I found this chapter very interesting on a personal level. The chapter caught my attention because, as cruel as it seems, I see almost all conversations as arguments! My definition for an argument however may be tad different to the obvious definition. As explained in chapter 7, arguments are one party trying to convince another party to think or do, as the one party wants them too. The definition may seem very basic and obvious, but when one looks at it where it applies to every conversation, the idea that everything is an argument shows. For example, in a normal conversation with my friends and myself, we have to make decisions on that deal with the basic who, what, when and where. If I want to go to the gym with one of my buddies, I have to convince him, to do what I want him to do. The way of convincing becomes almost an art form within itself. In the basics of arguing, I can use inductive and deductive reasoning to convince my friend to go to the gym when I want him to. An example of deductive reasoning is if I said, “pool season is coming up, we need to get cut for pool season, so let’s go to the gym.” Even decisions such as, where my friends and I want to study or do homework are arguments. For example something as simple as, “my roommate isn’t here so we should study in my room” is deductive reasoning.
The same ideas apply to writing. Even when writing the simplest notes, there is always some type of argument going on. However, in the most complex and convincing papers, the structure of the argument becomes very important. I was blown away when I read the section “the Classic Oration” because none of my high school professors told me that the style of arguing that they were drilling into my head was one that originated from the Greeks and the Romans. The “Classic Oration” has a bit of an odd school feel to me, because I have being writing in that same form for the last almost 5 years. For writing project 2, I feel that the “Toulmin Argument” or the “Rogerian Argument” will be more effect than the odd school, “in court” style argument. I feel that the Rogerian argument will be more effect because, as I have come to understand it, is defined as understanding the problem from both perspectives and then leaving the only option that seems probably to be the one that favors your party the most. The arguer still states how your solution benefits the opponent too. Toulmin arguments are all about the claim and basically, that is what writing project 2 is about - what makes the claim of one person correct to apply over the masses, or something life that.
