reen(counter)

When I think of countering, I think of the simple way people argue another point which is opposite what another author has wrote about or demonstrated. I just think of people arguing or debating upon a point or about an idea that is different from one another. In a way, that is indeed what Harris is trying to say countering is in his book: that a person used another person’s idea and presents the other side, but Harris’ countering has a different point, I guess you could say.
Harris states that the reason he thinks a writer should counter another piece by someone else would be to move the conversation in new directions. He talks of how when people debate or argue about their viewpoints or ideas, they do just that, argue. The point is not to just state that the other person is wrong and that their text is faulty or to criticize them. Harris seems to be saying that if you find a well written text that has good points and does put up a good argument, but are able to offer a different viewpoint and are able to counter their text in a way that opens up new discussion and converts the conversation about the text in a new direction, you have successfully countered something, and done so with a purpose.
An interesting article I found on The Huffington Post involved an author discussing the different viewpoints of creationism and evolution. The author discussed the viewpoint of a Muslim and their beliefs, and then countered that viewpoint with the uprising belief of creationism in Turkey…which was then main focus of this article – Turkey’s beliefs. The author offered both viewpoints as part of his argument and depiction of Turkey’s beliefs, but used the different techniques that Harris mentioned (Arguing the other side, uncovering values, and/or dissenting) to push the conversation and discussion along the path of his argument.