Week 6 Questions

1.Warnick and Inch discuss how everyone has a different interpretation of what an argument has to offer. Each person within an audience have had different experiences and opinions about what the context is referring to. The way in which the langauge is expressed is largely altered individually by the attitudes and values someone holds. These attitudes and values can agree or disagree with an argument presented , although this can be beneficial when a person agrees it can also have a disadvangtage. The audience whom is already convinced might loose interest in hearing about the evidence to convince the portion that is not convinced. Depending upon the topic of argument, you could have one portion of your audience at a loss for staying interested and the other portion at not wanting to listen because they have already made their minds up. Drawing from Warnick and Inch's chapter, they state that "the key is simply that arguments seek to move the audience from positions already accepted to new and different positions"(27). Keeping this in mind, it would seem pointless to change someone's point of view if you don't know how their experience comes into play. By doing this, wouldn't you ultimately be changing their perception of you as well? Argument has been around for a long time and while it does change views, isn't the primary function behind it, provoting thought? People wouldn't be thinking about issues, or where they stand on them unless anyone would argue a different point.

2. In the text orientation paragraph of Warnick and Inch they talk about the type of language used in meaningful and successful arguments. The context they say is the focus and is "central to understanding it". Intentions are discussed about in relation to Lincolns Gettysburg Address. They state that intentions are not observable, and at first I did not agree at all. I felt that If someone had bad intention with an argument you would be able to sense it and would feel a forced presence of them not accepting what your opinion was. After a minute of thinking about it I changed my mind, I felt the same as Warnick and Inch, and that a good arguer could disguise anything to look appealing. They could say one thing and their actions behind it could not be paraelle to their words. In thinking about this I wondered what others thought about people's intentions, whether intentions are really observable. There is something unexplained about a persons intentions that is silently communicated through their messsage. What are your thoughts on this and why?

3.Warnick and Inch talk about adapting your argument to your audience. They say depending on the level and perception you are gaining from your audience should be your que to back off or speed ahead. They also suggest that a communicator should consider their auidences' beliefs and values on the topic. They continue by saying that this is a mjor process of communication in arguments. So if knowing your audience is important how will you persuade them if you disagree completely with their values and beliefs? You must relate to your audience on some level so that they can give you a chanceto speak your thoughts on this topic but how would one go about doing this if they have nothing to relate on??