Are you Pro or Con Argument?

America has a multitude of talents and characteristics, which is part of what makes it such a diverse country. Yet, one of America’s most notable talents is that of harboring some of the most argumentative groups of people to date. Argument can be observed on a daily basis in the country, from a day at school to spending time with friends or in the media. Argument comes in all forms, it must not always be considered in a bad manner as it can shed light on some important issues, as in the University of Tennessee English professor Rebecca Jones’s  "Finding the Good Argument OR Why Bother with Logic.” The topic of argument is discussed in Jones’s text to an extent that questions the fundamentals of argument and why it is so easily encountered. Jones highlights a common feature to arguments that serves as a problem towards fostering argument as a good natured debate, being that argument is thought to be strictly in terms of pros and cons.


Argument has become so black and white when regarding how people view the root of an argument; people tend to stick to one side of an argument and never fail to lose that standpoint, no matter how wrong they may be proven. The issue with maintaining argument in solely a pro and con manner is that it the objective of the debate is lost, individuals are no longer seeking to gain any newfound knowledge from arguing but rather seeking to prove their point. I’ve especially noticed this with the younger generation, as too often teens tend to argue in a fashion where they engage in an argument and hear the opposing side to theirs, but aren’t necessarily looking to understand it. Part of this flawed arguing is due to the style in which argument is taught in schools. When examining language arts and literature classes, argument is taught to have solely two sides, with no middle ground and always maintaining a pro and a con side for which the student is supposed to pick a side to defend. Thus, argument is made to be seen as a tool to get your point across, which is entirely true, but it gives off the impression that that’s argument’s only purpose, which is far from the truth. Creating a learning environment where argument is taught in such a way to open the minds of students and consider the other side rather than keep them strongly leaning towards one side would encourage healthy debates and further the development of argument in the country.  

Another issue in the pro and con aspect to arguments is that it affects the way in which people view argument, implying that there are strictly only two sides to argument, a naive concept. The easiest example being in politics, and Jones touches upon this within her article: “This either/or fallacy of public argument is debilitating. You are either for or against gun control, for or against abortion, for or against the environment, for or against everything. Put this way, the absurdity is more obvious.”  Jones emphasizes how illogical it is to consider only two sides to an issue, similar to how irrational it is to consider there being only two distinct sides to an argument, with no overlap. The pro and con feature destroys any possibility of overlap between opposing stances on issues, in turn destroying the prospect of reaching a middle ground and finding resolution. The beauty in argument lies in the fact that it can open your mind to new information or opinions that can alter your stance on an argument entirely, but when you make an argument so black and white with pros and cons, it takes away the purpose of an argument and makes no progress in furthering the minds of the individuals who partook in the debate. A solution towards ending the pro and con issue in politics lies in finding a middle ground between opposing sides, and ending the notion that there must only be two sides. By stripping away the pro and con connotation associated with argument, more knowledge can be put towards resolution and getting towards the root of a problem, which is integral towards the purpose of argument.

Comments

  1. jSeptember 5, 2017 at 4:21 PM

    I agree with your statement that the pro and con aspect to arguments changes the way the audience view the argument in that they end up seeing only two sides of an argument. I think that it is wrong to have this idea in arguments as it makes it seem like there are only two extremes when there are many other options to resolving an argument. I think that it would be very beneficial if in debates such as presidential debates on television that the opposing candidates would be reminded to not be hesitant in pointing out things where the candidates can reach a compromise in their ideas as it would prevent the pro and con argument style from dominating the debate such as when the candidates argue about gun control or taxes which can be very polarized issues on the political spectrum. If everyone were to prevent themselves from engaging in the pro and con only argument style, it would be beneficial to our conversations and ideas.

