Deborah Tannen 'War Of Words' Too Literally Analysis

I believe that resolving in to fighting is unreasonable and unnecessary. People should be more observant so that arguments don't lead to fights. If you do get in to a situation where you are the one in the fight have people there to support you. You could get in trouble by many people. This essay will explain several reasons why I think its not ok to resort to fighting.

Have we become a world that has forgotten how to listen and debate? Why are people so quick to argue? Everyone wants to prove their point these days. In “The Argument Culture,” Deborah Tannen discusses how today’s society no longer honors the noble American tradition of debate. She explains how we no longer want to take the time to listen to both sides and definitely not all sides of an issue. We have become a society that would rather fight and argue, often to the point of violence.

In Deborah Tannen’s book, “The Argument Culture,” she states our society has become an argument culture, where “a culture of critique” can oversimplify, distort or filler out important aspects of a debate. In an online thread posted on “The Blaze” website page under an article that reads, “Teacher: Deport illegal immigrants so schools can ‘better serve American citizen students,” there have been numerous comments posted by online users representing the argument culture, which Tannen emphasizes we are living in. user “Info10” stated, “Rayne Weankee, a former AHS student, told the station he’s “disappointed because I always felt the school should be held to a higher standard, and this isn’t helping their image.” It just moved to a higher

After reading the article “For Argument’s Sake” by Deborah Tannen, it was clear that she was trying to prove that people now a day will argue just to argue. She uses her own experiences as examples. For example, she was on a talk show with her antagonist, who stated to her “When you get out there, I’m going to attack you. But don’t take it personally.” Even though her antagonist clearly stated he enjoyed her book, he was still going to argue with her over it, therefore arguing just to argue. Another example she uses is when a woman called that talk show. The woman told a story of her walking to an area that was a non-smoking area, where there she found a man smoking. She figured that instead of demanding him to stop smoking, she simply states

In the excerpt by Deborah Tannen entitled, The Argument Culture: Moving from Debate to Dialogue Tannen speaks about the oppositional nature of public discourse. She expressed her thoughts on how we are determined to seek certainty by using arguments from two different standpoints, as if there are no additional angles that can be examined. Oftentimes, there are more than two sides of an issue, but due to the way society has taught us, we only look at issues from two extreme perspectives. I find Dr. Tannen to be extremely intelligent in her observations of how people communicate using debates and opposition as a means to express what we believe to be true. Although Americans habitually view issues from only two extreme points of view, dialogue solves more problems than debates because it does not cause division among people as frequently as debates does.

In this paper, I offer an argument mapping of Deborah Schiffrin’s “Jewish Argument as Sociability.” To begin, I must define a few key terms to fully understand the argument Schiffrin’s analysis claims. After varying levels of disagreement by speakers, either as outright denials or inconsistencies, she states such a form as preference of disagreement. Regardless of an argument’s beginning, Schiffrin also describes cooperative assumptions underlying arguments, which claims that the subsequent argument ending will likely turn into a positive experience since one would not intentionally offend an individual for whom they care. Finally, when arguments changed from either different actions or courses of topic, Schiffrin describes this as vulnerability of argumentative frames. By analyzing an urban Philadelphia neighborhood, who’s residents belong to the lower/middle class, Schiffrin data is considered ethnographically accountable since similar ethnic

This article written by Deborah Tannen catches the reader’s eyes by trying to explain how the argumentative culture leads us to see the world. She believes the best way to approach this is to look at spokespeople on television and how they make things seem like they are so horrible and provide us with views of both sides. They believe that the best way to settle and argument is to write an essay and try to criticize is by stating your thoughts about it. She states how in today’s society people are only concerned about winning or loosing when they start and argument. When she wrote her first book You Just Don’t Understand, she was interviewed several times and producers wanted to make this like a drama show by starting a fight on television. She noticed that after a while people started to criticize her work and she realized that people just want to start and argument with someone.

In the article “Bleep! The decline of civility” the author Kathleen Parker states, “ Let your Conversation be without Malice or Envy, for ‘tis a Sign of a Tractable and Commendable Nature: And in all Causes of Passion admit Reason to Govern.” In a previously cited article by Sandra Walston, the author gives some insight as to how we can fix our blatant incivility. Walston states that our society needs a redo on how we talk to each other.

In arguments that can take place in our daily lives, we tend to think we

When one thinks of the word ague, they automatically think of a heated discussion between two parties advocating for entirely different things. One could easily imagine two roman senators arguing in the republic of Rome with their togas and audience. Many times like Deborah Tannen’s stated in her article The Argument Culture, “When you’re having an argument with someone you’re usually not trying to understand what the other person is saying” (488). However, this situation does not only belong to senators and congressmen. Normal and average people fall into a spiral of statements and rebuttals seeking to argue and win over any given topic. This never ending instinct to win and demolish any opposition has made its way into everyday life. The

Your response is well thought out. Your examples of argumentation in church and politics were a great addition. The act of argumentation is a process, not a fight; the process includes truth seeking and persuasion. In argumentation, as the writer, you are exploring for the best possible solution or best course of action. In argumentation you are exploring all views of a topic. Some individuals might not acknowledge the fact that the act of argumentation is used in their everyday life. Serge, you are correct that individuals use the act of argumentation to oppose one’s views regarding a topic. Individuals use the strategies for many cases like, in their work, university, or in discussions.

In contrast, the reinforcement of self-confidence is not as important in the American culture. Maybe that could be an influence over the necessity to assign argument, within a forum, as a norm. Moreover, in a totalitarian society, the acts of argument must be disposed of; especially in the common area and also must develop and remain within the secret meetings of the opposition-political groups; underground newspapers. In conclusion, argument is fundamental to democracy.

Many people,” think the sole point of an argument is to humiliate you or get you to admit defeat” (heinrichs 19). however, the true purpose of an argument is to achieve your goals not to actually claim victory just to say that you ‘won’. Many people have trouble arguing in the direct sense because of this skewed image of what the true purpose of arguing actually is. These people are the ones who go for getting there adversary to admit defeat rather than pursue their own original goals and agenda. Before starting an argument recognise what you want to get out of it and keep the argument on track with that agenda and don't let it stray to wanting to humilate your

The project aims to explore the relations between discourse, power and social interaction. Consequently, the audience of the political speeches, radio interviews or public letters, the recipients, equally deserve consideration, especially as a group that not only reacts to the discourse, but, at the same time, critically evaluates the argumentation and then responds to it. All of the groups involved make attempts at convincing the other groups of the validity of their propositions. Other analytical approaches to discourse that focus on the social aspects of dialoguing equally understand discourse to be a form of social interaction (van Dijk, 1985; Boden & Zimmennan, 1991). Since it is mainly through the exchange of discursive acts that a final consensus is reached, the focus of the study is on the social practice of deliberation or argumentation, rather than the social actors themselves.

The resulting pragma-functional approach to Critical Discourse Studies analyses discourse as a social practice that contains argumentation, since it aims to have a positive or negative impact on its recipients’ views and behaviour. Due to its perlocutionary character, argumentation is interpreted psychologically