Chapter 1

While reading chapter one, there were a lot of ideas that were new to me. One major thing that was new and surprising was the book's definition of an argument. I had always thought of an argument as two sides with different opinions trying to determine which is correct. The book, however, defines an argument very specifically, and even lists several different kinds of arguments. I know that not all arguments are exactly the same, but I have always thought there was only one kind of argument. I learned that there are a lot of different kinds of arguments. There are invitational arguments, Rogerian arguments, arguments to inform, convince, explore, make decisions, meditate/pray, arguments about the future, the past and the present, arguments of fact, and those of definition, and evaluation. All of these specific classifications of arguments are very new to me. Another thing I found interesting while reading chapter one is the book's distinction between argument and persuasion. I had always thought they meant the same thing. According to the book, however, one argues to discover truth and persuades to take action when the truth is already know. Another idea that is new to me from chapter one is that idea that an argument is not a negative thing. In my mind, an argument means you are trying to determine who is the winner and who is the loser/ who is right and who is wrong. I have always thought of an argument as a negative thing because when I think of an argument, it means the parties involved are not getting along. However, a Rogerian argument is when people work together to reach a compromise. 

Another thing I found interesting from chapter one is the relationship between the writer and the readers, and how the intended audience can influence the arguments the author makes. I knew that facts, ethics and emotions were involved in arguments, but I had not thought about them as under the titles of "pathos" "ethos" and "logos."In some ways I still do not completely accept the idea that EVERYTHING is an argument. I am having some trouble understanding and agreeing with that idea. I do not see how everything could be an argument. For example, the book says that street signs are an argument to inform, however I think they are just serving their purpose, and informing. I don't see how that is an argument.