• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Does rhetoric serve us well?

Does rhetoric serve us well? (Please elaborate on your vote)

  • Total voters
    16
radcen

radcen

Phonetic Mnemonic ©
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 3, 2011
Messages
34,817
Reaction score
18,576
Location
Look to your right... I'm that guy.
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
Does rhetoric serve us well?

rhet·o·ric
ˈredərik/
noun
noun: rhetoric

the art of effective or persuasive speaking or writing, especially the use of figures of speech and other compositional techniques.
synonyms: oratory, eloquence, command of language, way with words
"a form of rhetoric"
language designed to have a persuasive or impressive effect on its audience, but often regarded as lacking in sincerity or meaningful content.
"all we have from the opposition is empty rhetoric"
synonyms: bombast, turgidity, grandiloquence, magniloquence, pomposity, extravagant language, purple prose; wordiness, verbosity, prolixity; informalhot air; rarefustian
"empty rhetoric"
Click to expand...

The part highlighted in red is what I'm thinking for this question. There are endless examples that could be used, but I'll give one: To hear many people on either side of the political aisle tell it, all three of the last Presidents have been the second-coming of Hitler.

That is an extreme example, but seriously, is that accurate? What good does it do us and our society to spout things like that? How does that help?
 
radcen said:
Does rhetoric serve us well?



The part highlighted in red is what I'm thinking for this question. There are endless examples that could be used, but I'll give one: To hear many people on either side of the political aisle tell it, all three of the last Presidents have been the second-coming of Hitler.

That is an extreme example, but seriously, is that accurate? What good does it do us and our society to spout things like that? How does that help?
Click to expand...

You can tell a lot about a person based upon what number of "-coming of Hitler" they view the current President. 2nd, 3rd, 4th, nth?
 
Does it serve well for those doing it? yes.

Does it serve well for people seeking truth and prosperity... no, most likely not.
 
radcen said:
Does rhetoric serve us well?



The part highlighted in red is what I'm thinking for this question. There are endless examples that could be used, but I'll give one: To hear many people on either side of the political aisle tell it, all three of the last Presidents have been the second-coming of Hitler.

That is an extreme example, but seriously, is that accurate? What good does it do us and our society to spout things like that? How does that help?
Click to expand...

Rhetoric is quite useful and can be good or bad, depending on how it is used and the standpoint one takes in the discussion.
 
joG said:
Rhetoric is quite useful and can be good or bad, depending on how it is used and the standpoint one takes in the discussion.
Click to expand...
I voted that it's divisive and counterproductive, but I don't disagree with you. It *can be* useful in a positive way, but I guess I've grown weary because of late it hasn't been.
 
radcen said:
Does rhetoric serve us well?



The part highlighted in red is what I'm thinking for this question. There are endless examples that could be used, but I'll give one: To hear many people on either side of the political aisle tell it, all three of the last Presidents have been the second-coming of Hitler.

That is an extreme example, but seriously, is that accurate? What good does it do us and our society to spout things like that? How does that help?
Click to expand...

It has it's place.

When appealing to people to help a good cause, or motivating people in the work place, when done in moderation, it has benefits. It can be, in some instances, educational.

When done in politics, it is divisive almost to the extreme. Appealing to the emotional knee-jerk reaction to sway people, anger them against other groups... well, let's just say that politicians don't have a true thought during a campaign.
 
Last edited:
radcen said:
Does rhetoric serve us well?



The part highlighted in red is what I'm thinking for this question. There are endless examples that could be used, but I'll give one: To hear many people on either side of the political aisle tell it, all three of the last Presidents have been the second-coming of Hitler.

That is an extreme example, but seriously, is that accurate? What good does it do us and our society to spout things like that? How does that help?
Click to expand...

Rhetorics appeared first among greek philosophers and it's full name is the rhetorical question. A device by which a question is asked and requires no answer because the answer is obvious. Even the statement you gave as a rhetorical statement is still a form of a question.
The use of this tool is meant to create thinking along certain lines. Therefor it need not reflect any kind of accuracy as its purpose is to make you think in a certain direction rather than try answer the question itself. An example of a good use of a rhetorical question could be something like " If everyone jumped off a cliff, would you?" Quite obviously the question does not actually require an answer but it would be nice if the person the question was directed to stopped and did some thinking about whatever they are saying.

When used well it is quite a good tool but like any tool it can also be abused. What you gave us in bold is called a rhetorical fallacy. Where one creates a deliberate error in reasoning in order to achieve the same result of getting you to think. But as you have observed it is not a good way of doing it. The purpose then is most likely to stop you thinking in the direction that makes any good sense and attempt to divert or stall the debate into nonsense.
 
radcen said:
Does rhetoric serve us well?



The part highlighted in red is what I'm thinking for this question. There are endless examples that could be used, but I'll give one: To hear many people on either side of the political aisle tell it, all three of the last Presidents have been the second-coming of Hitler.

That is an extreme example, but seriously, is that accurate? What good does it do us and our society to spout things like that? How does that help?
Click to expand...

It's kind of like cheerleading, it makes us feel good but has no substance. Many of us can enjoy watching our team's cheerleaders, but we're not going to use their cheers to predict who will win the game.
 
I said "No" because I'm sick to death of the rhetoric. Everyone needs to shut the **** up and act like grown ups. Starting with our President and including simpletons like Nancy Pelosi, Maxine Waters, and some others.
 
radcen said:
Does rhetoric serve us well?



The part highlighted in red is what I'm thinking for this question. There are endless examples that could be used, but I'll give one: To hear many people on either side of the political aisle tell it, all three of the last Presidents have been the second-coming of Hitler.

That is an extreme example, but seriously, is that accurate? What good does it do us and our society to spout things like that? How does that help?
Click to expand...

Language has been weaponized because the ends justify the means. We no longer value honesty, and we are often fine with wrecking the language in pursuit of our poltical goals.

This all goes under "The people be stupid now".
 
To compare a person to Hitler is a bit ridiculous, but in case of Hilary Clinton it might of been spot on.. I mean she practically said word for word the exact same things over the course of her life.
 
FreeThink said:
To compare a person to Hitler is a bit ridiculous, but in case of Hilary Clinton it might of been spot on.. I mean she practically said word for word the exact same things over the course of her life.
Click to expand...

And there we go. When godwins law comes into play this thread is heading down hill fast.
 
soylentgreen said:
Rhetorics appeared first among greek philosophers and it's full name is the rhetorical question. A device by which a question is asked and requires no answer because the answer is obvious. Even the statement you gave as a rhetorical statement is still a form of a question.
The use of this tool is meant to create thinking along certain lines. Therefor it need not reflect any kind of accuracy as its purpose is to make you think in a certain direction rather than try answer the question itself. An example of a good use of a rhetorical question could be something like " If everyone jumped off a cliff, would you?" Quite obviously the question does not actually require an answer but it would be nice if the person the question was directed to stopped and did some thinking about whatever they are saying.

When used well it is quite a good tool but like any tool it can also be abused. What you gave us in bold is called a rhetorical fallacy. Where one creates a deliberate error in reasoning in order to achieve the same result of getting you to think. But as you have observed it is not a good way of doing it. The purpose then is most likely to stop you thinking in the direction that makes any good sense and attempt to divert or stall the debate into nonsense.
Click to expand...
Great post.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom