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.
It’s funny how everything really is an argument, even though it’s a cheesy as hell title. In the same sense, this class makes you look at everything as a sales pitch: It’s always someone trying to sell you some thing or some idea. There’s no shortage of rhetoric in our everyday lives. While you have to sell your friends on the benefits of going to the gym (being cut for pool season, which I’m getting rapidly more stoked for), I find myself trying to sell my friends a trip to the skate park. You want to look good for the pool, and I want to get some practice in so I don’t fall around like an idiot, but the motivation and reasoning is the same. It’s also interesting how you noticed the same thing about the classic oration I did, which is that it feels like every single essay I’ve written in my academic career. Well, before college, that is. I don’t know if there’s a clear advantage in terms of Toumlin over Rogerian arguments, but the Rogerian style of arguing seems more conducive to the assignment, as it provides a sort of arena in which one can balance both sides. Kind of like a coliseum, but with a giant set of scales in the middle. As we are talking about one definition over another, it only makes sense. Anyway, I liked your blog post, it reminded me a lot of my own life, which made it relatable and informative.
ReplyDelete