PB2A

Whenever there are argumuents--no matter the subject--there are always three sides to them: the person who agrees, the person who disagrees, and the unbiased side who doesn't necessarily have a side so their opinion is valued since there isn't any slander but honest opinion. So when it comes to these types of arguments--which we've all seen or been involved in--it's typically easy to identify the moves that'll be made. For those in favor of those being argued over, their approach is the easiest to identify. These individuals are always on the defensive and generally only bring up the positives of the person their defending, something that can be compared to a court room perhaps. As for the individuals on the attack, they also are knowledgeable of the the topic's history but only reference the negative for the sake of their argument. As for the unbiased side, they don't have any favorites in the situation so they'll acknowledge, equally, the pros and cons of the individual and won't look for confirmation or acceptance on their opinion on the subject. The most common place for debates on a daily basis is one of the largest forms of entertainment created. It's a part of everyday life for some but a complete mystery to others. Then the platforms that this is seen or heard on is just about everywhere now for easy access to the viewers. Yes, this is all referencing sportscasters, analysts, and even athletes. Sports are the events that are commonly linked to debates over different views of opinions that have to be respected. We all know an opinion can't be graded but in this profession, opinions hold a lot of weight and could determine the next step in one's career. All of these positions and different perspectives that tend to clash become habitual after viewing enough and identifying which path will be taken. Those on the defensive end of the argument can typically be identified as more aggressive in some situations. The moves they make can be spotted and rebuttalled by either of the opposing arguments. The headstrong approach of this position means everything that follows is more than likely praise of the individual. Sometimes, this argument may present a negative point as a way of strengthening their follow up argument of praise. Some may say,"Yes, they did/were involved in this situation or made this decision. But in light of that,...." because they accept it as an inevitable point that'll be made. Sometimes the "defensive debater" may bring up a comparison as a way of brightening the cloud overhead the argument. "I can admit they're guilty of this but "such and such" performed the same action/made the same decision with a worse outcome as the result", may be another infamous move made by those on defense. The list of techniques used to sway blame for the sake of defense are endless, especially when found in writing. For those on the attack, the approaches are different and usually hold more opinion than fact in some cases. The moves these individuals make are somewhat but not necessarily similar to those of the unbiased opinion. Even though they both seek the honest and understanding answer through respectful opinions, the unbiased person will remain unbiased while the other two perspectives--offense versus defense-- will still hold tight to their opinions. Each of the moves made by the "offensive" party have mainly one objective: prove the opposing party wrong or persuade them to understand your perspective on the issue.