I Just Wanna Be Average

Mike Rose starts off his piece by saying people who have left the working class, will sometimes describe a regular classroom as "an oasis of possibility." He recalls some of the time he spent at the Catholic school, St. Regina's. Like most kids he thought of his time in school to be long and blurred, he disliked grammar and mathematics and did not receive good grades in either of those classes. Mike did enjoy chemistry though and for Christmas one year his parents bought him a chemistry set, which he was soon engrossed in. His mother warned him to be careful since a friend of hers knew someone who had to go to the hospital from explosives. Mike wanted the same effect but realized his small chemistry set was not up to it. He began to read many books on science, which lead to his creativity to start drawing. Before starting middle school, Mike got a job working at a pet store, cleaning up the animals' cages. After that he then acquired a job selling strawberries door to door. A man named Lou, started spending time around Mike's house since he was lonely. Lou began repairing the family's broken belongings, and taking care of Mike's father when his health began failing. In high school, Mike was sent to another Catholic school where punishment was harsh. He soon began to take even more of an interest in science especially Biology, which he took to college with him.

Tannen, Graff, and Blask

After reading the two pieces by Tannen and Graff, it is hard to chose a side when they both make valid points.  I agree that in today's society, terms that have to do with war and battle and violence are overused, but I disagree that they are hurting anybody in any way or that we should do away with them completely. It is also difficult to side with Graff, since in his writing he hardly comes up with his own points and spends most of the article citing and disagreeing with Tannens points.  When it comes to using different words to describe the same thing, it seems hard to believe that somebody could have such a problem with the words the people are using, enough of a problem to write a multi-paged paper on the subject.  When people say "take a stab at it", in there heads they are merely saying to give it a try, and nothing else is meant.  In that case, nothing negative is being caused, and there are no subconscious feelings that the listener feels.  In that case, I disagree with Tannen. However I do Agree with Tannen when she speaks on politics.  I think that calling a political debate between two people of different parties a "battle" is wrong.  There is nothing dangerous or threatening to either of the people involved, calling it a battle is used to subconsciously spark hatred against the opposing party, and if all the people watching or involved in the debate are already thinking negatively about the other side, then nothing is accomplished in the debate.

Tannen and Graff

The first thing that struck me while I was reading Tannen's essay was how often we use war- and fight-oriented language more than we realize. As we talked about in class, it's even used when trying to encourage someone to join in a conversation--"take a shot at it". I thought it was odd that we used phrases such as this, so often, without even realizing it. However, while I agreed with Tannen that we do live in a very aggressive world, I didn't agree with her point that we need to stop using this type of language all together. I do not see how it makes the world a worse place to live. Though, it wasn't really until reading Graff's essay that I fully recognized this. From his essay, I got that he didn't particularly see the problem with using this type of harsh language. In particular, I agreed with Graff when he pointed out that a lot of students in classrooms are not debating, or fighting, and neither are the faculty and teachers, since Tannen had said something along the opposite lines. From my personal experiences in classrooms, I found that students mostly just sit there, and pretend to listen to the teacher or instructor, and letting others get involved. While this is not always the case, it is definitely true for the majority of people, especially in high school, when all the students want is to get out. This was true, even in my AP and honors classes. Hardly anyone wanted to contribute. Very rarely would a student disagree with a peer who had just spoken his or her mind. So while Tannen says that argument is detrimental to learning, and essentially society in general, I would have to agree with Graff when he says that argument is not very prevalent in the classroom.

I suppose that I agreed with bits and pieces of each essay. I think Tannen has some very good points, when she says things such as our very language shapes the nature of a conversation. But I also think that Graff has some good points, when he says things such as how the statement "everything's an argument" should not be as controversial as it is. Each author has good and relevant points, along with their superfluous ones.

