Studying in my garage with my friend Deaton, I was struck by the inequities of our legal system. Knowing that I had to write an essay about argument I decided to ask Deaton about her views on capital punishment. Deaton was quick to respond with a resounding “NO” and I knew I had found the perfect topic to explore the different kinds of arguments defined in our text. The four arguments presented in the text were; the argument to inquire, the argument to assert, the argument to dominate, and the argument to negotiate differences.

Initially Deaton was very sure of her argument that people who had committed murders should be imprisoned as appose to being punished with lethal force. She presented her arguments in comments such as, “death is the easy way out” which is an argument to assert. Two other arguments she made are, “prison is punishment” and an argument to compassion, “the peoples lives will be sufficiently ruined by being in prison and having their identities marked with a criminal record.” I asked why the criminal record is a sufficient punishment and she answered by saying that, “because of the record they would have a hard time getting a job, which can be seen as a punishment.”

After she had her say I proceeded to utterly and completely tear apart her argument using statistical evidence and many arguments to dominate. One such counter arguments I used was, “The American prison system gives even death row inmates state of the art medical care, 3 meals a day, in some cases a TV and air conditioning. These are luxuries that thousands of Americans do not have a hope of getting, and yet our tax dollars are providing them for people who have committed heinous crimes against fellow human beings.” I am very passionate about this topic for a variety of reasons and I found myself using predominantly argument to dominate with no arguments to negotiate differences. After about twenty minutes I decided that my arguments to dominate were not appropriate to use with a close friend because it hurt too many feelings.