Monday, March 2, 2015
6B
When people test others opinions it allows them to come to their own opinions. The point of arguing is to hear each others opinions in a usually “aggressive” or emotional state that eventually leads to one party winning the argument or the more common compromise. Even though this isn't about arguing, its the general principle, to get to the bottom of the truth or situation, and for people to question everything in order to prove their points and opinions. You draw your conclusions by listening to the opposing party which finally leads to an overall point to the conversation. For example, if your parents want you to not have any social media outlets because they worry for the content you, a teenager, would share to the world; is the opinion of your parents and something that you and most teens, don’t agree with. Then you, wanting to prove your point of why social media is acceptable for you and the benefits to it, questions you’re parents authority and their statements of why you can’t social media. Though this argument can go in different directions, the overall discussion is whether or not you should be able to have social media; and now depending on the outcome to the argument, you may still believe that you should be able to have social media or that maybe you being a minor, can go without social media for the time being.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I really liked what you said about on questioning everything, because I definitely think that in order for a jury to truly have a fair viewpoint on the trial, they have to question everything they think they know. The great part about our system of trials by jury (when it works the way it's intended to) is that with 12 people, there is the potential to question twelve times the knowledge.
ReplyDelete