Reflection Analysis

The topics of race, religion, political views, and gender teeter on the edge of appropriate dinner conversation. When controversial subjects are addressed in conversation, they become the center of attention and often lead to an argument due to people’s conflicting morals. Elie Wiesel said, “Wherever men and women are persecuted because of their race, religion, or political views, that place must - at that moment - become the center of the universe.” Conflicting perspectives seem to be the subject of all news reports instead of factual information, or live news reports.

"Fighting for Our Lives" offers great insight into the current state of public dialogue. Deborah Tannen describes how our public interactions have increasingly become "warlike", in the way we discuss ideas, the way we cover the news, and the way we settle disputes. She observes that an adversarial approach has become the standard as much in public dialogue as it has in "just about anything we need to accomplish". Although she concedes that "conflict and opposition are as necessary as cooperation and agreement", she believes that the balance has been tipped in recent years. An "argument culture" has pervaded American culture, and the consequences are real.

One of the best values of our world and our society is the ability to debate and to have discussions about important issues. Without these simple things, we would be nothing more than actors in a play written by the government.

Society has become marginalized; one must decide which argument of a dispute to side with and then stick to it. Switching sides or “riding the fence” is frowned upon and is seen as a copout, a way not

America is currently going through a lot right now as a country. With so many opinionated people its necessary that we dive into conversations openly and respect the other person we are speaking with. Since opinions are often very different and personal, it is easy to feel attacked when someone doesn’t agree. The point of the conversation though is not to agree with one another but to share a viewpoint that is different and have thought provoking conversation. Just because we might not stand eye to eye on every little detail does not mean I cannot listen to what you have to say and value your opinion. I find it really frustrating to see people in the media, such as reporters and politicians, refusing to be professionals and set aside their differences to communicate in a calm manner to work together for the common good. Each person has a right to their own opinion and can still use their patience to respect another individual even if the opinions are polar opposites. It has become standard practice to avoid hurting someone’s feelings or offending anyone. As a society, in this situation, we need to toughen up. We don’t have to be offended by every little thing and should learn how to make compromises. Being closed-minded is holding us back as a country.

In order to find truth to anything, one must make multiple suggestions, ask many questions, and sometimes ponder the unspeakable. Without doing so, there would be no process of elimination; therefore, truth would be virtually unattainable. Now, in our attempts to either find truth, express our beliefs and opinions, or generally use the rights we are given constitutionally, we are often being criticized and even reprimanded. Our freedom to voice our opinion(s) is being challenged, as critics of free speech are taking offense to what seems like anything and everything merely controversial and arguably prejudice. As people continue to strive for a nation free of prejudice and discrimination, where everyone is equal, safe and

In order for society to accept people unlike ourselves, we must learn to have tolerance for their views. Emphasis on differing views and the importance of tolerating them is shown when Ronald J. Allen wrote “with controversy comes debate, enlightenment, and renewed commitment” (Allen 20). Tolerating contrasting ideas to our own brings new arguments and

Politics, in short, is divisive. Attending high school in a vibrant political climate like DC, I find difficulty avoiding political discussions as issues seen on Twitter feeds and classroom conversations frequently spill into heated lunchtime debates on immigration, gun control, and healthcare. At Visitation, one can either sidestep the conversation or fully engage. I chose the latter. But in the times that I am red in the face, attempting to digest the opinions of my hyper-conservative counterparts, I remember an important message from Teddy Roosevelt’s “Man in the Arena” speech: “It’s not the critic who counts… the credit goes to the man who is actually in the arena…” Roosevelt’s words challenge me daily to strive for political change in

Understanding the views of others will allow for controversy to be

I often asked myself why it's so easy for me to talk about a large number of social issues with my close friends and family, yet when it comes to voicing my opinions to others, I am wary. It seems as though I'm only comfortable with voicing my opinions about controversial social issues to those who also share the same views as I do. Rather than stepping out of my comfort zone to talk about these issues directly to those who oppose my opinions, I retreat to instead reading about the opposing sides. In retrospect, I've noticed that discussing issues with those who agree with you is like “preaching to the choir.” I believe that being involved in an open dialogue with those who have different opinions from my own is a much more effective way to induce progressive thought. In attempting to discover a reason for why this may be the case, I cannot help but think that it is in part due to my upbringing. My mother has always been very reserved when it comes to discussing controversial issues with others. In addition, she would

Reflection is a major factor in "developing self-awareness" to improve services provided to everyone around me, this is to develop my own understanding in realising the good and bad made previously. Moving forward with a better understanding, as well as rectifying the mistake whilst recognizing the good points, (Horton-Deutsch and Sherwood, 2008).

Mr. Kass is spot on with this article. As I tune in to today's political conversations, it really does sadden me as to how primitive political discussions have become. Already, we are suffering from a lack of diverse thought. Too often, and I was previously guilty of this too, we subscribe to the political beliefs of our parents and/or our peers. We take on the same labels that they do. Dad's a conservative, I'm a conservative. However, we don't consider each issue individually, we automatically look for whatever our label tells us to think. In the case of college campuses, the literal mob effect has only exacerbated these problems. All my friends are gonna go shout down that anti-semitic homophobe Milo Yiannopoulos? I'll join in solidarity

The conglomerations of like-minded people with like opinions have become known as “echo-chambers,” in the sense that they give the illusion of an active dialogue even though they yield exclusively affirmative responses. This process can be actively harmful, as continued exposure to the same opinions has been linked to radicalization as there is no “other side” or even “medium” to pull the general opinion back towards the center. Without a concentrated effort to restart these conversations and reintroduce the two sides of the debate, these tensions will continue to mount, amplified by the very same behaviors that allow us to function effectively in every other element of our lives. Luckily, education can easily combat many of these problems by reminding us of our own fallibility and reiterating the urgency that compels us to re-establish a healthy equilibrium, all while placing us as equals with the very people we hold preconceptions

Understanding that your personal opinion is not the same as everyone else's is important and others may have different point of views. The controversial topics that give examples for each position allows you to realize whether you agree or disagree. You could start out with a set opinion about it, but after reading the different sides and stories it may change your mind.

Having controversial discussion topics brings a new question to the table: What would the teacher’s roll in these discussions be? People may argue it is not fair that a teacher would have the opportunity to take part in these discussions. I disagree. I believe the teacher’s job in a classroom is to provoke thought and promote critical thinking. This does not mean the teacher uses this time to force their own thoughts and opinions onto the students, but instead the teacher would be asking critical questions that challenge the student’s mindset on any given topic. When a teacher challenges a student’s belief in the classroom the student is force to rethink their opinions and come up with counter arguments to help defend their opinions. In turn