The heart of Kastely's article "From Formalism to Inquiry: A Model of Argument in Antigone," when he states "The complexity of hearing an other and yielding appropriately also leads to knowledge of the larger world" (235) and "The goal of this reconceived course in argument would be the pursuit of an understanding of identity and the articulation of difference," (240) reminds me of this Ted Talk: Margaret Heffernan: Dare to Disagree. Take a look:

In her lecture, Ms. Heffernan explains patiently and compassionately that the only way we can enact change in society is to not be afraid of disagreeing with one another: "openness alone can't drive change." Being afraid of conflict--while maybe looking like the easy way out for the time being--actually ends up causing more harm than good in the long run. At the same time, too, just fighting for argument's sake isn't productive either. To demystify and de-demonize (ha) disagreement, she argues that we should begin to "see conflict as thinking," and, moreover, that our "thinking partners aren't echo chambers." If we are only around people who believe what we believe all the time, we will never develop any new ideas and progress in any meaningful way, whether this is in medicine, politics, the arts, or human rights. Furthermore, she is right on point when she asserts (at 11:20): "We need to be teaching these skills [thinking and arguing critically and creatively] to kids and adults at every stage of their developments if we want to have thinking organization or a thinking society."

Therefore, Drew--I would actually respectfully disagree with you that comp class doesn't prepare students for the rest of their college careers. On the contrary, if we can teach our students these skills that Heffernan and Kastely advocate, we can prepare them not just for college but beyond.