Understanding The Argument Culture : Solutions Cooperative Argumentation

Good Essays

Understanding the Argument Culture: Solutions in Cooperative Argumentation It can be said that argument has become deeply inbred in the human experience. In our first day of class in Cooperative Argumentation, our professor gave us two definitions of the word argument from Google. The first definition described argument as a heated or angry discussion of opposite views. This definition leads individuals to use non-factual information to win an argument. The second definition is a reason/set of reasons given with the intent of persuading others that an action or idea is right or wrong. This leads individuals to use more factual methods to ensure they have a sound argument. In The Argument Culture: Moving from Debate to Dialogue, Tannen …show more content…

Tannen uses examples of news media discussions on a topic; the news media will bring in two people to discuss the issue and let them fight to the death. For example, say the topic is low efforts to fighting global warming. We might have a scientist, and a politician to discuss the issue. They both might start pointing the finger at each other. The scientist may say that the government is not providing enough funds for research, while the politician may say that the scientist is not doing enough with the current funds. You may see how this may turn into a heated argument. Tannen suggest that we should consider having a third party commentate, but it needs to be someone that is not committed to one side. This suggestion will help to have an argument that moves away from comparing both sides against each other, so we may look at both sides individually. However, just having a third party will not help to move away from the first definition of an argument. For us to ensure that this solution will be successful, we must first turn to Cooperative Argumentation as Tannen has not considered groupthink becoming a potential problem in this situation. In groupthink, people will begin to forget about their own beliefs and go with what the group is discussing to avoid conflict. How do we know that the third party will not create a groupthink environment? Tannen suggest “(…) we not give up conflict

Get Access
Get Access