Countering versus Arguing

While reading Harris’s chapter “Countering” I concluded that the basic idea is that countering shouldn’t be to “nullify” a person’s idea or argument but to “suggest a different way of thinking” according to Harris. He believes that rather than refuting and ending the conversation, you should strive to push the discussion in another route. The main ideal of countering that it is more than just “disagreeing.” Some useful methods of countering is arguing the other side by making what others see as a negative into a sort of positive. According to Harris the best possible ways in which you can counter are by arguing the other side, uncovering values, and dissenting, all of which are methods in which he claims is a way to civilly counter others views.

            While reading the most up to date news about Peyton Manning on Yardbarker, I read an article that countered popular belief that Manning would either retire or move to certain teams like the Dolphins, Jets, or any other such team. In the blog, the writer discusses positive reasons as to why Manning may end up in Seattle. Rather than say this team needs him, or this team is seeking him out, he refutes common points through constructive points like how Stan Herring the head physician of the Seahawks is the best spine/neck specialist, and is the head of said committee. Furthermore with only one QB on the roster at 4m owed, it is not far fetched that they could afford Manning. Such a discussion doesn’t detract from the overall debate; rather it benefits the general dialogue by saying why Seattle might be the best fit.