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??