For the weblog:

Just provide a two paragraph summary like the example in the book (82-83). As you can see, one of these 2 paragraphs is devoted to the articulation of the main thesis and the supporting reasons that are invoked to back it up. The other paragraph shall be devoted to (depending on the argument) the argument’s awareness of the opposite point of view in the form either of explicit support for its underlying assumptions or response to counterarguments. As you know some argument pay attention to this aspect and some don’t hence my “depending on the argument.”

Ask the students to find fault with the argument (to critique it from a doubting perspective: find fault with its use evidence (logos), use of pathos (appeals to emotions), and attention or lack of attention to opposite viewpoints).

Students should refer to particular parts of the passage (page and paragraph cited with direct brief examples or quotations) with specificity to support their critique (otherwise it is pointless). This will be at most one paragraph long.

For the presentation:

Establish the argumentative conversation the argument is a part of (a contextual narrative that situates its main claim in a bigger context with counterarguments). To do this, you could articulate and briefly explain the counterargument to which this argument is a reaction.

Follow that up with a rhetorical analysis of the argument pointing out both its rhetorical strengths and its weaknesses. Restate the thesis and the mains reasons supporting it. Evaluate the evidence used in terms of STAR criteria (89-90). Evaluate the reliance on emotions (pathos) or Logos (use of logical and accurate reasoning, use of credible sources etc) and how these enhance or undermine the credibility of the writer for a larger audience.

Pick two of the best responses from the weblog and explain why they were the best!

Conclude your powerpoint presentation with a list of further questions!

Sunday, October 30, 2011

"Would legalization of gay marriage be good for the gay community?"

Sam Isaacson wrote an article analyzing the opinion of the gay community on legalizing same sex marriages. It is somewhat of a controversial issue with the gay community whether or not marriage is a good thing. He divides the community into two groups: integrationists and liberationists. The controversy is caused because of these two different philosophical views. The integrationists want to be as normal as can be. They want to "integrate" themselves into society. On the other hand, the liberationists cherish their gay culture with their own customs and values. The integrationists want gay marriage and the liberationists object to same sex marriage. Isaacson's belief is to consider the objections of the liberationists. However, he believes that legalization of marriage would benefit gays and society.

The liberationists do not care for being part of the "normal" society. They believe marriage would take away from their way of living and would show that marriage is the right way to live. Isaacson states, "We not only abandon the sexual minorities of our community, we strengthen society's narrow notion of what is "normal" and thereby further confine both straights and gays." Liberationists do not want to lose the unique characteristics of gay culture. Some gay writers have said, "Gays have been forced to create different forms of relationships that often allow for a greater and often more fulfilling range of life experiences." Gays are more likely to stay friends with their ex-girlfriends/boyfriends and they form very close relationships without becoming romantically involved. The communication in their relationships is better than most straight couples. The liberationists think that marriage "limits and normalizes personal freedom. They do not want to be faced with the social pressures of marriage and their culture is forgotten.

Isaacson agrees with the liberationists but many benefits would come about from the legalization of gay marriage. Marriage is stability that is good for a society. Children need a stable environment so that they are well adjusted. Couples tend to be happy in long-term relationships. Isaacson adds that when a person gets old, ill, or depressed it is nice to have someone who will take care of them so they are not alone.

Furthermore, Isaacson does not want to forget the real benefits that come with marriage. For example, legal rights, tax benefits, insurance benefits, inheritance, and voice in medical treatment or funeral arrangements. He feels that gay love is not respected. Society does not care whether gays have relationships or families. Isaacson wants to send a message to the world that "gay love is just as meaningful as straight love."

Posted by at

2 comments:

  1. Meredith LesterOctober 30, 2011 at 4:34 PM

    I disagree with Isaacson. I think that marriage should be between a man and a woman. Gay people shouldn't get married just because it comes with benefits. That is the worst reason I have ever heard for two people to get married. I also disagree with gay marriage because it is not fair for the kids, they might adopt. Children need to grow up in a house with a mom and a dad, not two dads or two moms. Kids growing up with gay parents may be mentally affected in bad ways. Also, gay marriage does not give stability to society, regular normal marriages give stability to society.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Jenna IbertOctober 30, 2011 at 9:14 PM

    I do not think that gay people should be looked down upon so harshly due to their sexual identity. However, they should not be given any special privileges for their culture and identity. I believe it is fine if they want the respect to be openly gay and have a relationship, but they should act like all other couples do. They do not need to make it such big of a deal, and I believe that is why there is so much turmoil over the subject. I do not mind gay couples being together, yet the bible does state that marriage is between a man and a woman. This argument unfortunately has spun out of hand because people have turned the idea of marriage into the idea of receiving benefits and privileges for being legally married.

    ReplyDelete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)