Project #28453 - Posting

Assignment 1:

 

 

 

Recall the two presidential speeches that were given by both President Obama and President Regan, respectively. Note that these two presidents used the Rogerian method of argumentation to not only win over those who agreed with their viewpoints, but also to win over those who held different views.

 

 

 

Think about a national or international issue that matters to you and write your own speech for that issue, using the Rogerian style of argumentation. How would you win over the other side? You don’t need to use citations, but please do not create statistics or ‘facts.’

 

 

 

Next, consider the following. During week seven, you created an argument using the Rogerian method. Have you used this style of argumentation before in your studies or career (either verbally or in past writing assignments/projects)? Will you use it in the future? Why or why not?

 

 

 

At least 200 words.

 

 

 

Assignment 2:

 

 

 

Ok, let's say that I am trying to return an item to the store for a full refund, and the sales clerk is being unhelpful. In a Rogerian argument, I'm going to try to find the one thing that we can agree on (the common ground) before trying to push my side of the argument.

So, I might start with "This is a fantastic store and you have high-quality products." If I can get the sales clerk to agree with me on this common ground, then I have a better chance of having the clerk agree with me that I deserve to be able to return my item for a refund.

If I was using a middle ground style of argumentation, I would be trying to build a compromise. That compromise might look like this, "Ok, I see you have a no-refund policy, so might I return this item for store credit?"

In the Rogerian argument, I still want to get my way (a full refund), but in the middle ground, I'm willing to compromise (settle for store credit).

Reply to this post with 150 words

Assignment 3:

This year brings another chance for the average Washingtonian to voice his or her opinion on what direction the city will go. But a lot of people in this city still don’t vote for the mere reason, they believe their vote does not count. For those of you who don’t know Washington, DC does not have voting representation on a federal level. What if the taxpayers believe the current mayor is corrupt and has no moral principles? Or what if bills are passed by lawmakers who can’t vote? More than 17 percent of the District’s registered voters have selected “No Party” as their political affiliation. This decreases voting eligibility for general elections. A non-partisan system would make for the least political disruption. Councilman David Grosso has introduced a bill making all primaries open to all parties, and making them instant runoff voting that means people can rank their preferences in candidates( Nuckols, 1). It may be time to allow D.C. residents to register and fully participate in election outcomes without forcing affiliation with a political party. This system is currently being used successfully in other large cities.

 

I have never used this style of writing before and don’t believe I will in the future if I can help it. I may have used this method in my career, by explaining something beneficial or not beneficial to my patients.

 

Works Cited

 

BEN NUCKOLS; http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/feb/28/councilmember-to-push-instant-runoff-voting-in-dc/

Reply to this post with 150 words

Assignment 4:

Unlike the Toulmin and Rogerian methods where one side is argued over another, the middle ground argument mediates between two sides of an issue, finding a ‘middle ground’ solution. In other words, this argumentative position seeks to forward a compromise solution between two positions.

For this discussion, choose an issue that you wrote about previously in this course (either your Toulmin or Rogerian essay). Let the class know your previous claim and briefly how you proved this claim in your essay. After this brief review discussion, discuss how you would have approached this particular topic if you were to write a middle ground argument, instead of a Toulmin or Rogerian argument. Would you have adjusted your claim? If so, what sort of adjustment would you need? Would you have to find additional sources about your topic in order to prove this new claim? Is a middle ground solution a more practical solution to your chosen issue?
At least 200 words
Assignment 5:

I chose this topic and I stated that comprehensive sexual education and contraceptive distribution in schools are important. I backed this claim with statics from sources supporting the decline of adolescent pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases in schools who utilized comprehensive sexual education and contraceptive distribution. School districts that implemented these programs had a decline in the total number of pregnancies and sexually transmitted diseases over the past decade.

After looking at both ends of the topic; people for the programs and people against the programs, I believe it would be hard to find a middle ground. One thing that could make a difference is parents involvement with whether schools let the parents have the choice in the child attending the sexual education class. I would not have adjusted my claim because even though I understand the parents against the programs, I strongly agree with the programs.

I believe that the middle ground may take away from the full benefits of the child attending the program and making the contraceptives available. As far as additional resources it would be hard pressed to find one that would support the middle ground concept. Therefore I would stick to the Rogerian and Toulmin methods of argument.

 
Reply to this post with 150 words
Assignment 6:
My Toulmin essay was my favorite of all the topics I’ve discussed in this course. Maybe because of how historical content relates to much going on today. My claim was, “today defense is big business; law and weapons makers have capitalized from America’s wars”. This claim was supported by DOD data showing how much money goes into defense contractors. The evidence used tied lawmakers to contractors in sort of a “this for that” relationship. In other words, big defense contractors and their use of lobbying and politicians with their pork barrel spending. If a middle ground argument were used, I would focus more on the opposition. I would add evidence to their claim with the relevance for huge defense contracts as it does stimulate the economy. With that, credible evidence will be necessary. The middle ground method may certainly be affective when arguing this claim because it has a strong opposition. Convincing because war does fuel the economy with jobs locally and abroad, arguably war helped America bounce back from every economic depression our country has endured. Despite the strong opposition, I don't think I would’ve used a middle ground for this claim. The reasons are personal; maybe from experiences I’ve faced in combat while realizing that DOD contracting has grown outrageous
Reply to this post with 150 words

Subject English
Due By (Pacific Time) 04/25/2014 12:00 am
Report DMCA
TutorRating
pallavi

Chat Now!

out of 1971 reviews
More..
amosmm

Chat Now!

out of 766 reviews
More..
PhyzKyd

Chat Now!

out of 1164 reviews
More..
rajdeep77

Chat Now!

out of 721 reviews
More..
sctys

Chat Now!

out of 1600 reviews
More..
sharadgreen

Chat Now!

out of 770 reviews
More..
topnotcher

Chat Now!

out of 766 reviews
More..
XXXIAO

Chat Now!

out of 680 reviews
More..
All Rights Reserved. Copyright by AceMyHW.com - Copyright Policy