![[EJ]_Locke](/data/avatars/l/5/5070.jpg?1443902761){kind=avatar}
[EJ]_Locke
Inkling Commander
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2015
- Messages
- 350
- NNID
- EJ_Locke
False Conventions Concerning Argument
Most people here on Squidboards have adapted to the norm when it comes to creating an argument. The process is linear and lackluster, yet everybody in Squidboards and other forums have adapted to this method of creating an argument. It usually goes like this: look at the piece of work you don’t agree with, find out what the main idea of their argument is, ask yourself whether you agree or not, and if you do not agree with them, look for something in their work that compromises the statement and then call them out on it. Many other onlookers respond negatively to the entire argument that the presenter has bestowed if the presenter fails to retort to the compromise in a way that will then justify the certain statement that the one audience member has called out that the presenter put into his argument. This is simply wrong. One audience member was able to question the validity of an entire statement just by calling out a sentence or two. This is not how an audience is supposed to respond. That is how the presenter himself is supposed to edit and increase the quality of the statement. It is not the spectator’s job to attempt to increase the quality of the argument, it is the spectator’s job to think about the argument and ask themselves whether the main idea the presenter is bringing up will increase the quality of the object he puts into question. However, there are good times that this particular line of thought processing can be brought up, and I will list them below.
This thinking process is a combination of two types of non-listening that an audience member can engage in. The first type is ambushing.
Definition: This involves selecting only the weakness of the presentation and ignoring the strengths of the speaker’s argument. It is a negative form of non-listening that can encourage a hostile atmosphere that increases a speaker’s anxiety towards presenting the speech.
The second type is called “pre-judging.”
Definition: Prejudging is dangerous and potentially a negative form that stems from an audience member’s inability to enter the presentation with an open mind.
Audience members have an ethical obligation to enter into any presentation with an open mind and allow the speaker to make their case. If you have already formed an opinion on the topic prior to the event, then the speech is pointless. Most times, a speaker can already tell whether people have prejudged the speech and the speaker before a word is spoken and this is not fair to the audience or the speaker.
Listening is an important skill for speakers and audiences and it should be treated as such. When both sides are attuned to the message they create a more comfortable speaking situation and a healthier dispute environment.
That is all I have to say, thanks for reading.
Sources; google, yahoo, dictionary.com, Fundamentals of Public Speaking
Most people here on Squidboards have adapted to the norm when it comes to creating an argument. The process is linear and lackluster, yet everybody in Squidboards and other forums have adapted to this method of creating an argument. It usually goes like this: look at the piece of work you don’t agree with, find out what the main idea of their argument is, ask yourself whether you agree or not, and if you do not agree with them, look for something in their work that compromises the statement and then call them out on it. Many other onlookers respond negatively to the entire argument that the presenter has bestowed if the presenter fails to retort to the compromise in a way that will then justify the certain statement that the one audience member has called out that the presenter put into his argument. This is simply wrong. One audience member was able to question the validity of an entire statement just by calling out a sentence or two. This is not how an audience is supposed to respond. That is how the presenter himself is supposed to edit and increase the quality of the statement. It is not the spectator’s job to attempt to increase the quality of the argument, it is the spectator’s job to think about the argument and ask themselves whether the main idea the presenter is bringing up will increase the quality of the object he puts into question. However, there are good times that this particular line of thought processing can be brought up, and I will list them below.
- The presenter asks for advice concerning the argument so it will overall be better.
- The presenter makes logical fallacies, however this would be better to bring up in a PM instead of a flat out post.
- If it is a tier list discussion concerning weapons, maps, or gear. Tier lists are meant to be as perfect as a representation as possible concerning a certain subject, so those should be absolutely edited and revised and perfected whenever possible.
- After everybody else has actually made good, productive counter arguments, then feel free to do this.
This thinking process is a combination of two types of non-listening that an audience member can engage in. The first type is ambushing.
Definition: This involves selecting only the weakness of the presentation and ignoring the strengths of the speaker’s argument. It is a negative form of non-listening that can encourage a hostile atmosphere that increases a speaker’s anxiety towards presenting the speech.
The second type is called “pre-judging.”
Definition: Prejudging is dangerous and potentially a negative form that stems from an audience member’s inability to enter the presentation with an open mind.
Audience members have an ethical obligation to enter into any presentation with an open mind and allow the speaker to make their case. If you have already formed an opinion on the topic prior to the event, then the speech is pointless. Most times, a speaker can already tell whether people have prejudged the speech and the speaker before a word is spoken and this is not fair to the audience or the speaker.
Listening is an important skill for speakers and audiences and it should be treated as such. When both sides are attuned to the message they create a more comfortable speaking situation and a healthier dispute environment.
That is all I have to say, thanks for reading.
Sources; google, yahoo, dictionary.com, Fundamentals of Public Speaking
