S405 Enduring Understandings on Deliberating Dilemmas by Gina

ashley

2021-05-28 02:27:28 UTC

conflict arises when people have conflicting interests. biologically speaking, human’s brains have always been programmed to believe in ‘strength in numbers’, therefore we are naturally attracted to those similar to us. different such groups form in societies and when groups have conflicting interests, a ‘us vs them’ mentality surfaces, where it is either groups’ interests winning and likely neither groups are willing to come to a compromise. the two groups will then have a conflict. this can be applied to a group versus their government as well, striving to protect their rights which they feel are neglected or threatened.

jinbo

2021-05-28 02:27:35 UTC

Conflicts arise when people see a need to protect their own rights, choice and freedom. The urge to protect one's freedom is natural, and these feelings might surface when one realises that something might threaten their liberty, causing one to feel the need to protect it.

sabrina

182087x — 2021-05-28 02:27:45 UTC

conflict arises when people have contrasting interests. when people with different ideas come together, in order to protect their rights, choice and freedom, they will voice out their opinions to heard by others. more often than not, marginalised groups would be the ones who stand up against those who discriminate them, demanding accountability, responsibility and protection

cy

2021-05-28 02:28:03 UTC

conflicts arise when different groups of people have contrasting interests. They want each of their rights to be protected

ninn

2021-05-28 02:28:57 UTC

conflict arises when different stakeholders have contrasting interests and both stakeholders refuse to give in. They choose to protect their rights, choice and freedom. they refuse to acknowledge the other viewpoint. when a conflict is not properly managed, it could potentially lead to riots and war. hence, people need to be accountable to their actions and learn to find the grey area

Xiaoying

2021-05-28 02:29:00 UTC

while in some cases giving as much information as possible regarding a topic can allow us to have a better grasp of the whole situation, it’s not necessary and even detrimental to dump all our knowledge outside the parts we need into the essay. With irrelevant information, it not only confuses the reader as it draws attention away from the actual argument but also the writer as they may go off topic and not address the core question. Too much irrelevant information makes the essay messy and unclear.

yin tian

7114180098 — 2021-05-28 02:29:01 UTC

when people have contrasting interest, they will have different opinions and conflicts arise when they do not agree with each others’ opinions. People may also use conflict to voice out and demand for responsibility, accountability and protection

71141800441 — 2021-05-28 02:29:07 UTC

Conflicts arise because there are contrasting interests where not everyone wants the same thing. When we try to fight for what we want, there might be people who are against the idea. When neither party wants to give in, conflicts arise

Breanna

7114180077 — 2021-05-28 02:30:18 UTC

As different people have contrasting interests, conflicts may arise when they wish to protect their rights, choices and freedom that are different from others.

7114180323 — 2021-05-28 02:30:42 UTC

conflicts arise when people with contrasting interests protect their own rights, choice and freedom without compromise

Shiyin

7114180012_1_11 — 2021-05-28 02:30:53 UTC

Conflicts arise because there’s a disagreement on an issue that involves multiple stakeholders who have contrasting interests. This is usually because there is little to no form of negotiation and mutual understanding between the stakeholders and more effort is needed to understand a different side’s perspectives

Rou Ler

2021-05-28 02:31:52 UTC

Conflicts arise because of contrasting interests between two or more groups who are unwilling to reach a compromise. Different groups feel the need to defend and protect their rights for their wellbeing and safety. Due to limited resources available, some groups might demand that they deserve responsibility, accountability and protection for their own interests over other groups, resulting in an “us vs them” mentality and this eventually escalates into conflict.

ashley

2021-05-28 02:32:31 UTC

writing things that are not relevant to the question can confuse readers. it also prevents readers from obtaining clear and concise information regarding the topic and in turn prevents them from understanding the topic or the issue at hand.

