The Truth Behind Arguments

War is the conceptual basis of all arguments. This underlying foundation to the majority of all arguments gives them a bad reputation. The word “war” on its own radiates a negative connotation and often makes people fear what is to come. In the article “Finding the Good Argument OR Why Bother With Logic,” author and English professor at University of Tennessee Rebecca Jones explains points risen by linguists George Lakoff and Mark Johnson and their stance on the basis of arguments: “We see the person we are arguing with as an opponent. We attack his position and we defend our own … Many of the things we do in arguing are partially structured by the concept of war” (61).

Although typically people try to avoid arguing, or argue to win to gain a sense of self-pride, arguments are actually beneficial to the community. Arguing is necessary to resolve conflicts; however, it is rarely done in an effective manner. As Jones points out, we as humans argue inefficiently everyday. This is problematic in our society because we rarely explore all points of a topic of conversation. We form our arguments in the pro versus con format We often say what we want to say and try to win the argument rather than bickering to understand the situation completely. Often, our sole purpose of arguing is to prove someone wrong, but what we do not realize that we are not pitching the full truths because we do not know them ourselves.

Personally, I do not think that I have ever been a part of an argument that has been fully developed. When I bicker with my friends or my parents, I argue to prove myself right. Now, I realize that I did not understand the point of an argument. An argument is supposed to provide insight to a situation, they are not intended to make you feel superior to your peers. They are not intended to create competition between the two opposing sides. They are not intended to pin two people against each other. Instead, debates should end feeling resolved on both sides, not controlled by one and end with a winner and a loser.

The root of this problem is found within the sources of greater power. Jones references the 2008 election when specifically locating one of the problem areas: “These important moments that fail to offer good models lower the standards for public argumentation” (62). Jones is referring to the way that well-known politicians debate. Rather than arguing during debates and fully resolving the topic of conversation on live television, they recite practiced speeches that only scrape the surface of the topics. If these famous figures would dig deeper into their arguments and explore further into the corners of arguments we would have a better chance at eliminating these argumental issues in the public eye. Jones points out how we take these styles of argumentation taught to us by these figures and translate them into our everyday life: “This replicates the liberal/conservative dynamic we often see in the papers or on television” (64). Once politicians and other people of higher social status’ discover the meaning of arguing, then we the public will have an easier time exploring healthy debates in our own lives.