SWA 3

After reviewing my answers to the questions on the list, I have come to the conclusion that I prefer an adversarial style of argument. Though I had answers in both the adversarial and consensual categories, there was a clear majority to one side over the other.

When I argue, I argue to win. I will come out with my viewpoints and ideas, and support them and back them up until I believe I have convinced the audience or my opponent that I am correct. This is probably a side effect of my natural stubbornness, but that is still the way I approach an argument. I am also a very blunt and honest person. This means I will speak whatever is on my mind and what I feel about a certain topic. This has sometimes gotten me in trouble in the past; however it can be effective during an argument. I typically will not hold back, and am sure to completely address what I feel about the debated subject. Both of these traits fall under the adversarial style of argument. Also a side effect of my character, I like to fight and be aggressive. As bad as that sounds, it is very true. This does not necessarily hold true in the physical sense, however emotionally and verbally I can be very forceful. This too is a foundation for the adversarial style of argument.

There are certain items I checked off that relate to the consensual style of argument. I would rather see a group consensus over turning an individual’s opinion. I also prefer personal examples in arguments, and will try to make connections. It’s my personal opinion that these are both very essential elements for a successful argument. However, when push comes to shove, I am more of an adversarial arguer. I prefer the emotion, in-your-face type of argument where there is a clear cut winner to the cooperative, more negotiating type of argument where many views are solicited. I have always been this way and never really gave it much thought prior to this activity. After reviewing my style of argument, I believe that I can change somewhat and grow more accepting not just of others viewpoints, but of others styles of argument.