discussion week 2-8 post 2

From chapter 7 by Epstein, I have learned that you should include the other side when arguing for a controversial claim: Argument, counterargument, counter-counterargument. One of the contexts, I learned about counter argument is raising objections: is way to show that an argument is bad. In order to do that we are supposed to be making another argument that is either calls in to a question one of the premises, or shows that an unstated premises is dubious, as well illustrating if the argument is weak. Secondly, I learned about the ways of directly and indirectly refuting an argument. In order to refute an argument directly, we need to show that at least one of the premises is dubious. It is important to show that the argument is not valid or strong. Lastly, we need to show the conclusion is false. On the other hand in order to refute an argument indirectly,In order to however, would be to somehow show that there is no agreement upon the argument without straight up saying it. From the example above, one way to do this would sound a little like, "Jack just has a hard time adjusting his views and seeing two sides to the story. He usually likes to stick to what he knows; therefore usually believing that his way is the right way." From that, the person is not directly saying anything against the first claim. This is more of like a lighter version of opposing the claim, somewhat giving an explanation to hinder any negative thoughts about Jack being a stubborn person