Nicole

2021-05-28 02:32:42 UTC

conflict usually happens between people with contrasting interests. when some groups want to protect their own rights choice and freedom, they will demand for responsibility, accountability and protection

Xiaoying

2021-05-28 02:32:42 UTC

Accept and acknowledge the other party’s opinions/concerns and refute them in a non aggressive and upfront manner. Use pathos/ethos/logos to appeal to the other party/make yourself sound reliable and factual

Breanna

7114180077 — 2021-05-28 02:33:25 UTC

Pros:
- strong personal voice -> convincing (??)
Cons:
- ones values may differ from others and conflicts may arise due to contrasting beliefs
- it will be hard to convince people with different belief systems

Amber

7114180298 — 2021-05-28 02:33:29 UTC

Conflicts arise when there are contrasting interests as different people who want different things or have different opinions. People would want to protect their rights by demanding for responsibility, accountability and protection. Hence clashes between different groups of people would occur.

christal

7114180192 — 2021-05-28 02:33:47 UTC

Conflicts may arise as two parties have contrasting interests, where one interest may cost the other. Both parties may be unwilling to compromise, and are unable to understand the other side. Many times, more serious conflicts occur when one party is oppressing/ taking the rights and freedom of the other, and the privileged cannot come to a consensus when confronted.

Janette

2021-05-28 02:33:58 UTC

This happens due to differing cultures/traditions, values and sometimes the lack of understanding of other perspectives.

sabrina

182087x — 2021-05-28 02:33:59 UTC

cons:

everyone’s values may be different, thus conflict may arise due to conflicting opinions
hard to make people view situations from one’s point of view

pros:

strong personal voice—> allows empathy
shows how one group of people with similar beliefs are being treated by others

7114180323 — 2021-05-28 02:34:05 UTC

using values as a basis for decision making allows people to make the decision they believe to be morally correct. this may sit better with the decision maker because they made a choice based on what they believe in.

however, this approach may also mean that the less practical choice is made. because of their own values, people may lose sight of the choice that is beneficial for more people.

Tavia

7114180294 — 2021-05-28 02:34:06 UTC

Conflicts arise when two or more parties have contrasting interests that clash. These interests can include protecting one’s own rights choices and freedom. These people want responsibility, accountability and protection from people of authority mainly the government. Such conflicts arise in terms of protests and riots etc.

cy

2021-05-28 02:34:11 UTC

conceding some points to the opponent shows that we understand where they're coming from, and this makes our argument stronger, as we have weighed the importance(?) of different views

7114180319 — 2021-05-28 02:34:14 UTC

Conflicts arise because different people will have contrasting interests and hold different beliefs. Often times, they want to protect their own rights, freedom and choice. Furthermore, those who feel that they are being treated with injustice may demand others to take responsibility and accountability, and fight for their protection of rights.

jinbo

2021-05-28 02:34:16 UTC

When we concede the opposing points of the opponent, we acknowledge that such a view exists. This shows that our thinking is not limited or biased such that we only believe that our stand exists, but instead that we recognise there are different perspectives in the issue at hand, and that we have considered the opponent's views as well, but we still believe that our point stands, and this hence makes our views more convincing. It also makes the opponent feel acknowledged and more likely to believe in what we are saying.

yin tian

7114180098 — 2021-05-28 02:34:50 UTC

basing their decision on their values help them decide better when they’re in a dilemma and it may be the right decision for that person because it’s based on their own values. but they or the people affected by their decisions may not benefit as much as if they decide utiliranianly

Eleana

2021-05-28 02:34:58 UTC

Conflicts arise when people with contrasting interests feel the need to protect their own rights, choice and freedom. They may use violence as way to demand responsibility, accountability and protection.

siqian

2021-05-28 02:35:12 UTC

conceding to some of the opponents points can show that we have tried to look at things from their perspectives and acknowledged the validity of their points. This allows us to make more balanced, unbiased arguments that are more convincing, helping the opposing side to accept our views

When the leader is clear, the organization is clear. When a leader knows their values, they are able to make decisions quickly and with confidence. When the leader is unclear, the organization becomes chaotic. Clear values enable the leader to hire better, stay focused and be more confident in the direction of the organization.

2021-05-28 02:35:36 UTC

ashley

2021-05-28 02:35:37 UTC

pros :
- it allows the individual to make the best decision for themselves. our personalised value systems are what determine our actions, words, and train of thought. if one is in a dilemma and uses others’ values that they do not feel as strongly for or disagree with, it will likely cause them to make a decision that is not the best for them

cons :
- the decision they make based on their values may not benefit them in a utilitarian sense, and could instead make life a lot harder for them in the long run

71141800441 — 2021-05-28 02:35:39 UTC

It makes space for discussion and compromises. By conceding to some of the opponent’s points, it shows them that you’ve considered their view so that they will also be more open to listening to yours too. Moreover, if you acknowledge but refute their point then it makes your point seem stronger and more convincing.

