The Use of Pathos in IPDA Debate: Justifications and Guidelines

Transcription

1 Boise State Univesity ScholaWoks Communication Faculty Publications and Pesentations Depatment of Communication The Use of Pathos in IPDA Debate: Justifications and Guidelines Jeffey Hobbs Phuket Rajabhat Univesity Amy Aellano Boise State Univesity This document was oiginally published in Jounal of the Intenational Public Debate Association by Intenational Public Debate Association. This wok is povided unde a Ceative Commons Atibution-NonCommecial-ShaeAlike 3.0 license. Details egading the use of this wok can be found at:

2 Jounal of the Intenational Public Debate Association Volume 8, Issue 1, pp. 1-9 O R I G I N A L A R T I C L E The Use of Pathos in IPDA Debate: Justifications and Guidelines Jeffey Hobbs 1 Amy Aellano 2 Simply put, pathos is the use of emotional appeals in agument. The easons fo using pathos include putting you audience into a favoable state of mind fo accepting you message, to povide motivational waants fo you aguments, to povide a catalyst fo action, to ceate a balance o woking elationship between ethos, logos, and pathos, and to ensue that you paticipation in IPDA debate teaches you eal-wold agumentation skills. Guidelines fo using pathos include caefully choosing you wods, telling compelling stoies, picking you motivations caefully by detemining what is at the top of you judge s value hieachy, avoiding the logical fallacy of emotive language, using a vaiety of motivational appeals, using pathos ethically, and consideing the isks involved in using pesonal appeals. When we debate, should ou aguments and decisions be based on logic alone o should ou aguments and decisions also be based on ou emotions? Would eason feed fom emotion lead to bette decisions? One answe to this question is contained in the episodes of the oiginal Sta Tek. Spock epesented the tendency to make decisions on logic alone and his logic often helped the Staship Entepise undetake a successful mission. Bones, the docto, epesented the tendency to make decisions on emotion alone. He, too, was valuable to the Entepise. Howeve, the eal heo of the seies was Captain Kik who epesented the ability to balance logic with emotions when making a decision. The pupose of this essay is to help you become the Captain Kik of the IPDA univese boldly aguing whee no one has agued befoe. 1 Jeffey Hobbs (Ph.D., Univesity of Kansas) is a pofesso of Commnication Studies at Phuket Rajabhat Univesity, Thailand. Coespondence to jdhphd57@yahoo.com. 2 Amy Aellano (M.A., Texas State Univesity San Macos) is the Assistant Diecto of Foensics at Boise State Univesity and a Doctoal Candidate in Univesity of Nebaska - Lincoln's Depatment of Communication Studies.

