good conversation

Me and my friends are one of those groups of friends who like to talk. We usually talk about social actions of the public, religion, or politics. (even though we really didnt know what was going on in washington). One conversation we had recently was about "is it better to be submisive or dominant." he said that you will, in the end, be happier and get what you want if you are submisive your whole life and do good for others. My arguement was that people will respect you more if you take control of a situation but your not a jerk about it and you listen to others. So we talked and debated it for a long time.
As the conversation continued we both made strong points. But what we were fighting for was getting away from what the other person was fighting for. I was talking about a job situation and he was talking about a revalution or social unification. he brought up how ghandi was submisive to the world and asked nothing of anyone else, people saw that and followed his cause. Then he proseeded to tell me how charities do the same thing, they give up everything and are not forcefull. they just have a cause and allow people to help them. people see others giving their time to help or save less fortunate people and want to help out and so the jump on the charity band wagon. He pointed out being athoritative and dominant would have a lesser affect
Even though me and my friend still don't see eye to eye on the whole thing he has shown me that being sumbisive has its benifits. I have learned more on how to get the public to back my side by using pathos, since i am no one to the majority of the public and i dont have credibilty toward them. but i still believe that in a job setting, if your the boss, you have to let it be know that you are in charge in a nice way or a forcefull way. If you don't you will be walked all over

This article was good but no argument was really made. I feel like if you had stuck to your side of the argument and talked about how that is better than the alternative, and thrown in more facts it would get the reader feeling a certain way to argue for or against. This was also mostly about the conversation and not so much the actual content you were talking about. There was about 1 statement made for either argument.

I agree with Eric for the most part. The part that I am still wondering about is what went on in this conversation or this argument if you will. You provide a lot of context as to what is taking place, but not the points being made by each side throughout this conversation. Overall, I feel like you have a good base for a story here, but it just needs to be taken a little bit further.

You did a good job telling us about the argument, but I am not exactly sure what your view point was. I understand that it is that being submissive all the time is not a good way to live your life, and dominance is better way to live. However, I am not really sure why you think this way. You should go into more details about your stance on the topic and why you think this way.