Tannen vs. Gerald

After reading the two different articles about the culture of arguments and debates I found it quite interesting and fun to read after evaluating what the two opposite sides think of each others ideas and opinions. More or less I had learned a lot from the two articles after reading it as well. However what I found the problem with Tannen’s article about argument was that it was more repetitive and very boring to read. The topic was being repeated a lot. I think instead of stretching the single topic she could have said the same thing in fewer words than repeating her self over and over again. Furthermore in some way you could also clearly see that Deborah loves debates no matter what the topic is about, in fact she is also a great debater from just looking at the problems she discussed in her reading. She defended really well her points of view in her reading and also was very clear and ready to challenge other people’s points of view as well. Moreover the point’s that she made in her article was indeed very interesting to learn and know about. On the other hand Gerald Graff’s article defines what Tannen’s view on argument culture is and then backs up his views by evaluating her arguments and then explaining to the reader what his view is instead. The problem that Deborah points out in her article is that in the argument culture students are being taught a lot to take a one side view of the argument and try to win it. She states “we need a lot more open-minded dialogue and a lot less polarized debate” This clearly shows that the argumentative portion of academic writing shouldn’t be used so forcefully. In addition she believes that there are many different ways to prove ourselves instead of pointing out that the other person is incorrect. Although Gerald on the other hand completely agrees and respects some of her views. But however Gerald had set up his article in a very nice way that could also show the points he disagrees with Deborah in some parts but also manages to still respect her views as well in the same time instead of trying to tear it down and to win his own argument.