Tannen vs Graff -- Brianne

            I do believe that Tannen has my vote on this one! I love how eye-opening Tannen was in her piece. Whether we acknowledge it or not, we all use abrasive language in everyday life. Everything becomes a metaphor for war, battle, or harm upon others. It’s in our daily lives! Littered in magazine, newspaper and online articles as well as all over the media and even in the school systems. It is so true that we are trained to be argumentative and ultimately, trained to win. When you devise a five-paragraph thesis paper, what is your goal? To bash the opposing side and make sure to prove your side. As Tannen mentioned, one would even go so far as to use the weakest evidence from the opposing source, to further benefit your argument. It seems as though the lengths we take to argue and argue forcefully are much more drastic than we realize in our everyday life.

            Although Tannen is much more inspirational to me in this subject, I will not deny the good points that Graff has. Graff seems to be more of a realist than Tannen. Graff does not wish to remove argument, or dull it. He wishes to use its power and create a well-rounded argument that would be acceptable to use in everyday life and in settings like the classroom. And I believe Graff is right. You barely see a good, organized, intellectual debate in the school systems anymore. From my experience in High School, we were discouraged to debate. Almost as if it were a burden on the teacher, as if the teacher assumed everything would get out of hand in a hurry and the debate would be quickly shut down anyway.  Maybe if we were taught how to properly debate and argue as young adults, there would be no issue in the matter.

            At the end of the day, I do believe people need to learn how to get out of the habit of argumentation, and into the habit of listening, agreeing or disagreeing, and respecting both sides. There should be no winner or loser when you argue. Everyone is different and everyone has a different thought process and perspective. If we can learn how to respect everyone’s argument while being able to respectfully propose our own, the world of language would be a much better off place.

Tannen vs. Graff

     I found it odd, that although both were "discussing," and viewing the issue of argument vs. dialogue as a purely academic issue, they were both nit-picking at the subtleties of what each was trying to advocate for. While denouncing argument they slowly slid into an argumentative style essay. Although it was not as blatant, black&white, two-sided and outright as today's arguments usually are there was still disagreement and some argument. This is natural though, as Graff states in his article. It is difficult to move away from argument and combative discussion, because it is so easy, natural and comes to us without conscious effort--embedded subconsciously. Sometimes argument is even necessary. Dialogue is safe. Diplomacy allows for individuals/groups to discuss issues in a open forum that allows for slowly coming to the right answer together, whereas Argument allows for individuals/groups to push against an opposing individual/group and conquer them--instituting their own values and stipulations when they have won.
     Although I thought Tannen presented her side in a more clean-cut and concise manner, I would have to agree with the points Graff made more, simply because he was realistic--taking into consideration human nature and our present global environment. Graff viewed this issue in the macro where I think Tannen viewed it in a smaller more intimate sense--in context to America.
      Now I'll probably take a second before opening my mouth in a discussion to consider whether or not dialogue/diplomacy or argument is more appropriate and effective at that certain time.

Arguing about Arguments -Tannen vs. Graff

Both Tannen and Graff have excellent arguments on the topic of debate; Tannen believes that debates are too adversarial, while Graff believes that an Tannen exaggerates the harshness of the argument culture, and tries to soften the argument culture too much.  I believe that although Tannen does have some good points, her stance is a bit too unrealistic and paradoxical.

If one were to read Tannen's essay without critically analyzing it, her essay would sound like common sense.  Why are arguments so polarized and up front?  Why don't we focus on creating a dialogue instead of a debate?  Although Tannen addresses that some situations require a more polarized debates, she doesn't go into any detail on when it would be appropriate.

Graff does a really good job of exploiting how Tannen doesn't go into much detail in many of her arguments.  She is very ambiguous as to when a debate becomes a dialogue.  Graff also points out that Tannen is neither accurate nor realistic.  He is correct when he points out that most students in High School are not exposed to the concept of a debate and that it often doesn't even happen in college.  Although I know personal experiences do not count as statistical evidence, my High School is ranked really high academically and students only get into a debate setting in a college level course (AP US Government) or if they joined the Speech and Debate team.  Champlain College also has a dialogue-like setting, but most college graduates graduate from a school that focuses mainly on lectures.  

