FA+
Shop
Debate is not arguing
9 years ago
General
This is something that I feel bears repetition. Debate is not an argument. You can not debate without divorcing yourself from your position.
The fundamental mindset that must be taken when entering into debate is that both positions are equally fallacious or valid until a rigorous examination proves otherwise. In an age where public discourse is so prevalent, I truly think it is a shame that rhetoric, logic, and grammar are not held in esteem. We've become so ready to throw ourselves at the altar of STEM that we've forgotten other methods of discourse. While I'd be happy to discuss whether or not science can give us an authoritative position on morality I really doubt that we'd be discussing the merits constructively outside of the process of presenting a Resolution, Case, Impact, Value, and Clash.
I'd argue in a culture that is increasingly hyper textualized that we need to understand the structures of information more than ever. So understanding the structure of debate is as important as understanding the structure of this journal (Title/Body/Sig) which is as important as understanding the structure of your web browser's GUI. These conventions are at some level require to even start to use these tools, but this is not necessary of debate. You don't need debate to use language, and so a lot of people use language to 'debate' without any real understanding of that process.
I'm not saying that every discussion needs to be formalized down to timeframes and what not, but the understanding of the structure of an argument, the understanding of the logical process of cognition and the understanding of where that process tends to go awry I'd argue is fundamental to participating in informed commentary. I do not believe it is in our best interests to devalue these skills.
That being said. STEM is fucking cool; You should learn STEM too. Learn everything, damn it!
XOXO, some guy on the internet.
The fundamental mindset that must be taken when entering into debate is that both positions are equally fallacious or valid until a rigorous examination proves otherwise. In an age where public discourse is so prevalent, I truly think it is a shame that rhetoric, logic, and grammar are not held in esteem. We've become so ready to throw ourselves at the altar of STEM that we've forgotten other methods of discourse. While I'd be happy to discuss whether or not science can give us an authoritative position on morality I really doubt that we'd be discussing the merits constructively outside of the process of presenting a Resolution, Case, Impact, Value, and Clash.
I'd argue in a culture that is increasingly hyper textualized that we need to understand the structures of information more than ever. So understanding the structure of debate is as important as understanding the structure of this journal (Title/Body/Sig) which is as important as understanding the structure of your web browser's GUI. These conventions are at some level require to even start to use these tools, but this is not necessary of debate. You don't need debate to use language, and so a lot of people use language to 'debate' without any real understanding of that process.
I'm not saying that every discussion needs to be formalized down to timeframes and what not, but the understanding of the structure of an argument, the understanding of the logical process of cognition and the understanding of where that process tends to go awry I'd argue is fundamental to participating in informed commentary. I do not believe it is in our best interests to devalue these skills.
That being said. STEM is fucking cool; You should learn STEM too. Learn everything, damn it!
XOXO, some guy on the internet.
tretron
~tretron
this.