3 The Use of Pathos in IPDA Debate 2 Aistotle, in The Rhetoic, wote that hetoic involved detemining the means of pesuasion in any given situation. He classified the thee means of pesuasion as logos (logic), ethos (souce cedibility), and pathos (emotional appeals). Bockiede and Ehninge (1960), in an aticle meging Aistotle with Toulmin, called pathos a motivational waant. Waants ae pemissions given by the audience that allow a speake to use specific data as poof of a claim (Toulmin, 1958). Motivational waants involve the emotions, motives, values, and desies of the audience (Bockiede & Ehninge, 1960). Fo example, advetisements often ely on pathos o motivational waants. Data: Ou toothpaste will give you a sexy smile. Waant: You want a sexy smile. Claim: You should buy ou toothpaste. Obviously, if you don t want a sexy smile, you have no motivation to buy the toothpaste. This essay will poceed by discussing the puposes of using pathos and suggesting guidelines fo using pathos in IPDA debate. The Puposes of Using Pathos The fist pupose of using pathos is to put you audience into a favoable state of mind fo accepting you message. People s moods and emotions can influence how they espond to you aguments. Fo example, if you fiend is in a bad mood, you know that this isn t the time to ask fo a favo. Movies ae known fo having music playing in the backgound to set the mood. This music, among othe things, may fighten us, make us sad, o make us feel hopeful. Thus, you might think of pathos as backgound music fo the debate ound. What emotions and motivations will lead the audience to accepting you aguments? Ae thee emotions and motivations that could wok against you? Should you eally tell that dead baby joke in a debate on consume poduct safety laws o would that simply destoy the mood? The second pupose of using pathos, as aleady mentioned, is to povide motivational waants fo you aguments. Pathos is a means of pesuasion. Always ask youself, why would you judge accept you evidence as poof of the claim you ae making? The audience has to gant you pemission to say that you evidence means that you claim is tue. Sometimes the pemission o waant needed is authoitative (ethos), sometimes it is substantive (logos), and sometimes it is motivational (pathos). If the necessay waant is motivational, does the judge have this motivation? If not, is thee anothe emotion o motivation that you can appeal to that the judge does possess? Republicans and Democats, Chistians and atheists, and college students and college pofessos ae often motivated by diffeent things. You need to know you audience in ode to supply the pope waant. Fo example, you chose the esolution Good fences make good neighbos. You ae on the affimative and would like to un a policy case inceasing bode secuity between Mexico and the United States to educe illegal immigation. Would it be easie to find motivational waants fo this policy with a democat o with a epublican as a judge? If you judge is a democat, would anothe intepetation of the esolution make appopiate motivations easie to find? In debate, you always take calculated isks that you feel will fall in you favo; choosing motivations based on pathos is just anothe set of calculated isks. The thid eason fo using pathos is to povide a catalyst fo action. You might emembe fom you chemisty class that catalysts speed up eactions. People often know logically what they should do. They know that, if they quit smoking and lost weight, they would be healthie. But, they still eat too much, execise too little, and

4 The Use of Pathos in IPDA Debate 3 smoke. Why? They lack the motivation to act. Something needs to get them stated. Pathos can seve as this catalyst fo action. In debate ounds, pathos seves to make the issue have pesonal validity by putting a face on the poblem. Thee is a eason why commecials wanting you to adopt stay animals use sad music and videos of adoable, helpless animals, it moves us towads action. Unfotunately, many debates fall shot by moving the judge towads action, yet, failing to povide the judge an action to move towad. In a ound concening the use of Native Ameican mascots, the affimative did a geat job of establishing the cultual hams of using Native Ameican mascots, including how it tivializes the cultue and continues the ideological notion of a savage. Unfotunately, the affimative had a fatal flaw because the case only focused on the catalysts and did not povide a means of solving the poblem. The judge felt the need to act, but had been given no suggested actions to adopt. The fouth eason fo using pathos is to ceate a balance o woking elationship between ethos, logos, and pathos. Dissoi Logoi posits that one side of an agument defines the existence of the othe, ceating a hetoical situation in which, at least, two logoi (aguments o appeals) stuggle fo dominance (Johnson-Sheehan, 1998). When debates offe aguments based on pathos, the judge must detemine how the diffeent poofs clash with each othe. Dissoi Logoi acts as a means to evaluate how the thee means of pesuasion (ethos, logos, and pathos) can inteact within a debate as agumentative poofs. This helps tansfom pathos fom meely an appeal to emotions into emotions as agumentation. Micheli (2010, p. 5) asseted, In its boadest sense, the tem pathos has to do with the idea of change, movement o alteation. When evaluating a debate, pathos appeals act as motivation fo change and ae an impotant pat of agumentation. Foste (1945) eminded debates that eason and emotion wok togethe in all successful agument. The symbiotic natue between logos and pathos allows aguments to establish a complete naative, beaking out of the taditional dichotomy between the ational and the emotional. London (1966, p. 14) encouaged debates to appeal to the judge as a complete human being by making aguments that addess both the judge s intellect and emotions. By legitimizing Aistotle s pesuasive poofs as an equilateal tiangle, a debate is pomoting esponsible agumentation. The move towads balancing Aistotle s pesuasive poofs within agumentation and debate is dependent on a geate undestanding of the use of pathos within the ound. The fifth eason fo using pathos is to ensue that you paticipation in IPDA debate teaches you eal-wold agumentation skills. People ae motivated by thei emotions, wants, and needs. To believe that debate should be chaacteized by logic alone is living in a fantasy wold. The natue of wods themselves should teach us that emotions can not be sepaated fom logic as wods have both denotative (logical) and connotative (emotional) meanings. Accoding to the IPDA Constitution, The speaking style of the top Public Debates should be highly effective when tansfeed into eal wold settings. Guidelines fo Using Pathos Having examined some of the puposes fo using pathos, it is now time to discuss vaious guidelines fo using pathos. In othe wods, how does a debate use pathos effectively in a debate?

