I know this is a little late, and probably would have been more relevant a few days ago.
Many times, when you argue a point, you rely on a source, such as Time Magazine, New York Times, or the nightly news to give credence to what you are saying. For example, in Policy Debate in debate class, we are given a packet of quotes which we use to support our arguments. But when you argue with someone who is equally knowledgeable on semantics and can point out that the nightly news, Time Magazine, and the New York Times all have a bias, and are really trying to sell their information, does it just boil down to an argument over this?
I know that was really confusing, but basically I am trying to ask if the only facts you can base an argument off of are from your own experiences, since we know other sources can never be completely true. This is obviously not true, but why not? Why can't i just argue against every outside source that my opponent brings up, saying that their is a bias and that the story is probably exaggerated to get more attention?
(Arvind Kalidindi)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
12 comments:
Well this is what I think Mr L was talking about when he said the only facts you can truly accept as true are those based on your own extensional experiences. So when you argue with someone, you concede that most likely neither you nor your opponent have much extensional experience on the matter, at least in the case of policy debate.
(Steve)
I agree with the fact that the only true facts that we accept come from our personal experiences, but I think that no one really questions the sources in a structured debate because not many really pay attention to the bias that exists. I think that all they are looking for is that you're argument is not full of just opinions and that there are other sources that take your side, that you are not alone in your opinion. All I have to say is "I got it from CIA World Factbook online" and people are okay with it because they do not understand that all these sorts of media are biased. In that case, I guess it all comes down to cooperation being necessary for progress.
While I agree with Mary in that debate requires some degree of cooperation (I believe Mr. Lazarow mentioned this before) to avoid turning every argument into one on semantics (unless that's what you intended), you can indeed challenge the validity of your opponent's source/authority.
The cooperation comes in when we assume that nonpartisan third party organizations/research institutions are more valid than a institution, for example, being funded under the table by the Republicans/Democrats/Libertarians etc. The same cooperation applies when we assume that a Harvard professor of economics is a better authority on the current stock market...events than a Harvard professor of drama. Even your own facts may not stand up if your opponent brings out a rebuttal backed up with a "better" authority than yourself.
Is a slightly biased third party authority always worse than your own experiences?
Grace Yuan
To answer Grace's question, I think that the answer is yes mainly because of this reason: are experiences are unique to us while these third-party sources try to incorporate the feelings of a group of people. If that makes sense...
So is your own argument on the population growth in the Dominican Republic more valid than one based off of data culled from the CIA World Fact Book?
I would just like to point out that while you may choose to question the validity of each and every outside source, it will probably get you nowhere. Yes, the only absolutely verifiable truths are those you have personally experienced in the extensional world, but even then it is subject to your own interpretation and what you see is always just a small "slice of the pie".
As we read in Language in Thought and Action, language, is, in essence, ...the pooling of our experience in great cooperative stores of knowledge, available... to all." (Hayakawa 8) Thus, by questioning everything you are denying both yourself and your opponent access to what amounts to the world's greatest and most complex system of nervous systems. Moreover, consider the idea that "[c]ultural and intellectual cooperation is, or should be, the great principle of human life." (Hayakawa 8)
Yes, when you are having an argument or debate, your objective is to triumph over the other person/team. This, however, is counterproductive if you only have victory in your mind's eye. Our world is held up by a support system of cooperation that is as intricate and effective as it is delicate. You have every right to consider the validity of someone's sources - even your own - but if you question each and every thing with no intention of learning from it, you come up short in the long run.
Just to pet a personal perspective on the matter, imagine yourself in the shoes of the debater. You only want to make bold assertions/observations when you know you have the right type of information to enhance and strengthen your thoughts. Doubting your opponent's sources would be rather futile and unstrategic; what's stopping them from doing the same to you? You would chase one another around in circles, and I daresay that your energy would be expended in all the wrong areas of the debate.
Even in this world modeled after "survival of the fittest," "Cooperation within a species (and sometimes with other species) is essential to the survival of most living creatures" (Hayakawa 5). After all, as Mr. Lazarow stated in class, if the opposite side defies coaction, then there is no debate to begin with.
