Is it really that important to
represent the other side of an argument fairly when writing your own
argumentative paper? Gerald Graff and Cathy Birkenstein happen to think so, and
make a sound argument for it in their book They
Say I Say: The Moves that Matter in Academic Writing. In their chapter on
introducing a naysayer to your argumentative paper, Graff and Birkenstein
assert that even though it is appealing to make little space and support for
opposing views to your argument, it is your duty as the author of the paper to
represent them fairly (Graff and Birkenstein 2010, 86).
They also insist that
doing so strengthens your argument, as readers respect writers who can fairly
represent both sides of the argument. Many writers will present an opposing
view to their argument in papers, but will do so in a condescending or mocking
tone. Graff and Birkenstein claim that doing this will only distance a reader
from a writer’s argument, cause a writer to lose the respect of their reader, and
open the writer up for mockery when an opposing view creates their
argumentative response to the writer’s paper (Graff and Birkenstein 2010, 87).
I support Graff and Birkenstein’s
theory of respecting the naysayer argument in your paper and believe that many
writers struggle with the concept. From personal experience, I know how hard it
is to fight against what you are fighting for; however, it is necessary to do
so, and leaves a reader believing you to be an honest and open-minded debater.
When a writer spends time and effort to represent an opposing view to his or
her formulated argument, it also shows a reader that you are dedicated to the
topic, and have looked at it from all angles. Graff and Birkenstein’s point on
not mocking your naysayer is crucial in holding your reader as well.
Contemptuous representations are seen as distasteful by readers, and will lose
a writer much respect.
Although I commend most of Graff
and Birkenstein’s positions on this issue, I believe they were flawed in not
arguing the benefit of strengthening your argument by representing the
naysayer. When a writer is forced to argue strongly and fairly for the opposing
argument, it opens the writer’s mind for debate. Being open to questioning
one’s own opinions and arguments also compels a writer to answer these
questions more intelligently and strongly. These answers can strength the
overall argumentative paper, as the writer can then implement them as his own
response to the naysayer. Overall, it is a double win for the writer in regards
to influencing their reader, as not only do they gain the respect and trust of
the reader, but also produce stronger positions to respond to the naysayer
arguments.
I completely agree with Collin's support of representing the opposing view fairly and would like to relate this idea to our peer review activity. In their book, They Say I Say: The Moves That Matter in Academic Writing, authors Graff and Birkenstein state, “We also recommend that you read your summary of opposing views with an outsider’s eye: put yourself in the shoes of someone who disagrees with you and ask if such a reader would recognize himself in your summary.” (Graff and Berkenstein 2010, 86) I think that the peer evaluation activity that we completed for our first paper on ethical relativism is an exemplary form of this stance on editing. This exercise made us play devil's advocate to our peer's argument, exactly for the reasons described by Collin and according to Graff and Birkenstein. Thinking of opposing views can strengthen our writing by adding credibility and not limiting our thinking.
ReplyDeleteMy own experience of peer review further exemplifies Graff and Birkenstein's argument in support of representing the opposing views. My peer reviewer and I both happened to have supported Shafer-Landau’s argument for contradiction in ethical relativism. The fact that we were arguing very similar points made our task of finding a flaw in our peer reviewer’s argument quite difficult, but all the more insightful. Like Collin said, my mind was opened to the opposing opinion, which I believe that I used to strengthen my own argument.
In conclusion, the peer review exercise is a crucial step in improving our own writing. While the peer reviewer attempts to find flaws in our argument, they shed light on the opposing view. If one fairly considers the opposing view in their writing, it can “stretch the limits of your thinking” (Graff and Birkenstein 2010, 90) while adding credibility that the reader will appreciate.