5 The Use of Pathos in IPDA Debate 4 1. Caefully choose you wods. Within debate ounds, thee ae seveal vaiables that the debate does not have contol ove; theefoe, debates must focus on what they can contol. One thing debates can contol is the wods they say in the ound. When deciding what case o aguments to fowad, it is impotant to keep in mind the connotative meanings of wods. People attach connotative meanings to wods based on thei expeiences, so wods can have moe than one meaning within a ound. Specifically, debates should focus on the impact pathos has on connotation. One appaent place that pathos intetwines with connotations is displayed within a debate s pesonal values o woldview. Often, woldviews (such as feminism, Maxism, o capitalism) influence how debates and judges evaluate the meanings of wods in the esolution and aguments in the ound. Duing a debate ound ove the esolution, Might makes Right, the negative spent time pepaing a feminist kitik ove the use of powe and domination. This kitik was a stategy that stemmed fom the esolution s use of might. While in many debate ounds, this would be an effective stategy, the affimative intepeted the esolution as a case about the legalization of hemp as an enegy souce. The affimative famed might as the potential hemp has as a enewable enegy. While both teams had aguments to fowad suounding thei definition of might, the affimative ganeed a lot of gound because of its ight to define. It is impotant fo debates to emembe that, since wods often gain thei meaning fom an individual s expeience, clealy explaining you meaning fo a tem is vey impotant. It is also impotant to ealize that one s ability to pepae fo the aguments that ae likely to be advanced by you opponent in the debate will be impoved once you conside you opponent s expeience with the wods in the esolution. Additionally, one must choose wods based on thei connotative meanings in ode to set the ight mood fo you aguments. Wods can have eithe positive o negative connotations to the listene based on his o he expeiences. The wod ba will evoke diffeent emotions in a pisone, an alcoholic, a ballet dance, and a lawye. If you want to inspie sadness, joy, ange, o peace, what wods should you use? Choose you wods caefully to ceate the ight pathos. 2. Tell compelling stoies Within IPDA debate, one of the most common ways to intoduce pathos into the ound is by telling stoies. A stoy is an extended example and offes moe psychological poof that logical poof (Campbell & Huxman, 2003). Walte Fishe has taught us that humans ae stoy telles (and listenes) by natue. The use of stoies in debate ounds helps by poviding a sense of pesonalization putting a face on the issue. Fishe (1985, p. 349) agued that the way a stoy is to be judged in egads to its meit is though naative ationality using the pinciples of pobability and fidelity. This means, when shaing stoies within a ound, thee ae two ways in which the judge will evaluate the stoies as evidence: pobability and fidelity. The pinciple of naative pobability asks, Does the stoy hang togethe and make sense? Does the plot tell a consistent stoy that is fee of contadictions? The pinciple of fidelity asks the question, Does the stoy povide good easons to guide o futue action o decisions? Judging a stoy as having fidelity means that we believe that the values within the stoy should influence ou actions because the stoy is consistent with othe stoies we know to be tue in ou lives. When using stoies in a debate, it is impotant to maintain ethical naatives. Fo example, you should only tell pesonal stoies that eally happened to you. Popely cite the oigin of any stoy when you ae telling

