ARGUMENTATION IN A CULTURE OF DISCORD

The general argument made by Frank L. Cioffi in his work Argumentation in a Culture of Discord is that more students should learn how to write argumentatively. More specifically, Cioffi argues that some students have fallen into a pit where they look for the easier answer instead of thinking more to raise more questions to the reading audience. He writes; “most students …come from a culture that wants answers, not nuanced problematizations, not philosophy. They've been conditioned, as have most Americans, to seek out a position where a simple choice will solve the problem.”(pg 65) in this passage, Cioffi is suggesting that students start questioning their argument and come up with more complex questions. In conclusion, it is Cioffi’s belief that argumentative writing should never end with a definitive, an in-your-face "So there!" answer. Instead, he believes that it should raise more questions.

In my view, Cioffi is wrong because my view of argumentative writing is to choose a side and support it, not raise more questions. For example, all throughout school I have been taught to pick sides on an argument because the reader wants to know my point of view. I don’t think the writer wants me to raise more questions for him or her to answer. Although Cioffi might object that choosing sides on a argument” prohibits freedom of thought”, I maintain that choosing sides on an argument makes it easier for myself and lets the reader know what side I am on. Therefore, I conclude that I can choose side when I’m writing an argument, and I can still make it interesting.