Treniruojamės

[Indraja]

He, niekas nemato mano klaidos: "komunizmą, kuriame vidutinio individo gerovė"... Visi ten lygūs, ir visų gerovė gera
Kažin kodėl Markso veikalų net namie neturiu. Nebent rūsy???

[Starlin]

Manau, stipriausias yra Velnio nuotakos argumentas - ar bent jau geriausiai išplėtotas. silpniausias šis:

~ Skųstis karaliui, t.y. daug aukščiau esančiam asmeniui, buvo ir neprotinga, ir akiplėšiška; daug naudingiau būtų buvę, pavyzdžiui, visiems kartu surengti revoliuciją - taigi tiesiai karaliui nereikėjo skųstis;


Todėl pamėginsiu jį papildyti ir užkimšti loginę skylę (t.y. reikia tvirčiau paaiškinti, kodėl skųstis autoritetui buvo akiplėšiška; kad nenaudinga, pagrįsti paprasčiau ir tai iš esmės jau buvo padaryta, tik citatų trūksta). Visų pirma reikia išsiaiškinti, kas yra valdovas arba karalius. Tai yra asmuo, savo rankose sutelkęs tam tikrą įtaką, autoritetą, kuriuo remdamiesi jam sutinka paklūsti kiti, t.y. valdiniai. Šią įtaką valdovas gali įgauti įvairias būdais. Pagal Webberį yra trys tradiciniai valdžios įtvirtinimo būdai: įstatymai, tradicija ir charizma. Kuo rėmėsi Jertlio valdžia? Eilėraštyje tiesiog sakoma: Yertle, the king of them all, o valdžios įgijimo būdas neminimas. Todėl čia turime užsikabinti už žodžio "king": karaliumi paprastai vadinamas valdovas, kuris valdžią gavo tradicijos būdu (išimčių, tokių kaip Lenkijos - Lietuvos valstybėje, būta nedaug). Taigi galime daryti tvirtą prielaidą, kad Jertlis karaliumi tapo pagal tradiciją. Jertlio valdžia turėjo būti pakankamai absoliuti, nes eilėraštyje nėra jokios užuominos, kad jis būtų taręsis su artimais "dvaro patarėjais" ar panašiai. Jertlis sprendė pats vienas:

So Yertle, the Turtle King, lifted his hand
And Yertle, the Turtle King, gave a command.

Tačiau negalima atmesti minties, kad būdamas absoliučiu valdovu Jertlis rūpinosi tik savimi. Vien tai, kad iš pačios apačios jis sugebėjo išgirsti silpną Mako dejonę, rodo, kad net ir kontempliuodamas savo naująją galybę jis iškart atkreipė dėmesį, kai tik vienas iš jo valdinių sudejavo. Bėda ta, kad Makas, būdamas apačioje galvojo tik apie save ir savo nugaros skausmus, valstybės interesai jam buvo nesvarbūs.
Čia būtina paaiškinti plačiau: valdovas iš esmės nėra fizinis žmogus, tai visų pirma yra simbolis, valstybės reprezentatorius. Taigi valdovo galybė reiškia valstybės galybę. Jeigu Makas būtų pakentėjęs ir neinkštęs, arba įrodęs savo padėties sudėtingumą pasitelkdamas į pagalbą kitus vėžlius, Jertlis būtų supratęs, kad valstybė pūva iš apačios ir galybė tik nominali. Tačiau Makas skundėsi ne dėl valstybės 'puvimo' ir galimo sužlugimo, o dėl savęs. Todėl Jertlis, kaip valdovas-simbolis, iš karto atmetė jo skundą ir teikė prioritetą tuo metu iškilusiems valstybės reikalams. Gali atrodyti žiauru, galima skųstis, kad taip pamirštami 'mažo žmogaus' interesai, tačiau valdovas visų pirma turi galvoti apie valstybės, o ne asmeninius interesus, todėl natūralu, kad, žvelgdamas iš globalinės perspektyvos, jis nepastebi, jog 'mažo žmogaus' skundas gali išaugti į didelę bėdą. Iš to seka, kad Makas pats kaltas: jis nemokėjo tinkamai suformuluoti skundo, nemokėjo tinkamai jo pateikti ir dargi piktnaudžiavo savo valdovo dėmesingumu - dėjosi esąs labai mandagus (Beg your pardon, King Yertle), norėdamas pasiskųsti aukščiausiai instancijai dėl savo bėdų, o juk galėjo pakentėti ir nedejuoti, netrukdyti svarbiais reikalais užsiėmusio valdovo. Trumpai tariant, jeigu skųstis, tai tik ne Makui, arba ne jam vienam.

