Argumentation in a Culture of Discord- Frank L. Cioffi

          The general argument/point made by Frank L. Cioffi in his work Argumentation in a Culture of Discord is that our media does not provide a platform for actual debate and so is teaching our younger generations the wrong ideas about argumentation. More specifically, Cioffi argues/suggests that his students cannot write an argument paper when he assigns it to them because they see an argument as a heated debate that usually ends in violence when in actuality is a persuasive process of reasoning that helps you better understand a topic. He writes, “In terms of media discussing issues, they offer two sides.” (pg. 63) In this passage, Cioffi is suggesting that because the media talks about topics as two sided in a malicious way, it is teaching younger generations that an argument includes anger and violence so therefore enabling them from engaging in what argument really is. In conclusions, it is Cioffi’s belief that our nation is becoming unable to argue.

          In my view, Cioffi is right because I myself have a hard time writing argumentative papers correctly. For example, last semester in Slcc English 1010 I was asked to write an argument paper which I failed miserably at because I didn’t understand what argument meant. I thought I could only state two sides and fight for which one was better when I actually needed to think of as many sides of the topic as I could and discuss them all in detail, not fight for one specific side but fight for an understanding. Although Cioffi might object me saying that argument is a battle in many cases in the world today, I maintain that I believe that argument in the way I see it is needed to prove a point many times. Therefore, I conclude that Cioffi is just in believing that the media is teaching younger generations the wrong way to argue, but I don’t agree that it is unnecessary.