What applies to any argument being contributed to a discussion (or a debate, which may be more formal or is simply more intense); that is, those factors we considered last time; are equally applicable to the discussion as a whole.
The matter of context is that arguments are centered on a given subject. Changing the subject in mid-stream is never a good idea, just like changing horses isn't. If the subject is, say, the role of austerity in solving economic problems, bringing up alleged cultural shortcomings of economy involved or insisting upon misconduct or weak decisions in past leading up to the crisis in the first place is simply off-topic. If we've got a problem, there is certainly room for valid discussions as to how we got into the mess in the first place. These are not, necessarily, arguments for a particular approach to a solution. Changing a whole society's behavior may take longer than we can afford to wait to get things headed in a positive direction.
Evidence is certainly applicable to any argument being made. And here, we're talking primarily about relevant evidence; evidence that has a bearing on the issue as a whole. One of the most dubious forms of discussion is the one that excludes certain types for certain reasons. We saw this most recently in the Bradley Manning trial, where the judge disallowed arguments by the defense that Manning acted, at least in part, due to the obligation placed upon him by the very Code of Military Justice that was being used to prosecute him. The motives one has for committing a deed are, in my estimation, invaluable in determining the severity of the deed. Nothing we humans construct -- particularly our so-called justice system -- is digitally accurate. Things humans do are never black or white, in fact, they are rarely black and white. There are numerous grey areas which need to be dealt with seriously and cautiously.
As for coherency and consistency, I think I'm pretty safe in assuming that every one of us has been involved in a discussion, at least once in our lives, in which at the end, no one really knew what was being argued about. Somehow the discussion didn't just get off topic (as pointed out in relation to "context" above), rather it got out of control. Not knowing what was talked about calls into question the time and energy that was spent talking.
One additional factor plays a role here, though. It is essential for the success of any discussion that the discussants acknowledge each others' worthiness to participate. If you consider your discussion partner inferior in any way, there's no use having a discussion, you are probably only trying to prove you are right. If you refuse to discuss certain topics with others who have a different position, then you are tacitly expressing that the other is unworthy of talking to in the first place. If you only want to engage the person, not his or her arguments, then you really aren't discussing at all (this is formally known as ad hominem argumentation), then you're wasting everybody's time. But in any event, you are demonstrating that you need not be considered as a serious discussion partner. In other words, if you aren't willing to learn, if you aren't willing to perhaps change/modify your own position based on the course of the discussion, if you are only trying to "prove" you're right, you're not discussing, you are merely pontificating, and Lord knows we've got more than enough of that going on these days.
No comments:
Post a Comment