Don’t raise your voice, improve your arguement
A short while ago, I was sitting with a group of friends, having a conversation – a very loud and very passionate conversation – about which presidential candidates actually have a shot at winning. There was, of course, shouting, snide remarks, and everything that devours the progression of ideas. But the real problem with this debate was the same, inherent problem in most arguments that I get into with people these days: we all went in with a set belief and left the conversation with those same beliefs, without ever reconsidering our ideas. The only progression that we accomplished was the testing of our vocal prowess.
From mock trial to speech and debate, most public speaking school organizations teach that no matter what viewpoint a person is trying to defend, the way in which they present information and how they support it can be all it takes to win. Students spend a considerable length of time practicing voice intonation and inflection, using pace effectively, and finding as well as presenting relevant supporting information.
Of course, these skills are important to the creation of an effective speaker, but perfect presentation should not always be the main motive. When taking these debating skills from the simulations to other places in our lives, such as the classroom seminars, there should not be as much weight placed on how the person says something, but rather on what a person says. The focus on the presentation of a speaker fosters a culture that equates the person to the issues, rather than focusing on the issues themselves. We attach the belief to the person who is presenting it. I never understood this custom. Shouldn’t we argue on what is right, not merely who is right?
We use a string of logical fallacies on an everyday basis, because what is an argument without tremendous sums of ethos and logos (ethics and logic)? However, pathos, or passion, should be the most important rhetorical strategy in everyday conversation. Essentially, we all have similar passions. I can vouch that every single person that I argued with has a desire for our rights to be protected, for the economy to thrive, and for families to have access to opportunities. It is the way to accomplish these goals on which we differ and the reason we argue.
When we recognize that we all are trying to reach the same goal and make the issue itself the central focus of an argument, I believe that we draw closer to this idea. As the presidential primaries begin to pull us off into teams and separate us by lines called political parties, may this be the bridge across to the accumulation of knowledge.