Andrew actually mentions something I think is completely true in the case of most people who are debaters. The ability to elucidate any idea which is external yet not to consider one's self seems to be a pervasive symptom of the people currently on the circuit. I think this leads not just to skewed social relations, but also a general lack of introspection. Most people tend to have neither the speaking ability to transmit information about either themselves or other things, but there is a danger in having the latter without the former. People rarely think about whether or not what they say is actually true in principle, and about whether they believe it. Making arguments becomes not about person passion, but in fact about winning said argument. Most individuals don't seem to understand the power of the spoken word, when delivered convincingly. But it's there.
Another consequence of being around argument on a near constant basis, I've found, is that when people talk about issues of consequence, I find it hard not to immediately brace to counterattack. This makes for discussions with a certain breed of people nearly impossible, and may or may not have contributed to my current reputation (at least among those who I am casually aquainted with) as "contentious"*. Whenever someone says anything, I immediately find myself trying to find fault with it. That could be a problem.
* = "bastard" also acceptable.
cranked out at 11:31 PM | |
|template © elementopia 2003|