As for realism, Graff points out in academia, research papers don't become popular by agreeing with others.  In Tannen's world, there is such a fine line between dialogue and debate that Graff thinks that it should be dismissed altogether.  Tannen thinks that a vicious debate is too closed minded, but Graff makes an excellent pointer about how a good debater has to understand the mindset of his or her opponent.

In conclusion, even though Graff's essay starts off in a negative light pronouncing Tannen's essay as feminist garbage, he does seem to actually have some logicial criticisms to her essay.  In the end, they actually do agree on commonalities like how people shouldn't be closed minded in a debate.  They only portion where they differ is the solution. 

Tannen vs. Graff

After I finished reading Tannen's chapter from her book, I have to agree with her views. It's true that modern society does use language encompassing violent, battle, and war-based words to describe conflicts (even one's that aren't conflicts) in a negative tone. I myself never noticed this until she pointed it out. In my opinion, I think the reason these words are used so commonly is because of the motto, "Violence and drama sells." If you look at movies today, most are over-the-top action utilizing explosions, killing, gore/blood, and various forms of military and/or weaponry. Why do we have them? Because it sells well at the box office. Look at TV by flipping through the channels and you'll find a million (not literally) different forms of drama shows (*cough* reality TV*cough*) to watch. One of these, Jersey Shore (and I know for a fact most of my fellow classmates will roll their eyes upon hearing that name), deals with drama, partying, and brawls/fighting with no point or purpose to the show. Why is this on TV? Because people watch it and it gets high ratings (aka it makes money). To my disgust, there are other drama/reality TV shows that are just as bad, perhaps even worse, that stay on the air where other shows get canceled before finishing a couple of seasons (ex. Kyle XY ). Now, after getting 3/4 the way through Graff's "review," I stopped reading it due to the fact that all he was doing was nitpicking and bashing what Tannen said and believed in. Most of his quotes he took from Tannen's chapter he mainly scorned with no opinion or evidence to back up his reasoning. If you are going to counter somebody's views, at least back it up with a good reason why you think he/she is wrong (and providing some sort of fact or evidence helps your argument as well). And coming from a student's perspective, I would have thought better of a Professor, never mind a Dean of a University. I wonder if he got to his high position by just bashing other writers like Tannen over and over again...

Tannen/Graff

Tannen and Graff both tried to argue that arguments have become more of a dialogue and language over the years because of how arguments have become used in culture. However, both authors have differing views on this idea. Tannen believes that arguments have become somewhat of a war of words, one where there could be more than two sides to an argument. Graff, as has been seen through over ten pages of his essay, disagrees with Tannen’s position. He believes that arguments have remained as they were over the years; however, his other position is that it has become a tool for students to succeed through education by allowing them to become more articulate.

My opinion is that Tannen’s writing was a lot better than Graff’s. Tannen had a much better argument and her examples provided more of an argumentative basis for her essay. Graff, on the other hand, solely attacked Graff and other writers without giving much of an argument of his own. Only at the end of his piece did he provide any sort of argument. Even then, his argument is bland and does not really give any good information to the reader. Tannen’s writing was much more enjoyable than Graff’s, and her argument much better.

In terms of their arguments, I agree with both of them. Arguments have evolved in a way to become more of a dialogue. Every day, people partake in arguments, whether over something important or not. The thing about arguments now is that each person in the argument wants to be right; whether it matters or not. This is way there are multiple sides to arguments, people will create new sides just to add on and try to one-up the other sides of the argument. On the flip side, some people have notices this new kind of argument and have tried to avoid this. In the example with the asthmatic lady, she tried her best to avoid an argument with the smoker by making him seem like the winner of an argument before it happened.

