Arguments

I honestly cannot remember who taught me how to write an argumentative paper. I do distinctly remember, however, someone teaching me to include the oppositions side in my paper to lend it weight. This is why when picking an argument I always carefully chose one that had two equally valid sides. It is hard to argue for not wearing seat belts while driving, for example.
Yet, I also stayed away from extremely controversial topics like abortion which tend to be colored by things other than logical arguments. One's vision can become too clouded by other issues and then your paper is not really read. People see that you are against whatever that person is writing and immediately discredit your paper. Kind of like Fox News or the Utah State Legislature.
However, I must say that I do prefer a Toulminian style of argument over the Rogerian style. The Rogerian style feels to me like avoidance of the question. I see the point, but it seems that exploring both sides of an issue should lead to an opinion on that issue, not just an exploration of it. Unless of course your assignment is to explore it, like for this class.
Perhaps I have been arguing one side or another for too long to make the Rogerian style seem valid. I am used to being chastised for being too wishy-washy (Dr. Rogers is in part responsible for this). This means that the Rogerian style feels too weak.
I am also used to not only making judgements on social issues, but literary issues as well. Therefore I am used to arguing about things like the reason for Jean Toomer's Cane containing visual representations of arcs or why Cormac McCarthy uses a blend of humor and violence (see Bakhtin for this). Because Dr. Rogers hammered this style into my head for a semester of Academic College Writing, I now do this all of the time. This is also why I don't do the Rogerian method. Also we were publically humiliated if we did not do this. This makes one key to not screw up. I also learned way too much about crazy people in England (see Graham Swift's Waterland for this).
I think that I write arguments now without much thought. This is why the paper for this class is going to be such of a challenge. It goes against everything I've been taught for my entire English career (as I jokingly label it). This is going to be the biggest challenge. I will have to unthink everything I know and write something new.
I think the challenge is not writing an argumentative paper, but not writing an argumentative paper. Does anyone else feel me on this?
Anyway I have like fifty more words to reach five hundred, so I'll leave with the idea that I have been very lucky in my schooling that I was taught how to write an argument without remembering the source. Either that or every English teacher I've ever had is the source. In any case, I can now write one so automatically that not arguing becomes the new challenge. This is my dilemma.
Okay, now I've said my five hundred words so...I'm going to work on writing those papers.