I never knew the do's and don'ts of an argument. I figured if you could argue your point, and support it with an emotional backing of self opinion, you were perfectly alright. And if you wanted to include some evidence, then it would be even better. But that is not the case.
In class we have been talking about what arguments are, and how to form them properly. Which not only got me thinking, but got me paying very close attention to anyone who tried to prove a point.
When it comes to how to argue, I've realized that you must have evidence backing your conclusion, which is essentially your grounds of the argument. You must be able to support what exactly you are saying, and what exactly it deals with in the context of the argument. For instance, using the idea of a priori and a posteriori, when arguing a point of view, it is much easier done with an a posteriori argument. To understand an argument better, I truly believe that you must have experience in what you are arguing for. If we listen to our grand parents tales of how great or awful the 1950's were, we would have some idea, but no real understanding or support of saying, "Oh, the 1950's were great!" without having some experience of the 1950's first hand.
Maybe it's personal that I am more prone to listen to an argument when someone can back it with support, or maybe it's just because when people have evidence the argument seems to be clear.
No comments:
Post a Comment