----

Gal ir nelabai gerai. Blogiausia, kad pati netikiu tuo, ką sakau, taigi sunku surasti argumentų.

[YaWorm]

~ Mako skundas iššaukė dar daugiau problemų tiek jam, tiek visai vėžlių bendruomenei (daug pavyzdžių: alkis, dar didesnio sosto statymas, o galų gale visi atsidūrė pelkėje...);
~ Skųstis karaliui, t.y. daug aukščiau esančiam asmeniui, buvo ir neprotinga, ir akiplėšiška; daug naudingiau būtų buvę, pavyzdžiui, visiems kartu surengti revoliuciją - taigi tiesiai karaliui nereikėjo skųstis;
~ Makas nutraukė vėžlių kultūrinio ir valstybinio vystymosi procesą (kultūrinis - minėtasis romantizmas, valstybinis - minėtas perėjimas prie vergovės ir galų gale evoliucionavimas į kapitalizmą) - dėl Mako vėžliai vėl grįžo į savo pelkėtą primityvumą...

Kaip matau, daugiau idėjų nebesiūlot. Dabar pabandykit pasirinkt vieną iš šių idėjų (žr. citatą aukščiau) ir parašykit tikrą žinutę į debatus. Rašykit anglų kalba, kad galėtume pasipraktikuoti. Sėkmės!

[Starlin]

Kol įpusėjau šią žinutę, Elfhild pasakė, kad jau yra normali tema, bet kadangi buvau įpusėjus, nusprendžiau ir pabaigti. Apie 1400 žodžių. Mažoka, bet reikia turėt omeny, kad čia imituoju ne pirmą žinutę, ir dar vis tiek reikėtų vietos atsikirtinėjimams (geras žodis "rebuttals" vertimui).

----

Prop X post

<center>Colour codes

Black – main text
Bold underlined – headings (centered)
Italics – used for emphasis of certain points
Blue – quotations
Blue italics – quotation sources</center>

<center>Opening statement</center>

One of the arguments listed above by our team captain was that Mack made several appalling mistakes while complaining to the ‘highest turtle’. I would like to expand on this argument and prove that Mack should have either taken certain preventative measures while complaining to the King or not complained at all. I will argue that Mack’s behaviour was not appropriate and therefore caused much trouble both for him and for the turtles. In my post I will give evidence that there was a better way to stop Yertle’s hegemony. I will base my arguments on the assumption that Yertle was consistent in his actions while Mack was not and that his contradiction led to the final disaster.

<center>Main argument</center>

After one of Mack’s complaints, Yertle exclaims: You've no right to talk to the world's highest turtle. - Verse XI. Though we may take these words as arrogance, there is a grain of truth in them, and in fact, one can prove that Yertle was not arrogant while saying them.

For this purpose we will have to have a look at the theory of Max Weber. This famous philosopher distinguished three types of political leadership, domination and authority: charismatic, traditional and legal. The charismatic authority is based on the consent of the ruled to the ruler because of the ruler’s attractive image or personal qualities. This kind of rule is often found in authoritarian states, autocracies, dictatorships and theocracies. The traditional authority is closely related to monarchy, in that the leader here maintains status quo - that , which ‘has always been that way’. The most familiar form of domination to us living in democratic countries is the legal authority, which is attained following various laws and acts (factual information and terms taken from a Wikipedia article, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Weber ).

To which type would we ascribe King Yertle’s rule? We know nothing about how he came to be the king of them all – Verse II. Was he a charismatic leader who arose because his abilities were above those of an average turtle? It may be so, due to the fact that when he orders the building of a higher throne, nobody opposes to him. There is no evidence of the repressive structures, the turtles merely swam to his stone after his command so they consent to be ruled by him. On the other hand, this feature belongs also to the traditional authority. If everybody accepts the tradition, they do not think about not obeying. And even more, there is a slight possibility that Yertle was an elected, therefore, legal king. Before someone starts arguing that ‘king’ usually means someone with traditional authority, I have to say that kings were being elected in the state of Poland and Lithuania, also one cannot deny that a traditional king can have charismatic authority as well.