Shiyin

7114180012_1_11 — 2021-05-28 02:35:56 UTC

Pros of using values as a basis for decision-making
1. Values drive our actions in a dilemma setting as it is based on something we feel strongly for, and allows us to stay grounded to our believes

Cons
1. Our values may differ from one another
2. When we are too absorbed in our values, we are unable to see the other side of the story

Rachel

7114180344 — 2021-05-28 02:35:56 UTC

Conflicts arise due to contrasting interests. Differences in beliefs and ideals are causes for clashes. When it comes to rights, choices, and freedom, different groups of people have wants and needs which they may fight for. However, these views may clash with one another, leading to disputes and conflicts between groups. In addition, there may be conflict when the government does not act in the interest of its citizens, resulting in them demanding for accountability and protections.

Janette

2021-05-28 02:36:04 UTC

Those who base their decisions on personal value allow them to be confident with their choice and believe that it is right. However, everyone has their own morals that differ due to family background, religion etc. These will lead to varying viewpoints- while some may agree with you since they share the same values, others may believe otherwise.

Xiaoying

2021-05-28 02:36:16 UTC

It allows for a more open discussion as both sides will perceive each other as trying to understand each other and forming a more informed opinion rather than forcing their views on the other. Accepting the other party’s views makes them more inclined to listen to you.

7114180192 — 2021-05-28 02:36:20 UTC

Values are often what people fall back on when facing a dilemma. This may help them reach a sensible decision easily.

However, moral and utilitarian values can collide, and people may overlook the “greater good” when making personal decisions.

yin tian

7114180098 — 2021-05-28 02:36:26 UTC

the opponent will feel that we understand and are listening to their views, making them feel more comfortable with listening to our views and accepting them

Tavia

7114180294 — 2021-05-28 02:36:38 UTC

People based their decisions on their values as that is what they believe is right and what is most aligned to their morals and beliefs. However, this means that they will be unable to look at these conflicts with a objective mindset and would make decisions that might not be the most practical or beneficial.

ninn

2021-05-28 02:36:47 UTC

pros
- diversity of opinion when everyones opinion is based on their own values(everyone has diff personal values)
cons
- may be unwilling to compromise and acknowledge the other view point as they believe they are right- confined to their own personal biases

When you make decisions in line with your values, there are no surprises for your teams, especially if they know you well. This not only builds trust by showing your authenticity, but it also allows others to make decisions in your absence. When your teams know how you would decide, they can make the same decisions for you, which helps you delegate more, as you will have more trust in your team.

2021-05-28 02:36:49 UTC

cy

2021-05-28 02:37:34 UTC

negotiators have to have a strong argument by using credible sources to back their stand

Shiyin

7114180012_1_11 — 2021-05-28 02:37:49 UTC

Firstly by understanding the other sides of the issue, acknowledge them and also try to empathise with the other stakeholders. It may also be very helpful to discuss a possible solutions with the rest of the stakeholders and come to a consensus

7114180323 — 2021-05-28 02:37:53 UTC

by acknowledging and addressing opposing views, we build a more balanced argument. we show that even thought we are aware of these opposing arguments, we still stick to our views. when someone feels acknowledged, they are more likely to listen to and be convinced by you.

zi shuen

7114180195 — 2021-05-28 02:37:59 UTC

Conflicts arise often due to people’s contrasting interests. They would speak up for themselves in order to protect their rights, choice and freedom. When opinions are not well-received, tension arises between people with opposing viewpoints.

