I thought for this first week, I’d share a bit of the talk I gave at the TYCA Midwest conference in Indianapolis earlier this month called “Would You Please Start Arguing? When Academic Argument, ‘Mere’ Opinion, and Comments Section Culture Collide”. In the talk I discuss how I have noticed a growing problem in my classes. Teaching formal logic, rhetorical argument and even debate to students is filled with pitfalls–some of which are being too polite, too rude, dismissive of fact as opinion, reliant on opinion as fact. In my experience, “just an opinion,” is a phrase that students deploy in collaborative learning situations and in their own argumentative writing to shut down disagreement–they use it on themselves and on others. The problem with shutting down disagreement is that it leads to a mob mentality or groupthink, whereas, allowed to flourish and approached the right way, constructive disagreements can lead to new understanding for all sides. It’s so culturally unacceptable to be wrong, that people prefer to “agree to disagree” and shut out the other side’s opinion and ideas completely. This is a problem in all of society, but in an argument writing class where one of the outcomes is critical thinking, I find it impossible to overlook.

When I ask students to write an argument in a first semester composition class, most of them know that I don’t want a screaming rant, unfortunately, rants are really their go-to when they argue in real life on facebook, twitter, snapchat, text, etc–and they’re the example they see all around them when it comes to “political argument” and “rhetoric”. I can show them examples of academic argument, but often, in introductory courses, the focus can’t be on scholarly literature, rather, it is on the nuts and bolts of college-level writing and reading. I teach them how to identify sources, but I don’t necessarily find it easy to get the introductory level students to read and understand scholarly arguments, as I am focused on teaching them how to create simple arguments themselves using journalistic sources, with which they’re fairly familiar.

Part of the question of “argument” is a PR problem—When I ask students “what does “rhetoric” mean? They say, “you know, empty rhetoric like a politician or the news.” We are living, as Jaron Lanier fought against in You are not a Gadget and Eli Pariser established in The Filter Bubble, trapped in social media silos alongside others who agree with us and don’t challenge our ideas, so asking students to consider formal logic, emotional appeal, and credibility and apply it to their day to day arguments can be daunting. I get that. When the other side seems to make ad hominem attacks, circular arguments, slippery slopes, and non sequiturs with impunity, it isn’t all that appealing to let go of those tools, especially if you’ve had some success with them in the past.

Come back next week for more of my talk, and the solutions I am working on.