Deterrence

Having recently read an article in the news about reaffirming a pact with Russia which allows the US and Russia to monitor each others' nuclear weapons stockpile, I mentioned it to my friend Katrina, and we started to discuss deterrence.
I said the idea of deterrence was ridiculous; this was my original claim made. Katrina then asked why I thought so, and I said because the idea of simply stockpiling more nuclear weapons to avoid using nuclear weapons was not only ironic, but it could have terrible consequences. Katrina replied that it makes a lot of strategic sense, because it is all based on fear and not wanting to use the weapons; this was her claim given in response to my claim. Katrina also asked how it could lead to "terrible consequences," and I said because if one country decided to follow through with a bombing using nuclear weaponry, maybe one nuclear weapon, then the other country will in turn retaliate with all of the nuclear weapons they have stockpiled, in an effort to completely destroy the attackers, and therefore possibly destroying cities and killing millions of people, and essentially creating a nuclear wasteland out of that country. In retrospect, this could be seen as the use of a slippery slope fallacy, because I was saying that one thing (a nuclear attack) would lead to another (a nuclear annihilation).
Katrina understood what I meant by this and she said that we cannot simply get rid of our nuclear weapons though, because if either country knew that the other country did not have any weapons, they would have a one-up on their opposition, and be able to use that information to threaten their opposition into submission on whatever the issue may be.
In this discussion, I would say that even though both parties involved were understanding of the reasons from each angle, I think Katrina's argument was stronger. She proved why deterrence is not necessarily a choice, but a reaction to nuclear capabilities between two countries. My argument or claim was based mostly on personal opinion concerning the use of nuclear weapons and the stockpiling of them, where Katrina's responses and claims were concerned more with practicality and objectivity; and in the American style of argumentation, objectivity and practicality are usually the deciding factors in an argument.

One Sexy Debate

I have two friends who are currently roommates living together in college named Sarah and Anne. I was recently hanging out with them, and getting to know both of them better since it was the beginning of the semester and I didn't know either of them too well at the time.
We were just talking and I asked Sarah how she liked living with Anne. I was expecting a typical "Oh, it's good!" but instead I was told that Anne makes living there awkward and uncomfortable. I asked Sarah why she would say this and Sarah said because Anne has sex with her boyfriend in their shared bedroom. Sarah clarified that Anne doesn't have sex when Sarah is in the room, but that it is the principle; Sarah said that she is morally against sex.
Anne heard this and decided to confront the problem with Sarah at that moment. Anne said that she didn't understand why it mattered if she had sex with her boyfriend if she only does it when Sarah is not there.
Sarah responded that it doesn't matter if she is not present in the room, she said it is her living space too, and since she is morally opposed to it, she just doesn't want to have that happen near her possessions and living space.
Anne retorted saying that the room is her room as well, and that she should be able to do what she wants.
Seeing as how I was here and witnessing this argument, they asked me for advice in what to do. I told them that I wasn't really sure and couldn't make their decisions for them, but I asked Anne if it were possible to just have sex at her boyfriend's place.
Anne said that it was a possibility, but that she should be able to be with her boyfriend sometimes at her own place, since she does live there.
Sarah then said that she doesn't want to be locked out of her room just because Anne is having sex in the room, because since it is also Sarah's living space, she should not be restricted out of her room.
Again at a stalemate, they asked me what I thought, and trying not to take sides (or get too involved with the argument) I said that it isn't exactly necessary for Anne's survival that she have sex in her room, however, it is pretty important that Sarah be able to access her room if she must.
So both Sarah and Anne considered the points, and Sarah finally said that when it was absolutely certain that Sarah would not be at the room, or needing the room, such as when Sarah would be going out of town, then Sarah would be okay with Anne having sex her boyfriend in her room.
This was the conclusion these two came up with, and it was an uneasy solution; neither side felt that they had won anything. If I had to say that there was a winner to this argument, I would probably say that Sarah won, simply because her reasons for feeling the way she did about sex were moral values and beliefs. Changing someone's morals is nearly impossible since that is one area through which a person makes their decisions in life. I think the moral belief is a stronger reason than Anne's "we want to have sex so we should be able to." I also think Sarah's reasons were more justified because Anne was still able to go to her boyfriend's place, while in Sarah's case, she could not just go somewhere else if she needed to go to her room.
For Argument Type 1 Sarah is making the argument that she doesn't want her roommate to have sex in their room. She supports it with the claims that she is morally opposed to her having sex near her possessions and living space, and also that she should not be restricted from using her room or her possessions at any time simply because Anne wants to have sex with her boyfriend.
Anne is making the argument that she should be able to have sex in her room if she wants. Her main argument is that it is her room too, and she should be able to do what she wants in it, because she is paying for it as well. This was essentially her only claim as to why she should ignore Sarah's moral disposition towards sex.
The type 2 Argument was that this argument took place in the form of face-to-face verbal discourse.
Due to the elements involved in this discussion and also the strong feelings from both parties involved, I think this certainly qualifies as an argument.

Argument Over "The Pearl"

During an education class, a student (Carol) was conducting a lesson to the class. Carol was posing as the teacher, and therefore was delivering the material to the students. Carol was teaching the class about the story elements of the novel "The Pearl" by John Steinbeck. Carol was discussing the "initiating event" in the story. Carol asked the class what we as the students thought was the initiating event and a student (Kelly) said she believed that the initiating event occurred when the main character of the story finds the Pearl. Carol asked another student and they said they thought the initiating event occurs before finding the pearl, more specifically when the baby in the story is stung by a scorpion. Carol, the teacher, said that she agreed with that response over Kelly's. Kelly retorted saying that the baby being stung just sets up the social order of the setting, and not the events for the rest of the story. Carol then replied that if the baby had never been stung by the scorpion, that there would be no reason for the main character of the story to find the pearl. Again, back to Kelly, she believed that if the baby had been stung, there is the possibility that the pearl would not have been found, and that the pearl itself was the cause of all the serious problems in the story.

I don't think it is necessary to know the story of "The Pearl" to understand the makeup of this argument. For Argument type 1, there are two sides or claims being made. There is Kelly's idea of the initiating event, compounded with supporting reasons, and there is Carol's idea of the initiating event, also compounded with supporting reasons. For Argument type 2, this would be a verbal, face-to-face disagreement within the classroom on a single subject. With both the presence of type 1 Arguments and a type 2 Argument, it is safe to say this is officially an "argument."

As a student who witnessed this argument, I originally would have said there is no way that the baby being stung would not be the initiating event of the story. However, after hearing Kelly's reasons why she believed that way, I began to question Carol's belief, which was my original belief. Because Kelly's supporting reasons were enough to cause me to question my own opinion on what was the initiating event, I think it is fair to say that Kelly had the stronger argument. Kelly provided more ideas than Carol; she said what she thought the sting really was: which was that the sting is merely setting up the social order and setting. Carol did not really have as many arguments against Kelly as Kelly did against Carol. Therefore, through having more claims, supporting ideas, and examples, Kelly effectively defended her original claim more than Carol could defend her opinion.