Modern Argument

Modern society separates themselves into two types of argumentative groups: The adversarial and the consensual. The adversarial prides himself or herself on domination. Does he or she have the ability to take over a debate and “Win” in his or her own mind? He or she will always take the time make points clear and to do anything to become a victor, whether it’s through becoming aggressive and competitive. The consensual does not always have victory in mind, but tries to come up with logical solutions and gives reasons to support a case. One labeled as a consensual arguer will always place the team before the individual, unlike the adversarial.
Ph.D. candidate Paul G. Cook says that argument can be found everywhere: On the television, newspaper, songs, etc.. However, his problem revolves around how society handles argument. He says that people argue with a “Knee-jerk” reaction, which occurs when one reacts to something that contradicts his or her current beliefs. It can be inferred from Cook that this reaction results from a desire to “Win,” instead of trying to come up with reasonable solutions to the topics in question.
From my experience, it seems that it’s not the aggressive nature of the argument that concerns Cook, but the person’s desire to “Win” the argument. This is not the purpose of arguing. The purpose is to come up with reasonable solutions and eventually an agreement to the topic at hand. My style of argument revolves around this purpose. If given a label, I would have the argument style of an adversarial with the mindset of the consensual. My purpose focuses on achieving an agreement that everybody can abide to. More often than not, I will perform all means necessary to attain this agreement, whether it is through being aggressive or attempting to compete with another person in the argument. The purpose of argument is to achieve a agreeable solution, so why not attempt all means necessary? The way I want to argue also revolves around this style. I always place the group or team before me, and as long as we agree in the end, then I’m happy. After all, what is the purpose of arguing if your only goal is to come out victorious? It sounds like an ego boost to me.