verbal V's written . arguments / debates

by sleepy 6 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  sleepy

  I have become quite frustrated recently.
  Why is it so difficult to prove or reason on a point with someone who holds a opposite viewpoint?
  You can recite the known facts of a situation over and over but some people will not get it.
  Being able to articulate a point clearly to another person and for them to understand can seem like a black art.
  This is much worse in a verbal debate.It is hard when talking with someone to disscus a subject properly.
  You start of on one point and before you know it the conversation has moved off in another tangent.
  This is why I feel written aurguments hold more weight.You can not change the subject .Also it is more vital that you get your facts right in written articles as people are more likely to check where as in a verbal disscusion it is easy say something you know is not provable or valid in the heat of the moment.
  But you've got to get the person then to read , that can often be harder than getting them to converse with you.
  So what do you think which is the better method of getting a point accross verbal or written.

  (God I'm bad at spelling)
• 

  Farkel

  : Why is it so difficult to prove or reason on a point with someone who holds a opposite viewpoint?

  That's easy: most people are more interested in making themselves look right than in dealing with the actual facts. This is true in all aspects of life, but dubs are persistently more difficult to deal with because they have been indoctrinated that only they have "truth." When their so-called "truth" is shown to be in error, they cling to the notion that somehow, someway they must still be right. For many, if they stopped clinging to their cherished fantasties, their entire world would collapse.

  With regards to verbal vs. written debates, I generally prefer written debates because there is a paper trail of what is said, and one has more time to prepare and polish arguments.

  Farkel

  "I didn't mean what I meant."
• 

  Skeptic

  I agree. I prefer to see written arguements, especially on the topic of religion, atheism and evolution. Evolution is complex, and it takes time to digest the arguements.

  A good example is Rex B13's latest article on atheism. It would go over well if given from a pulpit because most of the audience would not have time to see the less obvious flaws, and lots of emotional bluster can be put into its presentation. In written form, though, its flaws are glaring.

  Plus, I am better at written arguments. I am good at public speaking, but am not fast on my feet when convincing someone in person.

  Richard
• 

  Frenchy

  The written form allows for better preparation and it's possible to revise what you write but you can't revise what you say! Like has been mentioned, the written word can be examined at length and analyzed more easily than the spoken word unless you record or transcribe every word.

  On the other hand...there is a lot of power in the spoken word. There is emotion, spontaneity, and a big plus for a lot of people: You don't have to be able to spell to speak! I enjoy both. I earned my living as a salesman for many years so I do know how to think on my feet.

  Both have their advantages and their disadvantages. One side note on discussions:
  You should ask yourself if you intend to discuss or debate. For the purpose of making my point I’ll define a discussion as an attempt by two or more parties to arrive at a conclusion on a matter that each sees differently whereas a debate is a forum for each party to present his side and only his side with the end view of proving his point.

  To discuss something you should give honest and serious consideration to what the other party says instead of merely looking at phrases and sentences that you can attack. Many people fail in that respect. If the other party makes a good point, then say so. If they present a side you have not considered yet, say so. If they are being utterly ridiculous, be kind. If they start insulting you and calling you names, bid them farewell.

  Be prepared for the most common eventuality in all discussions. All of you are likely to walk away with your original opinion pretty much still in tact. –NO ONE LIKES TO BE SHOWN THAT THEY ARE WRONG. It’s called pride and is one of the greatest obstacles to arriving at and admitting the truth.
• 

  one

  why do you think even a Supreme Court exist in most countries?
• 

  Mum

  Not everyone is going to change their point of view regardless of how compelling your argument is. I have learned that not everyone is going to understand my point of view, much less buy into it, regardless of how articulate, well thought out, or convincing I think my argument is. All people have their prejudices, blind spots, and delusions; and some are less willing than others to entertain ideas that interfere with these.

  Seize the day, and put the least possible trust in tomorrow. - Horace

  I have learned to live each day as it comes and not to borrow trouble by dreading tomorrow. - Dorothy Dix
• 

  proplog2

  In verbal arguments I always reach for a pencil and pad of paper. I will put their statments in good argument form SINCE...(premise)THEREFORE...(conclusion). I then ask them if this is the best form of their argument? I will modify it with their input until they are satisfied. Then I will proceed to hack away.

  If people don't want to put the time required to argue constructively then they are violating the "good faith" requirement. They probably just want to swap opinions. Who has time for that?