Rhetoric in Debate

I'll admit it. I'm a man who loves to debate. Some may even call me slightly argumentative at times. My personality type is the most prone to debate as well (check out the first post on my personal passion blog once it is up). With this in mind, it is obvious that I was intrigued when, in Chapter 3 of our RCL text, the topic of debate sprung up. My curiosity piqued, I soldiered on and read the chapter in one quick sitting--slightly unheard of from me, let alone most college students in general. In it, I found very interesting points; the first being that many modern Americans tend to distrust any sort of rhetoric, associating it with conniving politicians and other schemers. Granted, this is a character-type that has been explored many times in fiction, from Iago in Othello to Wormtongue of Lord Of The Rings fame. This distrust also goes along with the fact that, when engaged in a debate, the American values facts and references over any artful use of the language. However, I believe that we should open up and utilize rhetoric the way the ancients did.

While we cite tired commonplaces in argument, ancient rhetors made their viewpoints clear through inventive use of language. Through this, debate becomes a more productive matter, as opposed to a disruptive one. While engaged in argument, I've always tried to use my own logic to get my point across. Maybe it's my hatred of all-things overdone, but I've always felt that referencing a mental library of common knowledge and beliefs during debate serves only to shut down any invention involved in the matter. Another problem with the contemporary style of debate is that it tends to eventually lead nowhere. I agree with every statement Jon Stewart made while on the set of Crossfire, an episode which was referenced in the text. He made clear what debate had devolved to on that show: two talking heads spouting and shouting empty facts without even listening to the points being made by their opponent.

These men and women on the show were engaging in a form of debate with questionable merit--a form where neither party went into the ordeal planning to even listen to the other. When this is the case, there is no point in arguing to begin with. In ancient Socratic seminars, discussions involved two parties coming together and bouncing their ideas back and forth. The two parties would alter their thesis slightly after each round of discussion until the group reached an inevitable compromise and/or conclusion. Nowadays, debate only ends after the two participants get tired of yelling, or after the allotted 24 minute time-slot runs out. Can you see why I call for a return to the ancient ways?