Viewpoint

"For Argument's Sake" by Daniel H. Cohen was the TED talk that I chose to listen to. One of the central idea Cohen's discussion regards the misinterpretation of arguments always concluding with one who is right and the other that is wrong. He proposes that all people involved can acquire a benefit from an argument; there is no true winner. The benefit would come from the attentiveness to the other person's or people's perspective. However, the benefits of arguments are often overshadowed by the fact that there is a large amount of exchange of negative comments and feedback. Cohen alludes that an argument is essentially "war" since people often close their minds to prove they are "right". Which is a sensible analogy since people would take any measures to end with the last word; for example, attacking the opposition via insults which should not have a place in a true argument.

Examples of the war-like nature arguments have become are prevalent in political debates. Politics would attack their opponent, and disprove their viewpoints issues as opposed to collaborating with one another to result in resolving the root of the problem. In order to truly benefit from arguments, Cohen believes that it is necessary to learn and be objective as the argument progresses. I support Cohen in the fact that both sides should together since neither side is either completely in the right or completely in the wrong. Each perspective has their faults, but also correct values. The abstract of Cohen's claim is that there is not one exact point that is right, but a common ground for both points of view.
-John Cuellar