演讲文本

Well, my answer is going to make reference to three models for arguments.
好了，为了回答这个问题，让我们来参照三种不同的辩论方式。
The first model, let's call this the dialectical model,
第一种模式，让我们称之为辩证模式，
is that we think of arguments as war, and you know what that's like.
这种模式的辩论更想是打仗，相信你们都经历过。
There's a lot of screaming and shouting and winning and losing,
经常充满了尖叫和大喊，而且伴有胜负，
and that's not really a very helpful model for arguing
这对于辩论来说不是一个很有帮助的方式
but it's a pretty common and entrenched model for arguing.
却也是相当常见且”侵略性“的方式。
But there's a second model for arguing: arguments as proofs.
这里还有第二种辩论的模式：论证式
Think of a mathematician's argument.
想想数学家的辩论。
Here's my argument. Does it work? Is it any good?
这是我的辩论方式。它有用吗？有什么优点吗？
Are the premises warranted? Are the inferences valid?
我们论证时的前提是正确的吗？我们的推论有效吗？
Does the conclusion follow from the premises?
我们的结论是否由前提推导出来？

No opposition, no adversariality, not necessarily any arguing in the adversarial sense.
没有对立，没有敌意，辩论并非必须在一个敌对意识下进行。
But there's a third model to keep in mind that I think is going to be very helpful,
但是我们还应该注意到其实还有第三种方式，我认为它非常有效，
and that is arguments as performances, arguments as being in front of an audience.
它就是表演式辩论，如同在观众面前辩论。
We can think of a politician trying to present a position,
我们可以想想一个政客想要竞选一个职位，
trying to convince the audience of something.
或尝试去让他的观众接受他的政见。
But there's another twist on this model that I really think is important,
但是我认为对这个模式的一个曲解有必要指出，
namely that when we argue before an audience,
亦即当我们在观众面前辩论时，
sometimes the audience has a more participatory role in the argument,
有些时候观众在辩论中起了更重要的参与作用，
that is, arguments are also audiences in front of juries who make a judgment and decide the case.
我们的如同面对了一群陪审团，他们判断是非，裁定诉案。
Let's call this the rhetorical model,
让我们称之为修辞模式，
where you have to tailor your argument to the audience at hand.
这种模式下你就要像裁缝一样为观众量身定制一场辩论。
You know, presenting a sound, well-argued,
你要一场听上去激烈讨论，严谨论证的
tight argument in English before a francophone audience just isn't going to work.
英语辩论，而听众是一群法国人，那就是白费力气。
So we have these models -- argument as war, argument as proof, and argument as performance.
你看我们有这么多辩论模式－－战争式辩论，论证式辩论，表演式辩论。
Of those three, the argument as war is the dominant one.
在这三种模式中，战争式辩论占了主导。
It dominates how we talk about arguments,
它使每当我们提起辩论，就是这种模式。
it dominates how we think about arguments,
这种模式基本代表了我们对辩论的理解，
and because of that, it shapes how we argue, our actual conduct in arguments.
也因此，它影响了我们辩论的方式，我们在辩论时的表现。
Now, when we talk about arguments, yeah, we talk in a very militaristic language.
如今当我们谈起辩论，我们就会进入一种军国主义的论调。
We want strong arguments, arguments that have a lot of punch, arguments that are right on target.
我们需要具有攻击性的辩论，辩论时就如同给对手的脸上来上几拳，最好每个论点都直击要害。
We want to have our defenses up and our strategies all in order.
我们想把自己武装起来，组织好策略去应对。
We want killer arguments.
我们想要击败对手。
That's the kind of argument we want.
那就是我们想要的辩论。
It is the dominant way of thinking about arguments.
这就是一种主流的辩论观。
When I'm talking about arguments, that's probably what you thought of, the adversarial model.
当我说到辩论的时候，很可能你马上想到的就是敌对模式。
But the war metaphor, the war paradigm or model for thinking about arguments,
战争模式这个比方，或者说是对辩论模式的认知，
has, I think, deforming effects on how we argue.
在我看来正在削弱我们的辩论。
First it elevates tactics over substance.
首先它使辩论的技巧凌驾与观点本身。
You can take a class in logic, argumentation.
你可以去上关于逻辑与辩论的课程。
You learn all about the subterfuges that people use to try and win arguments, the false steps.
你可以学到所有人们在辩论中可以使用的诡计，以力求去赢得一场辩论，多么愚蠢的方式啊。
It magnifies the us-versus-them aspect of it.
这放大了辩论中我们与他们的对立关系。
It makes it adversarial. It's polarizing.
这使辩论变得敌对。如同以偏振镜来看问题。
And the only foreseeable outcomes are triumph, glorious triumph, or abject, ignominious defeat.
而唯一可预见的结果就是胜利，一场欢欣鼓舞的胜利，抑或是卑怯，可耻的失败。
I think those are deforming effects, and worst of all,
我认为那是一种变形效果，最糟的是，
it seems to prevent things like negotiation or deliberation or compromise or collaboration.
这种变形使这种辩论本身看上去不是那么像谈判，审议或妥协，抑或者是一种协作。

视频及简介

演讲简介：

我们为什么辩论？为了驳倒我们的反对者，证明他们是错的，最主要的是，为了赢！没错吧？哲学家丹尼尔 科恩我们最普遍了解的一种把辩论当作战斗，胜者为王败者寇的方式，使我们失去了在持有不同见解是所能获得的真正益处。