Thursday, 11 December 2008

• Tone Deaf

  I very recently entered a fairly lengthy discussion with an individual over something that now seems rather trivial. After I came to my senses and set my own personality aside, the discussion quickly went completely south. Nothing was achieved, neither side budged an inch, and I came out insulted countless times.
  
  Instead of reigning in that anger, I thought I would instead divert my particular displeasure into a small amount of introspection, and perhaps a community discussion (should any community appear to discuss with me), over the nature of the written tone.
  
  Normally, when doing any sort of public speaking, I assume a tone of interpersonal discussion, with the faintest hint of elitism, which I really do not intend. The problem is my tone is naturally very docile, non-confrontational, and very intricate.
  
  This often causes problems, from appearing to be a push-over, to accidentally speaking over my audience's head. It's a habit I try not to make, but end up doing so out of my naturally "voice," or how my writing and speaking sounds in my mind.
  
  Aside from bypassing my audience, I also seem to inspire weakness. Over the aforementioned discussion, the written tone of the other participant was that of a condescending nature. Naturally, my first thought was to ask that said tone be leveled should any discourse take place, but replied in an honest way. The response held much the same tone, and disagreed with my philosophy. The word-to-word ratio for his points greatly overshadowed mine, and his opinion was backed with articles and journals, although I felt no specific need to clarify my own opinion through published journals. I again, asked that his tone be adjusted before we continued, and his next post followed much the same vein. Repeat roughly twice more when we were asked to stop. I dropped the subject immediately, already very much aggravated by the nature of the discussion, but his response to that was worded in such a way to continue to sling mud in my direction without ever addressing me.
  
  So, two discussion prompts based on those events:
  
  One, was I wrong to refuse discussion until his tone would be less condescending, regardless of what was being discussed, nor how many facts he had on his side?
  
  Two, in the same situation, what would you have done? Was really allowing him to insult me post after post a good idea, or did I just doom myself to constant attacks while he continued to gain points on my silent form?
  

  • 6:19 PM
  • 20 Views
  • 2 eProps
  • 1 Comment
  • email

• Thinking Rationally, and Discussing Cleverly

  Otherwise known as my personal rules for debate, discussion, and all things pertaining to the reasonable exchange of knowledge. If you agree or disagree, I encourage you to tell me so, and to tell me why. These aren't the end-all, be-all, but they are fantastic guidelines.
  

  1 – Logistic ergo Fallacious
  Whenever entering any discussion, enter the discussion with an open mind. No matter how much proof you may have for or against, for any discussion to work, you must accept that you can be wrong. Until such a conclusion is found by both parties, then both parties are ultimately wasting their time. So, always approach a discussion willing to accept that the other party's opinion has valid points, and that you may have to modify your argument accordingly. This is key, and more important than nearly anything else.

  
  

  2 – Soothing, Docile, and Gentle Tones
  For any discussion, speak in low, gentle, docile tones. Even if the opposition is sinking to personal attacks, don't lower yourself as well. Nothing personal or angry should be spoken, and any corrections or amendments to the opposition's argument should be phrased in such a way that it is non-aggressive.
  

  Edit - After thinking more carefully on this, I've concluded that while passive voice is very useful in dealing with belligerent speakers, active voice should be used in all situations of persuasive speaking and debate. Passive is only necessary if the opposing viewpoint is angry or upset. Otherwise, active voice is a more successful choice.

  
  

  3 – Third Person, Second to None, First Priority
  Any discussion, debate, argument, or conversation should be handled with a certain understanding for all parties involved. To best approach your opposition's opinion, argue their point against yourself. Try to remain unbiased, and think through what you're arguing against. Is there logic in their stance? How about in yours? Which is more sufficient and striking? It's okay to admit that your argument may be wrong. Don't be afraid of adjusting your stance based on how you see the other people's argument. Until you can do that, though, your debate will be hampered as a matter of course.

  
  

  4 – I Think, Therefore I Am
  This is the most important. Think for yourself. Use your own thoughts, experiences, and ideas to back your claims up. Don't disregard other sources, though. Any well-worded argument starts with an opinion, then is backed up by another source. Don't be afraid to model your arguments based on several people's opinions. Just use your head before anything else.

  
  

  5 – Personally, I Disagree
  Don't. Take. Anything. Personally. Ever.
  The split second you do, and when you lose your cool, it's all over. The discussion and debate simply fell apart where it stood, and neither party will budge. Don't succumb to baser insults, argue with a level-head. Always.

  • 1:58 PM
  • 56 Views
  • 4 eProps
  • 2 Comments
  • email