Blog #2: Where does arguing get you?

A. My original notion of the term argument is a word to describe fighting between two different people over trivial or extremely important issues. I looked at argument as angry debate for the purpose of convincing the other side of your correctness. However, Wood describes argument, in simpler terms, as “…making a claim (expressing a point of view on an issue that is communicated by the arguer) and supporting it with reasons and evidence to convince an audience to change the way it thinks about the issue (Wood 4-5). With this definition I can see that the need for anger is irrelevant and possibly the only emotion needed is passion by each involved for their particular interest. This chapter helped me to understand better how to approach argument, what issues to debate, and what audience I would have the best chance to find a common ground with, or even convince them of my point of view. “Effective argument requires the establishment of some common ground…If two parties are too far apart and share no common ground they usually do not understand one another…” (12), this illustrates that no matter how eloquent the speaker or writer, if there is a huge gap in understanding argument is nearly pointless. I now understand better that I must present my argument in relation to my audience and in a tone that does not attack or exclude anyone, in an attempt to be most convincing.

B. I decided to select the magazine NEWSWEEK based on my personal interest in current events and politics; just as I selected my major of political science for much the same reasons. This particular issue has many interesting topics discussed throughout the magazine, including an insightful look into the world of FACEBOOK, the ever-growing networking site created by a former college student. Also, there is an in-depth look at IEDs (improvised explosive devices) in the Iraq War. This article describes the chaos and fear gripping the lives of all those involved with the Iraq War and the highly unconventional tactics used by the insurgents.

Foss defines rhetoric as "the human use of symbols to communicate" (Foss, Foss and Trapp 1). As I read this definition I realized I began to scan over the next few paragraphs thinking about how this definition was relating to the rest of the article and, more specifically, how I too use symbols to communicate numerous times throughout the day. I feel that the authors are trying to explain with their definition how humans use so many common words that only have meaning to society because someone, somewhere down the historic timeline decided to give a certain object its name for eternity. I know that on many occurrences I too have taken a moment to ponder why certain things are given a certain name. If red had been given the name green and vice versa, then we would know describe things such as blood green or as red as the grass. When one really starts to analyze human symbols and their use in society it can become never-ending and confusing. As stated in the reading, during the period of rationalism poetry and oratory were thought of as ridiculous to be a basis for truth in comparison to science, yet this is where our basis for description and reason came from and without rhetoric science would have no backbone (Foss, Foss and Trapp 10). As I conclude my rambling on this topic I know that because of this idea that has resurfaced in my brain, I will lose sleep pondering many more unattainable answers to my many life's questions.

Andrea Lunsford: "Rhetoric is the art, practice, and study of human communication."
Plato: [Rhetoric] is the "art of enchanting the soul." (The art of winning the soul by discourse.)
BOTH FROM:
(Eidenmuller, Michael E.. "Scholarly Definitions of Rhetoric." American Rhetoric. 2007. American Rhetoric. 22 Aug 2007 http://www.americanrhetoric.com/rhetoricdefinitions.htm.)