By the end of our class today I felt like our class had a weird take on the word "winning". Some argued that when arguing they are just trying gain knowledge while others are trying to win their argument, maybe even prove that they are more knowledgable. We've all been in this kind of situation in class.
One way or another you are trying to share with the class your persepective. In doing so you are sharing this in order for the class to not only have an understanding but to even agree with you. You may think that you don't care if they agree with you or not but why are you speaking up if you're only gonna get shut down? If no one agrees with you or at least no one stands up to continue the conversation with the same idea do you regret throwing the idea out there or do you hold strong and continue forward? Most of us will stay quiet after saying something that doesnt settle too well in class. Well that's most of us. I think the key is that no one wants to sound stupid, everyone wants to be or appear knowledgable. Most of the time it is usually "appear" over "be."
From this we came to the fair conclusion of a term "dialectic" or at least it seemed that most people could accept that term. In our reading, it did discuss arguments but I think there was too much focus on that when really it was torwards metaphors and how we use it in language (including arguments). The point of metaphors is that it is supposed to make an idea clearer if complicated (usually) what it can do is confuse its audience if not used well. One way or another it is all about perspective.