My personal style of argument is more consensual then adversarial. I sometimes change my views on things if someone else can persuade me. I’m not always looking to change someone else’s views either. I don’t picture myself as a lawyer or a politician, someone who writes to change another’s views. I prefer to resolve conflicts and make everyone happy. I don’t like it when people fight over small things and can never come to terms and agree.
Argument doesn’t always have to be to change another’s views on an issue. This is how I view argument. People’s views can be different, but not to the point where nothing can be accomplished even though in our government we see this happen frequently. If people were more open to compromise, more things would be accomplished. Consensual argument is the way to go.
Thursday, September 6, 2007
SWA #3
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
I agree with your argumentative style. I never really pick sides, and I believe that both sides must be willing to give a little in order for an argument to be somewhat negotiated. You express yourself well.
I strongly disagree with your "argumentative style." How is it that you cannot pick a side in an argument? That is why they are called arguments in the first place. And I am all for negotiations, but there is a difference between that and complete passiveness.
I am an adverdarial style arguer, that being said I think that vladimir takes this to the extreme a bit. I'm all for trying to convince someone to see things my way, but at the same time, theres no reason to be overly intense about it.
Your essay is very well written and I can definitely see where you are coming from. I also agree with Molly in that you must be willing to give a little for an argument to be negotiated.
Post a Comment