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.