Basically, the question is this: Is "beating" someone at an argument the same thing as having a discourse? Is it the goal of discourse, and if not, what is?
This topic has been on my mind lately, and I'd be eager to hear your thoughts in the comments. Have you ever experienced the scenario in question? Any ideas on how to promote and engage discourse instead of disputes, especially on the Internet?
“Beating” someone at an argument (especially if its on unilateral terms) is not the same thing as entering into a discourse with them.
— Mike Rugnetta (@mikerugnetta) August 28, 2015
Rhetorical tactics that frustrate conversation may shut people up, but they sacrifice the pursuit of consensus in the name of swagger.
— Mike Rugnetta (@mikerugnetta) August 28, 2015
@mikerugnetta Cf. Francis Bacon "Of Discourse"... pic.twitter.com/VYVMM9KM1j
— Jedd Cole (@ElectricDidact) August 28, 2015
— Mike Rugnetta (@mikerugnetta) August 28, 2015
@mikerugnetta Here's a few more thoughts. http://t.co/UigNC4vafA
Dude, I'm so with you.
— Jedd Cole (@ElectricDidact) August 28, 2015
@ElectricDidact “discursive performance” is great. Thats exactly whats going on: playing at having exchange, not actually doing it.
— Mike Rugnetta (@mikerugnetta) August 28, 2015