The Aesthetics of Debate

Debate can be roughly described as a performative formal discourse on a given subject which requires the involvement two parties of opposing point of views. Although debate is commonly associated with educational and recreational purposes, one could argue that debate is inherently a performance which requires audience. If we draw on this description about debate, the importance of an audience becomes indefinitely emphasized. The ultimate goal of debate can then be accurately identified as not reason but rather mockery while achieving to convince the public consensus to agree on your behalf. In order to mock the opposing party, one must point out the inaccuraties of the other's argument through utilizing reason and emotion. To scrunitize how to utilize reason and emotion, one can internalize Aristotle's notion on rhetoric: according to the Ancient Greek philosopher, there are three distinct rhetorical appeals which can be used in constructing a successful argument; namely ethos, logos, and pathos. Logos, the derivative word for logic itself, is commonly the primary foundation of an argument whereas ethos is an adjacent domain to logos, approximately related to credibility. Pathos represents emotion and while it generally is not deemed essential for debate, it can be as useful as the two other rhetoric devices.

While these rhetoric tools can be used to construct a significantly sound argument, they can also be employed to deconstruct one. In order to concretely demonstrate how to deconstruct an argument through mockery with the use of ethos, logos, and pathos, I will fabricate a hypothetical argument: let's assume an opposing point of view that claims "Abortion is murder and should be illegal under all circumstances." This hypothetical argument presents a perfect opportunity to utilize ethos to ridicule the opposing party. If you pose the opposing party a hypothetical scenario of whether their underage child who becomes pregnant through sexual abuse or assault should be forced to pursue the pregnancy, you essentially construct your point of view through ethos as it is a personal narrative that incorporates graphic themes such as sexual assault and underage pregnancy. If the opposing party answers this question affirmatively, your line of questioning will prove itself triumphant in ridiculing the opponent since this answer will undoubtedly get a negative emotionally charged response from the audience. In sum, the public consensus will disagree with their opinion and consequently disregard his point of view. If your opponent's answer to your question is no, their argument will be proven to be logically inaccurate since their original claim clearly states that abortion should be illegal under any circumstances. In both scenarios, you effectively deconstructed this argument through the use of ethos.

Another and more common path to deconstruct an argument is through questioning the opposing party's credibility and reason. Under these circumstances, pathos and logos become the primarily exerted tools to deconstruct an argument. To further exemplify how to ridicule your opponent with the use of pathos and logos, let us continue with the previous claim on abortion. To dismantle this argument, rather than presenting your opponent with a graphic scenario as we discussed previously, one can alternatively underline the opponent's description of murder and the objective medical outlook on the viability of fetus. The discrepancies of their argument inevitably allow you to discredit their argument and invoking a negative response from the audience in the form of public disdain. In sum, your track requires you to analyze and present the lack of credibility and logic in the opposing point of view.

In conclusion, debate is a performance of rhetoric in which the ultimate goal is to convince the public opinion to agree with you whilst simultaneously disagreeing with your opponent. I refer to this mockery of your opponent as the core of the aesthetics of debate since the main objective of any debate is not to fundamentally present a logical line of thinking although it inevitably includes logical presentation of an argument; yet as discussed respectively, debate is not necessarily limited to logic or logos. Therefore, debate is inescapably a performance and by nature, it is a public display of rhetoric and mockery in which you must not only defend your argument but also actively and effectively ridicule your opponent's argument; all intertwined and exhibited through appearances which I relate to what I call the aesthetics of debate.