Reddit mentions of Everything's an Argument

You might want to take writing classes offered by your school--not just freshman composition, but upper level writing as well. This website give a quick overview of the steps involved in writing. A lot of composition teachers use the text Everything's an Argument for teaching composition because it's very readable. They Say I Say is another crowd favorite. If you're looking for something more advanced, let me know. There's a lot of literature out there for "next level" writing as well.

Everything is an Argument. Lunsford, et al. https://www.amazon.com/Everythings-Argument-Andrea-Lunsford/dp/1457606062

And I love using "What Aristotle and Joshua Bell can teach us about persuasion." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O2dEuMFR8kw&t=42s

Not just for the appeals but also to compare and contrast two rhetorical situations.

When someone says something and you say something to the contrary, you are arguing the point they made.

It doesn't have to be full of curse words and offensive language, it just typically is. Let me cite the definition of argue for you:

>exchange or express diverging or opposite views, typically in a heated or angry way.

You are expressing an opposite view. Well sort of, you missed the point of his post but I see what you meant. Anyway.

>Really? I can't imagine myself ever referring to half a cow as just a cow.

>Would you refer to half of a chicken as chicken?'

Why say that at all if you aren't trying to show a different point of view on the subject? Why not continue with cow and half a cow. Why go into "a chicken" and just "chicken" unless you're trying to prove a point about how much of something constitutes a whole something?

And again, why would you ask if he would call it "chicken" when he is obviously talking about a singular item "a chicken." Then in your own comment you swapped this yourself, going from "chicken" to "a chicken".

You might like this book:

https://www.amazon.com/Everythings-Argument-Andrea-Lunsford/dp/1457606062

Ah, yes, this is a ancient squabble (philosophers v sophists). Have you read Plato's Dialogues? The Phaedrus is really fascinating, it deals with this subject but interestingly Socrates uses rhetorical form to argue his case.

I completely agree with you. Political speech is about persuasion, I hesitate to use win as I think it's inexact, but I was just pointing out that it is not fact free. Meaning, there is an empirical base but framing is interested in how a message is delivered and why people think that way.

I guess my hope for these debates was on how and why people think and not if what they think is technically correct or not. I assume that is way to loose for the analytical mind.

Your last paragraph is delightful :) one of the books I teach in undergrad comp. is called everything's an argument. I of course agree with your sentiment though. <3

I am not your friend, nor am I full of shit. I don't need your approval to satisfy my definition of a protest. I will agree to disagree with you, but you should really re-read what I wrote, and what you wrote. Because your paraphrasing of my writing is incorrect. This is an example that is irrelevant to the point I am making, and is just a generalized point you made to position your argument to "work" against mine:
>they're examples that run counter to your retarded idea that dogs should NEVER be around people in groups. That's what you were saying, correct? If it's not a "dog park" then you shouldn't bring a dog to it? Fuck that. You were bit as a child, weren't you?

Not only did I not say that, it bastardized my argument to support the point you wanted to argue instead. You have yet to counter my argument that dogs shouldn't be at human-only events, though you make an excellent argument against whoever said "parks in general" or "people in groups."

Another example:
>So don't act like you OWN the definition and anyone who doesn't adhere to it is diminishing the point.

I don't think I own the definition, we are offering up our opinions and you seem quick to forget that. I am entitled to a difference in opinion with you but I ask that you refrain from putting words in my mouth... it makes it difficult to stay the course if I have to constantly correct you.

Like I said, you may disagree with me, but you will not win this argument because you are to focused on arguing points that don't exist. On top of that you seem to think that I don't know what i'm talking about, when you are the one running off on tangents that you created. If you would like to continue our discussion, please quote me instead of paraphrasing.

Edit: Also, I suggest reading this http://www.amazon.com/Everythings-Argument-Andrea-A-Lunsford/dp/1457606062