Argumentation in a Culture of Discord

Frank L. Cioffi is the author of The Imaginative Argument: A Practical Manifesto for Writers and he is also an assistant professor of writing and director of the writing program at Scripps College.

            The general argument made by Frank L. Cioffi in his work Argumentation in a Culture of Discord is that the media does not provide a forum for actual debate. More specifically, Cioffi suggests that the media either gives us two choices of “right” or “wrong”. He writes, “This failure to provide a forum for argumentative discourse has steadily eroded students’ understanding of ‘argument’ as a concept.” (pg.63) In this passage, Cioffi is suggesting that the way the media handles issues has led our view as students astray in our ability to recognize arguments. In conclusion, it is Cioffi’s belief that the way the media portrays issues has affected the way we, as students, see arguments.

            In my view, Cioffi is right because I believe as well that when an issue is brought up through the media, there are only two sides broadcasted leaving only two sides for argumentation. For example, the choice to be for abortion or against it is portrayed as either being pro-choice or not. There is no room for other opinions, or so it seems.  Although Cioffi might object that arguments require at least two people, I maintain that there are more than just two sides to one issue. Therefore, I conclude that the media has indeed skewed our vision of argumentation.