Adversarial Argument
My personal argument style is adversarial. I can picture myself as a lawyer arguing a point to the bitter end, no matter how unwilling to believe my audience is. I do, however, have a small amount of consensual traits, mainly in the fact that I will not take up a point that I do not believe in fully. In the case of being uncertain on a case I am happy to take up a dialectic method, and try to figure out what is the most sensible answer to the issue in front of me.
My adversarial qualities vastly outweigh all other types of argument that I exercise. Most issues that I come upon I can find a point in that I believe in firmly, and I will happily argue that point as long as someone is willing to oppose me. I do not like to fight with anyone, but I do like to try to convince people of things, and to make my viewpoints very well known. I will not hesitate to share my viewpoint on a topic with anyone, even if I know that they are opposed to those viewpoints.
The consensual segment of my arguing style comes in to play in a few areas as well though. I am not afraid to admit when I have lost an argument, but I still defend certain areas where I do not believe that I was incorrect. Also, I am not afraid to announce weaknesses in my arguments. For instance: I will argue until I am blue in the face that stricter gun control could only help our country. I will however admit that there is no way to illegalize guns while also getting all currently existing guns off the streets. Gun control is still important to me, and I believe that if we can figure out the one flaw in my argument, than we can successfully control guns. So I am willing to admit weakness, while still being very opinionated on my topic.
I think that my style of argument is the best, because it is necessary to have an opinion that you are willing to argue in order to get anywhere in society. It is, however, important to know where your argument has holes, because if you cannot recognize the holes in your argument you will never be able to fill them with strategy and fact. If you feel strongly about a view that you have, and can defend it in an argument, than you should never give it up. If you find that your argument has too many holes in it to successfully argue to any extent, it could be a sign that your current position is not the one that you should be arguing.
1 comment:
Doug,
Your personal analysis on what type of arguer you are is very successful. You show through examples that you are more of and adversarial arguer rather than a consensual arguer. You do, however, indicate that at times you fall under the consensual arguer description rather then the adversarial. You give an insight into your personal arguing style which is very affective.
Post a Comment