    ReplyDelete
  2. UnknownSeptember 5, 2017 at 5:50 PM

    It is definitely wrong to only have a black and white view of the world. In order to have a successful debate, both sides must be willing to change their view depending on new facts brought to the table. This is how to find a compromise instead of believing that your opinion is completely right and the opposing view is absolutely wrong. One must remain open-minded in an argument in order to combat this "either/or fallacy", as Jones calls it. The tolerance of both people in an argument can help to erase the concept that argument is bad and act as a cornerstone for progress.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Andrew BarrettSeptember 5, 2017 at 10:30 PM

    I can never see things as black and white and it blows my mind how close-minded people can be. I also wrote how this two-sided argument system is taught in schools! I very much dislike it. people need to realize were not so different. We all want safer streets, economic well being, jobs, and a decrease in crime. The difference is we disagree on the MEANS to do so. However we demonize those who disagree with us calling them "evil" and "trying to destroy the world." I listen to several points from all the angles on an issue which I can find, THEN form my opinion; until then, I'm indifferent.

    ReplyDelete
  4. UnknownSeptember 5, 2017 at 11:19 PM

    I couldn't agree more with your second paragraph and how you said we are taught in schools to choose one side and that there is no middle ground. In my high school english class I was taught to pick a side and argue for it. It didn't necessarily have to be the one you agreed as my teacher taught me arguing for the side you disagreed is just a strong because it forces you to consider all aspects of why you disagree with it and to understand why someone agrees it for it. However, I always wondered why is it considered bad or hard in writing classes to qualify or be in between the argument.and to agree and disagree with aspects on both sides when in reality, that's a valid form of argument to have. Usually staying in the middle is associated with not having a backbone, but I believe being in the middle and standing your ground is the strongest backbone you could have.

    ReplyDelete
  5. UnknownSeptember 6, 2017 at 6:13 PM

    I really love the pro or con argument analogy because it simplifies the conundrum regarding the argumentative styles of today that do not contribute to opening up the minds of others and collaboration. Black and white arguments create too much of a me vs. you dynamic and unfortunately I agree that that is one of the most common forms of arguments used by people (not even just the younger generation I see adults do it all the time haha). I really like what you say at the end too when you advise that people should strip the pro and con connotation away from arguments because that would create a more open atmosphere to regard issues and openly involve the opinions between individuals.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Final Dreamz

Image
So, I focused primarily on gender and the American Dream and how the opportunistic feature of the dream is unequal when concerning genders as there are certain notions embedded into society that place men at a higher ranking of success than women. The issues revolving around this idea is that the success and opportunities of women are hindered by the gender stereotypes that surround aspects of living such as education, occupations, income and more. I learned that men and women share slightly different definitions of the American Dream. In terms of the nature of the American Dream, men responded by saying that it was mostly about acquiring material goods, while women were more likely to say that the Dream was about acquiring spiritual happiness (White & Hanson 84). I found that interesting as I would of also expected a sentiment towards material goods from women, however the spiritual happiness I had expected to have greater numbers by women. More knowledge I encountered on my re...
Read more

American Values & What Not

Image
The nation as a whole is composed of various ethnicities and cultures yet America has a distinct nature and connotation associated with its individuals. When referring to Americans, the first words that may come to mind are “individualistic,” or “self-centered,” which are both entirely accurate and a distinction that shouldn’t be frowned upon by fellow Americans as that is just simply what the country was raised with. We, as Americans, are inherently individualistic people, a characteristic that was simply meant to be. In Gary Athen’s chapter entitled "American Values and Assumptions," from American Ways: A Guide for Foreigners in the United States, different American values are elaborated upon and presented in such a way that explains American behavior. Specifically, Athens discusses values including individualism and time, both of which I can relate to my own life and realize how they have exerted influence. Athens presents individualism as his first value and goes i...
Read more

Different Dreamz

Image
In the modern day it may be a bit more difficult to see the American Dream in action, as often when referring to the dream itself, people typically tend to speak about it in reference to the past, as if it has already came and gone. With this perspective, it seems as if the American Dream had more value and meaning in the past, during times when Americans needed something to hold on to. Yet, in 2017 we witness values of the American Dream, but not necessarily the dream itself in the same light as we would of in 1972. In USC Professor Walter R. Fisher’s “Reaffirmation and Subversion of the American Dream,” two American Dreams are focused upon, being a materialistic dream and a moralistic dream, both claimed to be central towards maintaining an overall dream in the country. The claims made within Fisher’s piece are relevant in modern times, specifically how materialism encourages self-centeredness and how moralistic values feed on our guilt. Materialistic values connote feelings...
Read more