https://www.ted.com/talks/daniel_h_cohen_for_argument_s_sake?language=en
1. What did you think of Cohen’s talk? Did he properly communicate the points he was trying to make? Was he effective in making the argument that there are several types of argument styles and that all are good for something?
2. Cohen asks "what do good arguers win when they win an argument?" and he offers three models. Describe what model of argumentation you use when you engage in an argument. Do you ever change or modify your style of arguing?
3. Cohen's third model is based on argument as performance and the importance of performance for the audience. Think of a recent time when you were engaged in an argument or were watching an argument. Was there a performance involved? Also, discuss whether or not you consider the performance aspect of an argument important or not important to the overall desired effect.
4. Cohen says that “The war metaphor has deforming effects on how we argue.” Explain what you think Cohen means by this statement. Also, describe the downsides of only thinking about arguments within the “argument-as-war” model and improvements could be made.
5. Do you agree or disagree with Cohen that not every argument needs a winner and a loser? Explain your answer.
6. In the communication models that I reviewed in the What is Communication? extension lecture the most currently agreed upon model of communication is the Transactional Model in which communication is a constant and reciprocal transaction between communicators. What part of the communication process would you consider to be the most important in terms of effective argumentation?
No comments:
Post a Comment