TED英語演講：辯論一定要分出勝負

我們為什麼辯論?為了駁倒我們的反對者，證明他們是錯的，最主要的是，為了贏!……沒錯吧?哲學家丹尼爾·H·科恩向我們展示了辯論最普遍的形式——一定要分出勝負的戰爭式辯論，即把辯論當作戰鬥，勝者為王敗者寇的方式，使我們失去了在持有不同見解是所能獲得的真正益處。下面是小編為大家收集關於TED英語演講：辯論一定要分出勝負，歡迎借鑑參考。

TED英語演講：辯論一定要分出勝負!

演說者：Daniel H. Cohen

My name isDan Cohen, and I am academic, as he said. And what that means is that I 's an important part of my life, and I like to argue. And I'm not just anacademic, I'm a philosopher, so I like to think that I'm actually pretty goodat arguing. But I also like to think a lot about arguing.

我叫丹·科恩，我是個學者，就像主持人介紹的。這意味著我經常需要辯論。這是我生命中的重要組成部分，同時我喜歡辯論。我不僅僅是個學者，我也是個哲學家，所以我覺得是實際上還是挺擅長辯論的。但是我也經常思考有關辯論的問題。

And thinking about arguing, I've come across somepuzzles, and one of the puzzles is thatas I've been thinking about arguing overthe years, and it's been decades now, I've gotten better at arguing, but themore that I argue and the better I get at arguing, the more that I lose. Andthat's a puzzle. And the other puzzle is that I'm actually okay with that. Whyis it that I'm okay with losing and why is it that I think that good arguersare actually better at losing?

說起辯論，我曾有過一些困惑，而其中一個困惑是我多年前開始考慮如何辯論，至今已有二十多年了，我也變得更善於辯論，但是越是辯論，我就能從中獲取更多，同時也失去更多。這就是一個困惑。而另一個困惑就是我其實覺得這沒什麼大不了的。為什麼我會覺得失去一些什麼也無關緊要，為什麼好的辯論者實際上更善於失去?

Well, there's some other puzzles. One is, why do weargue? Who benefits from arguments?And when I think about arguments now, I'mtalking about, let's call them academic arguments or cognitive arguments, wheresomething cognitive is at stake. Is this proposition true? Is this theory agood theory? Is this a viable interpretation of the data or the text? And soon. I'm not interested really in arguments about whose turn it is to do thedishes or who has to take out the garbage. Yeah, we have those arguments too. Itend to win those arguments, because I know the tricks. But those aren't theimportant arguments. I'm interested in academic arguments today, and here arethe things that puzzle me.

好了，其實我還有以下其他困惑。例如，我們為什麼辯論?而誰又從辯論中獲益? 需要指出的是當我談及辯論時，我所指的，是所謂學術辯論亦或者認知辯論，就一些我們知之甚少的方面進行辯論。例如我們的認知是否正確?這個理論是不是個好理論?對於某些資料或者文字這是不是一個很好的解釋?以及很多其他的問題。我無心去爭論今天該誰洗碗或者誰應該倒垃圾。當然，我們也會為那些問題爭論。我經常在那類爭論爭論中勝出，因為我知道一些技巧。當時那些辯論沒有那麼重要。我感興趣的是那些學術性辯論，而接下來這是我感到困惑的事情。

First, what do good arguers win when they win anargument? What do I win if I convince you that utilitarianism isn't really theright framework for thinking about ethical theories? So what do we win when wewin an argument? Even before that, what does it matter to me whether you havethis idea that Kant's theory works or Mill's the right ethicist to follow? It'sno skin off my back whether you think functionalism is a viable theory of why do we even try to argue? Why do we try to convince other people tobelieve things that they don't want to believe? And is that even a nice thingto do? Is that a nice way to treat another human being, try and make them thinksomething they don't want to think?

首先，當人們贏得一場辯論的時候，作為一個優秀的辯論者，他從中學到了什麼?如果我能說服你實用主義不能用來解釋道德理論的話，我能從中獲得什麼呢?所以我們到底可以從一場辯論中學到什麼?而且在此之前，你是追隨康德還是密爾又有跟我什麼關係呢?無論你是否認為,功能主義是否是一個可取的思維方式都對我沒有什麼影響。所以我們為什麼會想去辯論?為什麼我們要去說服別人相信那些他們不願相信的事情?我們到底應不應該這麼做?用這種方式去對待他人，迫使他們去思考一些他們不想去思考的東西?

