One of my all-time favorite high school classes is debate. In this one class, students from all grade levels join to discuss current events, opinions, stereotypes and an endless assortment of topics from the morals of beauty pageants to the price of bananas. It struck me in class today how wonderful it was that we all saw words and objects in a different way. Each student brings a unique viewpoint and manner of speech that is always interesting to hear.
In debate we make speeches and ask questions to persuade the majority of the class to either pass or fail a bill, deciding if it will become law. I believe Hayakawa would have a field day sitting in our debate class and studying how the students use language in so many of the ways he mentioned, all at once.
In debate, language is your greatest weapon. The words you use are crucial in making your point. I am now even more aware of the signifigance of words that are "loaded" or carry a lot of excess bagagge. A word with heavy negative connotations can destroy a speaker if it is not used correctly. A good debater always has an amazing speech which is of course made up of words. Their speech is specifically manufactured to fit the audience type depending on whether it is for the elderly, teachers, or rebellious teenagers. As a debater I am constantly slanting everything that comes out of my mouth in order to persuade people that my view is the correct one. As debaters, we try to sound intelligent with statistics and data so people put trust in our judgment. However, a few simple questions from an opposing viewpoint, can quickly destroy a candidate who is attempting to persuade an audience. An intriguing question can make a speaker look ignorant, foolish, or cruel. A speaker will also lose a debate if he/she appears to be very predjidice or one-sided, which is very ironic because that is exactly what each debate speaker is...predjidiced! Instead, debaters must sound as objective as possible to lure the audience in, while in reality their every word is dripping with bias.
I remember reading how Hayakawa said that one important way, we differ from animals is our ability to express opinions that aren't always our own. Like the example of a yankees fan who can wear a phillies cap or when someone says "I'm hungry" but they are not actually hungry. This struck me as a very deep truth that I had not paid much attention to before. In debate I myself have made persuasive speeches pushing issues in the opposite direction of my personal feelings.
My opinion is constantly changing in that class as I learn new ideas from others. I also learn new ways to exploit language to become a better debater. I think that Debate class is one of the main ways I connect to Hayakawa's teachings everyday.
8 comments:
That was Cristy by the way. oops.
To the other debaters in the class has the way you debate changed after reading Hayakawa?
Hey Cristy, it's Amy. I started to relate Language in Thought and Action to debate too, as I told you earlier in debate class today. For the same reasons as you, but for some new ones as well.
First of all, Hayakawa wonders in his book why humans argue with one another on topics where opinions will never change instead of communicating something useful. On a subject such as "is there a God?" there is no real point in debating because most people are obstinate in their opinions and no outcome would be reached unless everyone is extremely religious or is extremely against religion. This questions the usefulness of debate.
Also, judgments are key in debating. Once you start a con speech, you can't switch to support the bill, or else your speech will not be effective. You have to stay in the same position the entire time and are constantly trying to persuade the audience to pass the same judgments.
Debating can also be related to Merchants of Cool because speeches are really advertisments, trying to bring certain audiences over to one side of the debate. The way you deliver a speech, just like an advertisment, also affects how effective your communication is in illustrating points or ideas.
For me, what makes a good debater is his or her ability to sell personal ideas. Debate is communication on a topic that has no right or wrong answer. We do not debate the answers to math problems or what happened in the election of 1896; we debate to persuade others to believe in our point of view. There is no "right" or "wrong" answer to the illegal immigrant problem, to the problems of energy consumption, or to a plan to bring about lower or higher taxes. But the Senators and Representatives and other elected officials in this country (and others) are formulating plans which react to these problems as they see fit.
Of course, another major factor in successful debate is choice of words. One wouldn't go around using racist or bigoted terms to a certain audience to get them to get hooked on what we're talking about. A balance between positive and negative is necessary- too positive and the audience knows it is being lied to. Anyone with an idea can therefore become a debater, but only a few can be successful in controlling others (to a degree) through their words, whether it is to vote for a bill or to buy a certain product. Even as I type I am persuading the reader to believe me- I hope I am doing a satisfactory job!
Ah, debate. The class brings back fond memories. I loved that class and learned so much, but since then I have also come to hate politics.
Amy made the insight that judgments are key in debating. SO TRUE! But things can become dangerous when debate is based on judgments alone and we never allow ourselves to consider other people's opinions. Amy said "once you start a con speech, you can't switch to support the bill.." WHY NOT? Why is it so wrong to change your opinion? After some rumination you come to find x is a better solution then y, why must you continue to advocate y? Simply because that is what you chose originally? That is not a good enough answer. If x is the best solution which benefits us as a society, why not support x?
