"Your Argument is Invalid. Accept it." [Tannen + Graff]

Graff: “Who I am and what I say is defined by the fact that I am not you and have a different perspective from yours.”

Both Tannen and Graff meet with mutual understanding that the way our minds work is that we try to create a need to make others wrong, but we should not want to approach an argument with the mindset of who is right and who is wrong. We should have the attitude of getting our beliefs out while learning from others and being opened to the possibility of change. Such changes often affect the way we see things, which will then change what we want to say or add on to what we stand for. Graff constantly states how Tannen wants to change debates into dialogue completely. But she states, “I do not believe we should put aside the argument model at public discourse entirely.” She just wants others to acknowledge that one does not need to enter a conversation with so much hostility. But we also have to keep in mind that we must not fully sugarcoat a debate because some of the best ideas are unleashed when the heat is on, like Graff explained. But there is a difference between being passionate about one’s words and being overly dominant and closed off to others’ opinions. It is undeniable that thinking is a form of internal argument and when one speaks up they are taking a stance. But your stance must not exclude the factors of mutual understanding in the way you are communicating. 

I like how Tannen explained certain ways to get your idea across without hurting the other side but still getting what you want. With that being said, we must be able to master different approaches that give much better results even if the result alters the way we think. Graff said that argumentation is a game, which I’d like to disagree with that. I don’t want to view me speaking up to others and them possibly disagreeing with me as a game. It makes my thoughts and what I stand for sound trivial. If people picture a dispute as a game that will only make them elevate into anger. For in a game, there is your side and your opponents—and of course a game is meant to be competitive. This may be proof that a debate is unavoidable but it does not support his belief of not wanting a debate to be agonistic or aggressive.  I’ve learned through both articles that there must be a balance between dialogue and debate and that we must be open-minded with what others have to say.