Unlike a traditional debate, wherein each side argues opposing positions on an issue, the middle ground method of argumentation is essentially an attempt to find a compromise. For example, if you were engaged in a debate about allowing prayer in public schools, one side would argue for and the other against. However, the third option would be the middle ground argument in which you would attempt to find a solution that satisfies both sides. The most important aspect of middle ground method is that both sides of the argument are given equal consideration, including the need for a solution and potential outcomes.
Using the example from above, your middle ground argument could be that prayer in school is clearly an emotionally charged issue for which there is no easy solution. On one hand, prayer is a very important aspect of many people's lives and they feel strongly that having prayer in school would benefit their children. On the other hand, many people feel that religion has no place in public schools and imposing prayer on children would violate their rights.
Having established the main argument and opposing viewpoints, you would then consider all the implications (legal, social, etc.) of including and excluding prayer in public schools. Your main objective is to find a compromise; therefore, after reviewing the evidence your position (claim) could be that the best possible outcome would be to allow a specific time and private space for students to pray. This should satisfy those that want prayer in school without imposing it on others or violating their rights.
It's worth noting that the middle ground argument probably won't completely satisfy either side, particularly when the issue is divisive. Nevertheless, the goal of the middle ground argument is to find a mutually agreeable solution that both sides can live with.
No comments:
Post a Comment