an argument for argument

     Kastely articulates a strong argument for argument. I especially appreciate his acknowledgement that students might see an argumentative paper as a cynical, futile exercise, a “well-formed essay that… has little if any impact on anybody,” (239). They could write a grandiose and passionate paper about why the drinking age should be lowered for an audience that is unreceptive and not willing to engage in an open-minded argument. Worse yet, students could see such as exercises as personally disempowering in the context of our political and corporate state.

            As the election is one month away, I find myself considering Kastely’s argument framework in terms of the presidential debates. The lack of actual argument in public discussions has dismayed me for a while; I wonder if there will be any real engagement of ideas in the presidental debates coming up on Wednesday. I rather doubt it; my cynical side leans toward what Kastley fears: “the production of arguments is a charade, no one actually attends then, and at best they are a mask for how real power operates – those who have power pretty much do what they want.” Do Americans want reasoned arguments where both sides approach issues with open minds? Perhaps college students are more open to this approach than someone who has been voting for decades; still, I feel like most people look to political arguments for reaffirmation of their views, not as chances to broaden them. A national One Read of Antigone, anyone?