When winning is defined as beating another opponent, the mutually beneficial component of argumentation is lost.
Next, I want to address the concept of momentum. I think that this is especially important when making a case before an audience. Essentially, this concept relates to the amount of attention the audience is paying towards the argument. If one side gains momentum over another, it is gaining attention, and the opposition is less-likely to be received. Another factor that comes into play is the simple concept of time constraints. At the end of class people are often distracted by packing up or anxious to leave. This would be a bad time to bring up a refutation, as people are no longer invested in the argument. If, however, you could extend time and draw the audience back, your refutation is more likely to be effective. This would be a tactic that adjusts momentum in your favor. When I think of this strategy, I think of the filibusters that occur in legislative deliberation. The longer that sessions are drawn out, the lower the momentum gets for the opposition. In this time, decision-makers may come to give more consideration to an argument.
First, the concept of uncritical responses to refutation is only covered briefly. I think that this is one of the most fundamental barriers to effective public argumentation in the United States right now. I find this issue most concerning for the liberal party. Recalling the last election and the concept of 'incremental' argumentation, I feel that people demonstrated a massive failure of critical thinking by voting for third parties or not voting. People who were disappointed with Hillary Clinton's candidacy in place of Bernie Sanders decided to either continue voting for Bernie or not vote altogether. Neither of these strategies amounted to effective support of their cause, and they constitute the uncritical "knee-jerk" reaction described in this chapter. In this case, uncritical response to opposition worked directly against the interests of the decision-makers.
Additionally, relating to the concept of uncritical argumentation, I find a long list of issues with debate leagues. From my experience working as a debate judge I witnessed a complete lack of critical thinking or creative argumentation. Instead of supporting effective and constructive argumentation, participants' behavior resembled punditry. In these debates there is no incentive to learn or win from the opponent in a constructive way. In fact, it is often an accelerated way of arguing in a completely uncritical way. When winning is defined as beating another opponent, the mutually beneficial component of argumentation is lost.
Next, I want to address the concept of momentum. I think that this is especially important when making a case before an audience. Essentially, this concept relates to the amount of attention the audience is paying towards the argument. If one side gains momentum over another, it is gaining attention, and the opposition is less-likely to be received. Another factor that comes into play is the simple concept of time constraints. At the end of class people are often distracted by packing up or anxious to leave. This would be a bad time to bring up a refutation, as people are no longer invested in the argument. If, however, you could extend time and draw the audience back, your refutation is more likely to be effective. This would be a tactic that adjusts momentum in your favor. When I think of this strategy, I think of the filibusters that occur in legislative deliberation. The longer that sessions are drawn out, the lower the momentum gets for the opposition. In this time, decision-makers may come to give more consideration to an argument.
Hey Nate,
ReplyDeleteI think you bring some unique perspectives to the topics covered in this week's chapter with your experience in debate judging.
First, I want to note, I agree that many of the concepts brought up in the chapter felt brief and almost ambiguous. A lot of the language used and information provided felt like it was all general information about methods of communication. I personally would have liked to see more specificity in the application of new terms like incremental argumentation, uncritical argumentation, and momentum. As I stated earlier, I think you did a great job of effectively applying your experiences to these concepts to help me gain a better understanding of their utility and application. Specifically in referring to your assessment of momentum. Your application to the class really connected this for me, especially your example of the class packing up at the end. It is important to bring in important lessons form the day such as refutation as you listed.
Cool to see your perspective, Nate.