Argumentation differ in the classroom, daily life, and work place. Here is my position on the subject of watching or being on time and how arguments are different:
Despite my understanding of the cultural differences between peoples and individuals, and the many factors influencing people's behaviors, I believe that we should be firm on schedules and be on time for appointments. Whether it is working hours (start and end of shifts) reporting in and out, or hours of work on schedules. whether it is a social event or a class lecture or training, we need to be aware and careful to stick to the time set for appointment.
At work, it is not my position to train my coworkers or boss to watch time. But, suppose I am a manager, I would discuss the matter in the right context with the person in the right time and settings. I would argue that since we all are on a company pay roll, and hour productivity is mainly based on work hours, and since time clock shows delinquency that may affect productivity, employee will be subject to some kind of penalty as a result of not being on time (lateness could be in delivering work, or in reporting to work, or any other way).
In classroom, if I were a teacher, or a student, I would address time as a value and show the consequences of being late to be prepared to class, or by pushing out due assignment.
In social events, daily life, I would as my partner, friend, or other, to be mindful of time because time can be spent in more useful ways doing different things. If we become careless of time, we would go to church late, miss doctors appointments, pay fees on bills, or even miss on great fun activities. therefore, sticking to time schedules is very important even if we move to another country because people will get to know my example and will follow after a while.
Thus i used different supporting evidence to make my arguments based on the context and consequences.
My expectations that I would have for someone arguing a...