To introduce the themes of: gender, identity, faith and doubt, 16 Personalities offered insight into individual identities. After completion, the results suggested that the most fitting personality for my outlook on life would be a debater. In literal terms, a Debater is a personality that enjoys debating with others. However, these arguments serve a higher purpose--they are not meaningless fights--instead debaters are analytical beings that want to express their immense knowledge on a subject. The debater is the ultimate devil’s advocate. The debater utilizes their own knowledge to argue their points, but this does not mean the need for new information is not relevant. For this reason, the assessment holds some truth, as I have always been …show more content…
If I molded myself to the test’s description of a debater, my faults would consist of “insensitivity and intolerance”, as well as the dismissal of practical concepts. In my opinion, these weaknesses describe the opposite of my personality, or how I try to perceive myself to others. In most situations, I utilize the blunt truth when arguing a point, because I would rather be honest to someone than lie to their face; however, I still value my humanity and will consider how a person’s feelings might be affected by my words. For example, if someone has argued a point that I know is not factually-backed, then I might rethink my argument to avoid embarrassing them in front of a class. Correspondingly, intolerant is not an adjective I would use to describe my personality, since I pay attention to everyone’s perspective--though I do not always agree with them--and I would never dismiss a person only for their differing viewpoint. I have friends with different viewpoints on controversial topics, such as abortion, yet I still choose to listen to what they say and do not ignore them. As a debater, it might be satisfying to express my creativity, but I would rather focus on more practical matters. In relation to creativity, I would have to agree that I can lose focus in some of my ideas--usually overthinking one of my own …show more content…
In the test, communication and arguing is a strong point for debaters among friends and in workplaces, but they do not want support only because of a relationship. For this, I agree because I’d rather be wrong and someone tell me the truth instead of be pitied and told I am right in an argument. Relationships are used to challenge the debater and increase the potential of both parties involved. In my own life, I usually create plans to make friends try something new to be more open-minded and adventurous According to the test, I may play the devil’s advocate, but my humanity and sympathy are still intact. As a debater, I might not openly express emotions, yet I still take into consideration other’s feelings and perspectives. I thrive on intellectual discussions and being “right” is not always the end goal. The purpose of an argument is for personal growth and improvement, not a simple word
From a very early age, perhaps the age of six or seven, I realized that I enjoyed disputing things. As I grew older, I attempted to curb this tendency, since I thought it might negatively impact people’s views of me, but I never intended to stamp it out, as it was too integral to my nature.
Director Steven Spielberg and auther Markus Zusak, in their intriguing production, movie Saving Private Ryan and book The Book Thief, both taking place during World War II. However , in Saving Private Ryan Spielberg focus on a lot of complications that occur during war , but guilt was one difficulty that stood out to me. Zusak, on the other hand , showas that having courage during war can be a advantage and also an disadvantage depending on the situation. Both director and author grabed the audience attention with emotional and logical appeal.
A straw man fallacy, in its most lucid form, is executed when a person not only disregards an opponent’s counterarguments, but also distorts them into exaggerated versions of themselves in the interest of making them easier to refute. In many cases, the adversary’s arguments are skewed to such a severe point that they wind up being completely different than what the adversaries were actually fighting for; however, this is all for the convenience of the proponent. An innumerable amount of politicians and authors are infamous for using this problematic method of disproving opposing arguments, even notable celebrities like George W. Bush. The straw man method of persuasion is a proficient way to make a personal stance sound factual, but it
Tannen states, “In the argument culture, criticism, attack, or opposition are the predominant if not the only ways of responding to people or ideas. I use the phrase “culture of critique,” to capture this aspect. “Critique in the sense is not a general term for analysis or interpretation but rather a synonym for criticism.” Tannen states that she is calling attention to and calling into question the inherent dangers of the argument culture, however her article does not discuss an approachable strategy that would solve this social
Americans have embraced debate since before we were a country. The idea that we would provide reasoned support for any position that we took is what made us different from the English king. Our love of debate came from the old country, and embedded itself in our culture as a defining value. Thus, it should not come as a surprise that the affinity for debate is still strong, and finds itself as a regular feature of the mainstream media. However, if Deborah Tannen of the New York Times is correct, our understanding of what it means to argue may be very different from what it once was; a “culture of critique” has developed within our media, and it relies on the exclusive opposition of two conflicting positions (Tannen). In her 1994 editorial, titled “The Triumph of the Yell”, Tannen claims that journalists, politicians and academics treat public discourse as an argument. Furthermore, she attempts to persuade her readers that this posturing of argument as a conflict leads to a battle, not a debate, and that we would be able to communicate the truth if this culture were not interfering. This paper will discuss the rhetorical strategies that Tannen utilizes, outline the support given in her editorial, and why her argument is less convincing than it should be.
