Documented Argument Attached Below That You Are Writing This

Documented Argument Attached Below That You Are Writing This Assignmen

Documented argument attached below that you are writing this assignment over We often become polarized in our beliefs about all aspects of life. This polarization happens in the political, personal, and faith areas of our lives. When we make arguments, we expect the listeners to enter the exchange willing to change their stances. Do we enter with the same willingness to change? Kenneth Burke argued that our expectation of correction should apply to our own stance as we enter a discourse.

As you approached your controversy, what were your assumptions about the topic? As you researched the topic, how did your opinions solidify or change? Do you still need to do more reading? What did you learn from your research? In approaching this discussion, work through some of these ideas and start to develop some of the changes in your opinions about the controversy you addressed in your Documented Argument.

At the end of your post, make a clear claim about the controversy. Take time to clearly respond to the provided prompt. All initial posts should be written after completing the weekly readings. All initial posts should be edited for clarity, grammar, and word choice. Make initial post words

Paper For Above instruction

The tendency toward polarization in our beliefs is a pervasive challenge across political, personal, and faith-based domains. Engaging in argumentation often presumes that others will be open to changing their views, but equally important is our own willingness to accept correction and amend our stances. This concept aligns with Kenneth Burke’s perspective that individuals should approach discourse with an openness to correction, fostering more productive and empathetic conversations.

Initially, my assumptions about the controversy I selected were shaped by a combination of preconceived notions and societal narratives. I believed strongly in the position I held, making me somewhat resistant to alternative perspectives. As I delved deeper into research, I found that my opinions both solidified in certain areas and shifted in others. For example, I maintained my belief in the importance of environmental conservation, but I became more aware of the economic complexities involved and the potential for balanced solutions. This process revealed the importance of approaching debates with humility and curiosity, recognizing that understanding often evolves through research and dialogue.

Throughout my exploration, I recognized that I still need to engage with additional sources to broaden my understanding further. Researching different viewpoints highlighted the necessity of empathy and open-mindedness in persuasive discourse. I learned that effective argumentation requires not only presenting facts but also listening actively and acknowledging valid counterpoints. This realization aligns with Burke’s emphasis on the dialectical process, encouraging us to reassess our own positions regularly and strive for consensus or mutual understanding.

From this experience, I claim that healthy debate depends on a foundational willingness to reconsider one's stance. When participants in discourse approach each other with humility and openness, they foster an environment conducive to learning and growth. Therefore, embracing the possibility of change enhances the quality of argumentation, reduces polarization, and promotes societal progress. Ultimately, I believe that the most productive conversations are those where parties acknowledge their own fallibility and remain committed to discovering truth collaboratively.

References

• Burke, K. (1966). Language as symbolic action: Essays on life, literature, and method. Berkeley: University of California Press.
• Herrick, J. (2016). The history and theory of rhetoric: An introduction. Routledge.
• McKerrow, R. (1989). Rhetorical criticism. University of Alabama Press.
• Perelman, C., & Olbrechts-Tyteca, L. (1969). The new rhetoric: A treatise on argumentation. University of Notre Dame Press.
• Toulmin, S. (2003). The uses of argument. Cambridge University Press.
• Walton, D. (2008). Informal logic: A pragmatic approach. Cambridge University Press.
• Gordon, W. T. (2002). Revising philosophy: An interview with Richard Rorty. The New York Review of Books.
• Fahnestock, J. (2000). Rhetorical figures in science. Oxford University Press.
• Bitzer, L. F. (1968). The rhetorical situation. Philosophy & Rhetoric, 1(1), 1-14.
• Vatz, R. E. (1973). The myth of the rhetorical situation. Philosophy & Rhetoric, 6(3), 154-161.