Take the same individual you argued for, and argue against them. Use at least 3 facts as to why they would NOT help build the community.
Also, pick one person that one of your classmates argued for, and tell us why you think they are a really good choice. Additionally, talk about how their presentation convinced you to vote for them (this could be in the 1st or 2nd round).
What do you think is the most important component of the Argumentation Theory? Why?
As always, 300 words!
Your loving PA,
Jake
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
For our class debate today, I chose Theodore Roosevelt. I think he was an amazing individual, so this will be hard to argue against him, but here it goes. Teddy Roosevelt was just power hungery. He had no regard for anyone else's opinion, he just did whatever he wanted. Teddy should have consulted with the government more. Also, in building the Panama canal, he did almost as much bad as he did good. The country of present day Panama was still a part of Colombia at the time of Roosevelt's presidency. Roosevelt promised Panama their independence if they revolted against the Colombian government to help him gain access to the part of their country to create the canal. This was probably overstepping his bounds seeing as he could have potentially began a war.
ReplyDeleteOut of our class, I would have to say that the historic figure that impressed me the most is Winston Churchill. He was a great leader. He led England through an extremely tough period during world war II. Churchill's speeches inspired so many to do great deeds. Keeping together a nation in times of war is quite impressive! Trace's presentation convinced me that Churchill would be the best choice to lead on a desert island. He explained about Churchill's accomplishments during the war and the impact of his speeches.
The most important part of the argumentation theory is the qualifier. You need to convince your opponents that you completely understand your topic and its solutions. Being forceful can intimidate your opponents,and if they are not confident, then that helps your case all the more.
I am choosing Helen Keller. Even though she was blind and deaf as a result of scarlet fever when she was a young baby, she still succeeded in campaigning for women’ suffrage, worker’s rights, socialism, and many other progressive causes. Keller was a pronounced author, campaign worker, and major component to helping in the raising of funds for the American Foundation for the Blind. She was also the first deaf blind person to earn a Bachelor of Arts degree with she received from Radcliffe College in 1904.
ReplyDeleteIt is obvious that Helen Keller was a great woman with amazing accomplishments, especially considering her handicaps, but she did have what some people would of the time looked down on. Her and her great friend, author Mark Twain, were considered radicals, someone with extreme view points that wanted major change in society. Another matter that could have held her back from building the community is, even though she was at heart independent, she couldn’t physically be. Her aide, Anne Sullivan, almost always had to be by her side. Finally, Helen was often outspoken, such as on her opposition to the war.
I think Claire Kate’s choice of Theodore Roosevelt was very influential. He dealt with many set backs in his life, such as his mother and wife dying on the same day, but it never held him back from pursuing his political career. He became a national figure, and was notable the first president to allow journalist into the white house, making it the center of attention everyday and giving citizens a better insight.
I believe the most important factor of the argumentation theory is identifying how conclusions are come to, and different arguments. Also, it is crucial to today’s society for reasons previously listed and the fact it is used in law for preparing arguments and testing force of evidence.
Angela Acton
I chose John F. Kennedy. He was a very great leader and an effective president. Kennedy was the 35th president of the United States and did phenomenal things such as founding the Peace Corps, proposing what would soon be passed as the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and he also prevented a war with the Soviet Union. He was a great help for the Civil Rights movement as well as a help for protecting our country against a possible war. I think Kennedy had amazing leadership skills and would be the perfect candidate for building a community.
ReplyDeleteArguing against Kennedy, I would say that he would not be a good candidate for building a community because he was a terrible leader. He led us deeper into Vietnam & brought our nation closer to nuclear confrontation. Kennedy was irrational and building a community requires a stable leader. He would not be able to build a successful community because his decisions would be irrational.
I think Angie's choice of Helen Keller was a very unique and valid choice. Hellen Keller was blind and deaf but she did not let that hold her back. I like the fact that although Helen Keller was disabled she was able to campaign for various important causes. She is a prime example of a strong leader. She would also fit into the description of someone who would be able to build a community.
I think the most important component of the argumentation theory is the qualifier. Showing your opponents that you know what you are talking about makes it easier for you to get your point across and ultimately win the argument. Intimidation is also another huge factor that I think is key to winning any argument. As long as you intimidate your opponent with sound information.
I chose Gandhi for our lifeboat exercise last week. Gandhi is a hard person to argue against, as are all the people we chose. However, I will give it my best shot. Gandhi would not be a good person to have on the island because he would be to slow at getting things done. He want to try to negotiate every situation when some are just not able to be resolved. He would also not take a stand to what was truly right if it met using violent methods, when we all know that sometimes those measures must be taken. Gandhi also did not like to be in the public eye if it could be avoided, so he might not be the best leader.
