"Good Argument"

While reading David Kaufer’s A Plan for Teaching the Development of Original Policy Arguments and Rebecca Jones’ Finding the Good Argument OR Why Bother with Logic? I found both readings gave a perfect view of a public argument. Each writer provided his or her own relationship of arguing from a different view but I quickly seen a pattern. Each writer made sure to relate to the reader by using concepts that are easily to familiarize with and then provide their view on winning an argument while showcasing public discourse.

In Kaufer’s article he stresses his hierarchal levels of public policy arguments throughout the article to show what is more important while composing an argument to your audience. He makes sure to demonstrate the importance of an issue while creating an argument that goes through the stances. This sort of reminded me of our review in class on Stases Level Theory and what really makes a “good argument”. The example of “lowering the drinking age” was a great because this is an argument that you must prepare for and using Kaufer’s hierarchal levels could help. In the article, Kaufer wrote about how skills for developing arguments and solutions to disagreements should be taught early.  I agree because at some point in our life arguments will take place and we need to be fully prepared. With the example that Kaufer used in the school setting qualities for an argument are needed. Even though we all may naturally possess necessary qualities for a solid argument I don’t see anything wrong with improvement.

Jones on the other hand gives us two options in her reading. An argument is either categorized as “simulations” or “ethical deliberations”. Jones is basically saying that arguments should be logical and ethically accurate when showcased to a public audience. If the argument is not issues won’t be able to gain the audience’s attention and provide them with a “good argument”. I loved the fact that Jones made it clear that the term “argument” has a negative connation.  The fact that I even associate “war” with argument goes to show how negative I think he word is. I have always known arguments to either are won or loss and that it was either a winner or a loser. I watch television a lot so while reading Jones’ article I really thought about some talk shows I watch. On the talk show, The View, I realized that the hosts break every rule that Jones’ listed.  These hosts set the guests up for arguments. They constantly attack their character by bringing up rumors, mistakes from their past, question their viewpoints, attack their character, and much more.

I really enjoyed Jones’ article, Finding the Good Argument OR Why Bother with Logic? I don’t believe all arguments should be broken down into levels but that they relate to ethos, pathos, and logos. We should all have a connection with the topic that we are arguing about and that gives us the power to persuade our audience. But overall both articles about argument were quite interesting in their own way. I think both were very helpful when it comes time to create public arguments and I will definitely use them in the future. So the question is which path would you use for a “good argument”?