Ok. I’ll answer: a) Calling it “talking points” is a way to shift the conversation. b) It is also a way to denigrate, although not always unfairly. c) It is also a HUGE time-saver. Expansion on points: a) It shifts the conversation primarily towards sources and possibly to bias. By identifying the SOURCE of talking points, you can go deeper into whatever GENERATED those talking points. b) It can be a “quick jab” – a smackdown, hoping to render the conversant without much to add beyond name calling. I find this a misuse but it’s done, You can tell that this is the case if they DON’T shift to possible bias behind talking points or to source materials. c) It saves time by proper identification. If you can go to https://www.procon.org/debate-topics.php/ to find the same conversation, you can go there.

Ok. I’ll answer:
a) Calling it “talking points” is a way to shift the conversation.
b) It is also a way to denigrate, although not always unfairly.
c) It is also a HUGE time-saver.

Expansion on points:

a) It shifts the conversation primarily towards sources and possibly to bias. By identifying the SOURCE of talking points, you can go deeper into whatever GENERATED those talking points.

b) It can be a “quick jab” – a smackdown, hoping to render the conversant without much to add beyond name calling. I find this a misuse but it’s done, You can tell that this is the case if they DON’T shift to possible bias behind talking points or to source materials.

c) It saves time by proper identification. If you can go to https://www.procon.org/debate-topics.php/ to find the same conversation, you can go there.

—-

 

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


8 − = four

Leave a Reply