| Subject: Hey, you said it was a good idea...now what's changed? |
Author:
obitchecker
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: Sun, May 17, 2009 8:17:51
In reply to:
Teller
's message, "Re: Let me know when that becomes standard education." on Sun, May 17, 2009 3:19:24
Do you not understand what I am saying?
Yes, you're splitting hairs.
You can have a good knowledge of the subject AND have good public speaking skills.
Of course you can. But many don't.
They are the best debaters.
Agreed, if they really have BOTH skills to a greater extent than the opponent.
Debating is all about developing arguements.
No, as you've really admitted just above, it's also about public speaking skills.
Were you ever on a debate team?
No, and I know my public speaking skills are awful. I've argued for years through writing rather than speaking. (And I concede I could be a lot better at that too).
Okay, let me try to understand your basic argument. That my idea for assignments is not a bad one, but there is a strike against it because it isn't original, which I don't claim it is. And that it's essentially no different from debate. Well, it's not quite the same as debate for the reasons I mentioned. Doesn't mean that it's better than debate.....public speaking skills are important, but we need to be aware that this is not the same as good argument.
Years ago, I read a transcript of a debate, from back in the 1920s, between a defender of evolution (whose name I don't recall), and John Roach Straton, a fundamentalist who argued for instant creation a la Genesis, and for an earth no more than 10,000 years old.
Now who do you think won the debate, according to the judges?
John Roach Straton. By the unanimous vote of the judges.
No, not because the judges were fundamentalist Christians more sympathetic to his point of view. And if you'd read the transcript of the debate, you'd see why he won. It was 1) because his opponent so obviously did not do his homework, acquainting himself with the best arguments for Straton's side (he seemed to have walked into the debate just assuming Straton would be too dumb to argue his case), and 2) because Straton was so much better at framing his case in a way which resonated with the audience. That did not mean that the arguments for instant creation and (particularly) a 10,000-year-old earth were better. It simply meant that Straton was a better public speaker, and that his opponent had vastly underestimated not only his skill in that area but also his arguments, and not prepared accordingly.
This was still basically true of evolution-creation debates even in the '60s and '70s. Only in the 1980s did supporters of evolution and geology finally start to show that they had really studied the creationist/young earth arguments and were able to refute them. Still, very often the creationists still appealed to the audience better. It was a while still before evolutionists began to refute creationist arguments in a way that came across to the audience.
Anyway, the point of this example is just to illustrate how debate is not just about the arguments. I'm trying to look for a situation that is; if you can think of a way of purely developing argumentative skills that's any better, let me know your ideas.
Also, please note that I never even asked you or Mercedes to do these "assignments" yourselves. You both seem to be trying to get out of doing something I didn't even ask you to do. I have an idea why, but you tell me.
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
| |
Feedback: 