I had some spirited, and sometimes counterproductive (both on my own side as well as the other), debate today online. Politics. Of course. We’re very polarized as a country right now – more than I can ever remember.
So, I have some thoughts about debate – debate is based on rhetoric, a term which I’m using in the classical sense, and I believe is a fancy term used for “argument” specially through language. Rhetoric is judged by how effective it is, how successful. Now, without someone to officiate a debate, “successful” is entirely in the eye of the debaters…which is to say, entirely subjective. That’s a big hurdle to overcome in these debates with our family and friends.
I can, however, talk about what I’ve learned about successful rhetoric should be approached, in terms of applying it as a strategy: Ethos, Pathos, and Logos. Ethos, refers to a person’s character, who they are and what they’ve done. Ethos refers to a person’s emotions, what their feeling. Logos refers to reason and fact – logic, what is actually true.
Logos is the core of substantive rhetoric. “Substantive” rhetoric is not always successful, but it is the most superior. Substance is never wrong. Logic, as a perfect ideal, is never wrong. (Note that in life, however, being “right” doesn’t always mean “success”)
There are many, many traps to fall into when it comes to Logos; we’ve decided to call them logical fallacies. Ad hominem is one I encountered today, which is the disregarding of a argument based on the ethos, or personal character, of the person making the argument.
I, myself, committed an error in rhetoric, today. I’m not sure exactly what it’s called, but “holier-than-thou” is close enough – I used ethos. Not proud of that, and so I apologized for it.
I’ve studied these concepts (thank you classical theatre training), and I still find myself guilty of transgressions all the time. I’m not happy about that…and I do have a very, very clear line to draw in that regard: if I’m guilty of a personal or emotional attack, I will own up to it. But making a logical, reasoned rebuttal to another person’s argument is not an error in logic, it is not condescension, and it is not elitism. It is debate. Point. Counter-point. As long as that exchange remains in the realm of facts and logic, you have yourself a healthy, productive debate.
I wish I was better at debating. I really do. It’s not that I think I’m woefully bad at it, but I know I’d get my ass kicked by a real debater, like one of those high school kids that talks all fast n shit. I wish I’d engaged with people in debate on social media before now, had more practice. It’s true that I believe that “conservative” America lives in a bubble, but it’s also true that I’ve lived in my own. Reaching out is essential to popping that bubble. Mine, at least. I can’t pop any else’s. That’s up to them.
This is all a long way to say that today was frustrating for me. Frustrating to read so many views that are so vastly contrary to my own that they upset me, frustrating to have not always put my best foot forward, and frustrating to see such a divide in my country. Those people with those views that are so upsetting to me are still people, and people cannot possibly really be all that different from each other – don’t we all essentially want the same things? I think we do. I know we do, I’ve seen that reinforced over and over again.
So, I guess now that I’ve written it all out is that, what I really lack is understanding and empathy. Perhaps logos isn’t my problem, perhaps is the ethos and the pathos of the other side that I need to better understand. Perhaps that’s the common language to start the discussion.
We’ll see. I’m definitely not done debating.
Artwork tonight is by Blair Wilkins.