This is where I agree with Graff: being effective is delivering an argument allows for you to become more articulate with your words. The woman was able to win by using her words to trick the smoking man into believing he was doing something good. Since the woman was good with arguments, she won without having to subject herself to hours of heated language with the man. Graff believes that students who become good at arguing something, whether in academe or not, will become more articulate with their words and how they use them. I agree that this is a good skill to have, (hence why we take Rhetoric).

Graff and Tannen

The idea of arguing as a whole, and what comes attached to the word has changed for me after reading these two articles. Before, arguing was a fixed "verb" with one meaning to me, but like almost every other word in the English language, i have come to learn that it has multiple meanings. Most would call arguing a "culture" with the intentions of only winning an argument, and the Tannen and Garff artical support this for the most part - the Graff article spends the majority of its time supporting the teachings of Tannen. However, Graff goes into limitations to Tannen's definitional of the different typed of arguments - but over all what i got from the two articles was that the two were not arguing over what it is to argue, but instead looking for a better way to argue, and its that conclusion that i agree with. I find no value in the different types or arguing and the flaws with each method - I am much more interested in finding a more refined method of arguing, supporting Graffs opinion.

Arguements

Out of the two articles I have to say that Tannen wrote the best piece. I full-heartedly agree that people sometimes get so caught up in wanting to be right at the time that they just argue for the sake of arguing, and more often than not their argument ends up being more detrimental to their overall cause. In more extreme cause, mainly concerning politics, to often do opposing political sides refuse to compromise or consider the opposing sides proposal that all that happens is both sides argue, nothing happens and only time was wasted. Arguing generally leaves for a hostile environment and this makes it difficult to form a conclusion/or end to the point of the argument in the first place.

I will also say that even though in many cases arguing is unnecessary at best, I believe that Graff had a point in saying people should be educated on how to argue. This could essentially solve the idea behind the pointless argument and really clean up the thoughtless and occasionally pointless ideas thrown around in an argument. Teach people how to make their points and back it up, as well as how to respect and listen to the opposing proposition. The only way to really make use of an argument is for it to be used to get whatever conflict solved, and that involves listening/compromising.

I think I would have respected Graff’s opposing article if his article didn’t sound like it was mostly geared towards his annoyance with Tannen’s article. Many of his disagreements were simply that he barely backed up most of his opinions and comments against Tannen’s article. I thought it was interesting that Graff was pro-argue and his entire paper was a giant argument, or at least that’s what it came off as to me as a reader.

Bother articles made great points on whether or not arguing is worth learning about, I really think it would be funny to get these two authors together and see what they came up with. Graff should have spent more time backing up his point instead of taking a completely negative stance against Tannen. I bet Tanned would argue it as being a sexist view on her “female” status against the overuse of argument.

These articles really made me look at the idea behind the argument a little differently; I never considered the idea behind the “argument” with so much depth.

Fighting words “The Battle of Words” Warring Words

Tannen v. Graff the battle of these two individuals has spawned the conversations of words we use and why the words we use have unintended effects. For example, Smashed v. Bumped, this presentation of words hold a different empathize than Smashed and Bumped, because by use of v. (versus) I have create a sense of conflict in the readers mind. That’s part of what Tannen and Graff are arguing, that we as a culture have decided to maintain a sense of war by using phrases and words associated with battle. The biggest question is, why? I know that I don’t have the answer, but I have thought of why we might be stuck in conflict with our words. Perhaps it’s the power behind these particular words that we see them as deterrents, but maybe the ruling sense or emotion of the public was fear. I say was because I think the past was a common place of fear during the era of WWII and The Cold War, and during this term of fear we had instilled the language of war we know today. But I know that today still holds instances of conflict, internal and external, but scale of conflict has lessen and the warring terms are overused, so that we don’t think of the emotion behind this words. We need to change the words we use, moving away from battle phrases and overused statements, so we may create a different worldly emotion that isn’t the fear. Because I see the warring words as a creator of a nation of fear, a nation we have unknowingly created, but can still change. Tannen and Graff have show us the power of words and argument, so let’s take that understanding and change the emotion behind the words we are using and substitute them for a better world of words.

