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.