Analysis Of The Beauty Of Argument By John Leo

In John Leo’s “The Beauty of Argument”, Leo discusses how discussion and debate has changed drastically over time.

The essay begins with Leo writing his experience at a small dinner, in which he spoke about the corruption of American college and universities. He goes on to say that while most of his audience was entertained, one guest in particular was rather disturbed. The author writes how the guest, in relation to Leo’s speech, commented that his speech was “The most intellectually dishonest speech I have ever heard.”

The author uses the guest’s comment as a segue into the discussion of his main thesis, that debating in America has become an act of aggression and anger, rather than a civil-argument. Leo discusses how this may have occurred

due to the fact that nearly everyone with an internet connection can go online and argue without repercussions. Leo also writes that even radio and television can give us the illusion of protection from the opposition during a lively debate.
As the essay progresses, Leo challenges the idea of universities adopting a “no debate” style across campus.

Leo goes on to discuss how this leads to over-sensitivity, severe peer judgement, and even a sensitivity violation. Much of this is written in a sarcastic tone, because the idea of campuses across the country enforcing “sensitivity violations” is a ridiculous statement in itself.

Leo argues that a lively debate is crucial to education, as it encourages “intellectual roughhouse” and allows people to challenged by, and become open to new ideas and discussion topics. Leo provides an example of a fellow columnist who agrees with him; E.J. Dionne has told his class at Georgetown that he encourages debating without fear from dominant groups.

Finally, Leo makes the case that arguing is beneficial and can rescue us from “our own half-formed opinions.” John Leo has provided an excellent, if not equally sarcastic essay, on why he firmly believes debating is an important aspect of our daily lives. We use debating to help gain knowledge on new ideas, challenge existing ideas, engage with friends and fellow peers, and work out our half formed opinions. Throughout the essay, Leo uses a myriad of helpful quotes and examples to drive his point home. One of the most notable was a quote regarding President Ronald Reagan and then Speaker of the House, Tip O’Neill. “Tip O’Neill and Ronald Reagan fought sharply during the day, but enjoyed having the occasional drink or two after

work.”
Leo is an experienced writer.

According to www.cityjournal.org, “Leo has worked as a senior writer for Time magazine, and as a staff reporter for the New York Times specializing in intellectual trends and the social sciences. Among other position he has held are assistant administrator of New York City's environmental protection administration, editor of a Catholic newspaper in Iowa, associate editor of Commonweal, book editor of the social science journal Trans-Action (now Society), and "Press Clips" columnist for the Village Voice.” John Leo is an accomplished author, and although his article “The Beauty of Argument” may seem overly casual and almost satirical with quotes such as, “Usually, that you don’t really agree with the words coming out of your own mouth,” it is a very strong statement about the value of

argument.
Leo’s article provides needed insight on the diminishing topic of debate, and discusses the benefits of a good debate. The essay also explores the possible slippery slope caused by campuses across the country attempting to enforce “debate-free” spaces. These debate-free zones could lead to people being ostracized for wanting to debate, and even being fined by the university for their desire to exchange ideas openly.
Leo’s decision to begin this article with a personal anecdote in which he was opposed was a surprising and very interesting. Using precision and accurate grammar, Leo informs readers about the slippery slope that can occur when one attempts to censor debate. His dry humor and casual style help to drive home the idea that debate and discussion is good for the mind and spirit. This lively, well written, and well organized article is an overall good read.