ART OF THE DISCUSSION IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD OF FLOWERS
By Alejandro Dolina
spirits in the neighborhood of Flores obtuse pretty well understood these ideas. They arrived to discover that the reason can hold opposing views with equal skill. And with young people spend hours playing amazement to discuss. But what began as a game eventually became an obsession. It happened that some men acquired a skill than to argue. Techniques were improved and finally a small group of credit reached a controversy that was well above the modest retruques of ordinary people. From there comes the Circle of Discussants Professionals, an entity that was a pioneer in the area and worked on a Bogota street living. The main purpose of the Circle was to put some order and harmony in discussions Rangers. Brochures were published with advice and recommendations, will give lectures and excursions to hostile neighborhoods such as College to discuss the road and new experiences. However, the institution became famous and renowned for the spectacular Roundtables that were held Saturday at its headquarters and not only attracted great debaters, but also their swollen. The standard procedure was to choose a topic for discussion and then navigate to hold positions for each of the participants. Sometimes, amid the debate, discussants were compelled to change sides. This produced a very attractive effect. And so, who had championed the rights of women in the modern world, passed himself refuted by confinement and women crying in the kitchen and its environs. You could be right both times, or none. At first, the themes of the round tables were more or less predictable: Is suicide a coward? Can you be friends with the man and woman? Does it matter more than the form or content? "Free trade or protectionism? Later the public was bored with these issues vulgar and demanded the toughest casework: Crescents of fat or butter? Better the bus or the train? "Cold or hot? "Blondes or brunettes? In the golden age of the Gray Angel neighborhood, the salon of the true giants met Bogota street. One Olympic Dr. Arnaldo
Garcete, citing authors and writers in fourteen languages, most of them quite unknown to him. Garcete came to make his arguments in rhymed verse, a habit was leaving it warned that its name was a huge advantage to their opponents. Hugo Varsky Counsel based his technique on the gesture. While setting out the others, moving his finger and his head in denial and that's discouraging to anyone. Their turn, mark the beat of his speeches with fists on the table, so that his words seemed written in red. E1 rhythm of his punches was rising, culminating in a kind of candombe that prevented hear what he was saying, but it left a feeling of triumph final. Was also famous apothecary Antonio Carrozzi, which supported their reasons in the testimony of others. Almost always absent witnesses was referred to or simply dead: "There's the late Menendez would not let me lie." And no one dared to contradict him. More frightening still was Andrew Guzman, a man of few arguments but strong punch. usually closed discussions with phrases such as " I'll give ontological, pelandrún. And it ended the discrepancies.
There were many others ... Rodolfo C. Pagani, the wizard of silence, the loud Frustaci, who stunned with his thoughts, the old Vitale, who courtesy was less timid or Ernesto Cipolla, who was right and he repeated all he had said the last to speak. As usual, the concern for victory at any cost tarnished skills. Most cheaters put their ingenuity to serve the tripping and malicious maneuvers. Mandeb Manuel himself, who used to attend the Circle as a spectator, he proposed a regulation that banned certain infamous resources. Polygraph Flower
the classified and named them. Here are a few.
APPEAL OF THE DEFINITION SOUGHT
is to ask the speaker to define every single word you say. For example, someone says: - Children should be treated with kindness. The cheater will then say: - It depends what you mean by goodness. Can continue indefinitely, calling to each new answer definitions. EXAMPLE
CLOSE RESOURCE
pretend This is a particular case is a general rule: - Every child is a simpleton. There you have it to my nephew. The worst thing about this play is that it allows the opponent to defend himself with a counter example: - However, my girlfriend's brother is a port. Usually the debate is reduced to a mutual shooting of examples and there are few things as boring.
CHANGE ISSUE APPEAL
There are countless ways of achieving this. From praise the opponent's ties to question the pronunciation of a word either. Thus, the discussion will focus on ties, pronunciations or whatever you want to cheat.
APPEAL DISCLAIMER OF MORAL
consists in pretending that someone's personal defects are transmitted to their arguments. For example: - What comes to epistemology me, you being a drunk? The arguments can be exposed by a villain or a saint, but without being more or less truthful. However, this is one of the most widespread cheating in this game.
END APPEAL SEEKING AN AGREEMENT
They use the cheats when they are lost. This is to mimic your own opinion with that of the adversary. - At the end we are saying the same thing but with different words. Upon hearing this last sentence, you may think that sometimes occurs much more dangerous, say different things with the same words. The last resort may also be used in its variant Finíshela: - Look, or I'm going to convince you or you going to convince me.
APPEAL OF THE ARGUMENT AS METAPHOR
attribute consists of scientific rigor poetic comparisons. Someone says: - The country is like a house must be built from scratch. If you take too seriously this statement, you can still speak of ceilings, walls, doors and windows, to conclude by saying that our salvation lies in the hands of the masons. Mandeb
complaint in its work over seventy maneuvers and tricks. Circle managers never did pay much attention and until today the above resources are still used with impunity. Roundtables on Saturdays always had a serious difficulty. It was very difficult to establish who was the winner. Many different systems were used: judges, juries, scores, applause. None worked, as invariably the results were discussed by the losers. The wisest suggested then that it was necessary to find a winner. For them the end of the discussion was to reach a positive conclusion, to coin a verdict on the central issue of controversy. This nonsense was quite acceptance, although the difficulties in drafting the conclusions were the same as for consecrating a winner. Someone confused with reality will submit proposed questions to the vote. The applause of the Democrats welcomed the proposal and so a summer night it was decided by 11 votes to 4 that the Swiss capital is Oslo. The statement was also admitted by those who lost, who vowed to hold to death that conclusion even though Swiss and Norwegians complain. These matches did not like the public, which felt loose. The crowd demanded a bit of bitterness and not finding drifted Bogota street. To make matters worse the Commission stepped in ComEd and Settlors, individuals roaming the neighborhood to get to in separate fights. Tired of the grind with clubs, tried to avoid, if not street fighting, at least the discussion of the Circle. To achieve appealed to the old tale of the thesis, antithesis and synthesis. The action of these fops precipitated the decline of the Roundtables. Discussants Circle of being able to survive for some time through the sale of opinions and arguments. As may be expected, the range was enormous and the demand as well. The best customers were the actors, singers, dancers, reciters and hairdressers in those going on television to talk about what they ignore. Exhausted its stock, the circle was closed forever. Contrary to what might be expected, Sensitive Men Flores had some sympathy for the Discussants. The controversy taught that there are perfect reasons to say anything, true or false. And the boys of Angel Gray thought this was a great lesson. Not for them, of course, but for gullible people. Sensitive Men always knew that the truth must be sought from the heart. For these truths worth dying sentiment. The others are just pawns in a game interesting. For there are men without heart saying that no one deserves to die because of it. Are correct in their small world of theorems. Who will be slain for defending the principle of Archimedes? Let new Discussants have fun with their arguments. Not bad for a rainy afternoon. But always remember that outside the classroom is life with its passions, its heroes, villains, martyrs, their knives and their deaths. Then Fate does not listen to reason. End
0 comments:
Post a Comment