|
Antagonistic and Non-antagonistic
Argumentation
There is an basic difference between
antagonistic
and non-antagonistic argumentation: The goals of
antagonistic
argumentation are
usually:
-
promoting, increasing, and taking advantage of
disunity among opponents and their allies,
-
seeking verbal and material dominance, pushing
opponents out of the way,
-
bringing about psychological, verbal and physical
confusion and demobilization of opponent forces,
-
causing the disruption, neutralization and
ultimate elimination and disbanding of opponent forces,
-
creating favorable conditions for ultimate total
material victory for yourself and allies.
-
Antagonism may start out as rhetorical but
often ends up very material: In antagonistic argumentation, you try
to
accuse, discredit, indict, convict, impeach, defeat,
eliminate
or sometimes even kill the opponent.
Antagonistic argumentation is a loaded
weapon. Never point it at someone unless you intend to destroy them!
 Non-antagonistic differences are sometimes
material, but are always most appropriately settled by
discursive (rhetorical) means:
- seeking unity,
- practicing respect and mutual support,
- understanding, consciousness-raising and
compassion,
- seeking peace and reconciliation,
- democracy,
- free and open discussion and
- finding ways of working together toward
the
common goal.
Cooperation builds.
Your task as a writer is to correctly determine
when each form of argument is appropriate, and when it is not.
O.W. 10/05 rev 2/10
|