Tannen vs Graff

Tannen and Graff went over the similar points, but different view on them. Tannen's essay states that there are more then two sides to an argument. This made me think more into this thought. I agree completely. An argument does not consist of one person being right and the other wrong. One must think openly to others thoughts and pick their words carefully. Word choice is important because you may say a phase and the other person takes it as something completely different, which could make a whole other argument. This essay was wrote with many examples, and familiar metaphors to help the reader understand. I felt that Graff's essay referred to Tannen's essays most of the time. During this Graff would disagree with Tannen. I did not enjoy this type of writing because it came off more of Graff bashing Tannen. I felt that Graff came off as a bad writer because the most of the essay is a twist off of Tannan's essay. I enjoy Tannen's writing over Graff

Tannen vs. Graff

Before taking this class, I never really thought about having an “argument”. Last semester in Rhetoric, I wrote one argument essay but we never talked about what that meant before we wrote it. When I was told to write an argument essay, I chose a topic that I had a very strong opinion about and simply found evidence that supported my opinion. After reading Debora Tannen’s short story, “Fighting for Our Lives”, I was given a new prospective on argument. I had never really given any thought to the combative language that we use when we speak and how that plays into argument. The fact that we can compare almost anything to a war and use terms such as “that’s half the battle” or “give it a shot”, is something I had never noticed and now I find very interesting. I don’t think anyone actually takes these phrases literally.  It should be noted that it definitely does get people’s attention about some type of debate, fight, or difference of opinion, if it is called a war. When Tannen talked about passive aggressiveness as a type of argument, I was intrigued. She used an example, in her writing, about a woman telling a man who was smoking in a no-smoking area the she had asthma. She simply asked him if he would mind not smoking. This gave the man his dignity to be a gentleman and choose not to smoke. She did not attack him with her words, instead, she educated him. All together, I thought Tannen gave some pretty interesting views on the subject. However, after reading Graff’s short story “Two Cheers For The Argument Culture”, I think I sided more with his thoughts about argument. Unlike Tannen, who believes that there is too much argument in the world, Graff believes there is too little. I really liked where he offered his opinion, “Who I am and what I say is defined by the fact that I am not you and have different perspectives from yours – if I did not, there would be no reason for me to write or for you to read me.” This statement is so true. I don’t think the world would function very well or be very interesting at all if we all  viewed things the same way and no one had different thoughts and opinions. Graff says that developing arguments is definitely a skill and I agree with him that students should be learning this skill in high school and college. I personally wish that I had more debates and written more argument papers in high school. This is a skill that I need to further refine. I think it would be very useful for young adults to be able to use their words, first, to be able to settle a disagreement instead of resorting to violence. The opposite seems to be more the case. This takes the instability of emotions and physical size out of the equation, making argument a more level playing ground. This is definitely food for thought.

Tannen Vs Graff by Kennedy Tran

When I first read the story from Tannen, my first impression was that I did notice that there were a lot of English idioms that dealt with war in some sense. I agreed as I read about how debates nowadays are just about finding the weak points in your opponent, and attacking it. (Ironically, it’s also a war metaphor.) As I continued on, it came to me that it seemed Tannen was becoming a hypocrite. She talks about arguments and its legitimacy, yet here it seems she’s the one who’s about to have the argument over legitimacy. She talks about turning arguments into debates, but then talks about getting rid of arguments as a whole (which in my opinion would be a ludicrous idea.) I liked an example that Tannen used, though. The example was when she talked about how you get the message across to someone who is smoking in a non-smoking area. It’s never occurred to me more than now that your tone of voice, the way you connote and choose your words could affect how a person responds to you. (One thing that Tannen does not imply though is the matter of the situation from the smoker’s perspective. Perhaps the smoker knows he is doing something illegal?) If it was one thing I got out of reading Tannen’s story, it was that not arguing is the inevitable.

