WRITTEN or SPOKEN word?
-
Peace to all,
Damon, without a doubt the spoken word is more effective but it really depends on what your trying to accomplish and who your audience is. If you are trying to debate the finer points of some abstract theory to a group of intellectuals then the written word will probably be more effective. But if you are trying to speak to mankind at large then it would be the spoken word. All great movements for change have only ever been brought about by great orators, never just writers. The writers may refine the theory better but this will mostly reach the few intellectuals in a movement, it is always upto the great speaker to rally the masses, to reach their emotions with words, gestures, and expressions that can only be achieved with the spoken word.
I hope this helped for whatever you needed it for.
Kurt
-
peace
Interesting topic. I would say the written word is more effective in debate. Simply because one person doesn't know what the other person is actually thinking when writing. Emotions can be left out of the discussion entirely. Especially on a format like this one where people have time to think before they reply.
As long as both sides are civil, written debates are much better. And if one side isn't, then we know that the debate is pointless and we peace out.
In person, I think too many other things come into the picture. How a person looks, talks, wears...all these superficial things end up affecting the debate.
I do, however, agree with Kurt that messages are better spread through spoken words. But that's the sad part about us humans. -
Peace bro Damon,
As posters have said the majority would be more inclined to listen to the verbal mostly, maybe because of the literacy rate in some places? Maybe because charisma tends to come off across better in person/tv/live etc rather than the written word. Most people today are moving away from books/printed matter also, don't know if there was ever a majority following of books, but this is debatable as we have the internet as a big factor and that is majorly text transmission (not that the internet is used everywhere either).
Personally, I prefer text so I can gauge, taking my time, as opposed to listening to someone and having them browbeat me with their charisma/fancy words/manner of speaking. Not that I can't appreciate a good speaker, I can but when it has to do with facts etc I just like being cautious and cross check etc rather than be taken in by elocution.
-
Peace Bro,
I think both can be effective, all depending on the presentation and the recepient/audience. Personally, I'd go for the verbal, because I can't seem to sit and read through books or even long posts anymore. Maybe I have A.D.D or something. Having said that, the written word tends to have a more 'authentic' feel to it, example if someone told you about something that happened a week ago, you could either accept it or reject it easily, but if you read the same thing in the news paper, you'd have a better chance at accepting that the event actually happened. In other words, I think people have the tendency to believe the written over the spoken word. In terms of a debate or discussion, however, a more interactive approach would probably be more effective, in this case, verbal... I think. -\
Did I just confuse you some more?
-
Peace Damon,
I'd say written is more effective, atleast in a logical debate, because of it's visual potency. When you see the arguments being made and/or refuted, in an organized (bulleted, point-by-point, etc) layout, the effect is more powerful. It's very rare to here a verbal debate achieve this same level of clarity, and even more rare to find people who remember the order or even the count of all the points.
But I'd withhold a commitment to this view until I knew all the variables. What is the debate about? Where will it be held? What is the objective and the target audience? Someone once said that if Abraham Lincoln ran for president today, he'd neven get elected...he was too ugly!
So, there's alot to be said about aesthetics, delivery, and timing, all dependant on who, what, when, where, why, and how.
Peace,
Tay -
I'd rather go for the spoken. There are no typos, spelling mistakes or (in the case of Arabic) grammatical mistakes, which make me lose interest quickly.
You can tell a lot from the tone of the speaker, and their personality. Also, they do not have time to perfection and abide with correctness, so the verbal is more reflective of their reality.
The written, on the other hand, is useful for documentation and quicker to return to than a recorded speech (if you want to document it),and you wont need electricity or batteries for that!Imagine Nassrallah's words written, and Samir Jaja's words written on, say, the question of the Lebanon war. You can't tell from the written words who is the true and who is the false.
And personally, I sometimes read words wrongly, and see numbers wrongly (no, I was never diagnosed for dyslexia, but who knows, old age dyslexia!). I also find some subjects a bit boring to read, but would definitely listen to them better.
My daughter never liked reading books. One day she found a book with a CD (No 1 women's detective), and I listened to it with her. It was a very interesting experience. Since then, she was motivated to read the whole series, and then started reading books and enjoying them, thanks to the speaking book! She is still looking for CD books!
-
Salaam everyone,
Thank you for the responses.
For the most part, I would say that each method has advantages and disadvantages and that a combination of both would probably be ideal. I also realize that it mainly boils down to the recipient which determines the most effective way of reaching him or her.
Having said that, if I were to choose one over the other, I would choose the written over the spoken word. There are many, many reasons why I feel this way. The top two reasons being that in the written method, one is engaging in the text only...no interruptions, no arguing back, no concentration on the person. A close second to this, is that when one READS another persons views/arguments, they have the room to verify whatever it is they are reading. And I see this as being very, VERY important. I think it to be difficult (if not impossible) to do this in a face to face, back and forth engagement. Being able to concentrate, check, reference, and verify is the name of the game here.
Peace,
Damon.