Well, my answer is going to make reference to threemodels for arguments. The first model, let's call this the dialectical model,is that we think of arguments as war, and you know what that's like. There's alot of screaming and shouting and winning and losing, and that's not really avery helpful model for arguing but it's a pretty common and entrenched modelfor arguing.

好了，為了回答這個問題，讓我們來參照三種不同的辯論方式.第一種模式，讓我們稱之為辯證模式，這種模式的辯論更想是打仗，相信你們都經歷過。經常充滿了尖叫和大喊而且伴有勝負，這對於辯論來說不是一個很有幫助的方式卻也是相當常見且”侵略性“的方式。

But there's a second model for arguing: arguments asproofs. Think of a mathematician's argument. Here's my argument. Does it work?Is it any good? Are the premises warranted? Are the inferences valid? Does theconclusion follow from the premises? No opposition, no adversariality, notnecessarily any arguing in the adversarial sense.

這裡還有第二種辯論的模式：論證式 想想數學家的辯論。這是我的辯論方式.它有用嗎?有什麼優點嗎?我們論證時的前提是正確的嗎?我們的推論有效嗎?我們的結論是否由前提推匯出來?沒有對立,沒有敵意，辯論並非必須在一個敵對意識下進行。

But there's a third model to keep in mind that I thinkis going to be very helpful, and that is arguments as performances, argumentsas being in front of an audience. We can think of a politician trying topresent a position, trying to convince the audience of something. But there'sanother twist on this model that I really think is important, namely that whenwe argue before an audience, sometimes the audience has a more participatoryrole in the argument, that is, arguments are also audiences in front of jurieswho make a judgment and decide the case. Let's call this the rhetorical model,where you have to tailor your argument to the audience at hand. You know,presenting a sound, well-argued, tight argument in English before a francophoneaudience just isn't going to work. So we have these models -- argument as war,argument as proof, and argument as performance.

但是我們還應該注意到其實還有第三種方式,我認為它非常有效，它就是表演式辯論，如同在觀眾面前辯論。我們可以想想一個政客想要競選一個職位，或嘗試去讓他的觀眾接受他的政見。但是我認為對這個模式的一個曲解有必要指出，亦即當我們在觀眾面前辯論時，有些時候觀眾在辯論中起了更重要的參與作用，我們的如同面對了一群陪審團，他們判斷是非，裁定訴案。讓我們稱之為修辭模式，這種模式下你就要像裁縫一樣為觀眾量身定製一場辯論。你要一場聽上去激烈討論，嚴謹論證的英語辯論，而聽眾是一群法國人，那就是白費力氣。你看我們有這麼多辯論模式--戰爭式辯論，論證式辯論，表演式辯論。

Of those three, the argument as war is the dominant dominates how we talk about arguments, it dominates how we think aboutarguments, and because of that, it shapes how we argue, our actual conduct inarguments.

在這三種模式中，戰爭式辯論佔了主導。它使每當我們提起辯論，就是這種模式。這種模式基本代表了我們對辯論的理解，也因此，它影響了我們辯論的方式，我們在辯論時的表現。

Now, when we talk about arguments, yeah, we talk in avery militaristic language. We want strong arguments, arguments that have a lotof punch, arguments that are right on want to have our defenses upand our strategies all in order. We want killer 's the kind ofargument we want. It is the dominant way of thinking about I'mtalking about arguments, that's probably what you thought of, the adversarialmodel. But the war metaphor, the war paradigm or model for thinking aboutarguments, has, I think, deforming effects on how we argue.