Rather than being honest and truthful, politicians today only tell people what they want to hear so they will gain support. In my opinion, they have become far too power-hungry.
During the course of debate (as in almost every linguistic endeavor) the aim is to persuade your audience. But when we stop caring about what we are persuading them to believe and only concern ourselves with the fact that they believe us, we are in serious trouble. I have to disagree with the idea that a speech would be less affective if you switch sides midway through. Sure, things might get a bit confusing for the audience. But if I heard someone give a speech and they switched sides during the course of their argument, I wouldn't consider them to be "confused" or a poor public-speaker. I would view them as having seriously considered the topic. It takes more courage to admit you were wrong and face humiliation than to continue blabbing on and on.
Hey Ashley, it's Allison.
Model Congress is the hub of all debate, and here one can watch debaters of all skill levels make their arguments. One can witness the difference between those skilled in debate, and those who are beginners. As others have mentioned earlier, the "good debaters" are those who can use language to help their argument. They use slanting and charged words to convince other representatives that their views are the right ones. The beginners, however, are known to make the "rookie mistake" of changing their point of view halfway through their argument. They realize that the opposing option makes more sense, and change their argument. Sadly, these poor rookies get bombarded by the veterans who accuse them of being indecisive, and just confused about the whole topic. The older debaters then try to prove that the rookies' argument was completely ludicrous. The poor rookie is then so humiliated that they make a mental note never to switch views halfway through a speech again.
But like Ashley said, why is it so terrible for us to realize our mistakes, and correct them?
I think it has something to do with our affiliations with political parties. We are classified as being "Democratic" or "Republican" (or conservative, liberal, moderate, or libertarian) and from then on, we stick to defending the views of that group. It is relatively rare for someone to make the switch from liberal to conservative, and vice versa. Do we avoid changing our views to keep from admitting we were wrong? Is this, in a way, an issue of pride?
I don't think its so much a question of not being able to change your opinion, just don't do it in the middle of a public speech! If you actually have considered the topic seriously you should know before hand that your opinion has changed. To make a point you can't be indecisive or else people just won't keep listening to you. A speech isn't a time for you to be thinking random thoughts out loud I think you need to have a plan and reach a certain point. but I agree with Allison that the categories of Republican and Democrat are very vague, and often create kids (even in our grade)who instead of looking at both parties in their entireties, they see that one party does ONE thing they like and then go with all of the rest that comes along with that political group even though they aren't their own personal beliefs.
You're right, guys. I re-read my post and I don't think it makes much sense. It would be weird to quickly switch sides in the course of a speech. Your audience wouldn't really follow you. You should probably make a decision about which side you are on before you make a speech. (Duh) I mean, if the president got up and made a speech and suddenly went from talking about increasing the number of troops in Iraq to talking about pulling out, there would be chaos!
And you are right, Allison. I realize that if you want to gain support, you need to stand firm and not stray from your party's platform. I had this experience at Harvard Model Congress this year. I wasn't quite a rookie, but I quickly came to learn that if I showed any sign of weakness, the party whip would force me back in line or the other delegates would attack me. Kill or be killed.
But I was just trying to emphasize my first point that it shouldn't be an issue to change sides. You shoudln't want people to agree with you and NOT CARE WHY THEY DO! You should argue what you believe in, not what your party believes in. Why do we need to be classified as Democrat or Republican? I do not believe in the Democratic or Republican parties, I guess I just believe in parties.
Hey everyone, it's Erin. Debate certainly is a great way to put Hayakawa's principles into practice, because it's all about words! I've debated before, and even before I read Hayakawa, I felt that I was using words unfairly in debates, twisting others' words and drawing comparisons between things that weren't alike. But it sounded good. I think that with all the ways to use language, it's easy to abuse it (as shown in Merchants of Cool). Is the best debater one who uses language fairly or one who uses every skill they possess to prove their point? Or what is fair?
One thing I just thought of. Hayakawa was talking about judgments and people writing essays that were so full of judgments that they run out of other things to say because everything thereafter must support and be consistent with those judgments. Maybe the reason people feel that they cannot change opinions once they're voiced is related to that.
One final thing: debate is always directed to the audience. In presidential debates (or so I've heard) when their debating against each other in one party (Republican v. Republican or Democrat v. Democrat) they try to sound the most Republican or Democratic so that they can get to be their party's candidate. Then when debating against the opposite party, they try to stay in the middle, because now the audience isn't just their party and they want to win them.
Post a Comment