Week 1:
Mon. 6/1
Syllabus Review: print own copy
Discuss policies, procedures, and Course Schedule
Introductions
Discuss "how to" read critically: Annotating Hand out; please print from Blackboard
Homework 1: Read Chapter One "Understanding Arguments and Reading Them Critically” &
complete the "Respond” Activities on page 19 and then paraphrase the definitions for the
following words or phrase in the “Cultural Contexts for Argument on pages 30-31: Explore
Your Assumptions, Remember, Don't Assume, and Respect
Wed. 6/3
Homework is due at the beginning of class
Class Discussion & other in-class activities
Introduction to Internet Library Research/MLA
Homework 2: Read Chapter Two "Arguments Based on Emotion: Pathos” & Chapter Three
"Arguments Based on Ethos” & complete Question for in the Respond” activities on page 56
MLA Workshop
Workshop WA1: Introduce Writing Assignment 1 with prompt
and worksheet
Week 2:
Mon. 6/8
Homework is due at the beginning of class
slo
90
Class Discussion
MLA Workshop & Workshop for WA1 with worksheet/prompt
Homework 3: Read C. Richard King's "Redskins: Insults and Brand" pp. 554-565 (complete
Question #1 in the "Respond” Activities on page 565,) and then read Chapter Five "Fallacies
of Argument" & complete Question #3 on page 96.
MLA Workshop
Workshop, WA1: Rough Draft of Writing Assignment 1 033
zelo login
ini disob
Wed. 6/10
Homework is due at the beginning of class
Final Draft of WA1 is due on Blackboard by 11:30am (you will earn a full letter grade
deduction on your essay for late submission)
Homework 4: Read Melinda C.R. Burgess, et al., "Playing with Prejudice: The Prevalence and
Consequences of Racial Stereotypes in Video Games" pp. 567-576 and complete Question #1
on page 575.
Occasions for Argument
In a fifth-century BCE textbook of rhetoric (the art of persuasion), the
philosopher Aristotle provides an ingenious strategy for classifying argu-
ments based on their perspective on time-past, future, and present. His
ideas still help us to appreciate the role arguments play in society in the
twenty-first century. As you consider Aristotle's occasions for argument,
remember that all such classifications overlap (to a certain extent) and
that we live in a world much different than his.
Arguments about the Past
Debates about what has happened in the past, what Aristotle called
forensic arguments, are the red meat of government, courts, businesses,
and academia. People want to know who did what in the past, for what
reasons, and with what liability. When you argue a speeding ticket in
court, you are making a forensic argument, claiming perhaps that you
weren't over the limit or that the officer's radar was faulty. A judge will
have to decide what exactly happened in the past in the unlikely case
you push the issue that far.
FBI - FLASH ALERT
US Election Databases
HACKED!
CHAPTER 1 UNDERSTANDING ARGUMENTS
17
16
READING AND UNDERSTANDING ARGUMENTS
arguments about past actions--heated enough to spill over into the
public realm—are common in disciplines such as history, philosophy,
and ethics.
Arguments about the Future
In his
Ernies
In the aftermath of the 2016 election, many researchers both in and
outside the government devoted themselves to trying to understand
the effects of hacking on the election and, more specifically, the extent
to which Russia was involved in such activities. Cybersecurity experts
from agencies such as the CIA, FBI, and Homeland Security argued
that they had extensive evidence to show that Russia had conducted a
number of hacking expeditions and had manipulated messages on
social media to try to disrupt the American elections. Others inside the
Trump administration argued that the evidence wasn't convincing; the
president even declared that it had been "made up." As this book goes
to press, the argument over what happened is still raging. What hacks
actually occurred in the run-up to the election? Which state voting
procedures, if any, were violated? What part did the Russian govern-
ment play? These are all forensic questions to be carefully investi-
gated, argued, and answered by agencies and special counsels currently
at work.
Some forensic arguments go on ... and on and on. Consider, for
example, the lingering arguments over Christopher Columbus's "dis-
covery" of America. Are his expeditions cause for celebration or nota-
bly unhappy chapters in human history? Or some of both? Such
pronou
contine
a subje
even th
gramma
LINK TO
Debates about what will or should happen in the future-deliberative
arguments-often influence policies or legislation for the future. Should
local or state governments allow or even encourage the use of self-driving
cars on public roads? Should colleges and universities lend support to more
dual-credit
programs so that students can earn college credits while still in
high school? Should coal-fired power plants be phased out of our energy grid?
These are the sorts of deliberative questions that legislatures, commit-
tees, or school boards routinely address when making laws or estab-
lishing policies.
But arguments about the future can also be speculative, advancing
by means of projections and reasoned guesses, as shown in the follow-
ing passage from an essay by media analyst Marc Prensky. He argues
that while professors and colleges will always be responsible for teach-
ing students to learn from the knowledge provided by print texts, it's
about time for some college or university to be the first to ban physical,
that is to say paper, books on its campus, a controversial proposal to say
the least:
.
