Tannen vs. Graff

     I found it odd, that although both were "discussing," and viewing the issue of argument vs. dialogue as a purely academic issue, they were both nit-picking at the subtleties of what each was trying to advocate for. While denouncing argument they slowly slid into an argumentative style essay. Although it was not as blatant, black&white, two-sided and outright as today's arguments usually are there was still disagreement and some argument. This is natural though, as Graff states in his article. It is difficult to move away from argument and combative discussion, because it is so easy, natural and comes to us without conscious effort--embedded subconsciously. Sometimes argument is even necessary. Dialogue is safe. Diplomacy allows for individuals/groups to discuss issues in a open forum that allows for slowly coming to the right answer together, whereas Argument allows for individuals/groups to push against an opposing individual/group and conquer them--instituting their own values and stipulations when they have won.
     Although I thought Tannen presented her side in a more clean-cut and concise manner, I would have to agree with the points Graff made more, simply because he was realistic--taking into consideration human nature and our present global environment. Graff viewed this issue in the macro where I think Tannen viewed it in a smaller more intimate sense--in context to America.
      Now I'll probably take a second before opening my mouth in a discussion to consider whether or not dialogue/diplomacy or argument is more appropriate and effective at that certain time.