There is this restaurant in my hometown called Jack’s Urban Eats and they're are pretty well known for their Urban Fries and chicken strips. With these chicken strips, you get only two choices of sauce: ranch and barbecue. I hate that so much. There are so many other varieties of sauces out there and they just limit our choice to ranch and freaking barbecue sauce! Where’s my sweet and sour, honey mustard, KETCHUP??? I actually don't like ketchup that much, but you all get the picture. The limited choices of sauces at this restaurant is similar to the problem Jones addressed in her essay Finding the Good Argument OR Why Bother With Logic concerning the restricted viewing of arguments.
As Jones noted, arguments have been limited to a “this or that” set up and because of this there leaves a lot of ignorance in between. Jones says that “while many pro and con arguments are valid, they can...shut down the very purpose of having an argument: the possibility that you might change your mind.” After reading that, i did one of those “it all makes sense now”. A little after this statement, Jones provided examples of relevant topics today such as gun control, cap and trade, and free universal healthcare and asked her audience to find a compromise in between. Most of these political speeches present issues that are relative in today’s society but are “this or that”. You are either for or against gun control for instance. Popular media and higher officials have been falsely leading people into following this way of arguing and making it seem like that is the best and only way to stand for something.
Towards the end of her introduction, Jones reassures us that it is okay to compromise and have believe in both pro and con. It's okay to believe that guns are bad but are okay to have after having a background check and other tests. In fact, this is the right way to have an argument. Jones defines argument as “multiple and complex” and “can be logical, rational, emotional, fruitful, useful, and even enjoyable.” And that makes complete sense. If everything you try to argue for is this or that, you’re never thinking in a logical and realistic way.
Jones mentions how everyone in America comes from different background and are diverse in terms of social class, economic status, and political views therefore there could never be “pro or con”. In argumentative writing, we are taught to offer counterarguments for each point and I believe that's a possible solution to the “this or that” problem. It allows people to take a step back and open up their perspective on the topic.
America was founded as a free, democratic nation after escaping from a monocratic regime. In a monarchy, we learn from history that there is not room for everyone’s opinion and we could imagine that for the most part many arguments were very “this or that”. So it doesn't make sense that American citizens would allow that to occur in their country, yet it has been for centuries. It would make sense for compromise in arguments or debates to happen.
Yes, argument is popular and necessary in life however arguing logically through the use of counterarguments is necessary and perhaps allows for more fluid and compromising results.
Hi Verna! About the choice of two sauces, why not have all of them and if not three or four! You may be able to use rhetoric to your advantage when asking the waiter or waitress to get lost in the sauce! Jokes aside, compromise is key when two warring nations are at their breaking point or simply when choosing the next movie to watch when going out with your significant other. Also, the use of counterargument adds logic to argument as one side must acknowledge the the other side's point of view instead of just completely refuting information.
ReplyDeleteThere has been compromise in the history of America as they seceded from the British Regime like the Missouri Compromise and the Connecticut Compromise and many others that have somehow made their way out of my mind because history was really not my forte as music was throughout my four years in high school. Anyhow, I know that compromise would not mean "loss" as Rebecca Jones portrayed it for both sides would gain at least something from both of their arguments which truly makes argument necessary in a "culture that values democracy and equity" (64).
I really liked your opening example. It provided a great illustration of Jones' point. Why not explore multiple options. It's sort of like those new soda machines that allow you to choose or mix or whatever around 100 flavors.
ReplyDeleteWith soft drinks, that's not important and probably not even healthy, but with life, it's essential.
I really enjoyed your introduction; it was very intriguing and grabbed my attention. It's nice to open a more serious subject with something that is funny and relatable to its readers. Your intro example flowed nicely into Jone's view of compromise when it comes to an argument. I agree with you in that there must be compromise between two contradicting ideas. It takes two (or more) people to argue, so many views will be expressed and compromise is a reasonable way to settle these arguments.
ReplyDeleteLike everyone else said, your introduction was awesome. It totally grabbed my attention and made Jone's point much easier to understand. You definitely succeeded in setting up the rest of your article, and making a personal connection makes me trust you as an author. I enjoy how you explore that "this or that" type of arguments don't have a place in a democracy. I agree with you that it truly doesn't make sense; America has so many opinions!
ReplyDeleteI hope people take to heart what you wrote about compromise and opening your perspective. I'll admit I've had trouble with that at times, but being aware of the issue is half way to the solution. Thanks Verna, your article (and introduction) will definitely help me remember to keep an open mind!