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.


