2. Rhetoric
Finding and utilizing, in a given situation,
the available means of persuasion.
We will be looking at different types of
rhetorical methods this semester – the
good, the bad, and the ugly.
3. Arguing to Win
An argument simply to
persuade another person or
group to believe, do or buy
into something, regardless or
whether or not the idea is
mutually beneficial or factually
true.
Where do you see this in the
world?
4. Arguing to Find the Truth
Starting with Aristotle,
philosophers call this
approach the "dialectic", in
which people exchange
opposing ideas as a means
of rooting out the better
idea.
The purpose isn't to win; the
purpose is to learn.
5. Arguing to Solve Problems
Closely related to the
second, with the
difference that there may
not be an actual "truth"
available but all the
parties should be
dedicated toward a larger
common goal, such as
public safety, continuation
of the political system etc.
6. Why is this Relevant?
If I'm simply arguing to win, for example, then I'm
free to twist the truth in any way I can get away
with.
If I'm arguing to find the truth, I'll try to see the
weakness in my own position as much as in the
other's position, and I'll move toward admitting
that I'm wrong if that helps me toward my goal.
If I'm arguing to solve problems, then my
relationship with the "opposition" is the ends, and
protecting that relationship (not making us hate
each other) is in fact perhaps more important
than "winning" -- in fact, improving the relationship
may be the actual definition of "winning".
7. To Do
Read “Mein Kampf”
In small groups, summarize the argument:
what is the main idea? What is the
support?
What kind of persuasive model does this
use?
Is it effective? Why or why not? Be
specific.
