Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Original/inverse
    See Original
    Inverse View

    It is not the case that Successful arguers must construct their arguments in ways that recognize the beliefs, attitudes, and values of their intended audience

    ?Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Plato's Socrates in the Gorgias distinguishes genuine dialectic from flattery-based rhetoric, arguing that truth-tracking argument is corrupted by audience accommodation.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.An argument tailored to audience prejudices may be persuasive precisely because it exploits biases rather than because it is sound.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The normative standard for successful argumentation should be epistemic validity, not persuasive efficacy, making audience-adaptation a pragmatic tool, not a constitutive condition.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Kant's universalizability principle implies that a genuinely rational argument must be compelling to any rational agent regardless of contingent cultural beliefs or values.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If successful argumentation essentially requires audience-specific tailoring, then no argument can be assessed as objectively valid across contexts, collapsing into relativism.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.A convincing argument for the same conclusion must address different issues when directed at audiences from different national and cultural backgrounds (Chinese, Norwegian, Kenyan, Israeli, Swiss, Palestinian, etc.)
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Rhetoric has emphasized since its beginnings that effective argumentation requires adapting to the audience
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.