評(píng)論
打印
Well, my answer is going to make reference to three models for arguments.
好了，為了回答這個(gè)問題，讓我們來參照三種不同的辯論方式。
The first model, let's call this the dialectical model,
第一種模式，讓我們稱之為辯證模式，
is that we think of arguments as war, and you know what that's like.
這種模式的辯論更想是打仗，相信你們都經(jīng)歷過。
There's a lot of screaming and shouting and winning and losing,
經(jīng)常充滿了尖叫和大喊，而且伴有勝負(fù)，
and that's not really a very helpful model for arguing
這對(duì)于辯論來說不是一個(gè)很有幫助的方式
but it's a pretty common and entrenched model for arguing.
卻也是相當(dāng)常見且”侵略性“的方式。
But there's a second model for arguing: arguments as proofs.
這里還有第二種辯論的模式：論證式
Think of a mathematician's argument.
想想數(shù)學(xué)家的辯論。
Here's my argument. Does it work? Is it any good?
這是我的辯論方式。它有用嗎？有什么優(yōu)點(diǎn)嗎？
Are the premises warranted? Are the inferences valid?
我們論證時(shí)的前提是正確的嗎？我們的推論有效嗎？
Does the conclusion follow from the premises?
我們的結(jié)論是否由前提推導(dǎo)出來？
No opposition, no adversariality, not necessarily any arguing in the adversarial sense.
沒有對(duì)立，沒有敵意，辯論并非必須在一個(gè)敵對(duì)意識(shí)下進(jìn)行。
But there's a third model to keep in mind that I think is going to be very helpful,
但是我們還應(yīng)該注意到其實(shí)還有第三種方式，我認(rèn)為它非常有效，
and that is arguments as performances, arguments as being in front of an audience.
它就是表演式辯論，如同在觀眾面前辯論。
We can think of a politician trying to present a position,
我們可以想想一個(gè)政客想要競(jìng)選一個(gè)職位，
trying to convince the audience of something.
或嘗試去讓他的觀眾接受他的政見。
But there's another twist on this model that I really think is important,
但是我認(rèn)為對(duì)這個(gè)模式的一個(gè)曲解有必要指出，
namely that when we argue before an audience,
亦即當(dāng)我們?cè)谟^眾面前辯論時(shí)，
sometimes the audience has a more participatory role in the argument,
有些時(shí)候觀眾在辯論中起了更重要的參與作用，
that is, arguments are also audiences in front of juries who make a judgment and decide the case.
我們的如同面對(duì)了一群陪審團(tuán)，他們判斷是非，裁定訴案。
Let's call this the rhetorical model,
讓我們稱之為修辭模式，
where you have to tailor your argument to the audience at hand.
這種模式下你就要像裁縫一樣為觀眾量身定制一場(chǎng)辯論。
You know, presenting a sound, well-argued,
你要一場(chǎng)聽上去激烈討論，嚴(yán)謹(jǐn)論證的
tight argument in English before a francophone audience just isn't going to work.
英語辯論，而聽眾是一群法國人，那就是白費(fèi)力氣。
So we have these models -- argument as war, argument as proof, and argument as performance.
你看我們有這么多辯論模式－－戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)式辯論，論證式辯論，表演式辯論。
Of those three, the argument as war is the dominant one.
在這三種模式中，戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)式辯論占了主導(dǎo)。
It dominates how we talk about arguments,
它使每當(dāng)我們提起辯論，就是這種模式。
it dominates how we think about arguments,
這種模式基本代表了我們對(duì)辯論的理解，
and because of that, it shapes how we argue, our actual conduct in arguments.
也因此，它影響了我們辯論的方式，我們?cè)谵q論時(shí)的表現(xiàn)。
Now, when we talk about arguments, yeah, we talk in a very militaristic language.
如今當(dāng)我們談起辯論，我們就會(huì)進(jìn)入一種軍國主義的論調(diào)。
We want strong arguments, arguments that have a lot of punch, arguments that are right on target.
我們需要具有攻擊性的辯論，辯論時(shí)就如同給對(duì)手的臉上來上幾拳，最好每個(gè)論點(diǎn)都直擊要害。
We want to have our defenses up and our strategies all in order.
我們想把自己武裝起來，組織好策略去應(yīng)對(duì)。
We want killer arguments.
我們想要擊敗對(duì)手。
That's the kind of argument we want.
那就是我們想要的辯論。
It is the dominant way of thinking about arguments.
這就是一種主流的辯論觀。
When I'm talking about arguments, that's probably what you thought of, the adversarial model.
當(dāng)我說到辯論的時(shí)候，很可能你馬上想到的就是敵對(duì)模式。
But the war metaphor, the war paradigm or model for thinking about arguments,
戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)模式這個(gè)比方，或者說是對(duì)辯論模式的認(rèn)知，
has, I think, deforming effects on how we argue.
在我看來正在削弱我們的辯論。
First it elevates tactics over substance.
首先它使辯論的技巧凌駕與觀點(diǎn)本身。
You can take a class in logic, argumentation.
你可以去上關(guān)于邏輯與辯論的課程。
You learn all about the subterfuges that people use to try and win arguments, the false steps.
你可以學(xué)到所有人們?cè)谵q論中可以使用的詭計(jì)，以力求去贏得一場(chǎng)辯論，多么愚蠢的方式啊。
It magnifies the us-versus-them aspect of it.
這放大了辯論中我們與他們的對(duì)立關(guān)系。
It makes it adversarial. It's polarizing.
這使辯論變得敵對(duì)。如同以偏振鏡來看問題。
And the only foreseeable outcomes are triumph, glorious triumph, or abject, ignominious defeat.
而唯一可預(yù)見的結(jié)果就是勝利，一場(chǎng)歡欣鼓舞的勝利，抑或是卑怯，可恥的失敗。
I think those are deforming effects, and worst of all,
我認(rèn)為那是一種變形效果，最糟的是，
it seems to prevent things like negotiation or deliberation or compromise or collaboration.
這種變形使這種辯論本身看上去不是那么像談判，審議或妥協(xié)，抑或者是一種協(xié)作。
