Response to "Writing an Argument"

I see the purpose of this essay as being why we need to learn to argue effectively as a writer. The most famous discourses on government, ethics, politics and religion were all argued in this fashion, not necessarily to prove a point but to at least get others to think about the issues on a deeper level. American society these days seems to have gone away from an objective presentation of ideas to one of vehement defense of principles that might not be totally understood by those touting them. For example, people pick sides in a political race based on party lines or a few basic assumptions of what a candidate plans to do, not on the reality of what a candidate stands for, their track record or even their ethics.


The media does a pretty thorough job of spoon feeding the masses whatever they think they should believe without, as Mr. Ballenger puts it, "bowing respectfully to the complexity of the subject, examining it from a variety of perspectives, not just two opposing poles." It is not so much news anymore as it is a one sided editorial with a very narrow perspective on the issues that affect us. We may as well just watch the commercials, that way we know we are being sold something instead of them sneaking it in through the back door. So if "arguing is our civic duty" then we should learn to correct this by teaching the next generation to think for themselves and that real wisdom comes from genuine understanding from listening and questioning not from a person's ability to pontificate. If you teach a person to research and really discover the truth of matters than the argument is somewhat moot, if anything the argument paper should be designed to inspire a person to go look for the answers themselves.

Coincidentally enough my own argument paper centers on the idea that the control of knowledge by those in power is the reason for the decline of our society. I see the biggest hurdle to presenting my point may be finding experts who would agree with me, after all, the authorities are the people I'm pointing the finger at and those who might agree with me have been painted as quacks and conspiracy theorists by those in authority. I will have to appeal then rather to direct evidence and perhaps use the authority of the great philosophers to back me up. Funny how Socrates was thought of as a quack and a dangerous man in his own time but now his thoughts are taught in text books, go figure.

Mr. Ballenger breaks the argument paper down into two forms, the Academic Argument Essay and the Informal Argument Essay, I see our papers as being something in between the two of these because we will have research to back it up but we ourselves are not necessarily authorities on the subjects we are writing about. My understanding is that we will take this first argument paper and turn it into an Op-ed at the end of the semester which will have to be much shorter. I'm not in love with that idea, getting to the point in 500 to 1,000 words can be pretty tricky, especially if your topic is as complex as my own, I will perhaps have to argue only a certain instance of my arguement such as how the corporate ownership of media outlets leads to biased reporting and therefore an inaccurate presentation of the facts or perhaps how the influence of lobbyists has corrupted what is to be taught in our public schools. Either way, it will curtail my argument somewhat but it is the nature of the beast.

I would appreciate any feedback or ideas, leads or personal thoughts on the matter, feel free to post.