"Argument" response

The main point of this reading is that arguing a point doesn't have to be an attack on someone else’s views. There are many ways to argue, or persuade without a direct attack. According to the reading, Aristotle had "three arenas for persuasion-before the courts, before legislators and others who make public policy, and at social occasions." This is the best way to separate the different ways to persuade, and make them understandable. There is court persuasion, "defending or accusing someone, or arguing about past events", legislature persuasion, "to exhort or dissuade about a future action", and social occasions, "focused on praise or blame, or arguments about the present." I had never really thought about it like that until this reading, persuasion no longer seems like an obnoxious argument from one person trying to convince you otherwise, it is different depending on where it is used.

This is obviously elated to our class, since we will be writing a persuasive paper in the upcoming weeks. This reading will enable us to think about what we are trying to convince people of, or at least make people consider our point of view. Hopefully this will lead to papers no longer shooting down the views of others, and smack talking them, but rather an informal type of persuasion to help better understand everyone’s point of view.