[ad_1]
Oral communication aims to persuade, but debates can quickly turn into heated discussions. Arguments are natural and essential, with the Greeks studying the science of successful argumentative discourse. Rhetorical devices can help, but shouting matches rarely solve problems and only benefit those with more power.
One of the main purposes of oral communication is to persuade someone regarding a particular belief or position. At the calmest and most overtly communicative level, this is accomplished through dialogue where each party takes turns speaking and listening with an open mind. When the stakes are high, however, a dialogue quickly becomes a debate, and a debate quickly turns into a heated discussion. When an argument becomes shrill and yelling takes the place of forceful but controlled exchanges, all hope of gentle persuasion has been lost and a yelling match has ensued.
Anyone who has been involved with another human being understands the nature of the argument. Employees disagree with employers, friends are upset by each other’s positions on controversial topics, and spouses occasionally, or more frequently, verbally argue. Even small children stand still on their wobbly young legs and protest when something doesn’t work the way they think it should. The argument is both natural and essential; a person who has never raised his voice to question an idea or protest a decision has an extremely unhealthy ego.
The argument is so central to the human condition that the Greeks considered it a science and studied it to determine the rules governing successful argumentative discourse. Politicians and others involved in the debate still study those rules. Rhetorical devices such as metaphor, hyperbole, and even repetition can help a speaker score a point or weaken an opponent’s position. Those who use rhetoric scientifically know that the worst way to win an argument is to get involved in a shouting match.
University students and professionals who publish articles in academic journals are often faced with a new, radical, unconventional, or even unpopular idea. This type of argument is called an argument, but it’s a different kind of argument than a parent will have with a teenager who wants the car keys. Like speakers involved in a debate, those who address a problem in writing also use rhetorical devices and avoid insults, tantrums, melodrama and anything that could translate into a screaming match on paper.
Anyone who has ever been involved in a shouting match probably understands intellectually that it generally doesn’t really solve a problem. The individual who “wins” a shouting match is invariably the one who entered it with the most power to begin with. After a screaming match, the teenager will only get the car keys if the parent is easily and habitually manipulated and the employee may be out of work.
[ad_2]