When I first read Graff’s story, I quickly realized how he was picking against and attacking Tannen’s essay. Though there were points where Graff agreed with, he mostly criticized her essay. I would certainly agree with Graff’s perspective of argument versus debate. He picked up on a lot of things I saw against Tannen. One thing was Tannen’s hypocrisy, “In deploring the attack mode, she can’t help succumbing to it herself.” In the end, Graff talks about how not arguing is improbable, but with luck, “getting the argument game out in the open and acknowledging its unavoidability will help us start playing the game a bit less egotistically and competitively, and with more respect for each other.” I would completely agree with this statement, as to what Tannen was stating in her essay about how arguments nowadays are just attacking each other’s facts. Hopefully, when a person learns to listen (a lesson Graff was pointing out), then can a person finally master the art of arguing. In the end, I really enjoyed Graff’s essay better. It appealed to me more and made more sense to me than Tannen’s did.

Tannen Vs Graff by Robert Bethune

When I first started reading Tannen the first day I disagreed with her at the first moment but i did not fully grasp the concept of what she was actually trying to get across. After thinking about it more and more it started making sense. Then after reading the Graff I felt as the soul purpose of that paper was a messy argument between that one a Tannen. I feel this way because he quoted different parts of her writing over and over and told why he believed that she was wrong about those points and the opposites were right. Yet their goals themselves were to show that arguing in itself isn't something good at all. I do believe though Tannen's points on a sort of smart argument may be good not one in which they both want to "win" but maybe debate because in a way both points may be right. I also believe that this can help intellectually help the people broaden both the way they speak but also how. I feel this way because if we know what to say to not offend the opposition that the actual arguments them self will be in a much calmer environment. That to say as soon as the first person goes overboard the other would be soon to follow. So not only do you need to know what to say, but you also need to think about the other persons word choice and before you freak out back think about what could really be meant by the person. She uses smashed VS. bumped both being used in the same argument although you wouldn't think of them in the same way maybe if arguing over an accident before freaking out try to compare what happened to a word suitable so even though the person said you smashed my car. You knowing it wasn't to fast you will know he means bumped and you can try and calm down the situation. So I believe if we were all taught as Tannen wants us to we may be better off in the long run

"Your Argument is Invalid. Accept it." [Tannen + Graff]

Graff: “Who I am and what I say is defined by the fact that I am not you and have a different perspective from yours.”

Both Tannen and Graff meet with mutual understanding that the way our minds work is that we try to create a need to make others wrong, but we should not want to approach an argument with the mindset of who is right and who is wrong. We should have the attitude of getting our beliefs out while learning from others and being opened to the possibility of change. Such changes often affect the way we see things, which will then change what we want to say or add on to what we stand for. Graff constantly states how Tannen wants to change debates into dialogue completely. But she states, “I do not believe we should put aside the argument model at public discourse entirely.” She just wants others to acknowledge that one does not need to enter a conversation with so much hostility. But we also have to keep in mind that we must not fully sugarcoat a debate because some of the best ideas are unleashed when the heat is on, like Graff explained. But there is a difference between being passionate about one’s words and being overly dominant and closed off to others’ opinions. It is undeniable that thinking is a form of internal argument and when one speaks up they are taking a stance. But your stance must not exclude the factors of mutual understanding in the way you are communicating. 

I like how Tannen explained certain ways to get your idea across without hurting the other side but still getting what you want. With that being said, we must be able to master different approaches that give much better results even if the result alters the way we think. Graff said that argumentation is a game, which I’d like to disagree with that. I don’t want to view me speaking up to others and them possibly disagreeing with me as a game. It makes my thoughts and what I stand for sound trivial. If people picture a dispute as a game that will only make them elevate into anger. For in a game, there is your side and your opponents—and of course a game is meant to be competitive. This may be proof that a debate is unavoidable but it does not support his belief of not wanting a debate to be agonistic or aggressive.  I’ve learned through both articles that there must be a balance between dialogue and debate and that we must be open-minded with what others have to say.  