Amber

7114180298 — 2021-05-28 02:38:00 UTC

Pros:
- People would do what they believe to be morally right

Cons:
- Conflicts can occur between people with different values
- Opinion may be biased to their values, unable to see from the other perspective

7114180319 — 2021-05-28 02:38:07 UTC

Pros:
- Decision made will be aligned to their values, beliefs and morals
- Strong basis for the decision made (more confidence and clarity)

Cons
- Values may be subjective to different people eg if the decision made it for a group of people, the outcome may satisfy an individual but not the majority
- Making a decision by focusing too much on our own values may narrow our view and thinking
- Personal values may not always be the societally accepted value

Rou Ler

2021-05-28 02:38:19 UTC

Pros: when people have a value system, it makes it easier to follow a moral compass where they can tell what is right from wrong, which can aid society to make more ethical decisions when facing a dilemma. This strong personal voice gives us more opportunities to understand various perspectives when facing a dilemma.

Cons: extremely biased and morally wrong values can lead to societal harm and it is hard to convince people who are staunch believers of their problematic values to compromise when facing a dilemma

7114180171 — 2021-05-28 02:38:38 UTC

Pros

Following values and arguing for what one thinks is right is natural
Others are able to see a different perspective

Cons

People have differing values so it might be difficult to come to a conclusion
A moral conclusion might be more difficult to justify as compared to a more factual, practical conclusion, not based off of values

71141800441 — 2021-05-28 02:38:42 UTC

understand the point of contention and what is the other party most concerned about. Target that point and convince them with signs that you sympathise with them and at the same time, insert your viewpoints and make your points seem more valid with credible information

7114180192 — 2021-05-28 02:38:49 UTC

Conceding points from the opposing view allows us to acknowledge where they are coming from, and understand that there are multiple perspectives to one issue. When we are able to show this understanding, the opposing side can feel validated in their concerns, and trust that our view includes theirs as well.

Xiaoying

2021-05-28 02:38:58 UTC

I’m assuming the strong personal voice is in reference to writing an essay and yeah I do agree. That itself is a pro and it can convey the writer’s stand clearly. While using values may resonate well with certain people who share the same values, it can also in turn appear unconvincing to people with opposing values. Values are also rather personal when compared to say, using a utilitarian perspective when making decisions. This can hinder practical decisions made that may not so much benefit a small group of people but the larger population instead.

your values may not be right so sometimes its better to listen to others

2021-05-28 02:39:06 UTC

Breanna

7114180077 — 2021-05-28 02:39:19 UTC

Sometimes it is better to see things from the opponents perspective first before going forward. Conceding some points shows your opponent that you are listening to them and that both of you are not just blindly arguing. By showing that you are considering their viewpoint, they will most likely be willing to listen to your side as well 👍strategic move

ashley

2021-05-28 02:39:23 UTC

having felt listened to, the opposing party is more likely to be willing to listen to our side of the argument as well

it also shows the opposing party how the stance adopted was taken despite already having considered their side, and this in turn could potentially have a stronger persuasive ability to the opposing side

explaining the refutation to their stance can also help them see a different perspective from theirs and ultimately make the decision for themselves regarding their stance

cy

2021-05-28 02:39:25 UTC

when we write all that we know about the topic, we are at high risk of going off-track and listing out unnecessary information that would make our argument weaker(?) or unclear

Yuki

7114180156 — 2021-05-28 02:39:27 UTC

When people have contrasting interest, conflicts will arise when people try to protect their rights, choice and freedom. These people would then demand for responsibility, accountability and protection. Therfore, conflicts would arise between different groups.

crystal

181980e — 2021-05-28 02:39:41 UTC

conflicts arise when people with contrasting interests feel the need to protect their rights, choice and freedom. this may occur when they do not feel protected and well taken care of, resulting in them demanding responsibility, accountability and protection.

yin tian

7114180098 — 2021-05-28 02:39:44 UTC

negotiators can talk about the countering views to show that they understand the opponent’s views but also use the appropriate refutation to refute the views.they can also use evidences and examples to back up their points, use strong words that can emphasise their points and use words to evoke the opponent’s emotions so they can understand the negotiators’ points better

Nicole

2021-05-28 02:39:55 UTC

it creates an environment for a more open discussion, where both sides can then talk about the different views without any misunderstandings

siqian

2021-05-28 02:40:26 UTC

conflicts arise when there are parties of contrasting interests, and when they feel that their rights/resources are at stake and that there is a need to protect their rights and fight for resources. this usually occurs two or more groups compete for resources, or when a group feels that their rights are being threatened and lacking protection.

