When it comes to Choen’s central claim, I would say it is by losing an argument you are really winning because, in the end, you are learning something new. In order to get his idea across, he first refers to himself by stating that he became better at arguing but still loses, then he goes on to question what we win and loses from arguing and what is the point of it. He also asks if trying to get someone to go against what they believe is a good thing. In addition to this, he discusses the War of Metaphor, where he talks about how one can gain through loss, and he encourages us to question if we can find new ways of arguing or perhaps find new types of “ arguers.” When it comes to questions, I would ask as a counter argument I would question if losing is a good thing if the opposing side gains no knowledge from your prospective because another gain in terms of arguing would be educating the opposite side. Then, in addition to that, can one not learn and win in the same instance does losing have to be associated with learning if anything isn’t learning a positive gain, so in hindsight, you are winning by gaining knowledge while the opposing side is gaining nothing but cockiness. When it comes to project three, I will be sure to use the arguments of war to figure out how to dominate my argument through my conduct, thinking process, and how I talk about the subject matter. Then, instead of just attacking, I will provide a valid view from which one can learn and gain.
