When either the affirmative or negative argue with one another, certain issues of respect and standards must be followed. An arguer cannot merely attempt to brutally attack his opposition in a way that is disrespectful. Before any offensive tactic is taken a true risk must be taken.

Initially, risk must be present in any argument. According to Henry Johnstone, Jr., as soon as you take away the option of risk, the argument is finished. A co-arguer may not want to take this risk out of the fear that he may loose the argument (Some Reflections on Argument # 6).

A main point found in Johnstone's writings on risk is that the co-arguer assumes the risk of having his

In Douglas Ehninger's article "Argument As A Method: It's Nature, Its Limitations, And Its Use," when dealing with risk in arguments there are two processes that may be undertaken. The first process is unilateral correction. In unilateral correction one person is active and the other person is passive (Argument As A Method # 101). A good example of this can be easily found in a teacher-student relationship. The teacher assigns the requirements in order to pass the class and the responsibility lies upon the student to accomplish the assigned tasks. In unilateral correction the corrector has an all-or-nothing attitude (Argument As A Method # 102). There are no varying degrees of success; the student either does the assigned work or he fails the class.

The subjects of unilateral and bilateral correction constitute major problems for Mr. Kivel's argument. Mr. Kivel advocates a very unilateral article, but in the conclusion of his argument he seems very bilateral.

As we learned earlier, Brockriede says that in good argument there has to be an inferential leap from one set of beliefs to another (Where Is Argument #6). The main problem with Mr. Kivel's argument is that his statements are general and lacking of evidential proof. Kivel states, "From Christopher Columbus to Bill Clinton we have had over 500 years of history of white male violence" (Kivel # 2). This argument does not make an inferential leap. This is a weak argument because there is no solid conclusion that would back his claim.

to each young white man the one strategy that could actually make a difference in their lives and ours, getting together" (Kivel # 3). Kivel goes from an outlandish "white hater" to a "white helper". The change is very clear. So unilaterally he attacks white men as objects, but bilaterally he treats them as humans.

In our other argument, one could prove that Cal Ripken plays baseball because of statistics, news interviews, etc. With the rationale of stats and interviews there would be a high risk to prove Ripken doesn't play baseball.

He goes on to say, "To argue a person must maintain the tension between control and what limits control" (Johnstone #3). The tension that Johnstone characterizes is done through tolerance, intellectual generosity, and respect. The arguer must maintain himself through change. As stated before an arguer risks the tension to change and in that he finds true argument (Some reflections on Argument # 6-7).

We have looked at risk and tension in depth. Through this research it is evident what is good argument and bad argument. When I first read Mr. Kivel's article I felt that it was the poorest example of a good argument that I have come across. Although, when I started to compare his style to our articles, there were a lot of things he did correct. Kivel utilizes his strengths of good argument in: risk, feedback, competing claims, balance of uncertainty, and risk of confrontation. I felt that Kivel used these aspects of argument almost as accurately as was possible. Unfortunately, Kivel does engage in bad argument. Kivel failed in providing evidential proof. All of his evidence, which was vague, went without citation and left open a question of integrity. Stemming from "faulty evidence"

When arguing legitimately one needs to risk his own personal beliefs. When risking your own personal beliefs with another there is always tension.

didn't discover America because there may be strong evidence advocating this.

The opposing view of unilaterality is bilaterality. A bilateral argument is one in which there are two active participants and both are active in the correction of argumentation (Argument As A Method # 102). In this form of argument both sides run the risk of change. There are also varying degrees of success so the truth may not be on either side, but somewhere in between (Argument As A Method # 102).

Some common words found in the essay are:
Argument Method, Arguers Lovers, Bill Clinton, Wayne Brockriede, Argument Communities, Reflections Argument, Cal Ripken, Kivel Video, Ripken Jr, Unfortunately Kivel, argument #, kivel's argument, argument method, arguers lovers, method #, arguers lovers #, lovers #, argument method #, argument # 6-7, argument communities, # 6-7, method # 102, shared frame, frame reference, reflections argument #,
Approximate Word count = 3020
Approximate Pages = 12 (250 words per page double spaced)