|
One thought: Any time you're arguing politics or religion, you very probably aren't going to reason someone out of a position that reason didn't get them into. It's almost a waste of time to argue with some people - either Bush is the reason for all our woes... or Obama... or Clinton... or some race or belief or whatever. A "debate" with someone intent on scapegoating someone/thing will work out according to the prejudices of the audience. But while being polite, rational and even-handed may not prevail on your opponent, keep in mind that there is an audience. Sure, some of them may be indifferent, or prejudiced one way or the other, but your position can look pretty good when the opponent is waving his/her hands, sweating, losing temper, et c. Being calm and self-assured in the face of dispute looks like you have confidence in your position. Freaking out can be a display of weakness. Besides, verbal attack is classier when it's genteel. I've always liked "That's an interesting position, but it doesn't appear you're clear on the concept/facts"
In my opinion, everyone should have to do at least a little study of rhetoric and logic, especially logical fallacies. It's good to understand the mechanisms of logical argument and reasoning, and I never experienced a single thing in public school to promote that. Interestingly, in University I was pushed towards rhetoric and logic by several professors, including one political scientist with whom I strongly disagree on almost everything. We disagreed strongly, but always respectfully - and luckily he had the integrity to grade me on my performance and not on my position.
|