ReplyDeleteI think Peter's choice of Jesus was a very good one. It is almost impossible to argue against Jesus. He was an excellent leader and is admired by so many people. Peter also did a very good job of presenting his argument. He made it funny but also had some really great points. I loved the way he incorporated Jesus' miracles into his argument. I was convinced to vote for him because of all the facts Peter used in his presentation.
I think the rebuttal is the most important part of the Argumentation Theory. No matter how strong an argument is, if it cannot be backed up and defended, it will fall. To be able to convince someone of something, you must think about the other side and figure out a way to beat the argument the other side will present. You have to figure out way you are right and they are wrong and convince people of that. The best debaters are always thinking about the arguments of the opposing side and how that will affect their position. However, they do not shy away from the conflict. They just find a way to beat it.
I chose Winston Churchill, he is considered one of the greatest leaders of the 20th century. He led the United Kingdom through its most difficult times. This does not mean that he would be completely perfect for the job of establishing a civilization on a deserted island. Churchill was a very pushy man and did not care what others thought. He made plenty of people angry by doing things his way. This type of leadership would not work creating a society. The leaders must be able to get along and decide the best course of action that benefited everyone. Churchill was also a war time leader and this situation is not a time of war. A peaceful approach must be taken. Churchill is not the man for a peaceful approach. Churchill was also a drinker and led his country extreme well, but this would be a serious distraction to the other leaders who were trying to build a society.
ReplyDeleteTyler picked Franklin Roosevelt. His argument on his leadership during both the great depression and World War 2 had a great effect on me. Roosevelt was not just a war time leader like Churchill, he was also able to bring a country and a society out of the greatest economic disasters of all time. Having someone like this would be a huge asset
to any society and country just starting out. Roosevelt may have had Polio but his leadership and genius makes up in so many more important was to a burgeoning society.
Being clear and concise in your arguments. One must be able to understand your points and arguments for there to be an effective argument. The lack of a clear and concise argument can lead to confusion and misunderstanding of each other’s points and can result in personal attacks that are unnecessary and can be damaging. This is the reason that a clear and concise argument is the most important thing.
November Blog
ReplyDelete1. For my argument I chose good man George Washington. Since he was the first leader of our nation as President, I thought he would be useful in adapting to a deserted island. Some reasons why people could argue against this is that G. Washington was sort of guilted into becoming the leader of our nation. He did not necessarily want to become a president, but many sought that he be a great leader because of his outstanding military leadership. I do not think someone that was convinced to lead should be a leader in the deserted island, anyway. Next, I would argue that he was not a particularly effective leader. Washington really just wanted to return home to his land. He really did not enjoy his work, and got very unpopular during his second term. One last argument you could make about George Washington is that some considered him a ruler. This nation was framed so that no one person would “rule”, but here we have a nation basically enforcing this one man to become the first president. If someone like George Washington were on the island, I think he would only make a good ruler if people on the island enforced him to be a great leader for them.
2. I thought that Peter’s idea of Jesus Christ was a good one. Jesus, if he actually existed, used values and love to create change in people, not by trying to convince them to change via fear. I think Peter did an OK job of presenting it. I thought he was excited for his argument, which made others excited too. I think he and the audience both knew much about Jesus, so it was easy to see a clear winner. If I could have voted for the second round I would have voted for Peter.
3. I think the most important part of an argument is the rebuttal. If someone can disprove your point, then you must be able to back it up, or your argument is basically invalid for that one reason they disprove your point.
My person that I argued for in class was Oprah Winfrey. I feel kind of stupid now after doing the lifeboat exercise, because when Jake said to think of an influential person she is the first person that popped into my head and it never occurred to me that she would not be the best choice to start her own community on an island. Anyways, some arguments against Oprah would be that she is very high-maintenance and would not be able or willing to do things for herself if she was stranded on an island and had to start her own community. She is also a leader, which can sometimes be a good thing but I don't think she necessarily has the ability to follow either. If given orders, she might not listen very well and might have a hard time not trying to control the group. The last argument against Oprah is that she is a very outspoken person and always says what is on her mind. That can get u into a lot of trouble in tough situations when everyone needs to work together and compromise on things to survive.
ReplyDeleteI thought Stephanie’s argument about Hamarabi was one of the best arguments from FIG class. He was responsible for setting up one of the first law systems and worked to make his empire work as a community. This would be very beneficial to help start a successful community on a deserted island. His way of thinking and laws would create order and set up a productive society, and that is very important for survival. I voted for him in the first round because I believed his presence was necessary for all the others to survive.
I think the most important part of an argument is the rebuttal. Yes, you may have done a lot of research and put a lot of hard work into your original argument, but if you cannot prove the other person’s argument to be wrong, then doubt is cast over your own argument. Also, that reinforces your opponent’s argument and makes your case very weak.