ninn

2021-05-28 02:40:33 UTC

the opposing side will feel heard and respected for their views, making them more likely to listen to ur side of the story and find middleground

7114180323 — 2021-05-28 02:40:38 UTC

negotiators can increase their chances of success with well crafted counters and refutations, strong and relevant substantiation, as well as skilful language use

sabrina

182087x — 2021-05-28 02:40:40 UTC

shows that we acknowledge their concerns and understand why they would have a certain perspective, this would then encourage them to be more willing to listen to your opinions as a form of mutual respect. thus, if we prove to them that our arguments are stronger, they might be more willing to accept it

7114180171 — 2021-05-28 02:40:49 UTC

Because it shows that we are understanding and willing to accept others’ stances, and that perception by opponents will in turn cause them to be more open to our views as well. It’s a two way street. It also shows we have a clear understanding of the dilemma and not just insisting our way is the only right way.

2021-05-28 02:40:53 UTC

Win/Win negotiators know this: everything that can go wrong just might. Negotiation is a dynamic process with numerous moving parts, all of which are negotiable. They expect the unexpected and prepare accordingly:

7114180344 — 2021-05-28 02:41:12 UTC

Using values as a basis for decision making enables people freedom to do what they believe is morally correct. It allows us to establish our priorities make choices that line up with our beliefs.

However, this may result in us making less pragmatic choices, or make us unable to consider things from a different perspective.

Amber

7114180298 — 2021-05-28 02:41:14 UTC

By conceding some points to the opponent, it shows that we are acknowledging their side of the argument and that we have considered their opinions. It would make our argument stronger as it would not seem as biased and the opponent would be more likely to accept our views. Besides that, we would be able to refute their points to make our argument more convincing.

chungjie

2021-05-28 02:41:15 UTC

Advantage always goes to the patient negotiator who persistently pursues creative win/win solutions. Negotiation is a complex process that takes time. Progress usually comes in small increments. Impatient negotiators who lack persistence often leave potential results on the table and make costly mistakes. The most successful and effective negotiators are the most creative. Good solutions eventually come to those with the patience to wait for them, the persistence work for them and the desire to produce innovative win/win results.

Shiyin

7114180012_1_11 — 2021-05-28 02:41:19 UTC

Conceding some points to the other opponent creates an accepting and open environment —> good for discussions and understanding one another —> also shows that we consider multiple sides to the story while we still support our current stand, making it more convincing and acknowledged

jinbo

2021-05-28 02:41:20 UTC

I think truly understanding what the point of contention is, and getting at the main idea behind the issues involved is essential to increasing the chances of success. Also it is important to acknowledge and be open to the various perspectives in an argument, to think through the different points and then evaluate which points the negotiator would want to use, based on their beliefs and values. Lastly, being able to think clearly and rationally and sustaining one's argument is important, as sometimes it is easy to get veered off-track by the opponent's arguments

7114180192 — 2021-05-28 02:41:23 UTC

Negotiators can increase their chance of success by using good real world examples that illustrate their points effectively. They can also back up their points with sound elaboration and credible sources.

ashley

2021-05-28 02:41:23 UTC

understand the opposing’s key points of concern/what makes them not agree with your stance and counter that to the best of your ability

using relatable and hypothetical scenarios to illustrate how to you, their stance < your stance

list the pros and cons of both stances and emphasis on which you think are more important and explain why

Janette

2021-05-28 02:41:28 UTC

Being able to acknowledge an opposing viewpoint shows that one understands why their perspective may arise. This thought process would make the other person consider one’s views too.
Additionally, this shows that one is not making a stand solely on what he thinks is right, but also why the other stand might not be the best. This will convince them to accept our views.

Eleana

2021-05-28 02:41:39 UTC

When people base their decisions on their values, it sets a grounded approach to the dilemma. Sometimes what they truly believe may not be right to others, but because it’s something that they strongly believe in, it is more likely that they will make a more permanent decision. However, making decisions solely based on what one might think is right may lack logical reasoning, as it is based on one’s moral values. Values are subjective as well, and we may not always agree with one another.

chungjie

2021-05-28 02:41:39 UTC

The most successful/effective negotiators spend far more time listening and asking questions than they do talking. Gathering information and then thoroughly understanding that information takes precedence over sharing information. Once you fully comprehend your counterpart’s frame of reference, it’s easier to know what to share and how to share it in order to build trust and move the negotiation forward.

