Click here: to donate by Credit Card
Or here: to donate by PayPal
Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794
Thank you very much and God bless you.
Posted on 03/06/2026 6:32:51 AM PST by karpov
We hear all the time that America is hopelessly polarized, that the electronic landscape allows us to stay in our own hermetically-sealed communities, and that no one can speak with anyone across the aisle. For decades now, the Left has believed that those who disagree with it are not just wrong but evil; in the last three election cycles, we have seen those on the right taking on the same position.
What if the problem is not our politics but the way we are taught to argue?
For four decades, American students have been taking misconceived “rhetoric and composition” classes, which now are almost completely under the ideological control of the woke. We need to fix that so we can return to a republic of vigorous, fair, thoughtful, and productive discussion.
We’ve traveled, in the “rhet-comp” world, from a 1970s, free-love, “expressivist” paradigm (inspired by Peter Elbow’s Writing Without Teachers, in which freewriting, journaling, and not caring about such things as punctuation, spelling, and grammar are supposed to unlock students’ minds from the chains of rule-mongering teachers) all the way to the more recent social-epistemic paradigm, which argues that a student can write only from within his (?) / her (?) / their (?) own social and political position.
A Hispanic student, for example, can write only out of his Hispanic-ness, writing what “they” know and experience from that “position.” And how dare anyone presume to judge from outside of that position whether the result is “good writing” or a “coherent argument”? But maybe that’s the point: Asking her to “improve her writing” is to impose alien standards upon her. Such a philosophy is designed to persuade students that they can’t have thoughtful arguments with anyone unlike them. And test scores have declined all the way through.
(Excerpt) Read more at jamesgmartin.center ...
|
|
Click here: to donate by Credit Card Or here: to donate by PayPal Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794 Thank you very much and God bless you. |
Oh, they know how to argue, what they do not know is how to critically think and honestly debate.
Oh sure.
Well it isn’t just saying ‘no it isn’t’!”
“Yes it is!”
“No it isn’t!”
That literally fits well within the definition of arguing.
If I truly believed someone loved our country, wanted the best for it, and was a patriot, but just had differing views on what the government’s role was in fixing things, then OK, let’s talk. But, I believe the other side hates America and all it was founded on and stands for, and their goal is to take it down and end up in charge of a single ruling party, theirs. So, no, sorry.
"Well that would be education, and we can't have that!"
"Well that would be education, and we can't have that!"
Arguing with BIPOC folx is racist, you big white oppressor. Check your privilege!
Make them do math in their head.
I go to lunch every week with a group from high school and one member is active in the Democrat party and we started talking about the 2020 election.
I told him I have data in a spreadsheet that shows that the 2020 election results were fishy. It doesn't prove that it was fraudulent because it can't be proven, but it clearly shows that it was very, very fishy. I offered to bring it in for discussion. He didn't want to see it.
Monty Python’s The Argument Clinic a/k/a Want to Buy and Argument:
https://python.mzonline.com/sketches/argument/
Seen similar many times when discussing issues with libs, they will not even entertain conflicting factual data.
If you do not allow such evidence into your sphere, you never have to contend with the challenge.
That pretty much sums up the higher educational process these days.
Oh, let me add this, I have been told several times now that, “all ever do is bring up facts and never listen.”
They get mad that I often have some data the contradicts the conversation.
Consider what that statement is actually saying,
From an early age, it was drilled into me that I didn’t really understand my own position unless I understood and could cogently argue the opposing position(s). Today’s students don’t seem to have any idea about this. They have no idea about their own blindspots or the reasons why someone else might reach a different position.
The entire culture is now based on telling, not debating.
Persuasion is a lost art for most drones these days. They get their 10 second sound bite and simply repeat it.
Just listen to or read any news. The phrases of the day are established before the 7 AM news cycle and the remain for the rest of the day.
Even on FR, people are more interested in beating you to death with their views than they are in learning. Being open to different ideas is viewed as weakness.
The whole, “If you aren’t A, then you MUST be “B”” is tiresome.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.