Week 7 - Answer to Elizabeth's Question 1

In response to Elizabeth’s first question, I both agree and disagree. I think there are a number of definitions of argument and that these definitions depend on the context in which the argument takes place. I definitely prefer the form of argument Elizabeth talks about when she says, “Isn’t the point not to persuade but to enlighten?” I have always believed education in the form of enlightening oneself is much more effective and beneficial than merely distinguishing right from wrong, or deciding a winning argument from a losing one.
There are however, other forms of argument that require a confirmed winner and must take place in a public arena. These include, as Hollinhan and Baaske discuss, academic debate, political campaigns, courts of law, or business meetings. For example, in an academic debate, the debaters will not always be able to argue for the side in which they agree. The sole purpose of the debate is to simply engage in organized argument. Lawyers are another example of people that cannot always argue for the position they agree with. They have to argue in favor of their client, whether they believe them or not; whether they agree with what they did or not. In political campaigns, the purpose is not just to enlighten, but to persuade citizens to vote for them. All of these forms of argumentation are based on persuasion. This does not make them worthless by any means. They are, in fact, essential to the continuation of civilized society.