The person I argued for in class last week was Theodore Roosevelt. Roosevelt was an annoyance to others in politics, which is how he was appointed to his first job in politics as a member of the Civil Service Commission by President William Henry Harrison. The republicans hoped to keep Roosevelt out of the way by keeping him occupied with other jobs. This obviously failed, as Roosevelt eventually became the governor of New York and later the president due to the public nature of his previous job. Thus, Roosevelt never really earned the recognition he received for being a great leader. Roosevelt was also reckless. After leaving the office of president, Roosevelt went on an expedition to an unknown section of the Amazon River: a decision that almost led to Roosevelt’s death. He undertook too much for a man of his age. Lastly, Roosevelt had no sense of loyalty, as displayed by the fact that he left the Republican Party in 1912 to accept the nomination of the Progressive Party.
ReplyDeleteI thought Stephanie’s argument for Hammurabi was good, because Hammurabi is an impressive historical figure. Hammurabi’s excellent leadership skills are displayed by the fact the he was the first king of the Babylonian Empire. He also came up with the first written code of laws. Without the presence of laws, societies would not be able to function properly, so Hammurabi would have been a great leader. Because of these traits, I chose to vote for Hammurabi.
I think the most important component of the Argumentation Theory is rebuttal, because it is always necessary to consider the views and opinions of the other side of your argument. The points of an argument, no matter how strong, don’t matter if you are unable to downplay the importance of the others sides’ points.
The person I picked in the activity we did was Glenn Beck. The general consensus as to why he wouldn't be good for the island is that he doesn't bring people together. He likes to stir things up and be a dissenter which wouldn't be helpful in the hypothetical situation. Also, he is not well known so it wasn't that convincing considering he's not really easy to argue for or against if you don't know who he is. Lastly, he doesn't seem that tough either. It is clear he is good at having strong opinions but his chances on an island are slim.
ReplyDeleteA character that I thought was indisputably the best out of all (whether fictional or not) was jesus. There is no way to out-do someone who can live without food for forty days, walk on water, or resurrect himself from death.
In my opinion the most important part of argumentation is the qualifier. You don't have a strong argument if you have no evidence. In fact, if you have no evidence to back up a claim then it's merely an opinion-and opinions do not hold the same value as facts do. The rebuttal is also very important because it can make or break your argument.
The person I selected was former baseball great Jackie Robinson. Jackie has a lot of good qualities but he also was a very controversial figure with many of the things he tried to achieve throughout his career. He new a lot of the things he did rubbed people the wrong way and he did not care. This would not be a good quality to have in a person stuck on a desserted island. Throughout his career some of his teammates claimed that he was not a good teammate which would be a vital part of succeeding on the island.
ReplyDeleteThe person that I voted for was Paul's version of George Washington. Paul gave a very good argument about why George should be able to stay on the island. The fact that he has already been a leader of a founding country gives him great experience of how to keep people happy. This would be very important because on an island people are going to disagree it is just a matter of getting them to come together in the end. Several people used George Washington as their character but Paul presented his argument way better than the others. He hit on many key points and left no doubt in my mind that George would do great things on the island.
I feel like the most important part of the argument is the qualifier. It is important to show as an arguer that you know what you are talking about. If you do not what you are talking about you have no chance of having a successful argument. The person that you are arguing against will rip your argument a part and you will look foolish.
In class, I chose to argue for Bear Grylls as the leader of the deserted island. He, quite simply, would be a terrible leader of an island community. He lacks any experience in political matters, and thus would do a terrible job of lawmaking, tax levying, and other municipal duties. Also, he is fairly young, which limits his overall leadership experience. Furthermore, he doesn't have the personality required to lead a civilization through tough times. I also believe that he would have too much faith in his own expertise to listen to any input from his inferiors. While physical prowess is important to survival, one must also take into consideration Bear's ability to lead and govern when arguing for his leadership of a civilization on a deserted island.
ReplyDeletePeter's argument for Jesus Christ as the leader of the island civilization was hard to beat. His point about being able to feed thousands with a meager amoung of food was arguably of paramount importance. Without food, a community can't survive, and there wouldn't be anything to lead. In addition, his ability to cure disease and other crippling conditions is of intangible value to a society in which people have a more active role in their own survival. Also, Peter mentioned that Jesus Christ could ressurect himself. This would be important if, by chance, some harm came upon him, he could simply rise again to continue to lead the society. I voted for Jesus Christ because Peter's points were quite valid, and presented in a clear, concise manner.
I believe the most important component of argumentation to be the rebuttal. While you must be well knowledged in your own argument, being able to refute that of the opponent's is crucial to a victory. In a rebuttal, you must take into consideration other points of view towards your argument. This is important because if you know how your opponent intends to attack your argument, you will be better equipped to defend it.
