In the context of argument, emotively charged statements are often used to make value claims without providing evidence. Moreover, their presence may indicate an intellectual laziness on the part of the author not to provide real evidence or reasons for their arguments. Is the presence of emotionally charged language correlated with the weakness of an argument?
Here's a splendid example of a speech with liberal use of emotive terminology. So next time you encounter someone getting over-emotional/going personal, consider how weak their argument must be.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
"With this assassin's knife and a blackjack in the hand of the Federal force-cult, the left-wing liberals will try to force us back into bondage".
The speech certainly is emotive but, like you suggest, the argument is repetetive and lacks real depth. Politics is not about presentation and emotion. It is not about how things are said, it is about what is said. Or, more importantly, it is about what is done.
Agreed, but to be honest politics is what it is not what it should be. George Wallace was a wildly successful politician.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Wallace
Post a Comment