Assignment #5, Blog #1

I do not think that our current model of public discourse rewards bad faith argumentation however, it does not necessarily punish those who enact this strategy of debate.  Many times television experts discuss topics in which there are two clear sides and opposers will debate more on the negatives of their opponent then the positives of their argument.  The success of negative ad campaigns speaks to this because it illustrates how receptive the public is to dragging down the opposing side.  Although public figures are not praised for bad faith argumentation, they are not necessarily rewarded for this act, rather ignored.  An example of this would be a Meet the Press show convened to discuss race and the Trayvon Martin case.  In this discussion, the panelists abstain from bad faith argumentation and negative tactics focusing more on what each argument entails, providing for a much more rhetorically ethical discussion and eliminating the need for bad faith argumentation.