Argument as An Introduction to Academic Discourse

As I read the articles by Kastely and Kroll, I kept returning to the reading for last week in the Allyn and Bacon Guide. Both Kastely and Kroll point to a weakness that is symptomatic in argumentative as well as synthesis essays. That is, the reluctance of undergraduate writers to stray from what has been presented to them for years as the "right" way to write a thesis statement. A thesis is "supposed" to present a distinct, original idea that will be supported throughout the rest of the paper. If dissenting opinions are present, they are only included to be refuted and thus make the thesis statement stronger. Kastely's description of this tendency is rather philosophical (considering the other side will "attack a narcissism that we all possess"), (237) while Kroll's is more practical ("In the first unit, one of the core ideas... was the notion that a writer could begin an argument with a respectful summary of the opponent's viewpoint") (41). Both of these descriptions, though, indicate a tendency that I have seen in several undergraduate papers at the Writing Center.

Addressing dissenting opinions in either an argumentative essay or a synthesis essay is stressful to students because it leads necessarily to a more complicated thesis, one that will be harder to support. I think that it is important to address this anxiety for two reasons. First, complicated theses are necessary when introducing subtlety into writing. I found Kroll's essay very helpful in this respect. The conciliatory, integrative, and deliberative methods are all really just ways of refining arguments, or of making writing more subtle. A thesis statement (drawing from class) that reads, "Although some opponents of marijuana legalization point to addiction as a reason for its continued status as a prohibited drug, there are medical benefits that may outweigh the risk of addiction in certain cases," is more interesting than one that reads, "Marijuana should be legalized." The second reason is related. I once read an undergraduate argumentative essay in which the student had to read three articles about a topic and explain which article was the most convincing. The student said that the first two articles' arguments were "ludicrous" and that the only one "with enough brains to figure out a solution" was the author of the third. Hopefully, if this student had been exposed to Kroll's ideas about adversarial arguments, he would recognize that this language is alienating to an audience that may be sympathetic to other viewpoints. Both of these aspects - subtlety of argument and respect for dissenting opinions - are important to academic writing, where the purpose is not to put forth an original opinion and stick to it, but to participate in an ongoing dialogue with other writers and scholars. Introducing aspects of Kroll's work into my own classroom will, I think, aid me in guiding students toward this sort of academic discourse and away from adversarial arguments.