GOP Candidates Criticize Coulter for Slur

[shinerbock]

You have every reason to hate Ann Coulter and think she is brash and cruel. Regardless of this, she is a very intelligent woman who conveys her opinion in ways few can ignore.

[sdsuchelle]

Originally Posted by shinerbock

You have every reason to hate Ann Coulter and think she is brash and cruel. Regardless of this, she is a very intelligent woman who conveys her opinion in ways few can ignore.

I don't doubt she's intelligent, but you can be intelligent and a bigot at the same time./

As for "conveying her opinion in ways few could ignore"... I'm sure if I ran around town being a hateful bitch, people would have trouble ignoring me too. It doesn't mean we should praise her for it. Being brash and cruel is pretty easy.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by shinerbock

Regardless of this, she is a very intelligent woman who conveys her opinion in ways few can ignore.

Very true. But she also conveys her opinion in ways that persuade few but the already persuaded.

[shinerbock]

It annoys me that people keep getting on Ann Coulter for not persuading people. Her role is to entertain the right and debate on their behalf. She doesn't speak for the GOP, nor is she some sort of politician trying to sway people to her side. Her role is to take on the left, and she does so quite well.

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally Posted by shinerbock

Her role is to entertain

I started and stopped here.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by shinerbock

It annoys me that people keep getting on Ann Coulter for not persuading people. Her role is to entertain the right and debate on their behalf.

I'll agree that her role is to entertain the right, and she does that quite well. But if she's not persuading anyone, she ain't much of a debater. In fact, she's missing the whole point of debate.

[shinerbock]

Mystic, I think you're wrong in assuming the purpose of debate is to sway people. That may be the best purpose, but many people debate to win. Thats what the right has Ann Coulter for.

Frankly, I don't see how Ann Coulter is that much different from people like Mike Barnacle or Keith Olbermann (besides intelligence, where Ann wins). I think the political climate makes the most difference. Mike Barnacle or Olbermann can go around calling Bush a killer and calling for him to be executed, and some gullible Americans without much political knowledge will jump on board with that view. I don't think Ann Coulter can really do that, because while hoping Cheney dies might be politically correct, referring to someone as a faggot is taboo. Kinda odd, but thats how it is. However, when you strip away the ability to persuade the general and uninformed public, they're all just entertainers who use their abilities to rally their side.

[Drolefille]

Insulting the opponent isn't winning a debate. It sells on TV but it's not winning a debate.

The point of debate is to sway your audience, provide the best argument, not call your opponent names.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

Insulting the opponent isn't winning a debate. It sells on TV but it's not winning a debate.

The point of debate is to sway your audience, provide the best argument, not call your opponent names.

But Coulter exists to sell on TV, not win debates.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by Kevin

But Coulter exists to sell on TV, not win debates.

I agree, but shinerbock states that she debates and wins...

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by shinerbock

Mystic, I think you're wrong in assuming the purpose of debate is to sway people. That may be the best purpose, but many people debate to win.

The purpose of debate is to advocate a position against someone else advocating a contrary position. Part of the test of good advocacy is persuasiveness. One can have the best quips and the most memorable lines, but unless they are used to establish the superiority of one's own position over that of one's opponent -- what I am calling persuasiveness -- then the quips and lines are entertaining and may bring joy to the faithful, but they do not yield effective debate.

Perhaps I judge her effectiveness as a "debater" by the wrong standard. I'm a lawyer and her training is legal. My experience is in legal advocacy, where there is no winning without persuasion. Viewing Coulter's columns and speeches through that lens, while they may be entertaining, they are not good advocacy for her position. I wiould expect better from someone who edited the Law Review at Michigan.

Frankly, I don't see how Ann Coulter is that much different from people like Mike Barnacle or Keith Olbermann (besides intelligence, where Ann wins).

We are in complete agreement here.

However, when you strip away the ability to persuade the general and uninformed public, they're all just entertainers who use their abilities to rally their side.

Exactly what I've said all along. Ann Coulter is a cheerleader -- and a very savvy one, at that -- not a real debater.

[shinerbock]

DST, do you think you could beat Coulter head to head in a debate over a popular political issue? If you stripped away the entertainment value and it was wit against wit and knowledge base v. knowledge base...Maybe you could, but I think you're allowing your personal views regarding her opinions and tactics to interfere with a judgment of her abilities.

Mystic, well as someone in advocacy of course you view things from a persuasive standpoint. However, I'm sure litigators encounter situations where despite having the best case and presentation, they jury rules the other way. I love the American people, but there are about 30-40% of them who will switch positions at the drop of a hat. Thus, they're not always a strong barometer regarding who wins a particular debate.

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally Posted by shinerbock

DST, do you think you could beat Coulter head to head in a debate over a popular political issue? If you stripped away the entertainment value and it was wit against wit and knowledge base v. knowledge base...

I don't debate politics. I debate social issues. She and I have two different career interests (and perhaps life goals) so I wouldn't be interested in familiarizing myself with the material and preparing for such a (boring) debate with her.

Originally Posted by shinerbock

Maybe you could, but I think you're allowing your personal views regarding her opinions and tactics to interfere with a judgment of her abilities.

I have only made reference to her tactics and her ability to cloud the real issues. You don't know what my political opinions are and whether they differ from hers.

I have already said there were nonintellects on both sides of every debate. And that I'm only discussing her because everyone else keeps discussing her (and presenting her as some stunner who should be marveled). I don't know how much more impartial I can get than that.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by shinerbock

Mystic, well as someone in advocacy of course you view things from a persuasive standpoint. However, I'm sure litigators encounter situations where despite having the best case and presentation, they jury rules the other way.

Without question, as you'll experience firsthand. But in those cases, the jury reaches its decision in spite of rather than because of effective advocacy.

Perhaps I haven't been clear enough. When I talk about persuasiveness, I'm not talking about whether she or anyone else actually persuades a majority of the great unwashed. You're exactly right -- way too large a segment of the American public will switch views at the drop of the hat and think that People is a news magazine. I'm talking about viewing advocacy through a more objective standard -- sort of the "reasonable person" standard of the law. Would a reasonable person whom one is trying to sway to one's own position find her arguments persuasive. With her, as with Olbermann and others, I think the answer has to be "no."

But, as a cheerleader, that's not really what she's trying to accomplish.