By: Zac Frederick
In high school, I participated as a member of our debate team for four years. For me, this experience shaped the way in which I write more than any other factor. Each and every month the team was given a new topic to debate, and the extensive research that followed was all in the effort of proving or disproving a specific idea. Every research article, factoid, argument, and opinion each had to relate back to the given argument in that sense. Because of this, the way that I tackle the writing process usually follows this pattern. I usually will begin with a broad argument that I wish to prove, and the entirety of my efforts from then on go towards the betterment of that original argument. My process continues with research, usually in an online database or something of that nature, and I compile bits of pieces of information I believe will be useful into a document of some sort. Following this, I organize the completed compiling of information into various contingencies of the original argument, and only then does the actual writing process begin.
This process has worked for me for all of my years of high school and college thus far. Of course, no method is perfect. One major downside to my method of beginning with an idea first and supporting that hypothesis throughout the entirety of my research is that this leaves very little room for fluctuation from the initial argument. Very rarely, if ever, does my initial argument deviate from what I claim at the start. Each and every point I discover I either use, as it supports my argument, or I discard, as it doesn’t quite fit. While this has worked for me, the unavailability to develop a new argument from all the data received is could be considered as somewhat of a disadvantage, but keeping in mind that initial perceptions aren’t always 100% accurate is how I can learn from analysis.