I would go for a hypothesis that Yertle was a charismatic ruler with certain amount of tradition and / or legality in his authority. The point I am driving at is that in Yertle’s way of commanding and ruling we find typical features of a leader. If he is a mixed type, that makes his authority even stronger, because he has both charisma and tradition on his side. Furthermore, it is clear that Yertle was an absolute ruler:

So Yertle, the Turtle King, lifted his hand
And Yertle, the Turtle King, gave a command. – Verse III

He made the decision himself, so we must assume there were no ‘councillors’ and no ‘parliament’. Drawing the threads together, Yertle’s absolutism, the consent of the turtles to be ruled by him because of his charisma and possibly tradition, and the absence of repressive structures leads us to logical conclusion that Yertle was accepted by the turtles as the righteous king and the representative of the turtle state.

Now the king, as a representative, first has to regard the interests of the state, and put his own aside. He is a symbol, not a person. It was Machiavelli who pointed out those principles in his famous ’Prince’. As the symbol of the state, regarding the interests of the state, Yertle first thought about his state:

Yertle, the king of them all,
Decided the kingdom he ruled was too small. – Verse II

Although later he turns to ‘I’ and ‘me’, we must remember that ‘I’ in this case is equivalent to ‘the state’. Yertle’s kingdom was too small, and he wanted to enlarge it, to make it stronger and did this, following the principle ‘end justifies the means’. We may think it is cruel, but that’s how it is in the state affairs, and we cannot change this reality. Yertle, therefore, had good intentions and was honest in trying to fulfill them.

As a good ruler, Yertle always cares about his kingdom. That is why he answers Mack’s complaint: he is used to responding to all complaints because complaints of the ruled mean that something is ‘rotten’ within the kingdom. However, it is Mack who does the big mistake:

Beg your pardon, King Yertle.
I've pains in my back and my shoulders and knees. - Verse V

Notice that Mack is speaking about his back, shoulders and knees. It shows that he cares about himself and not the state. Meanwhile, Yertle is concerned with the matters of the state and busy increasing its power, so all complaints that should be relevant to him at that very moment are those that are connected with the state – Yertle is a good ruler, and he puts personal matters aside. If Mack wanted his complaint to be looked into properly, he should have alluded to the matters of his state, not his own back! It is obvious that Yertle made the right decision to disregard Mack’s complaint. I'm king, and you're only a turtle named Mack. – Verse VI – those are Yertle’s words, and once again I am asking you to equate ‘king’ with ‘the state’. The state is above a single turtle.

Another big mistake of Mack was complaining straight to the king. As we all know, in feudal societies usually the complaints of the lowest parts straight to the highest ended up in bad consequences exactly for the low ones. Of course, the turtles may not know much about the feudal pyramid, but if Mack had had common sense, he wouldn’t have complained straight to the king. If we compare the turtle society to the feudal society, having someone equivalent to a ‘dirty tiller’ coming straight to the shiny palace of his lord is absolutely outrageous! My colleague will show bellow that Yertle is the top of the pyramid also in spiritual sense, since he is seeking higher than an average turtle. It was not wise of Mack to go straight to Yertle: if he wanted to achieve something, like to get his whining about the aching back heard, he should have complained to the turtle above him. Most probably, that turtle would have also noticed his own pain and there is high likelihood that a chain reaction would have happened. In any case, two ‘dirty tillers’ are more visible for a spiritually driven king than one, and a revolution always does more than a petition.


<center>Closing statement</center>

All in all, while complaining to Yertle, Mack made two big mistakes:
1. He complained about himself, forgetting to point to certain problems in the state.
2. He complained straight to the king, not thinking about the outcome.
Now we see that the main thing Mack was thinking about was his own discomfort. He forgot other turtles, whose help he could have used, and he forgot the matters of the state as well. We may say that he wanted to be a freelance turtle, hence his disrespect for the state matters, but why then complain to the king, hoping that he will help you? And in any case, he did obey Yertle in the first place, so if he is following the rules of the relationship between the ruler and the ruled, he should have followed them to the end. The freedom of such choice of following the rules is proved by the fact that Yertle had no repressive system and the turtles obeyed to him because of his charismatic and / or traditional authority.
The conclusion is that if you don’t know how to complain and if all that you cause is trouble for your friends and yourself, you shouldn’t complain at all. Thus, Mack was wrong to complain to King Yertle.