如今當我們談起辯論，我們就會進入一種軍國主義的論調。我們需要具有攻擊性的辯論，辯論時就如同給對手的臉上來上幾拳，最好每個論點都直擊要害。我們想把自己武裝起來,組織好策略去應對。我們想要擊敗對手。那就是我們想要的辯論。這就是一種主流的辯論觀。當我說到辯論的時候，很可能你馬上想到的就是敵對模式。戰爭模式這個比方，或者說是對辯論模式的認知，在我看來正在削弱我們的辯論。

First it elevates tactics over substance. You can take aclass in logic, argumentation. You learn all about the subterfuges that peopleuse to try and win arguments, the false steps. It magnifies the us-versus-themaspect of it. It makes it adversarial. It's polarizing. And the onlyforeseeable outcomes are triumph, glorious triumph, or abject, ignominiousdefeat. I think those are deforming effects, and worst of all, it seems toprevent things like negotiationor deliberation or compromise or k about that one. Have you ever entered an argument thinking, "Let'ssee if we can hash something out rather than fight it out. What can we work outtogether?" And I think the argument-as-war metaphor inhibits those otherkinds of resolutions to argumentation. And finally, this is really the worstthing, arguments don't seem to get us anywhere. They're dead ends. They areroundabouts or traffic jams or gridlock in conversation. We don't get anywhere.

首先它使辯論的技巧凌駕與觀點本身。你可以去上關於邏輯與辯論的課程。你可以學到所有人們在辯論中可以使用的詭計以力求去贏得一場辯論，多麼愚蠢的方式啊。這放大了辯論中我們與他們的對立關係。這使辯論變得敵對。如同以偏振鏡來看問題。而唯一可預見的結果就是勝利，一場歡欣鼓舞的勝利，抑或是卑怯，可恥的失敗。我認為那是一種變形效果，最遭的是，這種變形使這種辯論本身看上去不是那麼像談判，審議或妥協抑或者是一種協作。在參加辯論的時候，你有沒有想過讓我們看看能不能共同敲定一些事情，而非由一方說服另一方有什麼是我們可以共同協作的?我覺得辯論如戰爭的這個比喻已經蓋過了其他的辯論形式。最終，最糟糕的是，通過爭論我們不會學到什麼東西。這樣的辯論就如同一個死衚衕。交流中的環狀公路交通阻塞或者一個僵局。我們停在原地，到不了任何其他地方。

Oh, and one more thing, and as an educator, this is theone that really bothers me: If argument is war, then there's an implicitequation of learning with losing. And let me explain what I mean. Suppose youand I have an argument. You believe a proposition, P, and I don't. And I say,"Well why do you believe P?" And you give me your reasons. And Iobject and say, "Well, what about ...?" And you answer my I have a question: "Well, what do you mean? How does it apply overhere?" And you answer my , suppose at the end of the day, I'veobjected, I've questioned, I've raised all sorts of counter-considerations, andin every case you've responded to my satisfaction. And so at the end of theday, I say, "You know what? I guess you're right. P." So I have a newbelief. And it's not just any belief, but it's a well-articulated, examined,it's a battle-tested belief.

噢，其實還有一件事情，作為一個教育工作者，這裡還有一個問題困擾了我很久：如果辯論是場戰爭，那麼這也隱含著學習等於失去的意思。讓我解釋一下我的觀點。比如說，你和我進行了一場辯論。你主張觀點，P，但是我不同意。然後我說“好了，為什麼你相信P”然後你給出了你的理由。 然後我反對並說，“好，那關於...?” 然後你回答我的反對。然後我提問：“額，你的意思是?那麼在這個地方他如何解釋?” 然後你又回答了我的問題。現在，假設一天快結束了，我反對，我提問，我給出了所有反對問題，然後在所有的問題上你都讓我滿意了。然後在一天快要結束的時候，我說，”你知道嗎?我覺得在P這個觀點上你沒準是對的.“ 所以我有了新的見解.但是這不僅僅是一個見解，而是一個闡述清楚的，經過驗證的，同時也是經得起挑戰的見解。

Great cognitive gain. Okay. Who won that argument? Well,the war metaphor seems to force us into saying you won, even though I'm theonly one who made any cognitive did you gain cognitively fromconvincing me? Sure, you got some pleasure out of it, maybe your ego stroked,maybe you get some professional status in the field. This guy's a good cognitively, now -- just from a cognitive point of view -- who was thewinner? The war metaphor forces us into thinking that you're the winner and Ilost, even though I gained. And there's something wrong with that picture. Andthat's the picture I really want to change if we can.

