Rhetorical Activities Q. 2: Theatrical Argument Vs. Rhetoric

People engaged in theatrical arguments are not that interested in listening to a rhetor's argument with the possibility of being persuaded to change their mind on a specific point. Popular forms of theatrical argument such as Crossfire feature the people shouting at each other and not giving the ohter person's argument time to sink in before they begin shouting their opinion. While shows like these are entertaining, it is not really true rhetoric and it mainly just defeats the purpose of why arguing can be a good thing. Arguing in the rhetorical sense is meant to listen to another person's argument and to respond in a logical manner, with the awareness that beliefs can change without any moral defeat being given to the person who changed their mind. However, in a show like Crossfire how many times would a viewer expect to find the hosts of the show truly behaving like this and changing their mind? This wouldn't happen mainly because then the audience might view them as intellectually weak. Another show that comes to mind as a form of theatrical entertainment is the ESPN show "Pardon the Interruption". PTI features two guys usually shouting at each other, but it proves to be quite entertaining but yet no persuasion usually happens. However, PTI probably would go off the air if it featured the guys just passively listening to each other and being easily persuaded. So, in a way I think theatrical argument has its place on television but with the world of sports that goes along well since sports are a form of entertainment. As far as political shows like Crossfire goes, Stewart had a very valid point that in regards to more serious matters arguing "for the sake of arguing" doesn't get anything done and wastes time for the American people.