Samantha Ovitt-Tannen

After reading both articles I came to the conclusion that I liked Tannen the best. I feel Tannen had a lot more similar things that I have witnessed in my life time. Throughout reading I was a bit confused but as I continued reading I was actually able to understand it. It all made since. After reading the two different articles about the culture of arguments and debates I found it very interesting and I enjoyed reading what the two opposite sides think of each other’s ideas and opinions. Before reading these two articles I thought an argument was just a fight over something stupid just wanted to have the victory of the fight. Both articles were generally the same. However, I really liked Tannen because it was funny and it showed me a different meaning in arguing because there are more than just two sides of every argument and I never really thought of it until reading it and it was a great way to learn something new about arguments. What really got me to like Tannen more was when he stated the other side of the story he did it very delicut he tried not hurting the other side. To sum this up after reading both articles I’ve learned that when you are auguring you will need to hear the other side and have a balanced mind with the situation and an open mind.

Tannen vs Graff

After reading both essays, I found that I liked the Tannen one better. I found it to be more interesting and I agreed with a lot of the things she had to say. I learned that there are more than only 2 sides to an argument so before making any conclusions on who’s right or wrong you need to listen to all sides. You should still express your own ideas when arguing but you have to be open to the other people’s thoughts because it may have you look at it from a different point of view.  I think that you still need to stand up for your argument though but at the same time have respect for the other person.

I agree with Tannen on the idea that we don’t think about what some of expressions we say in our daily conversations really mean. When you are in an argument, someone’s word choice could change the whole meaning of what they are trying to say.  I liked when she gave the car crash example. By simply changing the word from bumped to smashed, it gave people a whole different interpretation on what happened. When she used the word bumped it was like no big deal but when smashed was used they automatically assumed it was bad and that when asked if there was glass they answered yes even though there wasn’t. I think it’s really impressive that one word can change the whole meaning/interpretation of a sentence. I also think that metaphors have become a big part of our language without people really thinking of the meanings behind them. People just use them in daily conversations or arguments without thinking. I agree with Tannen that sometimes they can be hurtful when in an argument. For example, take a stab at it or it’s only half the battle. I hear people say these all the time and when you think about it, it’s all compared to war.

I think that the big idea that I got from Tannen’s essay is to go into an argument knowing that there more than 2 sides to it so you have to be willing to listen to other people’s ideas openly. You can’t go in thinking your right and that’s the end of it. The other very important concept that I got was word choice. It is a huge factor in how things are perceived and understood.

Tannen vs. Graff

Both Tannen and Graff's essays argues the same point.  Both essays explained that the term "arguing" is usually taken the wrong way.   When people argue, they refer to it as a battle and try to "win" the argument.  When the only objective os arguing is winning and disproving any other ideas or points of view, than that argument is pointless.  The essays taught me that when I argue, I should listen to and consider the points of view of others, instead of just disregarding them, and "winning" the argument.   Both Tannen and Graff effectively got their points and ideas across, but I liked Tannen's better because his style of writing was more interesting and funny.

It's Unavoidable

Reading through both Graff and Tannen’s work I had the same reaction as I started reading both writings, “This is ridiculous,” I thought this for multiple reasons. The first and probably most obvious is because of how long each text was, which for me yes I knew I could and would read it all, it’s just with all the other work I had on my plate I was planning to just skim each text. But that didn’t end up happening. I truly ended up hooked to each of the readings for separate reasons.

