Argument In a Culture of Discord

Argument in a Culture of Discord

                The general point made by Frank L. Cioffi in his work Argument in a Culture of Discord, is that the world sees arguments as a heated discussion, rather than bringing up points that others haven’t considered. More specifically, Cioffi suggests that students often times shut down when it comes to writing argumentative papers because they don’t believe that they are passionate enough to have a clashing debate over an issue. He writes, “Our media do not provide a forum for actual debate. Instead they’re a venue for self-promotion and squabbling, for hawking goods, for infomercials masquerading as news or serious commentary” (page 63). In this passage, Cioffi is suggesting that we should change that and show people that they need to make counterarguments because it would make the topic more difficult, and it “forces the author to go somewhere new” (page 64). In conclusion, it is Cioffi’s belief that we need to get away from what the media thinks arguing is, and really get to the heart of “true intellectual discourse”  (page63).

                In my view, Cioffi is right because the media has tricked us to think that arguing does consist of fired up debates that offers only two sides to an issue: for it or against it. For example, people see the controversial issue on gay marriage as either you embrace the idea, or you don’t. How can anyone only support one side? Certainly not everyone agrees with each argument made on the side they support. Although Cioffi might object that people can’t always just agree with everything on one side of the argument, I maintain that arguments shouldn’t just only have two sides. There are always going to be proposes that people aren’t going to agree with no matter what side they’re on. Therefore, I conclude that arguments should not be just about butting heads together about a topic, rather we should discuss ideas that have never been thought about before so we can take these issues to the next level.