Tavia

7114180294 — 2021-05-28 02:41:43 UTC

Conceding some points to the opponent means that we consider their point of view seriously which opens room for discussion and compromises. It also allows us to develop a balanced and more convincing argument when we refute their point. This allows us to be less bias when making our decisions. Acknowledging the other point could make the opposition more open to our point of view and the best decision can be made when both sides have open discussions

yin tian

7114180098 — 2021-05-28 02:41:56 UTC

when we write all that we know, some of the points or evidences that we mention may not be related or may even be contradicting our own points. the opponent may also feel that we don’t know our own points well and that our argument is not strong, decreasing the effectiveness of our essay

71141800441 — 2021-05-28 02:42:12 UTC

With irrelevant information, it makes it seem like you do not understand what the argument is about and are just trying to “fatten up” your point. As a result, the reader will think “this is not a knowledgeable writer” and therefore not trustworthy. It makes them more apprehensive towards what you’re saying and wont be convinced

ninn

2021-05-28 02:42:20 UTC

- time constraint
- putting in too much information will make the essay messy and unclear

Nicole

2021-05-28 02:42:40 UTC

if the point of the essay is to convince others about our stance then putting in too much information will make our argument weaker (as some evidences or points may not be as strong as others, or some might be contradicting out own stance)

lycia

ravendorlyxia1708 — 2021-05-28 02:42:47 UTC

conflicts arise because of conflicting interests, differing opinions, and communication gaps. different parties have their own respective priorities, and want to protect their rights to maintain their freedom and choice, whilst being unwilling to compromise. since there will always be limitations present, and not everyone can be appeased, hence, in the struggle for their individual goals, conflict arises.

crystal

181980e — 2021-05-28 02:42:55 UTC

pros
- more passionate and confident on the topic, allowing them to have a stronger personal voice
- people are able to stick to their own beliefs
cons
- people may view it as what is best for them, and do not look at the bigger picture instead
- values may clash when people have different morals

7114180171 — 2021-05-28 02:43:15 UTC

Some of the stuff we know does not support our stance, but instead undermines it, so we should not write down everything and instead, should be selective, so as to not shoot ourselves in the foot.

Shiyin

7114180012_1_11 — 2021-05-28 02:43:18 UTC

Because there are many sides to a story, we can easily lose track of the final goal and the reader may be confused as to which side they should be taking after reading the essay :(

Rou Ler

2021-05-28 02:43:38 UTC

Showing the opponent that we acknowledge their view shows that we are not viewing the situation only in a one-sided manner, which gives them the respect that they deserve for bringing up a point that is different. By considering the opponent’s perspective, they are more likely to believe that our argument is strong and unbiased.

Tavia

7114180294 — 2021-05-28 02:43:44 UTC

Acknowledging all points of views and being open to compromises. Putting in the best interests of all sides to make sure that everyone accepts the final outcome. When arguing, we should not just steadfastly stick to our own opinions and not consider the other sides

Xiaoying

2021-05-28 02:43:58 UTC

I’d say the core of conflicts stem from contrasting interests, values and opinions. When there is threat to one’s interest, for example t heir rights are not protected or demands are not met, they might speak out. But it really boils down to contrasting interests on varying scales and it’s as simple as that

7114180319 — 2021-05-28 02:44:06 UTC

Solutions rarely arise when both sides refuse to compromise or listen to each other’s views, as each party will only demand for the full scope of their request. However, by conceding some points and acknowledging the other view, it allows their feelings and views to feel validated and seen. It can also show why although you agree with certain views of the other stance, you still hold your point, and can make your argument more convincing.

Janette

2021-05-28 02:44:15 UTC

Irreverent argument may sometimes lead to the writer going against his initial stand. Yes, there are many sources and truths out there, but we must only use relevant ones in the essay to substantiate ones viewpoint.

