Monday, April 7, 2008
Ann Coulter
Ann Coulter’s style of argument is different from that of most conservative Republicans. I do not believe she is very good at debating, at least by scholarly terms, but her tactics and style do benefit her to the point that they have generated a ton of publicity for her and more importantly her books. In the clips we view she often doesn’t answer the question at hand, resorts to personal attacks, takes things out of context, and becomes very defensive when people criticize her work. Because of all of these fallacies she tends to not make her point very clear and also deter the prospect of those who don’t agree with her from ever listening or respecting what she has to say. All of this also leads to her losing some of her ethos because of the irrational statements she makes, like attacking Hillary’s legs, saying that she is the reason that Edwards raised some of the money he did, and other brash statements like these. I definitely believe that she preaches to the choir, and does not and will not convert anyone who doesn’t agree with her. I do not find her very persuasive at all, but I do find her charismatic and interesting to watch. I believe that she has formed a character for the media to follow and talk about, and may not truly always believe what she is saying. There is no doubt in my mind that she know how out there and extreme she is. But you have to remember that she is an author, that she wants to make money, and as the saying goes… “no publicity is bad publicity.” People know who she is, know what she represents, and most importantly know that she has 5 books out there, which puts her name in the media and cash in her pocket. Ann Coulter is a person of celebrity status, and although she may not always make sense and she can be very offensive, people know who she is, some know what she stands for, and she does make other conservative republicans look a little less crazy.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I definately agree that Ann Coulter's use of fallacious arguments make it difficult for those who disagree with her to find significance in her arguments. However, I think its interesting to point out that her opponents can use similar tactics to damage her ethos. For example, while it is true that Coulter has a history of personally attacking liberals, the use of her description of Hillary's legs is not necessarily the best example. This could easily be explained as an attempt to make her writing more entertaining, and although it does mock Hillary, Coulter has little reason to specifically avoid this.
I agree with your comments on Coulter, especially those about her debate style and tactics. She is very scattered as she tries to defend her position on the topics and does little to pull together a persuasive argument. She leaves the audience still confused about her logic.
Post a Comment