Assignment 1.2: Conflicting Viewpoints Essay – Part II

Running head: BELIEVING GAME 1

BELIEVING GAME 4

Argumentative Essay: Believing Game

Katina Howard

Alan Rogers

Strayer University

April 18, 2016 (re write)

Week 2

Assignment 1.1

It is more than interesting to find out that there are several takes of arguments that people would like to sideline themselves with in the eventuality off any misunderstanding. In my own personal perspective, the fact that an individual can simply enjoy the idea of arguing for the sheer fun of it is not only outrageous but a complete waste of time. Ideally, the time wasted on arguments especially fruitless ones, can be channeled elsewhere to achieve meaningful goals (Elbow, 2005).

The first idea that opposes my personal position regarding the idea of the believing game is the fact that there is a specific aggregate population that seems to derive pleasure in the idea of arguing for no apparent reason. This group of population is mostly inclined to thee idea that taking part in an argument whether meaningful or totally useless, is an ideal method of killing time not to mention monotony as a whole.

Secondly, when people argue and one party of the argument withdraws, it does not necessarily mean that they are wrong. According to the context provided, it is safe to assume that there are particular individuals who would like to be associated with emerging victorious at the end of every argument whether or not they are right. In my opinion, once a given party withdraws from an argument, it is only prudent to leave it at that and let everyone believe what they deem fits (Graff, 2003).

The final premise that greatly opposes the position taken is that when it comes to the believing game, doubting as an individual concept is used in emanating hidden values or rather virtues of an individual. When this ideology is analyzed from another perspective, it is revealed that in real life situation, when an individual is constantly doubted, they will do less to reverse the stereotype mentality despite their willingness to come out clean in all situations.

What is interesting about the aggregate population that enjoys arguing for no concrete reason is the idea that one can choose to fight reality despite bearing knowledge of preliminary research regarding a specific concept. Similarly, it could be viewed as ignorance in another level when an individual that is sure beyond any ounce of a doubt that their theory based on a particular concept is the most reliable but still choose to engage in time-wasting arguments with less informed people.

The question of what I would notice suppose I was a firm believer of the notion of engaging in arguments that lead nowhere, it is only safe to conclude that my actions would be unforeseen. To second this point, philosophers argue that imagining oneself in a particular position and being in that particular state in real life situations will dictate a whole lot of contrasting opinions. Therefore, the most ideal manner to respond to such a situation is if and only if I find myself in one (Graff, 2003).

In conclusion, it would do this essay a great deal of justice suppose the opinion regarding the question of whether such a situation can be real or not be featured within its context. Here, given that there could be a situation where the believing game is used as an apt means of telling the values and virtues of an individual, it only means that the world has gotten to a place where concrete scientific concepts do not matter provided a rational theory has been brought to table.

References

Elbow, P. (2005). The Rhetoric of Assent and the Believing Game in class. Harvard: Oxford

Printing Press

Graff, G. (2003): Cluelessness in Academics: How schooling obscures the life of the Mind.

Green haven. Yale Printing Press.