The progression of US society has become increasingly more individualistic every generation. Twenge’s analysis of Generation Me accurately depicts the way people today are more irritable and inclined to argue when their points are challenged. Similarly, the argument culture discussed by Tannen has taken over the American education system in part due to this rise in narcissism. Overall it is clear while one was not meant to lead to another, the argument culture and narcissism are not only related, but they unintentionally grow off of one another.
In the article “Dealing with People”, Greg McGrew explains that different types of personality to solve the problems of people’s relationship in our society. He classifies people by four types that are dominants, expressives, analyticals, and amiables. Greg begins with dominants who are forceful, confident, sociable, outgoing, and confrontational tend to threat their mental. Secondly, he describes expressives who are also quite forceful and reluctant to reject a suggestion due to concern about relationship. Talking with them is good method of treating expressive people. Then, he points out that analytical people deliberate to get the right answer. Even though they are superior in making decision, they need time to think how to answer the question.
Are there more than two sides to an argument? The Argument Culture was written by Deborah Tannen (Tannen, 1998). She would have us believing that there are more sides to an argument than just two. Professor Deborah Tannen is a best-selling author. She is a professor of linguistics at Georgetown University. She has written many books, articles, and educational essays. She would say that high-tech communication pulls us apart. She also states that argument culture shapes who we are. Tannen also believes that we can end the argument culture by looking at all sides of the story or situation. She seems to be very knowledgeable on the subject.
Rottenberg, A.R. & Winchell, D. H (2012). Elements of Argument: a text and reader (10th ed.). Boston, MA: Bedford/St. Martin’s
To argue is to attempt to convince a reader to agree with a point of view, to make a decision, or to pursue a particular course of action (Eschholz, Rosa, and Clark 429). In an argument there are three main elements: ethos, logos, and pathos. In ethos, the author tries to build his/her character to the audience. In this particular essay, Mr. Keillor does not build his credibility very well. The only information he reveals is that he is a democrat, which can be found in paragraph one of the essay. The details of Mr.
When I was little everyone told me I would make a great lawyer, they said I loved to argue. For a long time I believed them, I do love to argue. However, the older I got the more I realized that it wasn’t the arguing I loved, it was the dialog. How two people can have the exact same experience, but have two totally different views about that experience baffled me. When I was in high school I struggled with some things that I didn’t quite understand at the time. I didn’t understand why my teammates would listen to my male co-captain instead of me even when we said the exact same thing. I didn’t understand why my teammates would skip practice or do something that might get them kicked off of the team. We all loved water polo and had a great
In the day to day life, experiences and connections are made. Many things that occur in one’s life can all stem from their individual personality, but interpreting how one’s personality guides their life presents a difficult challenge. Many actions, quirks, and patterns that a person has are easily noted due to the ability to see it, but the puppeteer behind these habits is an individual’s personality. A certain personality type can affect the perception of certain events and the reactions/feelings to certain outcomes. While one person might see a situation as dreadful, another may see it entirely different. We tend to find ourselves side by side with people we see similarities between due to a parallel in certain traits, but no two individuals are exactly the same based on differences in personality. Success is hinged on many things and one of those things is the development of self-awareness. To know oneself is key to tackling on intimidating tasks and situations, but to also grow in terms of knowledge and synergy. In my attempt to
In brief, I agree that we, as humans, tend to be set in our ways and many of our problems are related to miscommunication, along with the fact that our judgments are biased because of our experiences and education. Even though I believe that it is human nature to lean towards the more interesting argument, I do not agree that all humans follow the individual in command without questioning as well as disagreeing with their views on at least one subject.
A mere question is how Tannen pulls the reader into her article titled “The Argument Culture.” Deborah Tannen uses multiple rhetorical devices such as language, logos, and imagery to explain in depth the “adversarial mindset” plaguing America and shows us her solution in the article “The Argument Culture”. Tannen wanted to inform Americans how argument based we truly are and persuade us to make change. Like I stated earlier Tannen begins this process by placing a question in our minds, “Balance. Debate. Listening to both sides. Who could question these Noble American traditions” (Tannen 403)? Tannen then structures her article to develop understanding of the concept among the uninformed. Ethos, Pathos, and Logos also play a key role in the description of the culture, but Tannen adds in real life examples and imagery to create mental
The purpose of this reflective essay on the debate is to analyse my team and my own personal learning style and experience of participating in the debate and in the preparation period - that started in week 7 with the mock debate - by structured and based on Honey and Mumford’s Learning Styles theory, and examine some ideas for my future practice.