I'm pretty sure she must be well educated and have a lot of knowledge. Her students may even admire that knowledge. But I hope she can see that her arrogant attitude totally undermines her ability to transfer that knowledge to others, i.e. her students must hate having to listen to her. I had a couple of those "teachers" at university and there is nothing more annoying and frustrating.
I've had sufficient exposure to the immaturity that dictates the "arguments," and I've lost interest.
The word "argument" has many definitions. Amongst others, it can be a fact or assertion offered as evidence to prove something, or it can simply be a discussion in which reasons are advanced for and against some proposition or proposal (from Thesaurus). When you are speaking to such a broad audience such as the one on CD, one should expect to encounter debates that rely more on the latter definition of the word. It's not right. But it's not wrong either. Not all of us have the same educational background. Some people's reasoning will derive from Philosophy, some from the Law, some from Religion and some from the Knowledge Bank of Mum & Dad. Sometimes one type of reasoning appears to be weaker if it is not based on the established sciences. But let me remind you that a few years back, someone could make a very strong argument about slavery and say "it's right because it's legal", "it's right because historically it has existed almost since civilization begun", strong arguments because the facts provided can be proved. Now imagine if someone simply reasoned by saying "I dunno you guys, it just doesn't feel right". On the face of it, its a very weak argument, it does not follow the rules scholars like to see when arguments are presented, no particular proved facts are there to substantiate it, it simply appeals to human emotion. In retrospect however, which one do you think is stronger? Which one would speak to a wider, culturally varied audience and win them over?
This particular type of scholar, and the likes that set the rules for argument, have alienated the general public from debating because they usually ignore the fact the humans are first and foremost emotional beings. I'll be damned if I lived in a society where I wasn't allowed to voice my disagreement because I couldn't substantiate it with scientific/philosophical/mathematical/whatever proof.
She reminds me of kids in the background, when one says "hey you are not playing the game with the rules I'm used to so screw you, I'm not playing". But when her students come to her classroom she expects and demands that they play by hers, regardless of what rules they were used to.
I teach rhetoric and argument for a living. I haven't encountered anyone here who could survive two minutes in my classroom.
You teach rhetoric... wow... well... good for you. Thanks for letting us know how you pay your bills. If you were any good at "arguing" you would see that that particular statement is ludicrously weak at proving that you are any good at what you do. What if I said "I cook for a living", does that in itself prove that I am a better cook than the rest of you? It doesn't even prove that I have extensive knowledge on the field. Nothing. All it says is, someone is paying you to do something. Maybe they are paying you because you are good. Maybe you were the only option your employer had. You may have been the best of a bad bunch of applications for the job. Who knows!
The second half of your statement is the one that reveals the glory of your arrogance. This is the kid in the playground saying "you guys wouldn't last two minutes if you played this game the way I play it at home". Well... good for you. Maybe you're right. So what? So you are good at playing this game with your rules. Who said that your rules make the game more interesting or more valid? Let me guess... other people like you. Great. Now go play home. I pity the students that have to attend your classroom, because I can take a blind guess that with your attitude they probably would rather do anything but be there and have to listen to you. See, whereas other people inspire others to want to listen to them, you have to rely on the fact that they have to be there...
This site isn't about argument; it's about pissing into somebody else's sandbox.
Awww. Let me guess. You made the perfect argument. You went into details. You provided proof and evidence. You have covered all parameters. Everyone SHOULD agree with it. Because your logic is undeniable. And yet... they didn't agree with you.
Damn! Why are these "idiots" not agreeing with you? You logic is undeniable!
If they can't refute your logic then they should agree with it, right?
It's undeniable! Proved! AGREE WITH ME DAMN IT!
So the kid in the playground entered the game. Then realized that she can't win by applying the same strategy and game-play as she does at home. What does she do? She blames the other kids for playing differently and goes home.
How grown up of you dear.
You might find that the reason your students don't challenge you is because they can't wait for the bell to ring so they can get out of that classroom. That, and because they wanna kiss your ass for a good grade. No one has to kiss your ass here though. And that sucks doesn't it! :o)
Stay in your pissy little sandboxes and stop pretending that you know anything about argument.
You just saved me having to come up with a farewell statement to you. Read that to yourself.
And grow up.
