That's obvious, though....isn't it?
Well, in "Finding the Good Argument OR Why Bother With Logic" Rebecca Jones points out that people often think they are arguing about the same topic, when in reality they aren't. She gives the example that one party may be arguing about voting on health care, while then other is discussing problems with Medicaid. These topics both fall under the broad category of health care plans in America, but each party is approaching a different situation: voting vs. problems with a current plan.
This type of "argumentation"is a huge problem in today's media because it gets nothing done. NOTHING. When people cannot establish what it is that they disagree on, it's impossible to find a solution. This defeats the purpose of good argumentation and gives a bad example for what argumentation is supposed to look like. The media has immeasurable influence in America, so as long as they continue to follow this model of argumentation, citizens will have to be satisfied with heated debates that come to no real conclusion.
As another example of this issue, Jones highlights, "It is well known that arguing about abortion is nearly pointless as long as one side is arguing about the rights of the unborn and the other about the rights of women. These are two different starting points,"(175). This illustrates how it is not enough to just argue about a broad topic, such as abortion. To be productive you must agree on a starting point.
I came across this issue as a senior in high school during my U.S. Government and Politics course. Both parties were debating on the topic of the death penalty: should we keep it or get rid of it? The discussion lasted all class, but since no conclusion could be reached, the topic was tabled until the end of the semester. I didn't know it then, but what happened was that both parties did not agree on a starting point. My argument was based in the economic benefits of abolishing the death penalty, whereas my opponent was appealing to ethics to establish that murders should not have the rights to live. No wonder we couldn't find a solution.
If I could jump back in time and give myself a solution I would suggest this: understand what you and your opponent are arguing. Thoroughly. Come up with a singular statement to argue about (a starting point) and make that statement specific. Make sure you and your opponent agree on this one point. If you or an opponent gets sidetracked, take initiative and redirect the argument back to your agreed starting point. This solution will make for a productive argument where ultimately a solution can be reached.
I really liked how you mentioned that agreement needs to occur before people even start arguing because I feel like that's something people often overlook when they start to debate, and it's such an important part towards finding a resolution. The media also adds to a poor image of argumentation, as it never fully portrays good argumentation. Your solution was insightful, although understanding what you're arguing about may seem like an obvious starting point to an argument, I feel like people forget that and that's why arguments are often left without a solution.
ReplyDeleteI loved the point you brought up about the importance of understanding exactly what you're arguing about. Argument isn't about making your opponent look inferior, to bring them down, but rather to solve a problem. Arguing has become too personal, epitomized by the media. All media outlets are guilty of this to a degree. By bringing loosely related topics into the argument, instead of getting to the core issue at hand, the arguers are simply running in circles, tiring each other out until they need a break, and the issue is saved for another time (just like in your Government and Politics class). If we argue for the sake of solving a problem, and deflate our egos a bit in the process, we will be able to get a lot more done.
ReplyDeleteAmanda, I really like your introduction and gif! It quickly grasped my attention because who doesnt love a good Will Ferrel gif?? You made your introduction clear and directed to us your audience. I also agree with you stance. It is necessary to have some sort of agreement when proceeding with argument. In my blog, I also discussed how imperative compromise is in argument and if its not present, the argument won't go anywhere. No one learns anything and the arguers remain pro and con without exploring each others points. Jones mentioned that the purpose of argumentation is to listen to each others points and compose a solution from both pro and cons ideas. Another thing I liked about your article is how you defined early and correctly. For instance, you wrote how it's important to agree on a “primary standpoint” and referred back to this definition throughout your article
ReplyDelete*Ferrell
DeleteHad to put some respect on his name lol
DeleteI loved how you shed light on the fact that both arguers have to know and agree with what they are arguing about. In order to completely understand one side, though, one must also understand the opposing side. Many people are close-minded to the opinions of those who argue with them. They believe that their opinion is COMPLETELY right, with absolutely no faults, and anyone who disagrees is in the wrong. However, one must remain impartial to a topic until they have all of the facts and can decide for themselves what they want to support and argue for. For instance, instead of blindly calling oneself a Democrat or Republican because it's what one's family or friends are, one must look at each topic of discussion with an open mind and a readiness to learn about both sides of an argument. With that being said, I love your statement that the people who are participating in the argument should understand what they are arguing about.
ReplyDeleteNice discussion. I love that you went straight to the fallacies that allow people to think they are right when they aren't even talking about the same thing.
ReplyDeleteDefining terms. Looking back to the origins. All of these are essential or we think we're talking about the same things but we aren't.
Great post. And seriously brilliant gif to use here.
I find myself in complete agreement with you response. How are two opponents expected to come to a conclusion if they are not even arguing about the same thing. It does not help that most people in an argument are clearly extremely biased and are close-minded to the idea of the opposing side. It seems you must also agree that your opponent may have valid points and each side should take their opponents ideas with an open mind. Otherwise, it seems an argument is like trying to fit the wrong key in a key hole, no matter how many times you try to unlock the door of agreement and/or compromise, it will always remain locked.
ReplyDelete