So, as counterintuitive as it may sound, eliminating physical books
from college campuses would be a positive step for our 21st-century
students, and, I believe, for 21st-century scholarship as well. Academ-
ics, researchers, and particularly teachers need to move to the tools of
the future. Artifacts belong in museums, not in our institutions of
higher learning
-Marc Prensky, “In the 21st Century University, Let's Ban Books"
CUAL
Arguments about the Present
Arguments about the present--what Aristotle terms epideictic or
ceremonial arguments-explore the current values of a society, affirm-
ing or challenging its widely shared beliefs and core assumptions. Epi-
deictic arguments are often made at public and formal events such as
inaugural addresses, sermons, eulogies, memorials, and graduation
James B. Comey, former director of the FBI who was fired by
President Trump, testifies before the Senate Intelligence
Committee on June 8, 2017. Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images
CHAPTER 1 UNDERSTANDING ARGUMENTS
19
18
READING AND UNDERSTANDING ARGUMENTS
e
speeches. Members of the audience listen carefully as credible speakers
share their wisdom. For example, as the selection of college commence-
ment speakers has grown increasingly contentious, Ruth J. Simmons,
the first African American woman to head an Ivy League college, used
the opportunity of such an address (herself standing in for a rejected
speaker) to offer a timely and ringing endorsement of free speech. Her
words perfectly illustrate epideictic rhetoric:
1000
el
4040
eht
Universities have a special obligation to protect free speech, open dis-
course and the value of protest. The collision of views and ideologies
is in the DNA of the academic enterprise. No collision avoidance tech-
nology is needed here. The noise from this discord may cause others
to criticize the legitimacy of the academic enterprise, but how can
knowledge advance without the questions that overturn misconcep-
tions, push further into previously impenetrable areas of inquiry and
assure us stunning breakthroughs in human knowledge? If there is
anything that colleges must encourage and protect it is the persistent
questioning of the status quo. Our health as a nation, our health as
women, our health as an industry requires it.
--Ruth J. Simmons, Smith College, 2014
eli
4040
elit
elit
Perhaps more common than Smith's impassioned address are values
arguments that examine contemporary culture, praising what's admira-
ble and blaming what's not. In the following argument, student Latisha
Chisholm looks at the state of rap music after Tupac Shakur:
Are rappers since Tupac-like Jay Z-only in it for
the money? Many epideictic arguments either praise
or blame contemporary culture in this way. Michael N.
Todaro/Getty Images
With the death of Tupac, not only did one of the most intriguing
rap rivalries of all time die, but the motivation for rapping seems
to have changed. Where money had always been a plus, now it
is obviously more important than wanting to express the hard-
ships of Black communities. With current rappers, the positive
power that came from the desire to represent Black people is lost.
One of the biggest rappers now got his big break while talking about
sneakers. Others announce retirement without really having
done much for the soul or for Black people's morale. I equate new
rappers to NFL players that don't love the game anymore. They're
only in it for the money. ... It looks like the voice of a people has
lost its heart.
-Latisha Chisholm, "Has Rap Lost Its Soul?"
RESPOND.
In a recent magazine, newspaper, or blog, find three editorials-one that
makes a forensic argument, one a deliberative argument, and one a cere-
monial argument. Analyze the arguments by asking these questions: Who
is arguing? What purposes are the writers trying to achieve? To whom are
they directing their arguments? Then decide whether the arguments' pur-
poses have been achieved and how you know,
As in many ceremonial arguments, Chisholm here reinforces common
values such as representing one's community honorably and fairly.
30
READING AND UNDERSTANDING ARGUMENTS
CHAPTER 1 UNDERSTANDING ARGUMENTS
31
RESPOND.
Take a look at the bumper sticker below, and then analyze it. What is its
purpose? What kind of argument is it? Which of the stasis questions does
it most appropriately respond to? To what audiences does it appeal? What
appeals does it make and how?
. Remember: ways of arguing differ widely across cultures. Pay atten-
tion to how people from groups or cultures other than your own
argue, and be sensitive to different paths of thinking you'll encoun-
ter as well as to differences in language.
. Don't assume that all people share your cultural values, ethical
principles, or political assumptions. People across the world have
different ways of defining family, work, or happiness. As you present
arguments to them, consider that they may be content with their
different ways of organizing their lives and societies.
Respect the differences among individuals within a given group.
Don't expect that every member of a community behaves-or
argues-in the same way or shares the same beliefs. Avoid thinking,
for instance, that there is a single Asian, African, or Hispanic culture
or that Europeans are any less diverse or more predictable than
Americans or Canadians in their thinking. In other words, be skep-
tical of stereotypes.
WARNING
POLITICALLY
INCORRECT
filo/Getty Images
CULTURAL CONTEXTS FOR ARGUMENT
Considering What's "Normal"
If you want to communicate effectively with people across cultures,
then learn about the traditions in those cultures and examine the
norms guiding your own behavior:
Explore your assumptions! Most of us regard our ways of thinking
as "normal" or "right." Such assumptions guide our judgments
about what works in persuasive situations. But just because it may
seem natural to speak bluntly in arguments, consider that others
may find such aggression startling or even alarming.
Purchase answer to see full
attachment