beyond straw men

Like most of the class, I found Kroll’s perspective on argument useful and interesting, and would also have a goal for my students “to get people who disagree with you to listen rather than respond defensively,” (Kroll 38). That sounds like a high but feasible goal for students, a skill that they can apply in future classes, life and perhaps even political participation. If done well, I think his methods could work well in a freshmen comp class (though I don’t know if I’d spend twelve weeks on it, as Kroll did). I don’t remember Kroll using the term “close reading,” but it seems like some of that skill would necessarily go along with teaching conciliatory, integrative and deliberative approaches to argument.

The conciliatory method of beginning an argument with “a respectful summary of the opponent’s viewpoint” may often be a good way to “leverage fairness,” (41) and to ensure that students research a variety of viewpoints for the assignment. Elbow talks about a similar approach, but warns of readers interpreting that approach as disingenuous – the straw man approach that shows perspectives “the writer never really took seriously,” (Elbow 641). Point taken, but I think students are capable of and should be expected to consider nuance and write a variety of perspectives. I do expect the especially opinionated students to employ the “thunderous however,” (Kroll 47), but there are worse methods a student could use in an argumentative paper.

I had some issues with Kroll’s reconstructive strategy. Yes, reframing the debate can be a really powerful and effective tool in arguments, but it can also completely miss the point of the current debate, especially when the legality of a certain practice is what’s at stake (or, um, being discussed by freshmen). In the discussion of assisted suicide, the assertion that “pain can always be alleviated,” sounds bogus and trivializing of suffering terminal patients and their loved ones, and the final “let’s do what is needed to make it irrelevant,” almost made me roll my eyes. In this case, taking a reconstructive approach (without also taking a stance) ignores the actual dilemma and makes the writer sound wishy-washy, like they’re trying too hard to make sure the instructor/grader doesn’t disagree with them.