Please Reply to post W/150 wrds

Throughout our routine lives, we are constantly developing arguments to support causes. Often times we only recognize those that require research, but even presenting planning the weekend with your spouse is a form of argumentation. Ultimately, a logical argument consists of two core elements: a claim and support. Following this structure and developing a logical approach is crucial to convincing others align with your position.

During my undergraduate, I competed in two international debate circuits. Having that background I take additional steps in formulating my arguments because they were in the debate structure. First, presenting a framework for judging your position can be incredibly impactful; I may be arguing on US utilitarianism but that will make little progress if my opposition is only interested in French economics. When presenting each pro related to my stance, I present background (this is essentially presenting the supporting evidence), link the information to the actionable behaviors, internally link the sub-claim to my thesis, and conclude the point with impacts. This is the same claim and support foundation, but it forces me to consider how every detail advances the overall thesis. Every environment has a limitation of time, audience, pages, or something else, so making your argument logical is crucial to capitalizing within the constraints.

Personally, I struggle when not arguing. My mind naturally functions by processing a particular stance. Therefore, when still neutral and determining my position I need to develop arguments for each side, then judge the validity of the stances. Furthermore, this process forces an individual to better understand both sides of the subject--making the researcher more capable of countering opposition arguments.