Page 288 - Gabrijela Kišiček and Igor Ž. Žagar (eds.), What do we know about the world? Rhetorical and argumentative perspectives, Digital Library, Educational Research Institute, Ljubljana 2013
P. 288
What Do We Know about the World?
features in debates influence the idea of competitive debate (Moulton,
1983; Tannen, 2002) and the negative features of a highly competitive
debate (Cf. Ehninger, 1952; Ulrich, 1986b) are extended to competitive
debate in toto (Johnson and Johnson, 1994; Tannen, 1988; 2002).
Actually, hasty generalization occurs regardless whether negative
and positive types of debate are distinguished. For example, Tannen ar-
gues that neither debating nor all oppositions are evil. In her, The Ar-
gument Culture, she clearly states, “In a word, the type of opposition
I am questioning is what I call ‘agonism’”, namely an automatic war-
like stance (Tannen, 1999: 10), and “The message of this book is not,
‘Let’s stop arguing and be nice to each other.’ Quite the contrary, the
message is, ‘Let’s look more closely at the effect of the ritualized oppo-
sition, so we can have the real arguments.’ The opposite of argument
culture is not being ‘nice’ and avoiding conflict; it is finding construc-
tive ways of arguing, debating, and confronting conflict” (ibidem: 6).
However, the whole book seems to be an invective against every kind
of debate. Indeed, in The Argument Culture, as in her other papers on
this topic (Cf. Tannen, 2000, 2002), Tannen herself does not seem to
talk about positive types of opposition, or even about positive aspects
of debate, except in the conclusion where she states: “I’m moving away
from a narrow view of debate, we need not give up conflict and criti-
cism altogether. Quite the contrary, we can develop more varied – and
more constructive – ways of expressing opposition and negotiating dis-
agreement” (ibidem: 298). Thus, either debate is evil or debate and some
types of opposition are positive. However, no examples of positive de-
bates and types of opposition are advanced. Hence, from her frame-
work, that debate is evil can be seen in many of her writings vehement-
ly detracting from debating1. Indeed, it is difficult to understand how
competitive debate should be distinguished from agonism and how, in
her framework, debating could play a positive role. Consequently, even
if some prerequisites protecting premises from attack are presented (see
Fogelin and Sinott-Armstrong, 1997, 42), there is still room for hasty
generation; unless further justifications/clarifications are given by the
author.
Some other scholars seem to commit a different mistake than
hasty generalization. The way debaters behave in a debating match is
considered an impact of debate practice, namely a procedural effect
1 Actually, some types of opposition are presented in Tannen (1998). Nonetheless, when these types
are relevant to our discussion, they are shown to be based just on authority or prejudiced evaluation
of reasoning and evidence.
features in debates influence the idea of competitive debate (Moulton,
1983; Tannen, 2002) and the negative features of a highly competitive
debate (Cf. Ehninger, 1952; Ulrich, 1986b) are extended to competitive
debate in toto (Johnson and Johnson, 1994; Tannen, 1988; 2002).
Actually, hasty generalization occurs regardless whether negative
and positive types of debate are distinguished. For example, Tannen ar-
gues that neither debating nor all oppositions are evil. In her, The Ar-
gument Culture, she clearly states, “In a word, the type of opposition
I am questioning is what I call ‘agonism’”, namely an automatic war-
like stance (Tannen, 1999: 10), and “The message of this book is not,
‘Let’s stop arguing and be nice to each other.’ Quite the contrary, the
message is, ‘Let’s look more closely at the effect of the ritualized oppo-
sition, so we can have the real arguments.’ The opposite of argument
culture is not being ‘nice’ and avoiding conflict; it is finding construc-
tive ways of arguing, debating, and confronting conflict” (ibidem: 6).
However, the whole book seems to be an invective against every kind
of debate. Indeed, in The Argument Culture, as in her other papers on
this topic (Cf. Tannen, 2000, 2002), Tannen herself does not seem to
talk about positive types of opposition, or even about positive aspects
of debate, except in the conclusion where she states: “I’m moving away
from a narrow view of debate, we need not give up conflict and criti-
cism altogether. Quite the contrary, we can develop more varied – and
more constructive – ways of expressing opposition and negotiating dis-
agreement” (ibidem: 298). Thus, either debate is evil or debate and some
types of opposition are positive. However, no examples of positive de-
bates and types of opposition are advanced. Hence, from her frame-
work, that debate is evil can be seen in many of her writings vehement-
ly detracting from debating1. Indeed, it is difficult to understand how
competitive debate should be distinguished from agonism and how, in
her framework, debating could play a positive role. Consequently, even
if some prerequisites protecting premises from attack are presented (see
Fogelin and Sinott-Armstrong, 1997, 42), there is still room for hasty
generation; unless further justifications/clarifications are given by the
author.
Some other scholars seem to commit a different mistake than
hasty generalization. The way debaters behave in a debating match is
considered an impact of debate practice, namely a procedural effect
1 Actually, some types of opposition are presented in Tannen (1998). Nonetheless, when these types
are relevant to our discussion, they are shown to be based just on authority or prejudiced evaluation
of reasoning and evidence.
