After reading this week’s assignment, I was struck with the idea about how common topics and commonplaces help one get to the meat of an issue. Last week, we talked about basically debating a topic and how we are to go about doing it. We talked about exploring not only all the pro aspects of a particular issue but also all the con or negative comebacks so that we would be prepared to refute the claim. We also talked about whether one should address an issue from a general or specific standpoint. When we read the two articles, we were better able to debate the issue and even highlighted specific examples from both articles to validate a particular point. This week’s chapter basically summed up the notion of how a debater can get right to the heart of a matter. Commonplaces and topics allow the debater to have a basis for not only his or her argument but also for the other side’s perspective. Conjecture, degree and possibility allow a debater to really highlight the key point(s) of an issue and are able to point out what really is the issue that needs to be discussed. In this blog, I will try to articulate this point.
The past few weeks, it seems that we have been talking about the general ideals of rhetoric and how to explore and examine one broad topic and than discuss it at large. This is fine for a Sunday dinner but most professions and individuals like to really examine a facet of an issue, especially the area that seems to draw the most criticism or is hotly contested. Ideologies allow debaters to stand on clearly defined sides of an issue. All the -ists and -isms positions are known and thus, one can understand what their viewpoint on an issue will be. Thus, one is really able to debate a specific issue from a particular stance and the debater will have a better defense if he or she is well aware of their opponent’s ideological slant. After all, Aristotle believed “that Rhetors need a good deal of specific knowledge to argue from specific topics” (Crowley and Hawhee 121). Hence, the role of conjecture, degree and possibility allows one to argue with clear and concrete knowledge on a distinct issue.
By understanding and answering the major (general) question associated with conjecture, degree and possibility, the rhetor is able get at the key points of his or her central argument. By asking if a situation “has (or has not) occurred or will (or will not) occur” the rhetor has now unlocked other (specific) questions that will allow the rhetor to not only communicate his or her position but also can be used to answer what the alternative perspective will answer to the same set of questions (121). Once one has exhausted all the answers to the questions, the rhetor can move on to the next general question and specific subset questions about degree and so on. At the end, the rhetor will have a better handle on the case and will be better able to present and defend his or her position. After reading this chapter, I noticed that at times, one area (conjecture, degree or possibility) played more of a primary role in the eventual outcome of a debate. Thus, each time one debates, he or she will use a different method to reach the most appropriate outcome.
In this chapter, I saw how the guidelines for debating correlate well with writing objectives. Writing and debating are two areas that are situational. Both writing and debating thrive on partaking of the moment and using specific examples to make a precise point. In order to write or debate one must be willing to explore and examine an issue from multiple perspectives before deciding which style is the best way to present his or her case. Hence, both debating and writing’s main focus is that of the content (or heart of the matter) before style (presentation) which allows the rhetor or writer to fully be knowledgeable in his or her argument. Quintilian who supports this notion of constantly evolving arguments states that “not every kind of argument can be derived from every circumstance, and consequently our search requires discrimination” (117). So lets allow our students to enjoy the chaotic, messy, frustrating but ultimately rewarding journey of getting at the heart of a particular matter. Otherwise, they will never learn how to move from debating general topics to specific situations.
I really enjoyed this chapter. I thought it was very informative and insightful. I look forward to Thursday night’s discussion!
No comments:
Post a Comment