Читать книгу Making Arguments: Reason in Context - Edmond H. Weiss - Страница 24

A simple word, clash, conveys a tremendous amount about what is central in argumentation and advocacy. Clash is the core tension that advocates inculcate in making argument the unique activity that it is. Novice debaters often miss the essential nature of clash in debate. They often feel that their arguments must supersede or surpass one another’s. Debaters often hope to win their arguments by virtue of the opponents’ unpreparedness or non-responsiveness.

In fact, what characterizes a “real” argument is the very direct way in which arguments line up against one another. The clash—the direct opposition of point to counterpoint—is the very heart of the enterprise. Nothing is quite as tedious as watching an argument in which the “opposing” viewpoints aren’t clashing. This, unfortunately, is the downfall of many political “debates” in which the candidates present nothing more than dueling speeches and press-releases (“talking points). There is rarely a proposition for debate under consideration in a political forum; as a result we do not have a chance to see the candidates as advocates, clashing over issues. Political debates can be most unsatisfying to audiences; the absence of clash leaves issues unresolved and policy differences unclear.