6 The Use of Pathos in IPDA Debate 5 a naative that is not you own. In a classoom debate, whee students wee asked to debate the effectiveness of cause maketing, a student stated he case with a heatfelt stoy of he gandmothe s battle with cance. The student used this stoy to suppot why individuals should donate to the Susan G. Komen foundation. Afte the mock debate, a student consoled the young lady about he loss of he gandmothe, and the student esponded, My gandmothe is fine, that was just something I ead online. This becomes an unethical use of naative as it manipulates the audience into action. While the student met the citeia of the naative paadigm, the stoy loses effectiveness fo not being popely cited as someone else s expeience. The unfotunate pat of this debate is that the student would have won the classoom debate if she had popely cited the naative. 3. Pick you motivations caefully by detemining what is at the top of you judge s value hieachy. One of the fist things a debate should do in any ound is look at the judge s paadigm o woldview. Debates should then filte thei agumentation though this paadigm. This means, pick you aguments and motivations caefully in ode to constuct the debate in the most effective manne. Peelman and Olbechts-Tyteca (1969, p. 81) eminded us that the audience detemines how aguments will be evaluated. In the case of IPDA debate, the judge that you have in the back of the oom should influence what type of aguments you choose to un. In debate, aguments ae filteed though the judge s paadigm, o value hieachy. As a debate, one must conside which aguments best inteact with this paadigm. Fo example, some judges look fo in ound change ( eal wold impacts that, fo example, can come fom how we talk about a subject) vesus debate wold impacts (such as nuclea wa body counts). If a debate has such a judge in the back of the oom, the type of impacts that will help ensue his o he victoy need to be social and eal wold that is, one needs to offe the judge something he o she can actually enact without the magic of fiat. Fo example, in a ound on feminism, you ague that the judge can pesonally oppose sexist oppession by efaining fom the use of sexist steeotypes when telling jokes. Wallace (1972, p. 388) futhe explains the impotance of value hieachies in egad to how they oganize aguments in egad to stength of appeal. This fact should influence debates to keep thei link stoies and impact stoies vey clea. Essentially, debates need to explicitly compae aguments on points of clash in ode to educe judge intevention. Of all of the vaiables that exist within a debate ound (judge paadigms, opponent s aguments, the esolution, et cetea), one facto that the debate can contol is the agumentation that is extended on his o he side. Adapting this agumentation to the judge s paadigm can help ceate clash stoies involving how the lines of agument meet the judge s value hieachy. In othe wods, what motivates one peson will not motivate anothe what does the judge value, want, o need above all othe things? What emotions matte most to the judge? The danges of picking a motivation that is too low of a pioity in the judge s value hieachy is that, fist, it gives you opponent a competitive edge if they picked a highe motivation and, second, you agument may not each the bink of becoming a catalyst fo action. As an illustation of how value hieachies can influence decisions, conside the following example. In a debate ound whee students wee debating whethe o not the secuity of society outweighs the pesonal feedoms of individuals, the negative asseted that Maslow s concept of self-actualization poved why we needed to safeguad individual feedom. The student impacted this claim with a stoy concening the impotance of feedom of expession to pevent tyanny. In esponse,

