首页
外语
计算机
考研
公务员
职业资格
财经
工程
司法
医学
专升本
自考
实用职业技能
登录
外语
In politics, in the courts, even on the ubiquitous TV talk show, it is good form to pick an intellectual fight. People attack ea
In politics, in the courts, even on the ubiquitous TV talk show, it is good form to pick an intellectual fight. People attack ea
admin
2015-04-24
39
问题
In politics, in the courts, even on the ubiquitous TV talk show, it is good form to pick an intellectual fight. People attack each other — hurl insults, even — and it counts as logical argument. I cannot understand it. It seems that our society favors a kind of ritualized aggression. Everywhere you look, in newspapers and on television, issues are presented using the terminology of war and conflict. We hear of battles, duels and disputes. We see things in terms of winners and losers, victors and victims. The problem is society’s unquestioning belief in the advantages of the debate as a way of solving disagreements, even proving right from wrong.
Our brainwashing begins early at school, when the brightest pupils are co-opted onto the debating system. They get there because they can think up a good argument to support their case. Once on the debate team, they learn that they earn bonus points for the skill with which they verbally attack, or insult, the opposing team. They win if they can successfully convince the audience that they are right, even if the case they are arguing is clearly consensual. They do this by proving themselves to be stronger, brighter, more outrageous, even. The training in this adversarial approach continues at our tertiary institutions. The standard way to present an academic paper, for instance, is to take up an opposing argument to something expressed by another academic. The paper must set out to prove the other person wrong. This is not at all the same thing as reading the original paper with an open mind and discovering that you disagree with it.
The reverence for the adversarial approach spills over into all areas of life. Instead of answering their critics, politicians learn to sidestep negative comments and turn the point around to an attack on accusers. Defense lawyers argue the case for their clients even when they suspect they may be guilty. And ordinary people use the same tactics — just listen to your teenager next time you pull him up for coming home late. You can be sure a stream of abuse will flow about your own time — keeping, your irritating habits, your history of bad parenting.
Unfortunately, the smarter your kid, the better his or her argument against you will be. You’ll be upset, but you’ll comfort yourself that those teenage monsters of yours will one day turn into mature, though adults who can look after themselves — by which you mean, of course, they will be able to argue their way out of sticky situations.
It’s not that you should never use angry words, or take up a position in opposition to someone or something. There are certainly times when one should take a stand, and in such cases strong words are quite appropriate; if you witness injustice, for instance, or feel passionately about another’s folly. Mockery — so cruel when practiced on the innocent — can be very useful in such situations. There is no better way to bring down a tyrant than to mock him mercilessly.
What I dislike is the automatic assumption most people have when it comes to disagreements: they should attack, abuse, preferably overpower their opponent, at whatever the cost. The approach is to so ingrained that "compromise" has become a dirty word. We feel quality if we are conciliatory rather than confrontational. We have trained ourselves, or been brainwashed into believing, that to be pleasant is a sign of weakness.
But just think how easy it can be to persuade a "difficult" person to be considerate of you or your wished when you are pleasant to them, and unthreatening. Give them a way out of a potentially aggressive situation without losing face, and they will oblige you willingly.
Discuss a subject without taking an adversarial position and you will find the other person happy to explore the possibilities with you. I ’m prepared to bet on it. You’ll get closer to the truth of the matter than you would by going to each other hammer and tongs.
The author’s tone in this passage can be best described as______.
选项
A、objective
B、formal
C、critical
D、ironic
答案
D
解析
作者态度题。本文作者在讨论“辩论”这一普遍的社会现象时,用了很多如favor,advantage,reverence.the smarter…the better…等褒义词,但事实上,他并不欣赏以“辩论”解决问题,由此可见,本文带有很浓的讽刺意味,因此只有选项D最恰当地描述了文章的语气。选项C最具干扰性,因为本文确实在评论“辩论”这一做法,但critical倾向于指“严厉批判”或“挑刺找茬”,这与文章中用词轻快的特点是不相符的,因此选项C不如选项D恰当。
转载请注明原文地址:https://kaotiyun.com/show/RkLO777K
0
考博英语
相关试题推荐
Twoofthechildrenhavetosleepinonebed,buttheotherthreehave______ones.
Americanwomenexperienceagreat【1】oflifestyles.A"typical"Americanwomanmaybesingle.Shemayalsobedivorcedormarried
Americanwomenexperienceagreat【1】oflifestyles.A"typical"Americanwomanmaybesingle.Shemayalsobedivorcedormarried
Themillionsofcalculationsinvolved,hadtheybeendonebyhand,______allpracticalvaluebythetimetheywerefinished.
Somejournalistsoftenoverstatethesituationsothattheirnewsmaycreateagreat
Malnutritionduringweaningage—whenbreastmilkisbeingreplacedbysemi-solidfoods—ishighlyprevalentinchildrenofpoorh
TheolderIgrowthemoreimpressedIamwiththeroleofluckorchanceinlife.Tobebornwhenandwhereonefindshimselfis
For【C1】______thebloodshedandtragedyofD-Day,thebeachesofNormandywillalwaysevokeacertain【C2】______:ayearning
Evenbeforeheis80,theagingpersonmayundergoanotheridentitycrisislikethatofadolescence.Perhapstherehadalsobeen
这次到台湾访问交流,虽然行色匆匆,但是,看了不少地方,访了旧友,交了新知,大家走到一起,谈论的一个重要话题就是中华民族在21世纪的强盛。虽然祖国大陆、台湾的青年生活在不同的社会环境中,有着各自不同的生活经历,但大家的内心都深深铭刻着中华文化优秀传统的印记,
随机试题
比较并分析特质说与类型说这两种人格描述模式。
甲将汽车转让给乙并交付,但未办理过户登记。乙驾车发生交通事故且对事故负全责。对机动车强制保险责任限额外的损害部分,应由
有关药物经皮吸收的叙述错误的为
预防肺结核流行最重要的措施是
下列各项中,属于仲裁协议必备的内容的有()。
尿毒症最理想的替代治疗为()。
怎样组织一次调查?
7名同学排成一排,其中甲,乙,丙3人必须排在一起的不同的排法有().
写邮件时,除了发件人地址之外,另一项必须要填写的是()。
A、Theearlyhistoryofbookbinding.B、Howoldbooksbecomevaluable.C、Economicalwaystoprotectoldbooks.D、Whysomebooksde
最新回复
(
0
)