1. At the point that a debater is able to perceive and evaluate the
quality of his or her own performance, this evaluation should be made
public to the audience as often as it will benefit his or her position.
2.
If a preceeding speaker has declined to refute any of your side's
advocacy, it would be advantageous to point out the consequent strength
of these arguments.
3. Arguments that are un-rebuted
gain exceptional ground in a debate because they are seen as arguments
which have been thoroughly made, gone unrejected, and thus must hold
some level of legitimacy.
4. Having said this, the
converse is also paramount: The ability to understand, evaluate,
compare, and even analyze the opposition's arguments can only aid the
credibility of one's own arguments.
5. If one can fully understand the opponent's arguments and where they are weak, these weaknesses or flaws can be pointed out.
But
even more useful is the ability to comprehensively identify where the
strength or validity of one's arguments begin and end. Once these
boundaries are established, one can take the debate outside of the box
and into the ground where these arguments no longer hold.
Once
you have evaluated the strength and limits of the opponents arguments
you apply your own structure or direction to the debate and describe
thoroughly why the opponents' strength now longer applies outside of
this box and your own arguments take hold in this realm.
In
this world, you make the rules and anything you say goes. Your opponent
is at your mercy and you apply your own interpretation of right and
wrong, of proper and improper, of beneficial and harmful. If you
understand where your arguments apply and where your opponents'
arguments apply, you can choose and identify which places, which
contexts are best to evaluate the debate in.
You pick
what kind of scenarios is most proper for filtering through the debate:
In what place should the debate apply? In what kind of situation? Why
are these scenarios important and why are they chosen?
No comments:
Post a Comment