7 The Use of Pathos in IPDA Debate 6 the affimative was able to ague that Maslow s value hieachy existed as a pyamid, and a peson could neve each pesonal feedom without fist meeting secuity needs. The affimative continued by aguing that Maslow admits that self-actualization is aely eve attained. In this ound, both debates asseted a catalyst fo action, but the affimative ended up winning because the negative s naative was dependent on secuity being met. 4. Avoid the logical fallacy of emotive language. The logical fallacy of emotive language involves the substitution of logic and evidence with ovely emotional language. The goal is to eplace the easoning pocess with emotions athe than to use emotions as an aid to easoning. The line between the pope use of emotions and language with the impope use of such can be vey fine. It is often a matte of degee that is open to diffeing opinions. So, e on the side of caution. Recent political discouse in the United States seems to be favoing the use of emotive language in the way that one s opponents ae labeled (po-choice advocates become baby killes, favoing welfae pogams becomes socialism, favoing equality in maiage ights becomes destoying the taditional family, and so on). The goal is to ty to stengthen an agument that is weak in evidence and logic with emotional tems that cicumvent the easoning pocess. 5. Use a vaiety of motivational appeals. Thee ae a plethoa of emotions, values, needs, and desies to choose fom. Don t limit youself to just a few. If you limit you options, you opponents will soon lean how to pepae fo you aguments and you win-loss ecod will suffe. Also, if you ely on a limited set of motivations, you might find youself without the ability to match you aguments with the paticula value hieachies of some judges. People can be motivated by fea, joy, family, patiotism, eligious fevo, and many moe. It will be woth you time to expeiment with using new appeals in pactice ounds to see how they suit you, the topics involved, and you audience. 6. Use pathos ethically. An IPDA debate should always stive to be ethical. It is simply the ight thing to do. The use of ethical aguments will incease you cedibility (ethos) and contibute to you success in the long un. One s aguments should always be wothy of acceptance. It is tue that you can win with unethical aguments, but is that eally what you want to do? I won debates by cheating isn t the best line to put on one s esume. One way to be ethical in the use of pathos is to balance pathos with logos. As discussed above unde the subject of emotive language, don t ty to substitute one fo the othe. Anothe way to put this is that one should stive to use pathos as a catalyst fo action, not as the sole eason fo action. Olbicht (1964) noted that ethical agumentation equies that one give his o he audience the infomation (evidence) that they need to pocess (eason logically) in ode to make an authentic choice. An authentic choice is one that is tue to the self-image of a peson. A peson should not be emotionally ticked o foced into accepting a position that is not tue to who they ae. 7. Conside the isks involved in using pesonal appeals.

8 The Use of Pathos in IPDA Debate 7 With any agument, a debate needs to conside the following questions: What is my hetoical esponsibility in using pathos? And, what type of competitive isk am I willing to take? When using pathos within a ound, the debate faces unique cicumstances when she o he is calling on pesonal appeals in ode to fowad an agument. Fist, as a speake, the debate is opening up aeas of vulneability in egads to isking face. Pesonal naatives and pathos appeals can ask fo the judge to emotionally intevene and cast judgment on the debate within a pesonal ealm. Fo example, duing a debate ound egading equality in maiage, a student decided to come out in he constuctive speech despite wanings that this was a dangeous stategy. Fo the emainde of the debate, the student felt all comments designed to efute equality in maiage acted as ad hominem attacks on he. The student was emotionally unable to view the aguments outside of he pesonal connection. Futhemoe, she felt that the judge voting against he meant that the judge felt LGBT membes should not have ights. As a side note to this stoy, we believe that coaches as educatos should allow students to pick thei own aguments. Coaches should educate students about what distinguishes a good agument fom a bad agument and should wan debates about the isks involved in cetain aguments, but the choice of what to ague should ultimately be the debates. Secondly, it is impotant fo the debate to evaluate how thei use of pathos will impact the audience. Audience membes, including judges, can be emotionally moved by appeals involving pathos. When hetoically engaging pathos, the debate should avoid tigge tems (wods that puposely evoke ovely stong emotions o eactions often due to taumatic expeiences) such as teoism, ape, dehumanization, and exclusionay language (sexist language, acist language, ageist language, classist language, et cetea). Debate ounds involve captive audiences, such as judges, othe competitos, and timekeepes, leaving them susceptible to hetoical attacks posed by the use of tigge tems. Fo example, in one policy debate, a team decided to un a ponogaphy kitik against a team fom a eligious institution. The offensive and obscene language within the kitik caused a negative emotional eaction in the opposing team and placed the judge in a position of having to detemine whethe o not the kitik violated the debate oganization s sexual haassment code. This use of pathos as a stategy to emotionally excite the othe team violated hetoical ethics. To extend on how pathos affects the audience, we should look at exclusionay language. Unfotunately, debates often times assume homogeneity within the activity and society and use sexist language. When making aguments like all men [sic] ae ceated equal, the debate makes man the standad by which eveyone is judged. Exclusionay language can be used in many foms within a debate ound, whethe it is the debate efeing to a social position othes in the oom do not belong to o placing judgment on social categoies. Theefoe, debates should avoid using exclusionay language as this can cause emotional noise within the audience, nullifying the debate s pesonal effectiveness. Fo example, pesonally, we have a had time accepting aguments when debates asset ethnocentic beliefs on othe cultues, most often when speaking on foeign policy concens. With the use of kitiks becoming moe viable as a debate stategy, debates need to emain awae of how the use of tigge tems and exclusionay language can impact audiences and in ound pefomance. Conclusion

