When One Thinks Of The Word Ague, They Automatically Think

When one thinks of the word ague, they automatically think of a heated discussion between two parties advocating for entirely different things. One could easily imagine two roman senators arguing in the republic of Rome with their togas and audience. Many times like Deborah Tannen’s stated in her article The Argument Culture, â€Å"When you’re having an argument with someone you’re usually not trying to understand what the other person is saying† (488). However, this situation does not only belong to senators and congressmen. Normal and average people fall into a spiral of statements and rebuttals seeking to argue and win over any given topic. This never ending instinct to win and demolish any opposition has made its way into everyday life. The†¦show more content†¦It is only when misinterpretation or lack of knowledge causes such person to botch the discussion and converts a simple discussion into a cut throat argument. When a discussion is botch ed, an argument is birthed. In this case Tannen explains â€Å"when you re having an argument with someone, you re usually not trying to understand what the other person is saying, or what in their experience leads them to say it† (488). In other words, one does not consider what the other side of the argument is advocating for. Nor do they consider what that other person went through. This causes what Purdue University’s, the writing lab, considers as an â€Å"Either/ or† logical fallacy. This local fallacy â€Å"is a conclusion that oversimplifies the argument by reducing it to only two sides or choices† (OWL). This logical orientation many people choose to use in their arguments and nothing has changed. One example is Planned Parenthood. The topic of planned Parenthood is an organization that provides sex education and very commonly women’s health services. A right wing political figure like Arizona’s, Jon Kyl, would have said in Colema n’s article â€Å"Ninety percent of what Planned Parenthood does is provide abortions.†. Statements like these provide the misinformed sentiment to the public. It creates the excuse for there to rely on his title as a source of credibility in his statements. People with the anti-sentiment against an organization designed to help parents can only