In Rebecca Jones`s article in, "Finding the Good Argument OR Why Bother with Logic," she compares argument to war to emphasize how many people see arguments as a win-lose situation. She extends her claim by bringing up mainstream media and how they create a poor example of argumentation. Jones states that mainstream media`s "version of argument seems more like a circus than a public discussion". What I think Jones is trying to say is that like a circus, the media can become overwhelming and crazy with their diverse opinions or "performances". They build up their position with mainly opinions and the "sprinkles and cherry of a sundae" or extra, unnecessary information because they are too busy with trying to "win".
An example of a "win-lose" argument would be a presidential debate and in this case, it is a literal win-lose situation. The purpose of arguing in debates is to attract people to vote for one side. In the 2016 presidential election, many presidential candidates were known to use "ad hominem arguments", which means that most of what they are saying has nothing to do with the truth of the other candidate and instead they are personally attacking one another. Rather than talking about their position on global warming, they try to backlash one another and get into this never-ending loop of talking over one another until the commentator settles the heat down. As Jones stated, because we have this war-like state of mind in an argument, the argument lacks "research, multiple vantage points and basic logic." As my previous English teacher would say, there is too much "fluff" in the argument that it backtracks others to see the main points. They seem to be so desperate for votes that they are willing to personally attack the other person by bringing up their past and their actions. With this mindset, nothing gets done and voters can only choose a candidate based on what is given to the public, and by not arguing properly, it is not much. Politicians and any candidate should act professional and play a fair game.
Going back to the minimum wage debate, if I were in the situation of going on the side with most people or following my belief, it would be following my belief because I could never win in an argument if I side with something I never believed in the first place. However for some people, winning means going on side with the most people because there will be others to help build up a strong argument. Either or, this "winning" mentality in an argument is a problem because it does not necessarily create a good argument rather it is only fulfilling our needs and desires to be at the top.
In order to fix the way we perceive arguments, the mainstream media must set a good example first. As Jones stated, the Average American perceives argument as war because of how the media presents itself as it is. There is no need to spend most of the time in an argument trying to push our own opinions in others faces. An argument`s goal is to be able for us to see the issue in a different perspective, to possibly change our minds, and come together to "answer" the argument`s central issue. As I think about a solution for people to stop perceiving arguments as war, I think about a weight balance. Each side needs to balance one another so they can find a "common ground" for the better. Be clear with your main statements, counter-argue with facts not only opinion, be open to seeing the other side of the argument. There is no dominating side or a "winner/loser" if you argue properly.
I totally agree with how media portrays argument as war sometimes, there must always be a win-lose type story in the media whenever there's an issue at debate. In presidential elections, it has sadly become the norm to use ad hominem arguments as a tactic to gain success, which is unfortunate considering that it reinforces bad argumentation. I also agree with your solution towards fixing this issue, I think fostering good debates can start with the media as well, as this is a big influence on how argument is perceived.
ReplyDeleteI liked the situation you described with the four corners of options to side with. I believe that because the media portrays arguments primarily as war, we feel obligated to gravitate toward the side that has more followers. For example, even though we may believe deep down that we "strongly agree", we may find it easier to hide our true feelings and side with those who "strongly disagree", so we will not have to face the possibility of losing the war. However, I absolutely agree with you that it is salient to speak your mind and not feel pressured into siding with others. I believe that if we begin to separate ourselves from the majority, we will turn heads and influence others to question their own beliefs. Even though we may not "win" a battle in our opponents' eyes, the satisfaction we will garner from staying true to ourselves will suffice for ourselves.
ReplyDeleteI agree and I really enjoy your perspective on an argument not being a good argument if there is a clear winner that comes out on top. Arguing is not for the sake of who can defeat who, but rather a way to share ideas and grow over the gaining of new perspectives and opinions. I find it interesting and intriguing how you see media as the main cause in developing the war-like mentality in which people approach arguments; it does make sense, because the way the news is presented is often just opinion against opposing opinion. There is no openness to hearing the other side, or gaining from it, but rather just presenting thoughts and defending them. This makes and promotes an unsuccessful argument, in which neither side gains any skill or experience in the long term.
ReplyDelete-Jenna Shapiro
Your mention of portrayal of argument as a sort of war seems very accurate to me. Often times I've seen arguments and debates turn into battles of "who sounds smartest" or "whose opinion is better". This thought process shouldn't be allowed with argumentation, as argument should be more of a conversation rather than a verbal fight. It especially shouldn't be seen with politicians who aspire to lead our country. I'm so glad you identified this as an issue and connected it to such a recent political event we all lived through! It’s so important that we understand how important it is to balance both sides, or every side for that matter, and how proper argument isn’t supposed to have winners or losers. It’s also very important to understand the purpose of argument, which is to present different perspectives; if we are not open to see and hear these other perspectives, we cannot grow as people and a nation.
ReplyDeleteI loved your example of the minimum wage debate because unfortunately that is exactly what happens it today's society, instead of choosing to follow/ express what you really believe in people hide behind the majority because they are to scared to voice there own opinions. I agree with you that we view arguments as a win/lose situation. Which is why arguments are useless in trying to get your point across we have to stop thinking about it as a war between the people involved in the argument, but more like a learning experience where you get the chance to listen to all opinions on a subject matter and agree on a compromise together in order to deal with that matter. I believe that this is the only way anyone can come out winning in an argument. We must not rely on social media or news outlets to teach us how to have arguments because everything that they are doing is wrong in is used to convey their message that they believe in to everyone who's watching.
ReplyDeleteI also believe that participants of public arguments are too focused on making their argument sound good, rather than making them convincing. The “win-lose” mentality that a majority of people walk in to arguments with is incredibly disadvantageous for every party in the argument. Your example of the minimum wage debate perfectly illustrates the downgrading quality of argumentation in America. Despite the fact that this issue has been around for years and addressed in a number of my high school classes, I can’t say that I’m well-informed on the issue because the debates I’ve heard about it weren’t focused on informing their audience about the topic—the arguers were solely focused on getting their opinions heard. Because many people refer to mainstream media for information and debates, the media is where we need to begin improving modern day argumentation.
ReplyDeleteIt's even more complicated. Do we go with our beliefs? Or do we listen to what people are saying, evaluate the claims and the evidence and then go with the side that might be different? Are we willing to change our minds?
ReplyDeleteI really enjoyed how you used a relevant example to introduced the whole topic. I think almost everyone has played four corners at least sometime in their lifetime, so everyone can relate to the struggle of choosing between personal opinion and following their friends. When I think of the categories “strongly agree, agree, disagree, and strongly disagree,” I think about a survey rather than an argument. This is just one indication that we as a species are arguing incorrectly. I agree with what you brought up with people's obsession with the concept of winning. More often than not, people will do to extremes to prove themselves right even if that is not the case. They will shut out other opinions in order to stay loyal to their own. They bring up irrelevant points to put down the other side, and they feel as if they are in combat while in an argument. This is problematic because it forces people to stray from the purpose of an argument, which is to learn and reach a conclusion.
ReplyDeleteYou describe how people engage in unethical arguments, the kind that don't allow truth-seeking.
Delete