[Laiqualasse]

Nors tikroji tema jau yra žinoma, nusprendžiau parašyti savąją debatų žinutę. Dar nėra tekę dalyvauti tikruose debatuose, taigi manau, jog geriau sužinoti savo esmines klaidas (kurių, be abejo, bus) dabar nei laukti tikro iššūkio
Žodžių maždaug 1200. Tikrai mažokai, tačiau nepamirškime, jog nagrinėjamas nedidelis tekstas, o tikruosiuose debatuose bus žymiai daugiau prieinamos informacijos.

---

Prop X+1 post

<center>Color codes

Black – main text
Bold underlined – headings (centered)
Italics – used for emphasis of certain points
Blue – quotations
Blue italics – quotation sources

Opening statement</center>

One of the arguments listed above by our team captain states that Mack’s complaint to the Turtle King put an end to both cultural and political evolution of the turtles. Because of Mack, the turtles returned, although unknowingly, to their primitive life, whereas if Mack had stood still and endured his hardship, the turtle society of Sala-ma-Sond might have become the most advanced turtle society in the world.


<center>Main argument</center>

I think it is safe to assume that no one would contradict the statement that throughout the history of the world, there were numerous occasions when new important inventions and discoveries were made only after a lot of suffering not just from the part of the inventor himself, but also from the other people around him. Examples include, but are not limited to, the discovery of America, the journey of F. Magellan, the steam turbine and so on. Stretching the above statement even further, I would say that practically no inventions can ever be made without suffering and hardships. This is the basis for my argument – had Mack not complained about his position, it might have become much better with time.

The opening verse of the poem states that
The water was warm. There was plenty to eat.
The turtles had everything turtles might need (verse I).
It is clear that the turtles only needed food and warmth for comfort – they did not wish for any cultural attractions, technological achievements and other similar things that a modern human would consider necessary for living. In fact, such view of life is usual in the most primitive societies, and in most cases, becomes extinct with the first steps of social evolution. The only trace of social advance in Sala-ma-Sond is the existence of one ruler, a King, however there is no statement about any other form of government, so the most advanced state that the turtles may have been in was that of one-man rule, which was present in primitive societies. So it can be said that the turtle society in Sala-ma-Sond was a completely primitive one.
However, one member of that society, the King himself, was obviously of a broader mind that his subordinates. As every king should, he wished for greatness.
"I'm ruler", said Yertle, "of all that I see.
But I don't see enough. That's the trouble with me. (Verse II)
Yertle understands that there is world beyond the borders of his society, and wishes to rule over it as well. Furthermore, later he says:
"What's THAT?" snorted Yertle. "Say, what IS that thing
That dares to be higher than Yertle the King? I shall not allow it!” (Verse XII)
This shows that Yertle understands himself as an absolute ruler, with no one able to be greater than him. He does not accept any rejection of his rule. Although this may look as a megalomaniac view from the position of a 21st century man, it is an advanced state of social thought, because the concept of absolute rule was not present until the foundation of the Roman Empire, while the basic principles of such governmental structure were laid out only in the 16th century. Therefore it can be said that King Yertle was a culturally advanced turtle.
From this follows a quite obvious conclusion: if the leader of a society is of a more advanced state of mind, whether culturally, politically, or otherwise, than his subordinates, the subordinates will, with time, follow the leader and change their beliefs to those of his. If King Yertle was allowed his rule for a considerable period of time, the other turtles would also have become more socially advanced – they would probably understand the benefits of an absolute rule, they would start thinking about the world outside of the pond, just as their King did. Yet Yertle was denied his rule, and thus the whole society was doomed to live by their old ways.