(Sam Maliha)
I believe that in debate, especially one that is highly centered on fact as policy debate, you can indeed doubt your opponent's sources. Just as you have to judge your own sources, you can also judge the sources of your opponent. This is even easier if they don't state their sources.
Can you challenge the validity of the grounds of the argument as long as you don't reject the claim?
Grace Yuan
Of course; it is simple to reject the grounds, yet accept the claim. You might agree that the sun shines, yet you may be hesitant to accept the reasons for it doing so.
(Sam Maliha)
Well, we seem to have all assumed that third party sources are biased, and that we can only rely upon our own experiences.
But aren't our experiences biased as well? Filtered by our intensional mindsets and altered, our own experiences are not necessarily any less biased than the reports and experiences of other third parties.
So, if our own experiences are biased, and all third-party sources are biased, then how do we argue? Well, we can always accuse other people's sources of having bias, but sometimes there are much better options on the table.
I feel that there is an implicit agreement among arguers not to become too bogged down in source-bias questioning. Of course, it happens, but rarely do entire debates focus upon how biased a source is, because we know that all of the sources we use are biased to some extent. Otherwise, a policy debate argument might just go like this, if we overly focus upon bias instead of the issue being debated:
Person A: "Time magazine says *insert data*."
Person B: "That's biased."
Person A: "No, it isn't."
Person B: "Yes, it is."
A: "You're biased."
B: "Lies. You are."
And so on.
That's more of squabble than an actual debate.
In addition, many of these third-party sources are authority figures, and the typical audience member intuitively recognizes his/her expertise. If we do not acknowledge any legitimate sources at all, then society cannot function. As Hayakawa wrote, circumstances compel us to agree sometimes. Look at this Calvin and Hobbes cartoon. (http://flemflemflem.com/forums/uploads/thumbs/3_math=religion.jpg) Calvin obviously believes that there is bias in mathematics and that he does not need to learn it, but he is accomplishing nothing. In order to achieve progress, we must agree upon our sources sometimes.
I agree with Tiffany's point that although one has the right to question the sources cited in an argument, "if you question each and every thing with no intention of learning from it, you come up short in the long run." It would be useless to bicker for a prolonged period about the sources cited by advocates of opposite sides of an argument if such bickering causes the argument to become side-tracked.
This leads me to a question: isn't the reason why a person argues a certain position because he or she wishes to prove his/her CLAIM, rather than the grounds associated with the claim? After all, didn't we learn that the claim answers the question "What's the bottom line?"
If so, then why is it that, in an argument, we naturally begin to focus our efforts on proving or questioning the validity of the GROUNDS rather than the claim? I understand that the grounds must be debated if the claim is to be discussed in an intellectual manner with substantial information like scholarly or verifiable evidence and well-crafted opinions. However, I agree with Sam that "it is simple to reject the grounds, yet accept the claim." If the claim is accepted, doesn't this mean that the argument comes to an end, simply because of the definition of THE CLAIM, and that the grounds no longer need to be debated?
Then why in the world do we opt to waste so much of our energy debating our grounds when really in the end, our grounds may just be rejected, but our claim still accepted?
Any thoughts? I hope my question makes sense to some of you.
(Janet Lee)
Concerning the topic at hand, I have two thoughts. It seemed to me that Mr. Lazarow made a point of letting us know that we need to choose our grounds wisely, so as to avoid sidetracking in a debate and debating the reliability of the grounds of the claim instead of the claim itself. We must choose grounds that we are pretty sure our oppenent/audience will acknowledge as reliable, or we must have enough grounds so that if our oppenent/audience doesn't see some as reliable, the chance is good that he will see others as reliable. The second point that I would like to make ties in with this. Every piece of information, every fact, every opinion, etc., that we use as grounds can easily become a claim in and of itself if its reliablility is questioned. It really comes down to how well we construct our argument, how well we choose our grounds, and how relevant our grounds are to our argument.
(Emily Thompson)
Post a Comment