Breanna

7114180077 — 2021-05-28 02:44:16 UTC

By bringing in real world examples, one can better substantiate they’re points.
Negotiators also think from their audience’s viewpoint so they can better formulate their points. Much like a salesman thinking about what attracts his customer

sabrina

182087x — 2021-05-28 02:44:25 UTC

firstly, they need to understand why the conflict is even happening, only when they have a through understanding of the situation, then can they make proper arguments and understand the other side’s views. secondly, they can also use statistics and other credible sources to back up their arguments so it does not seem that everything they say is just their own personal beliefs which are unfounded

ninn

2021-05-28 02:44:38 UTC

- find middle ground
- aim to create a courteous and constructive interaction that is a win-win for both parties.
- Ideally a successful negotiation is where you can make concessions that mean little to you, while giving something to the other party that means a lot to them.

Eleana

2021-05-28 02:44:51 UTC

Conceding some points to the opponent shows our understanding of the whole situation and that we are not limited to our own thinking. It serves an open minded approach towards the dilemma, and allows for an open discussion as well.

71141800441 — 2021-05-28 02:44:51 UTC

Pros:
allow us to take a stand more easily
Cons:
Our values may not be morally correct/ everyone has differing value systems->could lead to conflicts

lycia

ravendorlyxia1708 — 2021-05-28 02:44:54 UTC

conceding some points to the opposing side allows us to gain a deeper understanding of the different perspectives one can take. there are always two sides of a coin, and circumstances vary from person to person. as such, every argument will have its shortcomings. by acknowledging the other end, we maintain an open mindset, and can continue to improve our stance to make our take on the subject seem more persuasive.

7114180344 — 2021-05-28 02:45:00 UTC

It lets the opponent know that they are being seriously heard and considered, not just brushed off. It shows them that we do not need to be limited to a rigid stance, it is instead possible to accept a variety of perspectives. The issues are not one-dimensional. This in turn encourages them to do the same, listen to what we have to say and acknowledge our views.

siqian

2021-05-28 02:45:01 UTC

everyone has their own values and is not something that can be changed overnight. thus, it would feel more natural for us to make decisions based on our own values rather than against. in essay writing, we might feel stronger for a stance thats based on personal values than one that is against our values, thus potentially making stronger arguments

however, decisions that fit our personal values are not always the best decisions for the general public, and might not benefit the larger group as much as it benefits the individual

crystal

181980e — 2021-05-28 02:45:03 UTC

conceding some points shows your own ability to come to compromises and agreements with others although we might not fully agree with our opponent. this makes room for more discussion and thought when our opponent is then willing to hear our side as well and get a more well rounded opinion of the issue

2021-05-28 02:45:09 UTC

Back up your reasoning with vivid examples and evidence. You need to use memorable and striking details that will illustrate your points for you. If you want to convince someone the Beatles are the greatest band of all time, it'll be tough going if you can't remember the name of "that one album" you like, or if you can't listen to any of the music to provide a common reference while you're having the discussion.

7114180192 — 2021-05-28 02:45:16 UTC

Info dumping may come across as pretentious, and take away from the actual points of the argument. Being concise allows readers and the opposing view to follow your point of view and stand clearly, making the argument much more effective.

Nicole

2021-05-28 02:45:21 UTC

we can try to understand the opponent's views first, and then come up with good refutations and evidence to back it up.

Breanna

7114180077 — 2021-05-28 02:45:22 UTC

Irrelevant information may confuse the reader and allow they to stray from your original argument. Info-dumping may also make the essay write look unprofessional

7114180171 — 2021-05-28 02:45:28 UTC

A calm, steady attitude in negotiation is key to making opponents feel comfortable enough to accept our stance. Being overly zealous (see: aggressive) only makes opponents become more defensive.

