For Argument's Sake By Tannen: Article Analysis

In the article “Taking a ‘War of Words’ Too Literally”, Deborah Tannen defines “argument culture”, as “the best way to get anything done”. Debating is when “Issues are routinely approached by having two sides stake out opposing positions and do battle. This sometimes drives people to take positions that are more adversarial than they feel-and can get

The article by Michael Binyon and the cartoon by Tom Toles make the claim that President Obama did not deserve to win a Nobel Peace Prize at the beginning of his presidency. Toles and Binyon share similar viewpoint, so they approach the subject in similar ways. Both of the speakers describe President Obama’s lack of accomplishments at the time he received the award. They both appear to pose strong arguments about this subject; however, the article by Michael Binyon seems to be stronger than the cartoon. Even though both provide effective arguments about the topic, “Comment: Absurd Decision on Obama Makes a Mockery of the Nobel Peace Prize” seems to pose the strongest argument because Michael Binyon was able to develop his claim and effectively impact his audience using background information, evoking strong emotions, and comparing President Obama to deserving winners of the past.

The next topic the author offered for an argument is, setting your goals of what you want to gain from your audience. The first and most simple step is to change the audiences mood. If you are able to change their mood, you make them more vulnerable to your argument and more willing to listen to you. The second step winning an argument is, changing the audiences mind and opinion. An example of this from the text is, convincing the light bulb that a replacement is the best way to get some light in the room. You want to promote yourself to them instead of coming off with the impression of a rival. The last and most difficult step to winning an argument is, getting to audience to take action. In order to get the audience to do this, you must be on a more emotional and personal level. As quoted from the text, you not only need to use desire to motivate but you need to convince them that taking this action is not a big deal; something they shouldn’t sweat about. Overall, chapter was very descriptive and informing in distinguishing the difference between an argument and a fight, and how to go about winning these

The first chapter introduced the reader to the art of rhetoric. He describes how rhetoric works through real life examples. He demonstrates ways that rhetoric persuades us like, argument from strength, and seduction. He tells the reader that the sole purpose of arguing is to persuade the audience. He showed that the chief purpose of arguing is to also achieve consensus, a shared faith in a choice.

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.

Argumentation is a significant element, and people tend to use it every day. By using the word “argumentation” I do not mean to go against someone’s opinion and arguing with them, but what I mean is making others have faith or some sort of belief on the person who is arguing. However, these arguments can occur in two ways such as direct argument and indirect argument. Furthermore, these arguments work with elements and there are three types of elements ethos, pathos, and logos. These elements are engaged with practical reasoning which are divided into three parts datum, warrant, and claim. Accordingly, to discuss about the process of the argumentation “Letter from a Birmingham Jail” will be a notable example.

In the article, "For Argument’s Sake: Why Do We Feel Compelled to Fight About Everything? Witten by Deborah Tannen. She express that we live in an argumentative culture, where everyone is entitled to their own freedom of speech and rights. Tannen shows that arguments rarely lead to an understanding, but rather that an argument becomes less about the topic at hand and more about proving the opposing side wrong ( Tannen, Deborah(,2008). She tells her stories in many different form to gather the audience’s attention. She then starts to use big words and different logics to appeal to a more intellectual audience. She then starts her stories by manipulating and persuading the unintelligent audience to pull them in so they would know that she is insulting them by using the bigger words, making them feel intimidated.

In their essays, both authors Sidney Callahan and Deborah Tannen discuss strategies for a possible improvement in society’s ways of arguing. In “Fight Fierce but Fair: Practice at Home,” (1994), Callahan claims “if you learn to fight well and fairly at home, you can contribute to the civic struggle necessary to keep a pluralistic society moving.” With a set of guidelines and rules composed through personal experience, Callahan successfully uses this technique to give readers an immediate call to action and a solid, convincing essay. In “The Triumph of the Yell,” (1994), Tannen claims that “more and more these days, journalists, politicians, and academics treat public discourse as an argument – not in the sense of

Throughout the course of history there has been a few basic pioneer traits which has become habitual and a way for humans to express themselves. One of the main and core habits which is an important way of expressing ourselves is through communication. Furthermore, as one becomes more precise about communication, they soon realize that they might not have the same views on certain topics. Hence, this leads to argumentation, which is the process of supporting an idea or simply a means for one to express and communicate themselves. Typically, an argument does not consist of name calling, and as a matter of fact disapproves ideas without evidence. Alternatively, good arguments consist of a few vital rhetorical issues such as, supporting evidence,

Americans today are no strangers to stretching every dollar earned in an attempt to live the American dream. Most people work long hours and eat on the fly with very little thought to what, or where, the food they have purchased came from. The reason food is so inexpensive has not been a concern to the average American, but the article written by Michael Pollan “The Food Movement Rising” attempts to convince the people that it is time to remove the blinders and take an accounting of the situation that America finds itself in. With obesity at epic proportions, and preventable diseases like

In 2011, Jennifer Connell was attending her nephew, Sean, 8th birthday party, Connell walks into the backyard and upon seeing his aunt, Sean runs and jumps to hug her. Causing Connell to fall backwards landing on the ground and breaking her wrist in the process. Instead of doing something rash, like, accepting he is eight and it was an accident since the laws of physics are not clear to him yet, she did the rational thing. She filed a lawsuit - against the nephew. She claimed that the nephew had been "careless" and wanted $127,000 for emotional suffering and medical bills. In her claim she stated that she had recently attended a party and her inability to hold her "hors d'oeuvres plate was distressing and embarrassing. Deliberation lasted a mere twenty minutes. The jury awarded Jennifer Connell nothing.

Lewis could support Lasn arguments because Lewis describes A&F as a place that does not seem un-Moonielike. Lasn make a distinction between the feeling of independence and the rules. Lasn mentions, “The atmosphere is quite un-Moonielike. We’re free to roam and recreate. No one seems to be forcing us to do anything we don’t want to do. In fact, we feel privileged to be here. The rules don’t seem oppressive. But make no mistake: There are rules” (378). Lasn emphasized the comfort ability the consumer culture creates for its members. The ambience of the culture he considers a cult is supposedly free and unrestricted. With that feeling, Lasn believes one becomes so welcome that they feel privileged- they belong here. The rules of the cult do not seem

Tannen (1994) suggests that the two sexes have very different modes of communication, and she suggests that in fact, communication between man and woman should be viewed as inter-cultural communication. She also has given set of differentiations: (1) Men live in a world of hierarchy; women live in a world of connection. (2) Men require individuality and freedom; women require intimacy and familiarity. (3) Men live in a world of action; women live in a world of feeling.(p,67) The issue Tannen tries to address is that sometimes women and men don’t understand each other because they come from different cultures. These findings on gender stereotypes offer a great help to them for understanding each other and thus enhance their relationship. Women

Feldman begins the introduction of his inquiry by identifying the importance of argumentation in critical thinking and epistemology. He states, “Epistemology is the abstract study of knowledge and rationality. Critical thinking, as I understand it, is a kind of applied epistemology, the underlying idea being that thinking clearly and carefully about any issue requires understanding and applying some fundamental epistemological concepts” (Feldman 1). He goes further to describe arguments as “tools for helping us figure out what it is most reasonable to believe” (Feldman 2). A good argument is an earnest exchange between different parties that are trying to establish an agreeable conclusion. It is for this reason that agreeing to disagree is fallacious. In a debate, the sole purpose is to challenge ideas and claims in order to come to the paramount and most logical conclusion. The function of deliberation is

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.