Sometimes There is No Argument

You can say, “Yeah, yeah, yeah” if you like, but it won’t matter to me… I know the truth. There’s no two ways about it in this argument, because this one is cut and dried, black and white, without any gray areas at all. In fact, I’ll go to my grave defending the truth in this matter. And the truth is: I did not read ahead in They Say I Say (to the part that talks about the value of taking the “yes and no” stance rather than the “yes or no” stance) prior to writing my October 12th blog. If you’re scratching your head about now, here’s a quote from that blog –– “I still can’t figure out why people insist on the ‘yes or no’ instead of the ‘yes and no’ of it.” So, now that I’ve refreshed your memory –– go ahead. Go ahead and say it. “Yeah, yeah, yeah.” I know you want to. So go right on ahead. Hell, I’d even tell you that since I haven’t gotten around to writing my profile, and you don’t know me from Adam, you’d be justified. But, you should also know that I will never waver on the issue. I will only repeat. I did not read Chapter four prior to writing my October 12th blog discussing the “yes and no” of autonomous versus mechanical speech. I’ve just always seemed to have an affinity or fondness for looking at the yes and no of important issues.

Everything I seem to be studying these days is based on the yes or no of something. Product vs. Process, Minimalist vs. Directive tutoring, mainstream Dialogue vs. ethnic Dialogue, and the list is endless when you include the world at large. For instance, Rove says the Democrats are responsible for deregulation while anyone with a brain in their skull that’s bigger than a bb in a boxcar knows otherwise, which only serves to prove –– anything can be argued. Aristotle’s Topoi, and Rhetoric in general, supports the idea that structuring an argument is of utmost importance if you want to make your point stick, and the reason? Well, the reason is simply that since anything can be argued you might as well develop an arsenal. But, for me, the important issues, the philosophical issues, the issues that pertain to human nature, and consciousness deserve to be looked at from the yes and no perspective touted by the authors of They Say, I Say.

This little book contains a wealth of weapons for our arsenal of argument. Templates, structure, means for presenting our ideas are offered clearly and thoughtfully. The very idea that they strongly suggest we consider looking at the yes and no of issues is a point I believe cannot be over–emphasized. Of course, there are issues we’ve pondered long enough to develop a conviction concerning which side is the “right” side. But, in regard to arguments that endorse several different ideas, some of which we may be unsure of, I think these authors are wise to suggest that we only address those concepts we’ve considered more deeply. To say “I don’t know” about the rest is OK as far as I’m concerned, since it also shows the reader we’re being honest. Not only that, but why weaken our overall argument by attempting to address issues we are unprepared to address? Yes, They Say, I Say will help us improve our skills at presenting a case, and improving our skills at presenting a case is imperative, since anything can be argued… anything except, of course, whether or not I read ahead to chapter four before writing my October 12th blog… but you can go ahead and say it if you want to… I don’t care… it won’t matter to me… really… I know the truth… and the truth is the only witness I need.