In response to Kim's second question (Mcluhan/Postman)

I do agree with Mcluhan when he describes television as a "cool" medium because now in our day the majority of the population doesn't have the time nor the want to sit down and read something full of meaning, they want to experience it. It is more appealing to the senses and offers more than 1 way of understanding the material, even though it might not be as in depth. I do realize that intellectuals would love to sit down and read and enjoy really getting into what the authors meaning is, but ask yourself is that the majority of the public? I would say no, it doesn't account for people who work and don't have time, it also doesn't account for very many people who are going to school, because the majority of the time they are already reading. I can understand and appreciate that, but there comes a point where you don't need to understand everything in depth, and you just want to know a little bit of information, then if you become interested you may go and read more about it. It is like dipping your toe in the water to see if you like the temperature. Print takes much more interpretation than television does and for that reason it is very likely and easy to misinterpret. Even though you may think you are getting more meaning out of it, how much will you really continue to retain for a long period of time. When you watch television images are transferred through your head and intrepreted visually, which most people recall very easily or easier than print in that case. When we watch television there is less asked of us, we can zone in and out and the program will still be on. An advantage of that is that we can start listening and catch right up. In addition there are commercials in television for a "processing" break, that is not the purpose of commercials, but it can serve as a reflecting time on what you have heard and seen. It better prepares you for more information,and recaptures what you have just learned. Where as print if you take a break you may forget and have to go back and re read or you loose your spot. I believe that it is just as easy to formulate an idea or opinion on a television program as it is when you read it from print, there is no difference there. People will always question things and formulate ideas no matter where they are. During the election, millions of people formulated opinions about canidates that debated on television. If you had read about that in the newspaper, would it have been just as meaningful?? True, yet the requirements are different, truely complex issues cannot be discussed on television because people quickly loose interest, but I believe that would happen anywhere. Complex topics in a book are not as interesting to read because its so technical.

Week 7 Questions - Hollihan and Baaske

1. I found it interesting in Hollihan and Baaske's article, the discussion of the definition of the refutation process. They stated that the definition included four steps to complete the entire process. These steps were as follows; "1. Listening in a focused way, 2. Critically evaluating arguments, 3. Formulating a response, and 4. Presenting the response"(Hollihan/Baaske, 127). Before reading this article I had the inital understanding that refutation process was just the development of analyzing anothers' point of view and perceiving or changing your point of view depending on how opinions form. To me, it has nothing to do with presenting your argument publically, and that part of the definition that doesn't seem to fit. When thinking about it, why would you refute something unless you really disagreed with it strongly, is just another way of arguing for the sake of arguing? What are your thoughts on this? Does it seem pointless, even if you were to persuade an audience after your refuting statement what would it bring about? Isn't the point not to persuade but to enlighten? I can understand that some would like their position to be supported, but at what cost are you persuading others, at your selfish beneficial cost? Doesn't it seem that others should be infomed of opinions and then sit on those thoughts for a while so that they can make a well rounded and satisfied decision?

2. Later in this same article, Hallihan and Baaske also talk about the two different types of debate, policy and value. These two different ways of approching a debate can have different effects on the audience. It also can change the audience which is attracted to the debate topic. For example, in a policy debate people might have to be a little bit more educated to fully understand the circumstances surrounding the issues, versus someone who attends a value debate, which is solely comprised of someone's morals or beliefs. Within this school of thought, another issue arises, the issue of factors affecting listening. If you have a policy debate I believe you will have to listen much more closely in what is being said and will have to understand more technicalities within the issue. As a result, if there are any noises or internal distractions affecting an individual it will be much harder to analyze and refute any type of argument, even form an understanding of what they are saying will be difficult. In knowing this, I pose my question. What approach in a value or policy debate would be nescessary if the audience wasn't already captured and how would you keep their attention if distractions came into play? Do you agree that Policy debate would be more difficult to follow?

3. Hallihan and Baaske discuss the term "doubletake". They state that it can be a term to define the concealment of an argument's objective. They also talk about using non offensive words in place of words, so to not offend the audience. Although I find this unappealing and while you may be avoiding some offensivness, the audience might misinterpret what you actually mean. In turn, this could have a completely different meaning to your argument and therefore people would not become persuaded by your opinion. It doesn't make any sense to use more words to conceal or confuse your audience. Does anyone agree with me? If so, why? It seems as though you are accomplishing the oppisite of what a debate is set in place to do, so why uses these tactics?

