We Don't Talk About Fight Club.

But we can argue why. Here’s how I’ve applied Fight Club strategies in my papers. Though Fight Club may appear systematic, the strategies and how we approach points in class stretch my papers to find the more abstract points of a debate, and how to deliver these said points eloquently. In Fight Club, whether you are pro, con, moderator, or even scribe, you scour the article or the assignment for the points that will best strengthen your argument while simultaneously finding the rebuttals that the opposite side could take. Doing this puts your argument into the perspective of the opposition, enabling you to find the weak spots of your adversary. This also makes your position vulnerable, to which you can ascertain the weak spots of your angle and build from them. Because of Fight Club, finding arguments and counter arguments has become more manageable and expedient; it’s less onerous to visualize the predicted rebuttal. Though, it’s still difficult to find all the counter arguments, since you don’t have more than one insight on the subject. What’s easier about Fight Club is that there’s a moderator and someone to argue with physically. The moderator always keeps the conversation going, so that there’s always a point being made. Without Fight Club, you spend a lot of time thinking about what to type next or what is the next argument you are going to tackle. The one who is arguing for the opposite side always sheds light on an argument you could have over looked, and even gives different perceptions about how one of your points could go. It’s easier to have a verbal debate because human interaction makes you want to argue more-- to prove your point more.