Transcript Dialogue or Debate

Dialogues
The Art of Arguing
What Makes an Argument
• Facts are not arguable
• Opinions based on personal taste or
preference are not arguable
• Opinions based on judgments are
arguable
So What’s An Argument
Well, let’s first look at what is not an
argument:
• From the debate between New York Times
columnist Paul Krugman and FOX News
Channel host Bill O'Reilly on August 7
edition of CNBC's Tim Russert:
• O'REILLY: And where'd you get that little
evil quote [of O'Reilly on the June 28
Radio Factor saying that author and
filmmaker Michael Moore believes
America is an evil country], by the way?
You don't listen to The Radio Factor.
• KRUGMAN: No, but they have video [sic]
clips. They have, they have the clips.
• O'REILLY: Yeah, but who gave it to you?
• KRUGMAN: Yeah, it is -- Media Matters.
• O'REILLY: Media Matters! Oh, I see! A real
objective website. Mr. Propaganda! -• KRUGMAN: Hey, wait a second, sir --
• O'REILLY: You oughta take -- and do your own
research, pal! And stop taking the left-wing
garbage and throwing it out there for the folks!
• KRUGMAN: What have they said that's false?
• O'REILLY: Do your own research! That's out of
context and you know it.
• KRUGMAN: No, come on. It helps me. It is not.
They've got the clips. You can actually listen to
them -• O'REILLY: You are about the most un-objective
person on the face of the earth -- Media Matters!
Why don't you just call Fidel? Call him up in
Havana. He'll tell you what's going on?
•
•
•
•
An argument is an engaging dialogue not
a diatribe. That means, it is not:
A lecture
A reprimand
A “This is my story and I am sticking to it”
An attack
The emphasis is on a dialogue as an argument
means that the role of debater is not necessarily
to persuade but to make the listener(s)
understand his/her position.
That is, the primary goal of a person supporting
pro choice is to make an individual who believes
in abortion restrictions see why the debater’s
views are significant and merit attention.
Ideally, the listener would change his/her
idea, but that is not the primary concern. It
is to convince the listener that even though
they (listener and speaker) may disagree –
even vociferously – the debater’s ideas
have legitimacy and is worthy of social
attention (acknowledgement).
Think about it: if you try to convince an
individual that his/her ideas are wrong,
he/she will most likely end up resenting
you and become defensive breaking down
any possibility of a dialogue
Moving from Debate to Dialogue
“One common misconception is that all
arguments are won or lost. This may be
true in formalized debates, but in real life
few arguments are decided so clearly, and
when they are, the conflicting issues that
lie at the heart of the debate can persist
and continue to create dissent among
individuals and groups” (Dialogue 13).
Deliberation
“Deliberation is a verb that we don’t use
very much and we probably don’t practice
enough. It means to carefully and fully
consider our reasons for and against
something before making up our minds. [. .
. ] Deliberation is not a quick process. It
takes time to become informed, to explore
all the alternatives, and to feel comfortable
with a decision” (Dialogue 14).
“Deliberation plays an important part in the
process of developing arguments. Debate
focuses our attention on opposition and
the points on which we disagree.
Dialogue creates an opportunity to listen
and explore the arguments that conflict
with our own. Deliberation, the careful
consideration of all that we have learned
through debate and dialogue, enables us
to reach our own informed position on the
conflict” (14).
The ultimate goal is using rhetoric
effectively and strategically and creating a
civic discourse is to arrive at
deliberation.
Deliberation is achieved through the following
steps:
1. Claim (taking a position)
2. Reasons (explanations and
justifications)
3. Debate (preparing for opposing
viewpoints)
4. Dialogue (listening ad responding to
other viewpoints and create common
ground)
5. Deliberation (thorough examination of
one’s stance; now ready to deliver it with
full confidence)
Deborah Tannen’s article
“Taking a ‘War of Words’ Too Literally” pg.
16-20