Tannen vs. Graff

After reading Tannen and Graff's pieces of literature, I spent some time thinking about arguments and language in modern society.  What I came up with is that words can have a lot of impact on a person or a topic.  Such as when Tannen uses the word "bumped" instead of "smashed".  The difference between the choice of those two words is that by using one or the other, the story completely changes; if two cars bumped into each other it sounds like it was just a non-hardzardous little fender-bender.  But, had Tannen had described the collision by using the word "smashed," the event sounds more drastic and significant.  

     So after thinking more about language, words and metaphors from Tannen's piece, I found myself feeling like a lot of arguments originate from our word choice.  Easily people take offense and/or disagree to certain words or things that we say whether it's in a classroom, in a private conversation and in modern society, via texting and/or email.  From there the tension heats up and turns into arguments.  From this I feel that a lot of arguments come from a negative standpoint.  I think people do not argue for the right reasons but merely for the sake of making others wrong and to be dramatic.  People too often make things about themselves thus, they let a person's statement reflect on them and from there they create a defense and start arguments.

     After reading Tannen's piece my view on arguments was that people really fight and that arguing is more of a negative concept.  I thought Tannen got too caught up in trying to explain that arguments were out of negativity that she herself, fell under the same issue.  After I was done reading Tannen I felt that a lot of people are unsuccessful in trying to argue in an appropriate manner.  But after reading Graff's piece, I felt that he successfully and respectively argued against Tannen's.  Graff makes the point multiple times in his writing that today's society creates the image that arguments are made out of violence and that is what Tannen tries to show the reader (even though she herself gets caught up in her own writing.)

     Graff shows the reader that it is possible someone can make a real argument and opposition without it coming from violence.  After reading Graff, my thoughts about arguments changed; I think people could make valid arguments in an appropriate way, it's possible but instead I think people rather argue for the sake of arguing and out of violence.  I know there is a way to argue "the right way" but now I'm left to wonder, when are people going to start?