At first I found Tannen’s reading to be a bit outlandish. I truly thought, “Oh come on, we don’t use war metaphors nearly as much as she thinks,” however I was in a way proven wrong. My eyes were opened to how aggressively people speak all the time and I’m starting to notice it happen more and more often in my own life. And as I read through her text until the end I was kind of on her side of things. That we shouldn’t be focused on debate and who wins and loses and more about discussions and making talking to one another more civilized and humane. Her idea is to go around the argument to make things “nicer”, in a way.

However, I then read Graff’s work. Which truly, I at first thought he was this huge asshole. He was just continuously putting down Tannen’s work and going against it in every way possible. It was not until more than half way through his work did I realize his point. That argument is just a part of everyday life and there is no avoiding it. I then realized he was just trying to show that Tannen had been telling the reader to almost avoid argument at all costs to make people treat each other better and with respect. However, as I said, as Graff said, it’s unavoidable and if only students in school were taught this earlier maybe these arguments would be more controlled.

For multiple reasons I, in the end, agree with Graff’s conclusions about argument. At first I didn’t really like the way he was writing and thought, for whatever reason his work would parallel Tannen’s. That was completely wrong. I agree with his thoughts that arguments in daily life are unavoidable and that more adolescence should be taught in school and college how to better argue and express their opinions. It will help “get the argument game out in the open and acknowledging its unavoidability will help us start playing the game with less egotistically and competitively, and with more respect for each other,” instead of avoiding it all together.

Tannen and Graff

After reading Tannen's essay I thought about how we use war language more often in language than we believe we do. I also agreed with her when she said that it's more difficult to have a debate or argue with others. Once you get defensive the conversations usually moves focus from the actual topic to bashing the credibility of the person you are arguing with. While reading Graff I felt like he was a little hypocritical in his writing. He said that we skew our arguments and writings by only using the examples that will prove our point. He did just that when you brought up Tannen in his paper. He only used what Tannen wrote when it was convenient to the point that he was trying to make. However, I did think that his paper was more fully rounded about arguments than Tannen's was. He spoke about how arguing has its good points and that if we learned how to argue better that we would have more educational debates that said on focus instead of going straight to the person. I didn't understand why it was relevant to bring up teachers never arguing in front of students or students never having debates in class. In my government class we had two debates and they were the most stupid debates I've experienced. No one knew what he or she were saying, but they kept getting louder and more personal as a way to try to get the other person to back down. So as I've said before I do agree with Graff about teaching students how to argue, but we don't need to see our teachers arguing to do that. I really liked when Tannen brought up how people imagined the crash being worse when they were told the cars smashed into each other than the others that were just told that the cars bumped into each other. That shows us just how powerful language can be. This goes directly to what Graff was trying to say, we need to learn how to better control our arguments, because they will have an affect on other people and sometimes we won’t know how they’re going to affect others until it’s too late. We don’t want our politicians using their debate skills to manipulate us to vote for them if they really won’t have our best interests in heart. Those that don’t take the time to learn won’t be able to see the gaps in logic of the debates.

Graff

In Graff's opening statement I could already agree with both his opinion, which stated that people should be educated in controversies since argumentation is an important part to our government and to being a successful citizen. Although, I also agree with the opposition, which stated that there is already too much arguing and fighting. Today debates are about winning and not about creating a positive change. If people also learned how to argue correctly and intellectually then there would not be all this fighting and anger. Too many people feel like they need to win an argument, but they spend all their time in this narrow mindset instead of being open minded and listening to their opponent and learning from them. A statement that Graff makes that I disagree with was when he said that most students do not witness debates between teachers and rarely between students. I have seen a few situations where students debate in class about topics that they are passionate about. And most students do not witness their teachers debating, which is normal, but that still does not mean that it does not happen. There is no way to end conflicts between people, especially in schools and relationships. I agree that debates these days can be completely absurd but they should not be eliminated because they are beneficial to our community. I really like how Mike Rose phrases the importance of argumentative habits which Graff says are key to all disciplines. If people recognized the importance of listening to their opponent and keeping an open mind, I think arguments would be much more productive.