talking for victory

While reading Kroll’s article, I was reminded of various Classics courses I’ve taken that stressed the importance of conflict in ancient Greece- that is, focused and constructive conflict, which encouraged citizens toward ever-greater achievement in battle, politics, athletics, and the arts. Competition was thought to bring out the best in people, in the way that horses usually run faster and harder in a herd than they do alone.

And, in a disorienting leap to eighteenth-century Britain, Boswell says that Samuel Johnson often “talked for victory,” without necessarily arguing for the side he himself believed in. Johnson just loved to argue, and it was part of his culture. I guess what I’m saying is that I can see Kroll’s point that our argumentative culture goes back a long way. And just when I found myself thinking, “hey, the argumentative approach isn’t ALL bad,” there Kroll was, acknowledging its good points. (Conciliatorily.)

I think the usual model given for thesis-type papers is way too simple, especially in the way Kroll characterizes them. Do most people really believe that thesis-type papers are about fighting? Where are such papers actually feasible options, besides in the highschool classroom? It seems to me that, when students get to college, they should understand right off the bat that a paper shouldn’t just ignore the other side(s) of the issue. A thesis-driven paper can and should have elements of Kroll’s “Conciliatory,” “Deliberative,” and “Integrative” models of argument. However, I’ve definitely received student papers that ignore or cursorily dismiss opposing viewpoints.