Am I a Title? Yes. No. uh.

            When Harris speaks of countering, he is in part alluding to arguments and in part more of a healthy way to point out a new view point. The way he explains it is that by simply accusing someone of being wrong you are not creating your own argument, just simply negating one already explained. However, there is value in all types of rebuttal because the reason for its existence is to bring to light another perspective. Proving someone wrong, or making them even think about a potential loophole or false statement is bringing about a new thought process and allowing doubt to creep into his or her brain. If the author can argue the original point past the counter-point, it is a successful argument. But if this doubt is new, or the idea of something being “more right” is a possibility, the argument has lost validity.

            http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0912/81340.html

            In the above article, Linda McMahon counters Mitt Romney. This made me think about just how much of politics and the race for the presidency is based off of countering. The answer? Quite a lot. Here, McMahon mentions her personal jump from rags to riches, and negates Romney’s reference to 47% being reliant on government services. In politics, part of running for office is giving your slate and explaining your ideas, but a large part on the other hand is saying why your plan is better than your opponent’s, and getting your audience to think about the loopholes in other people’s platforms.  Countering is definitely an common tactic in blogging, because people follow blogs they find interesting, and being shown how to view the world differently is more interesting than a lot of alternatives.