|
|
Post by beefmonger on Nov 13, 2006 15:01:04 GMT -5
I was just curious if any of you had some debate tactics that might come in handy whenever the need arises to argue about crap.
|
|
|
|
Post by st1_Emrys on Nov 13, 2006 17:44:43 GMT -5
I usually avoid discussion of feces. But thats just me. Perhaps a use of more clever verbiage would be the more appropriate action. Whatever the the case, I find that in reference to a debate the most effective of the three forms of persuasion (ethos, pathos, and logos) is logos. It is simply because of the general mode in which one expresses himself in a debate. Pathos is sometimes effective, but not as frequently. Ethos does not work in debate. Period. One needs evidence, not credibility in debate.
Oh yes, if you didn't know, an argument of logic is of logos, of emotion is pathos, of character (credibility of the speaker) is ethos.
|
|
|
|
Post by steel_lily on Nov 13, 2006 20:04:56 GMT -5
A good mix of logos and pathos (approx. 70 - 30, respectively) works best.
It also depends on the subject matter. When arguing about crap, I would generally take a satirical view and argue mostly logos. I feel very little about such things. But when arguing suicide or the decline of society or the basis of my beliefs, the pathos content would be significantly higher.
|
|
|
|
Post by beefmonger on Nov 14, 2006 7:37:38 GMT -5
Example of pathos, please?
|
|
|
|
Post by steel_lily on Nov 14, 2006 13:10:53 GMT -5
See my argument about cutting.
A more direct example...
Please, I beg of you, do not kill the chicken. He means so much to me! My father raised that chicken, and he was my only friend as a child....
|
|
|
|
Post by beefmonger on Nov 14, 2006 13:33:22 GMT -5
Oh oh oh, alright, I understand now.
|
|
