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