9 The Use of Pathos in IPDA Debate 8 This essay povided seveal easons fo using pathos and a list of stategies fo effectively using pathos in IPDA debate. Go foth and boldly ague whee no one has agued befoe. Checklist fo Using Pathos in IPDA Debate I have detemined what mood is needed to put the judge into a favoable state of mind fo accepting my message. I have discoveed appopiate motivational waants fo my evidence and conclusions. ound. I have consideed how pathos can be used as a catalyst fo action in the debate My aguments ceate a balance o woking elationship between ethos, pathos, and logos. My aguments involving pathos would wok in the eal wold. I have caefully chosen wods fo my aguments by consideing both thei denotative and connotative meanings. I have chosen compelling stoies to add pathos and pesonalize my aguments. I will popely acknowledge the souce of the stoy in the debate. I have chosen motivations that ae at the top of my judge s value hieachy. My aguments avoid the fallacy of emotive language. My aguments use a vaiety of motivational appeals. I have expeimented with using a vaiety of motivational appeals in pactice ounds. My use of pathos is ethical. My aguments ae wothy of acceptance. I have consideed the isks involved in using pesonal appeals. I have consideed the expeiences of my opponents, the judge, and my audience in ode to avoid tigge tems. I have avoided the use of sexist and othe foms of exclusionay language in the constuction of my aguments. Refeences Aistotle. (1984). The hetoic and the poetics of Aistotle (W. Rhys Robets, Tans.). New Yok: McGaw-Hill, Inc. Bockiede, W., & Ehninge, D. (1960). Toulmin on agument: An intepetation and application. Quately Jounal of Speech, 46,

10 The Use of Pathos in IPDA Debate 9 Campbell, K. K., & Huxman, S. S. (2003). The hetoical act (3 d ed.). Belmont: Wadswoth/Thomson Leaning. Fishe, W. R. (1985). The naative paadigm: An elaboation. Communication Monogaphs, 52, Foste, W. T. (1945). Agumentation and debating (Rev. ed.). Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company. Johnson-Sheehan, R. (1998). Sophist hetoic. In M. L. Kennedy (Ed.), Theoizing composition: A citical soucebook of theoy and scholaship in contempoay composition studies (p. 302). Westpot: Geenwood Pess. London, N. (1966). Whithe pathos in tounament debating. Today's Speech, 14, Micheli, R. (2010). Emotions as objects of agumentative constuctions. Agumentation, 24, Olbicht, T. H. (1964). The self as a philosophical gound of hetoic. The Pennsylvania Speech Annual, Septembe, Peelman, C., & Olbechts-Tyteca, L. (1969). The new hetoic: A teatise on agument. Note Dame: Univesity of Note Dame Pess. Toulmin, S. (1958). The uses of agument. Cambidge: Cambidge Univesity Pess. Wallace, K. (1972). Topoi and the poblem of invention. Quately Jounal of Speech, 58,