- Gasps. Well.
I am all for debate and rational deliberation because it is what democracy is all about. It is the glue to our social cohesiveness. Serious debate in a structured manner is about consideration of plausible perspectives argued rationally with logical statements through formal discussion, and the debaters are considered to be knowledgeable and skillful at presenting their arguments.
Which leads me to wonder why Ann Coulter is so appealing in this setting.
Just Call It What It is–Entertainment
What UC Berkeley is attempting here is truly just a parody of serious debate with the invite of Ann Coulter later next month. I have been inundated with news of her arrival all morning and it is disconcerting for a myriad of reasons so I will keep it brief.
I will start with the fan base because without the narcissistic supply the narcissist would not be as effective as to command the sum of $20,000 in speaking fees that Coulter is reportedly being paid. So FYI…
- The appeal to ridicule in Coulter’s arguments does not constitute serious debate and makes them a fallacy by default.
- The appeal to her celebrity is a fallacy.
- The appeal to her authority and her relevance on matters is highly questionable and contributes considerably to fallacy.
- The appeal to Coulter’s popularity is inconsequential and offers no validity to her arguments which in and of itself creates the fallacy.
- Lastly, an appeal to extremes in Coulter’s arguments are an absolute absurdity, no less.
Coulter’s rhetoric is pathologically, counterintuitive and dishonest. She offers no wisdom to rely upon for insight, reflection, or study. How she manages to make a living from this is something entirely different and maybe off-topic or trivial, but support for her demagoguery is shameful at best.