多好的結果啊。好了.那誰贏了這場辯論呢?好了，將辯論作為戰爭的人們會強迫我們承認提出見解那方贏了，即使我才是那個獲得新見解的人。那麼作為說服我的人，他在獲得了什麼新的見解嗎?沒錯，你從中獲得了一些愉悅，或許一些自我安慰或許在你的領域裡獲得了一些專業聲譽。這傢伙是個辯論好手。但是從認知角度而言，僅僅從認識的角度來看，誰是勝利者?視辯論如戰爭的人們會強迫我們認為你是勝者而我是敗者，即使是我也有所得。這個認識本身存在一些錯誤。同時我也想去改變這個認識。

Sohow can we find ways to make arguments yield something positive? What we needis new exit strategies for arguments. But we're not going to have new exitstrategies for arguments until we have new entry approaches toarguments. We need to think of new kinds of arguments. In order to do that,well, I don't know how to do that. That's the bad news. The argument-as-warmetaphor is just, it's a monster. It's just taken up habitation in our mind,and there's no magic bullet that's going to kill it. There's no magic wandthat's going to make it disappear. I don't have an answer. But I have somesuggestions, and here's my suggestion.

所以我們如何去進行辯論並使之有一些積極的影響呢?我們所需要的是一個新的方式來終止一場辯論。但是我們沒有辦法找到一個新的方式去終止辯論，除非我們可以找到一個新的方式去開始一場辯論。我們需要一種新的辯論方式。為了找到這種新的方式，可是我不知道應該怎麼做.這是個壞訊息。視辯論如戰爭的觀點本身就如同是一個怪獸。這已經成為我們的思維定式了，而且也沒有什麼快速有效的辦法可以解決它。我們沒有辦法就這樣讓他消失不見。我不知道該怎麼解決。但是我確實有一些建議，這裡是我的建議。

If we want to think of new kinds of arguments, what weneed to do is think of new kinds of arguers. So try this. Think of all theroles that people play in arguments. There's the proponent and the opponent inan adversarial, dialectical argument. There's the audience in rhetorical e's the reasoner in arguments as proofs. All these different roles. Now,can you imagine an argument in which you are the arguer, but you're also in theaudience watching yourself argue? Can you imagine yourself watching yourselfargue, losing the argument, and yet still, at the end of the argument, say,"Wow, that was a good argument." Can you do that? I think you I think, if you can imagine that kind of argument where the loser says tothe winner and the audience and the jury can say, "Yeah, that was a goodargument," then you have imagined a good argument. And more than that, Ithink you've imagined a good arguer, an arguer that's worthy of the kind ofarguer you should try to be.

如果我想要創造一種嶄新的辯論方式，那麼我們需要的其實是新的辯論者。所以嘗試一下這個。想象一下人們在辯論中所扮演的角色。我需要支持者與反對者才能進行一場意見相反的，辯證性的辯論。在修飾性辯論中，我們需要有觀眾。在證明式論證中我們需要推理者。所有這些不同角色。現在，你可以想象在一場辯論中，你既是辯論者，也是觀眾看著你自己的表現?你能想象你自己看著你自己辯論，在辯論中落敗，卻仍然在辯論結束後，覺得，“哦，這是一場不錯的辯論。”你能做到嗎?我覺得你能。我覺得如果你可以想象一場辯論，敗者可以對勝者，對觀眾以及裁判們說“噢，這是一場不錯的辯論，”即使如此你也已經可以想象一場不錯的辯論了。而且不僅如此，我想你已經可以想象到一個好的辯論者，一個你希望成為的辯論者。

Now, I lose a lot of arguments. It takes practice tobecome a good arguer in the sense of being able to benefit from losing, butfortunately, I've had many, many colleagues who have been willing to step upand provide that practice for me.

現在，我輸掉了很多辯論。要成為一個好的辯論者是需要練習的尤其是從失敗中汲取教訓這一點。但是幸運的是，我有很多很多同事他們願意為我參與進來並和我一起練習成為好的辯論者。

Thank you.

謝謝。