Argumentation

The discussion board for our class is designed to practice solid argument using the skills we discuss in class.  Respond to others, build arguments, find evidence, refute, etc.  But avoid the nonsense that destroys ethos, destroys reason, and leads us into polarizing rhetoric.

• From week to week I will post 1-2 questions or issues to debate online. (Feel free to suggest topics for the various weeks!)
• You will offer 1-2 thoughtful responses each week for credit. (See criteria below.)
• You may write more than this, but you may actually lose credit by creating poor posts!

CRITERIA for good posts (all four criteria of equal weight):

• Follows strategies and tactics from class.
• Cites evidence where necessary to support claim, even creating links to primary sources (over secondary sources)
• Promotes ethos of the speaker to both supporters and critics.
• Seeks truth or otherwise acceptable answers to problems posed.

You may LOSE points if:

• Any post uses loaded language and unreasonable rhetoric intended to provoke instead of enlighten.
• Any post cites sources which are unreliable or not credible (CRAAP test).
• Any post offers incorrect information or lies.
• Any post otherwise reduced your ethos. 

*Poor posts as noted above may lose up to 20% per incident per post.  Lies or intentional misinformation create a "0" grade for the week.

 

JO:  I don't know. I think the reason we have the death penalty is because each state can decide for itself what punishments it wants.  To eliminate it we would have to change the Constitution, because anything that is not specifically a power of the federal government is given to the states to decide, that's what Gregg v. Georgia says.  That's a pretty big thing to do, and if we did it for the death penalty, wouldn't we then be doing it for other court decisions we don't like?  I'm not in favor of executions, but it seems to me that it is more complicated than simply saying we should do it or not do it.

 

CHRIS: You are right about the Constitution issue, but I think the question is really more abstract than that, more like a values question.  The "we" may not be the federal government but all of us.  In that case, I think we should eliminate it. The Old Testament "eye for an eye" idea was rewritten in the New Testament when Jesus calls for forgiveness.  I'm not suggesting that we follow only the Bible in all things, but the culture of the US is based on Christian ethics. Morally, I have a hard time having us take the life of a reasoning human being, even if they have done wrong.  If we can help them learn, that's better.  And besides, some people even argue that if the goal of prison is punishment, then life in prison is a worse punishment.

 

BOB:  Yeah, but you said "reasoning human being," and these people aren't reasoning at all!  We're talking mothers who kill their kids, child rapists, seriel murdurers, and pedofiles.  and the Bible is not a good source because we're not all Christians, so quit using the Bible-thumping stuff.  I'm sick of people whining about human rights.  Just kill them and save us the tax money!

 

LLOYD:  Tru 'dat, bro.

 

COMMENTS:

 

In general, Jo and Chris are doing well. Their arguments differ (Chris goes after definition issues), but neither has an unreasonable tone.  Each cites a good point (politics and cultural ethics) and even has cited ideas which are more or less common knowledge.  Chris' source is only Wikipedia, though.  Jo's is a legal dictionary, and while she misunderstands what the case decided, it's not an intentional misleading of the discussion.  Someone who looked it up could call her on it, though.  Both score well, 90 or above.

 

Bob and Lloyd are obviously a different story.  Although his initial idea about whether death row convicts are reasoning humans is interesting, Bob has a provocative tone, perhaps over-excited with the exclamation marks.  Rhetoric like "Bible-thumping" and "whining" are clearly meant to insult anyone who disagrees. No sources are cited (are pedophiles executed?), and the post even has several spelling errors which reduce his credibility/ethos. The post also didn't thoughtfully read Chris' point about Christian ethics, so the rebuttal that we're not all Christians is flawed.  As for Lloyd, the post on its own earns no points; it's simply too brief to demonstrate the criteria required.  Worse, if Lloyd had a good post elsewhere, adding this "bro-language" reduces his score by damaging his thoughtful credibility as he aligns himself with a poorly-argued post. 

 

SCORES:

 

	Jo	Chris	Bob	Lloyd
S&T	25	25	10	??
Citations	20	20	0	??
Ethos	25	25	10	??
Truth	25	25	10	??
Penalties	0	0	-20	-10
TOTAL:	95	95	10	-10

Here are a few ground rules and requirements for our boards:

1. Keep it clean.  Keep the environment positive and rated PG-13.  (Please e-mail Mr. Chisnell if you see someone breaking this guideline.)
2. Avoid the personal critiques.  This is a forum for testing ideas and strategies.  Be supportive of that philosophy.   Engage the ideas, not the person who made them.
3. Be respectful of those who choose to post under pseudonyms; they may or may not choose to reveal who they are.