Tavia

7114180294 — 2021-05-28 02:45:51 UTC

Writing irrelevant information will only make the essay more confusing and redundant. The reader will be looking for specific arguments and evidence pertaining to the question and not a vomit of words and information. Excess unrelated information will only be unhelpful in proving your point

Amber

7114180298 — 2021-05-28 02:45:54 UTC

Negotiators can increase their chances of success by using relevant examples and statistics to substantiate their views. They can also try to from the opposing side and refute them to better support their argument.

chungjie

2021-05-28 02:45:56 UTC

Be as confident as you are assertive. We're drawn to confidence, and there's nothing you can do to bolster your point of view more than presenting it with conviction and the presumption of proof. No matter what you're trying to prove, if you believe it, you'll help your cause.

jinbo

2021-05-28 02:46:10 UTC

It might be beneficial sometimes to provide more information about something, but sometimes it draws the attention away from the focus of the essay, and what the main points the essay is trying to address. This might cause confusion for the reader, and prevent them from being able to grasp the writer's main arguments.

zi shuen

7114180195 — 2021-05-28 02:46:14 UTC

1. Acknowledge the opposing view, refute convincingly
2. Make argument stronger by using good examples (e.g. global)

7114180323 — 2021-05-28 02:46:16 UTC

keeping the essay focused allows us to make our argument clearer. when we write all we know about a topic, we are likely to include information that is irrelevant to the question. this may make the essay confusing or unorganised. keeping things focused in an essay helps the writer get their point across and leave a greater impact on the reader.

Nicole

2021-05-28 02:46:21 UTC

pros : feel more connected and confident about speak up about the topic
cons : when too overwhelmed, its hard to get them too see the other side/ the big picture

7114180344 — 2021-05-28 02:47:15 UTC

1. Provide solid substantiation to our arguments
2. Use a calm tone of voice instead of aggressively pushing for our own views
3. Find middle ground and compromises

sabrina

182087x — 2021-05-28 02:47:23 UTC

writing all we know about the topic shows that we do not actually unsteady what the question is asking for and just writing whatever we can remember. furthermore, it also contains excess information which is not relevant to the question at all. therefore, it will cause us to be off topic with no clear and concise understanding of the question

crystal

181980e — 2021-05-28 02:47:42 UTC

stand in their shoes to consider their point of perspective and then think of a counter and refutation to make their own points more well backed up
use credible sources and quote them when needed for a stronger argument backed with facts 👍

7114180319 — 2021-05-28 02:47:58 UTC

Negotiators should strive to listen and acknowledge the other side of the argument, be calm but firm. Refuting the others’ points while also recognising that there are valid aspects in them can help to make their argument more convincing.

jinbo

2021-05-28 02:48:19 UTC

Pros: more confident in speaking up about the topic, and possibly being able to provide a more substantiated argument
Cons: less balanced argument when one gets carried away with what they're saying, and sometimes emotions might affect how rational their argument is

Janette

2021-05-28 02:48:25 UTC

Apart from using relevant evidence and statistics, being able to elaborate well and explain your stand would help to increase chance of success.

Eleana

2021-05-28 02:48:41 UTC

Understand the issue and their side of things like why they feel so strongly about their stance. Once there is acknowledgment, approach their stance with facts or evidence to back up ur claim

Amber

7114180298 — 2021-05-28 02:48:57 UTC

We must address only the focus of the question as this shows the opposing side that we know our points well and are not just using everything we know about the topics to substantiate our argument. Focusing only on the questions also prevents us from going off topic or giving irrelevant information.

Rou Ler

2021-05-28 02:49:05 UTC

Negotiators can use reliable, credible evidence such as scientific research to back up their stand as such evidence is hard to refute.

Negotiators can appeal to the emotions of their opponent by using news reports of first hand accounts and real world scenarios, and then elaborating on the significance of their stand as compared to the opponent’s stand.

7114180344 — 2021-05-28 02:49:17 UTC

An overload of information may not always be beneficial. Going on tangents causes us to lose focus of what the question is really asking. This reduces the persuasiveness of our essay and can confuse the readers.

crystal

181980e — 2021-05-28 02:49:22 UTC

writing more than what is needed to only serves to distract the readers from the main point and confuse them instead

Eleana

2021-05-28 02:51:53 UTC

Writing about all we know about the topic might not always target the focus of the question and issue, which adds irrelevance to our point and claims. It may bring contradicting ideas and make our claim less convincing.

7114180319 — 2021-05-28 02:52:17 UTC

The essay is an argument, not so much of an information dump. Thus, only the most convincing pieces of information that can back up your points should be used. This makes the essay clear and concise, and easier to understand by readers, but also does not take away the argumentative aspect of it. There is also a possibility of contradicting yourself if you write about all you know about the topic.