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.