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?