Week 6 Questions

1.Warnick and Inch discuss how everyone has a different interpretation of what an argument has to offer. Each person within an audience have had different experiences and opinions about what the context is referring to. The way in which the langauge is expressed is largely altered individually by the attitudes and values someone holds. These attitudes and values can agree or disagree with an argument presented , although this can be beneficial when a person agrees it can also have a disadvangtage. The audience whom is already convinced might loose interest in hearing about the evidence to convince the portion that is not convinced. Depending upon the topic of argument, you could have one portion of your audience at a loss for staying interested and the other portion at not wanting to listen because they have already made their minds up. Drawing from Warnick and Inch's chapter, they state that "the key is simply that arguments seek to move the audience from positions already accepted to new and different positions"(27). Keeping this in mind, it would seem pointless to change someone's point of view if you don't know how their experience comes into play. By doing this, wouldn't you ultimately be changing their perception of you as well? Argument has been around for a long time and while it does change views, isn't the primary function behind it, provoting thought? People wouldn't be thinking about issues, or where they stand on them unless anyone would argue a different point.

2. In the text orientation paragraph of Warnick and Inch they talk about the type of language used in meaningful and successful arguments. The context they say is the focus and is "central to understanding it". Intentions are discussed about in relation to Lincolns Gettysburg Address. They state that intentions are not observable, and at first I did not agree at all. I felt that If someone had bad intention with an argument you would be able to sense it and would feel a forced presence of them not accepting what your opinion was. After a minute of thinking about it I changed my mind, I felt the same as Warnick and Inch, and that a good arguer could disguise anything to look appealing. They could say one thing and their actions behind it could not be paraelle to their words. In thinking about this I wondered what others thought about people's intentions, whether intentions are really observable. There is something unexplained about a persons intentions that is silently communicated through their messsage. What are your thoughts on this and why?

3.Warnick and Inch talk about adapting your argument to your audience. They say depending on the level and perception you are gaining from your audience should be your que to back off or speed ahead. They also suggest that a communicator should consider their auidences' beliefs and values on the topic. They continue by saying that this is a mjor process of communication in arguments. So if knowing your audience is important how will you persuade them if you disagree completely with their values and beliefs? You must relate to your audience on some level so that they can give you a chanceto speak your thoughts on this topic but how would one go about doing this if they have nothing to relate on??

In response to Casey's First Question for Verderber

First, Casey states that in Plato's time he (Plato) suggested that written word was not relevant and was only spoken and oral words were of essence. In addition to this she says that she doesn't agree with his philosophy. In this sense, I completely agree with what she is saying.

It is hard to believe that now, in our day and age that anyone could possibly agree with Plato's philosophy on discrediting the written word. Take poetry and other forms of abstract communication for instance, they are still being published to communicate a message to others. In this context, abstract communication can take on many forms, it can interpreted into many different messages depending upon who is reading it and what their experiences have been. Poetry and other forms of writing can literally mean one thing, and have deeper and more metaphorical meaning beyond.

The mass media definitely comes into play when talking about how the two very different societies have evolved. Firstly, the society that Plato was integrated into was the Greek society, which values differ greatly from the American society. Americans place a high emphasis on individualism and Greeks are almost opposite in their view valuing group association high. This shows how the communication would differ greatly. People today are too busy to gather around in groups, other than their families to share stories about what has happened in history. Today in school, history is mainly taught through textbooks which only prove to be something more to disprove what Plato is saying. All our mass media, or for the most part, it highly includes the written word. This class for example, uses blogs as a way to create discussion outside the classroom; it uses written word to provoke thought among others. Sitting in the classroom, with oral word many students become shy at the thought of speaking their own opinions in a public setting, understandably. In this aspect the written word helps and provides ground in which anyone can express their thoughts without being outwardly and directly judged by others.

Maybe oral word was valued back in Plato's day, but now the world hs evolved and as it has people have slowly changed with the times. People started writing down their innermost thoughts in a journal, now people are blogging all over the internet how they feel through written word. Plato obviously didn't see this coming. He could have acknowledged the presence of written documents in the government, as they did have a system for that. How could anyone keep to a contract or their "word" if they didn't have anything written down. There are dishonest people in this world, and I can only imagine that there were just as many back then, wasn't that ever taken into consideration when he pondered this thought?

In Plato's day, people pretty much conformed to the government's ideas and rules, if you didn't you were punished. Now today people's ideas are challenged and written word provokes thought, perhaps at times action. Where would we be without written word? Our society probably wouldn’t have grown to the extent that it has and we wouldn't have as many great thinkers of our time without written word, so then isn't all communication necessary in each a different sense? I believe every form of communication is necessary, and to say that one is or is not, it is ignorant and would not be thinking of what the future may hold.