When One Thinks Of The Word Ague, They Automatically Think

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

In Chapter 2 of Thank You for Arguing by Jay Heinrichs, he discuses how to distinguish the difference between an argument and a fight, and to decide what you want out of an argument. The key point of an argument is to win over the audience to your point of view. In order to win an argument, you need to persuade them. You want your opponent to be persuaded using subtle logical tactics not power and intimidation. Using power and intimidation is the characteristics of a fight. This is when one person takes out his aggression on another, which does not persuade them but initiate’s revenge or rejection. During a fight, the key objective is to win by attacking and belittling your opponent, paying no attention to getting them to change their mind.

B. “In an argument, they try to win over an audience – which can compromise the onlookers, television viewers, an electorate, or each other” (15)

In the article, "Our Sex Crazed Congress" (Aug 1, 2015), New York Times writer Nicholas Kristof demonstrates that Conservative Republicans would be stupid to destroy the organization called Planned Parenthood. The author starts out by saying that dissolving the program is a bad idea, then backs it up with evidence and examples of girls who can benefit from Planned Parenthood. Kristof's purpose is to prove that, even if you are against abortions, you shouldn't condemn a whole organization that prevents more abortions than it causes in order to inform people that show that this isn't the way to deal with the problem. Nicholas Kristof writes to an audience of people looking into Planned Parenthood and those thinking about shutting it down, and the relationship he establishes with his audience is that he thinks they're stupid for shutting down Planned Parenthood and he isn't very open to other views on the matter.

Leaked videos from Planned Parenthood have caused frenzy among Americans and there have been debates on whether or not to continue funding this organization. These videos reveal Planned Parenthood officials discussing selling fetal tissue for profit. While they are proved to be edited videos, many people are still wary about the whole situation. Joining along with this frenzy is Ruth Marcus, whose article, Defunding Planned Parenthood would actually increase abortions, argues why Planned Parenthood should still be funded. Marcus provides substantial evidence including pathos and logos to support her claim; however, it is her ethos that is questionable. With numerous fallacies plaguing her argument, her ethos is damaged, thus affecting the argument’s

Many people think that abortion should only be an option when the conception of a fetus is an outcome from rape or incest. Actually, polls show that three-quarters of the public support legal abortion when a woman's life is endangered by pregnancy or the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest. But support drops dramatically when the justifications seem frivolous or an unplanned pregnancy is the result of perceived carelessness. (Singer) However, abortion shouldn’t just be an option when something horrible happens to a woman, abortion should also be a possibility when a woman isn’t ready for a child or doesn’t want to raise a child. Furthermore, the public fails to realize that being pro-choice doesn’t mean one has to be pro-abortion. When the public support for abortion drops because of a woman’s irresponsibility emphasizes that abortion shouldn’t be an option unless

In this article they mention the other cares that planned parenthood offers, but they focus on abortion. Abortion is an issue that is easily debated and whether a person agree or disagree on it, it is an emotional topic. When thinking about the baby or the mother, either way involves a life. The article references abortion and mainly talks about abortion throughout the whole article. They use those tactics to pull your heart strings and focus on that, so the other topics that are more important and relevant slip through the cracks. This is a fallacy because it uses emotions to make a person feel bad for not shutting down “the main cause of abortions”. Emotions are not the only type of a fallacy used in this article

They simply make deliberative argument impossible; thats why I call them fouls, in the sense that they lie out of bounds” (Heinrichs 179). The importance of rhetorical argument breakers is to understand that one “cant argue the inarguable” (Heinrichs 179). That very statement is what makes these fouls; the argument cant proceed if any of the seven fouls are used in an argument; the seven fouls are: switching tenses, inflexible insistence in the rules, humiliation, innuendo, threats, nasty language or signs, and utter stupidity. This section also sheds more light on the concept of ethos, and how it plays a major role, not only in arguments, but also in everyday situations. The concept is most relevantly displayed when the author talks about a child hood memory of when his mother was talked into buying a pool table for Father’s Day; the odd factor being that his father despised any form of

“The war on drugs, the war on cancer, the battle of the sexes, politicians’ turf battles- in the argument culture war metaphors pervade our talk and shape our thinking,” affirms Tannen. We approach the world in an argumentative frame of mind.”

