even if the rhetorical part of the debate figures into 50% of the points awarded, a team could do really well on the non-rhetorical parts of the debate and still win with a mediocre rhetorical score. Also, as has been pointed out, rhetorical does not necessarily equal emotional.
Uh, just a comment, y'all do understand that these are undergrads not law students, right?
What, exactly, would a "non-rhetorical part of a debate" look like? As I understand "debate" and "rhetoric," a debate is 100% rhetorical. Am I missing something?
Litdoc, your point on the power of ethos is not lost on me - such as the reaction I felt when you stated that my response was "a little ignorant." Angry I started thinking, "Who is this a-hole with a PhD . . . " but then I realized you were just making a point, although I am still unable to divorce my anger towards your insulting my intelligence from my response, as I'm sure you'll notice below.
I'm simply saying that in my view, logic should be the foundation. ... emotion or custom should not trump logic.
Plessy v. Ferguson stood for nearly 60 years based solely on pathos and ethos.
I favor a rule of law with logic and reason as its guiding lights.
Enjoy whatever crappy school you get into with that pathetic GPA. A**hole.
I can't really find anything to disagree with you on, so I will simply wish you the best of luck.
QuoteQuoteAnd if you think our country can't be run effectively if it favors emotion over reason, then it hasn't run effectively for decades and decades and decadesYup.
And if you think our country can't be run effectively if it favors emotion over reason, then it hasn't run effectively for decades and decades and decades
However, if it [logic] were only a rhetorical tool, it would have no uses outside debate. Logic seems to be much broader: it's a mental skill that's used to analyze virtually everything.
I'm not equivocating: I'm pointing out that there are two definitions that overlap, but aren't quite identical. My problem with your post was that it seemed to be using the narrower definition to address a post by someone who seemed to be using the broader definition.