Countering

Pretty much everyone alive today loves a little argument and controversy in their daily lives. We, as Americans, feed off of it with nightly gossip news and the countless debates that go on about different aspects of the US government. I, for one thrive off of a healthy disagreement every once in a while, but only if both sides are able to back up themselves with strong points, not incessant chatter. Harris outlines the art of disagreement in textual form in his chapter about countering, saying that in order to provide a good argument against a text, you must not prove how smart you are, but instead add to what can be said about a subject. The first step in Harris’s countering is to identify the limits of the writing you want to oppose. Then, work out a new way of thinking to respond to the limits of that text. Using this method, one can acknowledge the points of one way of thinking, while still proposing new ones that can suit a situation better. Using this technique, one adds to a text and doesn’t just try to disprove it.

While reading through Sullivan’s blog, I found that for the most part, his readers have taken over his entire blog site. A main argument I witness is one over religion. I really have had a hard time finding any of his readers using Harris’s approach in their arguments. Many times the people want to say what church they are from and why it is better than the others out there. In fact, I had trouble finding an article on the website that acknowledged that other religions were ok but then listed the limits of them. On my other blog, I could not find any example of countering because it is mostly talking about the scores of different basketball games, and the fact are irrefutable for the most part.

I feel like Harris’s version of countering is the best form in the sense that it allows for both sides to prove their points. While I may feel one way, it allows readers to see both sides of an argument. In this fashion, reader can form their own opinion about something. A writer is not just trying to look smarter than the person they disagree with, but they are adding to their writings. With this style one can present limits and then propose counters to them.