I think we all have our own schemas of what an “argument” is. Most of us probably imagine two people yelling at each other. Others may imagine political debates. Myself, I’m thinking of two people going back and forth about which is better; chocolate or strawberry, and the stupidity behind the logic of the one who simply argues better is the winner. Clearly neither is wrong, it’s only a matter of perspective. But similar types of arguments go on all the time. Argument from an academic perspective is a different story.
(Pointless argument in a nutshell)
Chapter 8 goes into detail regarding the difference between say, the Jones family arguing (again) at 3am over dirty dishes…
(The Jones’s at 3am…in an alternate universe where the Sun is up at 3am)
…versus arguing for positive change. So argument is obviously more than just shouting at each other. Rather, it is for the most part taking a stance on something, and logically advocating for that side of the issue using evidence. There are several common purposes for arguments listed in the chapter. The ones I felt were most applicable given our current assignment are:
1. to persuade others to think or act
2. to propose a solution to a problem
3. to suggest a policy or proposal for future action
There are also several criteria listed for effective arguments. The one I like the most is the need for significance. Debates of which “thing” is better is not significant. Arguing for something that has an impact on the community, or people’s lives, is significant.
The part of the chapter that interested me the most is “Avoiding Logical Fallacies.” This is because I can recall specific examples of the three common types. However, I did not know the actual terminology until now. The one I see the most of is hasty generalization.
As a criminal justice major, I get to do a lot of research and reports on related issues. One issue that is important to me is gun rights. It is something I usually cannot write about academically due to its overuse…and professors generally frown upon gun rights topics. But there are so many aspects about gun rights that require individual attention, and effective argument will be a critical component. There is a lot of hasty generalization, and post hoc based rhetoric regarding guns, and so in the event I find myself involved in some sort of pro-gun advocacy situation, it helps to not only know how to effectively argue, but to recognize and mitigate against such fallacies.