Emotion vs. Fact?

What is the point of my project? I was asked that earlier today, and my mind drew a complete and utter blank. I couldn't think of it. I couldn't confine it to a phrase, which I know I should be able to do by this time. But let's give it a try. Maybe my thoughts will be articulated easier while typing.

The purpose of my project is to explore the immigration process and give students at GHS a greater understanding of what occurs so that they can form an educated opinion on the topic. Hopefully, this will also allow students to develop a further sense of empathy for people who are not like them and help them realize that we are a community made of many different pieces, just like how a puzzle fits together. And within the project, I’ll look through two different lenses: the emotional and the fact-based. However, talking with my partner today for the special December SDA made me realize that I need to use more facts, and that the amount of facts I am using right now won't be enough to convince people. I need to ask myself why, why, WHY and have facts to support it. No emotional blabber. I think both of us became somewhat frustrated that the other person thought in such a different way.

So, we attempted to do an exercise that forced us to think like the other person. We had a mutual friend give us questions, and each of us had to come up with reasoning that we usually wouldn’t use. One of the questions was whether or not penny production should continue. Now, my natural argument is to say that the penny should continue to be produced because it’s a part of America’s history and it has significance as almost a cultural tradition. However, the “fact-based” argument would be that pennies are a waste of resources because it costs more to produce a penny than a penny is actually worth. And when I could think through it more, I realized that our economy is almost dependent on pennies because it is the only way we can pay for sales tax if you don’t have a credit card (our whole entire sales market would have to be redesigned if we got rid of the penny). But why couldn’t I think of that argument first? Why do I jump straight into the emotional appeal and whether or not the situation is fair or morally correct? Is it because I find it easier to blather on about emotional b.s. than think of actual support? These are questions that have plagued me for a while since it relates to my ability as an Extemp speaker.

When I stand up there in front of the judges with a topic I literally got less than 30 minutes before, I get this thrill, this adrenaline rush. My job is to convince them that my position is better than the other position, and I can use whatever method I want, as long as I am respectful and don’t misquote any news site. It has taught me how to keep talking even when I have no idea what to say, and often what comes out is the emotional appeal. You can put such passion into an emotional appeal; your face can light up, your voice can flow with conviction, and your hands can gesture wildly in order to make the audience feel what you are feeling. The quote by Maya Angelou that I had on the inside of my first Extemp binder was “At the end of the day people won't remember what you said or did, they will remember how you made them feel”, and that quote resonated with me so much that it became a reminder before competitions. Make them feel. Make them remember you because you managed to reach their heart and engage it. I acknowledge that facts are good. Facts can make someone who disagrees with you become more likely to see your side, and if you just spout a bunch of emotional nonsense at them, they’ll ignore you like a whining puppy. But emotional appeal is just as important as facts. If I tell you a fact, but I don’t make you feel that it is important, then I haven’t done my job. You almost have to give “relatable facts”, if that makes any sense. So, at the end of it all, my partner and I have a long way to go, but I’m excited. I want to learn how to expand my argument and see something from another perspective.