Read this article (http://www.nybooks.com/articles/22960) on blogs and respond to it as discussed today in class. We'll look at a few of your responses tomorrow.
In chapter 2 the book wants us to learn the difference between debating and battling. For us to be clear on this we need to distinguish between arguing and fighting. During our lives we have situations where we need to defend our point of view. For this we start arguing with our opponent or rival that is probably saying something contrary to what were saying. The problem with arguing is that in the majority of the cases we act brilliant. We think that for our point to be supported accurately we need to start fighting with the other person. What happens next is that in the majority of the cases our opponent will stay put when he sees us fighting. Afterwards he will probably "persuade" us and the result will be that we will lose the battle. One of the biggest problems that human beings have faced since we exist is that we don’t know how to argue in a rhetoric and sarcastic way. Most of the times we act and speak without thinking carefully before, and we end up fighting. The worst thing you can do when you want to win on a discussion, is fighting. "You succeed in an argument when you persuade your audience. You win a fight when you dominate the enemy." (Heinrichs, pg. 16)
"An argument done skillfully gets people to want to do what you want. You fight to win; you argue to achieve agreement." (Heinrichs, pg. 17)This statement clearly express in a resumed way what is that you need to exactly do to be able to win or convince someone else that you are completely right and true. In a more wide explanation what they are trying to make us understand is that as in kick box: If we attack we are always exposing ourselves for our opponent to hurt us. Mean while if you stay put and wait for your opponent to attack, then you can use his exposion to contra attack him and hurt him without you getting exposed or in danger. When arguing in a point of view is the same exact thing. You need to debunk the other person’s opinion by using his own argument.
The best word you may use to describe what is that you need to do to win the battle is seduced. This word is extremely important because always when arguing you need to start by manipulating your opponent by making them think that what they say is probably correct. Afterwards you seduce them by expressing your point of view in a way that they can’t say it’s incorrect. For this you start by doing what they want until you turn the papers and end up by making them think that your argument is better because still it defends what they are trying to convince you off. For someone to persuade another person three goals need to be achieved. 1. Stimulate your audience’s emotions, 2. Change its opinion and 3. Get it to act. Like Marcus Tullius Cicero said: "To win a deliberative argument, don’t try to outscore your opponent. Try instead to get your way." (Heinrichs, pg. 19)
http://www.anamariacruzospina.blogspot.com/
ReplyDeletehttp://aplanguageandcompositionpabloe.blogspot.com/
ReplyDeleteAudacity
ReplyDeleteIn chapter 2 the book wants us to learn the difference between debating and battling. For us to be clear on this we need to distinguish between arguing and fighting. During our lives we have situations where we need to defend our point of view. For this we start arguing with our opponent or rival that is probably saying something contrary to what were saying. The problem with arguing is that in the majority of the cases we act brilliant. We think that for our point to be supported accurately we need to start fighting with the other person. What happens next is that in the majority of the cases our opponent will stay put when he sees us fighting. Afterwards he will probably "persuade" us and the result will be that we will lose the battle. One of the biggest problems that human beings have faced since we exist is that we don’t know how to argue in a rhetoric and sarcastic way. Most of the times we act and speak without thinking carefully before, and we end up fighting. The worst thing you can do when you want to win on a discussion, is fighting. "You succeed in an argument when you persuade your audience. You win a fight when you dominate the enemy." (Heinrichs, pg. 16)
"An argument done skillfully gets people to want to do what you want. You fight to win; you argue to achieve agreement." (Heinrichs, pg. 17)This statement clearly express in a resumed way what is that you need to exactly do to be able to win or convince someone else that you are completely right and true. In a more wide explanation what they are trying to make us understand is that as in kick box: If we attack we are always exposing ourselves for our opponent to hurt us. Mean while if you stay put and wait for your opponent to attack, then you can use his exposion to contra attack him and hurt him without you getting exposed or in danger. When arguing in a point of view is the same exact thing. You need to debunk the other person’s opinion by using his own argument.
The best word you may use to describe what is that you need to do to win the battle is seduced. This word is extremely important because always when arguing you need to start by manipulating your opponent by making them think that what they say is probably correct. Afterwards you seduce them by expressing your point of view in a way that they can’t say it’s incorrect. For this you start by doing what they want until you turn the papers and end up by making them think that your argument is better because still it defends what they are trying to convince you off. For someone to persuade another person three goals need to be achieved. 1. Stimulate your audience’s emotions, 2. Change its opinion and 3. Get it to act. Like Marcus Tullius Cicero said: "To win a deliberative argument, don’t try to outscore your opponent. Try instead to get your way." (Heinrichs, pg. 19)
http://dfmullen.blogspot.com/
ReplyDelete