For our activity last week I chose George Washington. Although George Washington was a good leader, that is all he was. He led men from tents scattered around what was to become America. Although he had good battle ideas, was he capable of surviving in a small group in not only a foreign place but also a foreign climate? Also, George Washington was a military leader. The small group on the deserted island is not going to be going to war with anyone, just trying to survive and establish a supportive community. George Washington more than likely would not be the best with creating a social system for sustaining a group of people. However if the island had been developed and populated by the community and then was under the threat of being taken over I would give him a call.
ReplyDeleteStephanie’s choice of Hammurabi was a good one. Hammurabi would be a great person to have on the island because he already has demonstrated that he has the characteristics necessary to be a great leader. Not only was he a king, he wrote the first code of laws. Obviously if you are trying to create a society and build a system that will allow your population to remain cohesive and functional you need to be able to gain influence and have a good understanding of how a good social system works. Hammurabi has both of these qualities.
I think the most important part of the Argumentation Theory is data. Without data anything you say could just be speculation. Yes, constructive arguments and rebuttals are the building blocks of any argument. However data is one of the building blocks of good constructive arguments and rebuttals. Good data makes a good constructive argument or rebuttal a great and solid argument that is difficult to refute in any situation.
I chose John D. Rockefeller. Rockefeller revolutionized the oil industry and defined the structure of modern philanthropy. He was so used to having his way that anyone who got in his way he would either buy out, or kill them. So he would definitely be bad leader. Kind of like a dictator. He would be a dick for a leader. Obviously. He also was so used to Luxury that living on an island without indoor plumbing would be such an atrocity to him, he would most likely end up being the first dead person on the island.
ReplyDeleteI think Steven's choice of Bear Grylls was absolutely the best possible choice for surviving on an island. I mean he might not be a leader, but in raw intelligence of survival skills, he would be like the VP to our newly founded island. In my mind Bear is the man and through his building skills we would have a waterproof fort in at most thirty minutes... Who can argue against that? Maybe afterwards he could whip up a meal of raw fish (SUSHI!!!), which would be so nice! I love it.
I think the rebuttal is the most important part of an argument because it is the part of the argument where you're not really prepared for and if you are successful in tearing apart the opposing sides argument in an improvised setting then you've basically won the argument in my point of view.
Hammurabi, being one of the greatest law makers and leaders in the history of civilization, may not be the perfect candidate for surviving on this island. His tactics would probably be too ancient and outdated for today’s society, even if it would be on a primitive island. Most people would frown upon the idea of murdering a woman for falsely being accused of adultery, yet his laws state otherwise. He also would probably be too egotistical and not listen to a word anyone else says considering he would think all his ideas are the best since he created one of the first comprehensive law codes of civilization. The sheer fact that an island is completely different that the till land of the fertile crescent of which he resides in his days would act as a burden, for his lack of knowledge of technology and this type of environment would not allow him to thrive in any manner.
ReplyDeleteGeorge Washington would have to be my main choice as a prospect for the island. I have always regarded him with the utmost respect with his ability to lead our country in time of war and times of peach in creating it. I agree with Paul’s arguments for him in its entirety for his ability to create and precedent the norm for what would become the most powerful political seat in the modern world. His influence exists today in America and especially within the ideologies of our country.
The qualifier in my opinion is the most important part of the argument. Without it, you cannot back up your claim with real factual information, and your argument holds no merit. By qualifying your opinion, everyone must at least respect it by referencing the facts you have to back it up and understanding your view on the situation, even if they do not agree with what you claim.
My person was Martin Luther King Jr., I believe he had a profound influence on American culture. He was able to change the world forever and promote equality to all peoples. He had a dream and was able to for fill it, however, in the case of being stuck on an island I believe he may have a few flaws. One being with such a large ego towards equality he may get in the way of assigning a leader, and people to do his work. Second he doesn’t really bring much to the table in terms of survival techniques, he wasn’t any Survivor Man. Third I believe he wouldn’t enjoy the island life, you know seems like a city boy to me.
ReplyDeleteThe person that I believe had the best argument was Peter, I mean its hard to argue with someone that can do basically everything. He is widely believed in and has performed many miracles that would defiantly make you want to have him around the island. The best arguments were that he could feed people, heal people, and make wine (for a good time). Also he bring something else to the table that no one else can and that is believe, he would be able to offer spiritual and moral guidance. Basically he is an all around useful guy, the Swiss Army knife of personnel.
The most important part about the argument theory is the qualifier. The qualifier is the deal closer; it allows you to shut the person down with something that is hard to argue back about. With a good qualifier it is easy to win an argument.
Id like to take this extra few word that I need to say that I think Jake has done a wonderful job teaching this FIG over that past few months. At times it’s been boring like all our other classes but the interesting times have out weighed the boring ones. So here’s to you Jake Strickland.