In his article "Argument as Conversion: The Role of Inquiry in Writing a Researched Argument," Stuart Greene attempts to convince his audience of college students and curious minds that an argument is not something to be afraid of. Once that becomes clear, he comes to a point that criticize the notion that down anyone could just walk away from it if the mood refuses to comply with that individual's wishes. Instead, he talks about that arguments are really an occupied social, or a solitary, activity that anyone can do if they're aware of what they can do with it. He argues that arguments are essentially conversations that support the social nature of writing, simply because one can view other works with an critical eye and find out that as long as that someone is aware of an argument's past, the questions asked to reach an conclusion quickly to prove a point, the actual issue raised, and the techniques (framing) needed to provide substance to someone's opinion, one can write an conclusion that can provoke someone into the conversation and let the argument to continue as long as the people who write it continue to write about it. (Summary, Greene's Audience)
If you were to ask me what argument was, I can summed it as an two people coming together from different corners of the world and fighting over a point they both are passionate about. If you were to ask a guy out of the street, he might think that it's one guy from one street going to another street, meet another guy from another street, yell and scream over something he can relate, chuckle to himself on how silly it all looks, and heads back to whatever purpose he was doing before seeing those two street people. Basically, to me, argument is two people fighting for one goal. Now if you use the word in an academic setting, things change. The goal is no longer try to upstage the other person, but is now about trying to reach to a conclusion that gives each a reason on why the others thinks on why that other person created those conclusions, and the result is either detachable admiration, or disagreeable feelings that becomes pathetic if analyzed incorrectly. While having interesting similarities, the big difference between everyday use and academic use is that one can reach its' point as quickly as possible, while the other can takes it time, since that is what is expected in the field. (Getting Ready to Read Question 1)
Structure has its' place, and the wonders of it is that if you strip it down to its' skeleton, the passages still remind the same, but the wording could provide interest once someone goes beyond the skeleton. Greene's article is no different, what with using passages from various authors like Burke, Rodriguez, and Pratt, and boiling down his point by the ways of using research, paying attention to the past, reading with passion, crafting tools to make the argument stronger, and finding the issues itself, using just enough support and ideas to bring his idea into fruition. (Getting Ready to Read Questions 3 and 4)
Greene's passage implores its' audience that arguments can cement any points any kind of author can make. The reason he quotes the passage on pg. 11 yet again because the passage is essentially a story that defines the idea of writing as conversation into a form that is easily digestible to writing lovers; an amusing summation of the point he is trying to make. This extended metaphor, however, can be viewed as symbolism for those others that shows on what they see in something they believe in, to the point that when one adds his or her's own opinion, it grows far beyond that person's control. So if that passage challenges anything to anyone, it is that, sometimes, a topic will never see a definitive answer, and the only way to let it go is to end it like any other conversation: no more provoking the other side. (QD 2)
Framing is a tool used to give a passage of writing context to a story much bigger than the one the reader is observing; a metaphor that focuses in the beginning and end of stories rather than the passages between those specific structures. Why Greene sees importance in the tool is that it could control different opinions into a singular perspective of an individual. In my case, framing allows the story to belong in a much grander form, where a simple concept could be used to further develop a character, place, structure, and plans for a story, explaining why certain texts the way they are. (QD 3)
In my personal opinion, Greene's article does not represent a "conversation" for one reason: it does not raise the fundamental question on why arguments exist, but instead analyze a solid construction of forming an argument and how arguing could be a thrilling exercise. While helpful, it does nothing to shatter my perspective of the word (along with general audiences), and unless something can prove me wrong, my opinion stands: Greene is unmasking on how conversations can provoked reactions through concepts, not explaining why the concept of conversations could be beneficial to the average writer. Not that I see it as a bad thing; the better I know the tools, the better my craft will be, so in that aspect, I feel like the text set out its' goal. I will see if it works out in the end... (AE 2, My Thoughts)
