I think rhetorics can be “friendly” and “adversarial”, and the two things require different skills (and of course there is “art”.)
**About friendly rhetorics:**
at the meetings of our team for bioconservation, being the “scribe” meant you have fewer chances to put in your own five cents, and kind of more desire for others’ clarity of thought:) so in practice it meant mutual training:
asking people to clarify;
tracking who said what (we sent out write-ups afterwards and naturally people got upset if their position was misrepresented);
sometimes reminding everybody we need A Conclusion;
preparing tea (it is better for the voice than speaking “drily”, it’s *not* beer (which not everybody likes or can afford), it means you can stuck the kettle into someone’s cold hands and so make them welcome without a hitch in the discussion, & the making of it can be used for a break from That One Topic which nobody agrees upon);
speaking shortly. I still remember the time when we couldn’t decide how best to chart a pigsty (being built somewhere on protected land), and I said “there’s a GPS”, and there was blessed silence :)
**For adversarial rhetorics,** the one thing that helps most is letting ’em know you come prepared—it means they will waste resources on weighing their own arguments against your possible answers; so:
decide what you want to say beforehand and have all references either learnt or written down;
if possible, BYOS—bring [copies of] your original sources (law print-outs, etc), earmarked and highlighted;
if you can help it, don’t enter arguments you expect to lose, if this means setting a dangerous precedent or a hit to your image;
do not get off topic, do not be less than polite (which is harder when you have limited time and need shortcuts—informality can hurt, and it will be easily used against you);
citing precise figures is good—there’s a “but the numbers speak for themselves” feel about them, and if you are wrong about them, you will have maid “a noble mistake”, unless, well, it was obviously not noble;
study the other side’s sources closely;
if you work with journalists, demand reading the piece before publication and check, at least, all names in it (srsly).
I notice that I’m thinking about “friendly rhetorics” as having two sides, and “adversarial rhetorics” as having three—you, your opponent. and the observers; I am merely used to this setting, but it doesn’t mean it can’t be the other way round.
I think rhetorics can be “friendly” and “adversarial”, and the two things require different skills (and of course there is “art”.)
**About friendly rhetorics:**
at the meetings of our team for bioconservation, being the “scribe” meant you have fewer chances to put in your own five cents, and kind of more desire for others’ clarity of thought:) so in practice it meant mutual training:
asking people to clarify;
tracking who said what (we sent out write-ups afterwards and naturally people got upset if their position was misrepresented);
sometimes reminding everybody we need A Conclusion;
preparing tea (it is better for the voice than speaking “drily”, it’s *not* beer (which not everybody likes or can afford), it means you can stuck the kettle into someone’s cold hands and so make them welcome without a hitch in the discussion, & the making of it can be used for a break from That One Topic which nobody agrees upon);
speaking shortly. I still remember the time when we couldn’t decide how best to chart a pigsty (being built somewhere on protected land), and I said “there’s a GPS”, and there was blessed silence :)
**For adversarial rhetorics,** the one thing that helps most is letting ’em know you come prepared—it means they will waste resources on weighing their own arguments against your possible answers; so:
decide what you want to say beforehand and have all references either learnt or written down;
if possible, BYOS—bring [copies of] your original sources (law print-outs, etc), earmarked and highlighted;
if you can help it, don’t enter arguments you expect to lose, if this means setting a dangerous precedent or a hit to your image;
do not get off topic, do not be less than polite (which is harder when you have limited time and need shortcuts—informality can hurt, and it will be easily used against you);
citing precise figures is good—there’s a “but the numbers speak for themselves” feel about them, and if you are wrong about them, you will have maid “a noble mistake”, unless, well, it was obviously not noble;
study the other side’s sources closely;
if you work with journalists, demand reading the piece before publication and check, at least, all names in it (srsly).
I notice that I’m thinking about “friendly rhetorics” as having two sides, and “adversarial rhetorics” as having three—you, your opponent. and the observers; I am merely used to this setting, but it doesn’t mean it can’t be the other way round.