The other part of the argument is about the possible political development of the turtle society in Sala-ma-Sond. The point is that each culture advances through various stages of evolution, usually starting with primitive tribal, continuing through slavery, feudalism and wild capitalism to ‘domesticated’ capitalism. The importance of one ruler is gradually declining throughout this process, while the importance of the masses is increasing. The welfare of an average person is very low in the early stages of evolution, but it gets better as the society advances. From this I conclude that it should be a goal of each member of such society to help the society advance, even though somewhat suffering.
King Yertle orders the turtles to stand on one another in order to build a high throne for him:
He made each turtle stand on another one's back
And he piled them all up in a nine-turtle stack. (Verse III)
Such an order, using subordinates as mere items, without even thinking about their welfare, shows us that the turtle King uses slave work. The turtle society is no longer a tribal one, but one with established social classes, if only two – the King and slaves. Such a society, provided that the ruler is enlightened enough, would come to advance to the next level – a feudal one. The slaves would become serfs, and King Yertle’s throne would be rebuilt, this time from stones instead of living turtles, and the turtles ordered to do other, more productive, work. And the condition for this – the cultural advancement of the King, is obviously present, as can be seen from the first part of my argument.
The advancement of the turtle society would not stop with the feudal stage. It would continue to change to capitalism and the importance of King Yertle, or his successors, would diminish. All members of the society would develop political sense and the turtles of Sala-ma-Sond would become the most advanced turtles in the world.

After presenting these two parts of my argument, I now return to the actual case – the complaint of Mack, which caused all the possible social, cultural and political advancement of the turtles to be brought down to ruin. His decision to burp was directly caused by the King’s answers to his complaints, so it looks as if Mack was dissatisfied with the answers he got from the King. Yet he could have understood the situation he was in – he was at the foundation of a new society, a new life for the turtles, both metaphorically and literally. Obviously, he was in a discomforting position, yet he was also a keystone on which the new, advanced, culture might have been built. His complaints, which later provoked his own drastic measure, have ruined these plans and hopes.

<center>Closing statement</center>

The complaint of Mack to the turtle King was fatal in two ways:
1. It put an end to both the cultural and political evolution of the turtle society.
2. Even more, it returned the turtles back to their primitive state of living.
It is obvious that Mack did not have those two things in mind when complaining to King Yertle, thinking only of his current discomfort. His main mistake was that he did not think of the possible outcome of his complaints. He did not understand the danger he put himself and other turtles in when complaining. This leads us to a final conclusion – it was wrong for Mack to complain to the King, because his complaint had extremely negative long-term results.

[Velnio nuotaka]

Dar truputį, ir įtikinsit mane, kad Makas tikrai buvo neteisus

[Starlin]

Skaitom čia anglų kalbai tokį tekstelį apie "Writing a Classical Argument". Pagalvojau, gal visai praverstų ši ištraukėlė (laisvas vertimas):

Antikinėje retorikoje pagrindinės įtikinamosios kalbos dalys buvo: exordium, kuria kalbėtojas patraukia auditorijos dėmesį; narratio, kurioje suteikia būtiną informaciją (background); propositio - kalbėtojo siūlymas ar teiginys (proposition or thesis); partitio, kurioje numatomos būsimosios kalbos pagrindinės dalys, savotiškas planas; confirmatio - kalbėtojo argumentai, paremiantys jo tezę; confutatio - priešingų nuomonių atrėmimas; peroratio - išvada, argumentų susumavimas, išeičių siūlymas (šia dalimi paliekamas giliausias įspūdis).

Dar tas žmogus siūlo atkreipti į tokias tris tezės dalis:

Teiginys (claim)
Priežastis (reason)
Užslėpta prielaida (warrant)

Pvz. Išnuodyti varnėnus palėpėje yra etiška, nes varnėnai yra kenkėjai.

Teiginys: "išnuodyti varnėnus palėpėje yra etiška teisinga"
Priežastis: "nes varnėnai yra kenkėjai"
Užslėpta prielaida: "nuodyti kenkėjus yra etiška"

Visada, rašydamas teiginį su priežastimi, turi atrasti užslėptą prielaidą. Ji tau gali atrodyti akivaizdi, bet tavo auditorijai - ne. Tu tą turi numatyti ir arba pasirinkti tokią prielaidą, su kuria auditorija iškart sutiktų, arba savo kalboje/rašinyje įtikinti auditoriją, jog prielaida teisinga.

Tarkim, mūsų argumentas būtų

Morgotas buvo puikus strategas, nes išžudė daugiau priešo karių nei elfai išžudė jo karių.

Čia yra prielaida, jog išžudyti daugiau karių yra geros strategijos požymis. Nelabai įtikima, kad auditorija iškart su ja sutiks. Todėl reikia būtinai įrodyti, paremti.