This article utilizes many facts and numbers. The editors say, “The Supreme Court on Monday struck down Texas’s harsh and dishonest anti-abortion law by a vote of 5 to 3.” This ratio shows that the young women's opinions do matter, where they can encourage their hope through being able to make their own choices. Another way the writers show this is when they use numbers of states that have banned all abortion: “23 other states, and other laws have tried to block abortion rights even more directly- for instance, by banning all abortions six weeks after conception, when many women don’t even know they are pregnant.” This shows the statistic that 23 states have made a change and this makes the readers believe that they can make a change as well, which gives them that hope. One last way the writers portray logic is when they use specific years to indicate that, as times change people's rights can change. “ The 2013 Texas law- which forced abortion clinics and their doctors to meet absurd and pointlessly strict medical standards - was prohibited in a major 1972 ruling on abortion.” This made abortion easier for many people. The writers saying this has shown that abortion is a feudal law and abortion is legal, so any law trying to make abortion illegal is unconstitutional. Logic is persuasive because it gives direct facts and numbers to prove their opinion is correct making the read believe the writers.

Both articles have valid claims that a political party's policies threaten women's health and personal freedoms. Clyne’s article uses research as evidence to support her claims. Several claims she makes are backed by results of a 2012 Gallup poll and 2010 Census Bureau data. A Gallup poll is an assessment of public opinion by the questioning of a statistically representative sample. Gallup, Inc. is an American research-based, global performance-management consulting company. The evidence presented from Gallup polls and Census Bureau data is timely and valid. Not only does Clyne tell us her perspective on the key issues but she supports her view with data that proves her case. Flynn’s article uses the National Women's Law Center (NWLC) as

All arguments stem from ignorance. One person is usually wrong and this is due to a lack of information except in the rare cases that people are arguing the same point and on are on the same side. but these arguments are usually just a misunderstanding on a small point and can be easily resolved. but other arguments are not so easily resolved when it is an argument on a matter of opinion.

Those are self-assured in their own ability to explain a position than they actually should be given their own ability to explain the process. No matter if the subject is global warming, planning for holidays or the North East, this method is an approach many individuals do to try getting people to change their position. This method is more often led to people on the receiving end solidify their position. Researchers believe there is a finer way one which involves listening more, and not trying to batter the opposer into

Secondly, Tannen attempts to refute the misconception, held in the “culture of critique”, that “when both sides argue, the truth will emerge” by stating that the “truth is more likely to be found in the complex middle.” However, though this argument does not stand on its own, as it is intended, her subsequent explanation does give the refutation credibility. She reasons that the culture of critique leads reasonable people to waste effort defending themselves from misrepresentation by unreasonable opponents, instead of being constructive; champions of unsubstantiated positions are knowingly given credibility by the media, just so that there can be opposition.

The tone that is dominant throughout the article supports the claim that the author has allowed his emotions to dominant his diction, therefore displaying his biasness. “…‘big up’ mothers. Mothers probably wanted to, but decided not to abort or kill that child in the womb!” While the writer praises mothers in this instant, he implies the contrary to the women who aborted. Chisholm chooses not to consider the possible reasons that may lead to abortion and argues his points accordingly, despite the glaring counterarguments. Hence being biased against women who considers abortion as a solution. The author further goes on to discriminate doctors by referring to them as ‘a certain brand of medical schizophrenia.’ Again, without careful examination of the controversy on a whole, he displays a bias attitude towards the medical community. The author’s choice of words clearly reveal that he holds doctors partially responsible for their contribution the abortion. Here, he creates a fallacy, since he distracts the audience with distorted arguments, rather than tackling the issue from logical and realistic perspective. Without any authentic investigation, Chisholm displays biasness against them, in that, he does not consider their point of view or stance in the matter, therefore presenting examples that are debatable. This piece conveys the author’s points in an emotively biased