How to Teach Argumentation and Debate

Lesson One: How Not to be Seen. Wait, I mean, how to have an argument:

A Creative Political Ad?

"Say it ain't so Joe."

From the Lamont-Lieberman Race (via Salon):

The (diminishing) Ethos of College Football

31 Thugs, I mean players, were suspended by Miami, Florida International, and their respectives conferences for their participation in the brawl on Saturday. The President of "The Penitentiary," I mean, "The University" stated that the fight was "outrageous." So outrageous, that the Miami players were suspended for one game-- against the legendary powerhouse of Duke. (I wonder if a regular student would be suspended or expelled from school for swining a helmet, swinging a crutch, or stomping on another student's leg? What if it happened in a chemistry lab and the students threw beakers at one another? Would they be suspended for the next lab session? Or what if in a business ethics class, one aspiring capitalist were to repeatedly beat another aspiring capitalist with Marx's Das Kapital?)

While the President of "The U" issued harsh words, the most severe (and most unbelievable) were delivered (and the passive voice is appropriate) from the Conference Comissioners. According to the ACC Commissioner John Swofford: "These suspensions send a clear and definitive message that this type of behavior will not be tolerated." According to Wright Waters, comissioner of the Sun Belt: "There is no place in higher education for the type of conduct exhibitd." According to the NCAA, "It is hoped that the actions taken by Miami, FIU and the conferences will send a message that such behavior is not tolerated."

If anyone finds these statements believable, please tell me why. This seems to me to be a "Nod-Nod, Wink-Wink" type of action: After all, "A nod is as good as a wink to a blind bat, eh?"



Edit: I stand corrected, kind of. Miami extended one ban; FI booted two and extended the sentences of 16 other players. Somehow the sentence for the foot-stomping UM player remains unchanged.

Congratulations Tigers!

While it is true that, when the chips were down, the A's unhappily wound up showing about as much backbone as your typical Congressional Democrat, the Tigers deserve much props for their recent demolition of the American League. What a feelgood story this has been for, really, any lover of the game, regardless of team loyalty. The local fans have been so, well, pastoral in their reception of this team. The payroll is low, the hitting timely, the defense magnifique, and most importantly the PITCHING is nasty and only getting nastier.

Harrogate is happy to see the game of baseball prove, once again, that it is bigger than the economic comedy of errors that continually threatens to strangle it. As a metonym for the Uhmerrikahn soul, baseball has always stood in handily: the leaguewide corruption of the late teens and early twenties nicely mirrored, for example, the nation's sophomoric, Puritanical/hypocritical, hilarious attempt to banish alcohol sales from the national discourse; when the civil rights struggle was gaining momentum, there was Jackie Robinson making a huge impact in the right direction; at the apogee of that struggle we were treated to Henry Aaron getting a standing ovation in Atlanta, the Heart of Dixie, as he broke the record of that ultimate white sports icon, the Babe.

Now, with Uhmerrikah in the thick of its orgiastic celebration of corporate power at all levels of society, it makes sense that the game of baseball would be aping that orgy as well. The Yankees can clock in with a 200 million dollar payroll because they own a heavyhitting television station and operate in the biggest media market on the face of the Earth. Yet for the past six years they have been blanked, and except for in 2004 (Red Sox) they have been blanked by teams with a payroll stratospheres below them.

Having learned from the Marlins who came before them, the Tigers understand that baseball's grandeur inheres in the multiplicity of approaches it rewards; every champion will look different, there is no model for excellence, no matter how much the price tag says. They took a core of young kids and developed them over the course of several losing seasons, now it is at fruition with pitchers throwing harder than Tim Robbins in Bull Durham. They add a couple of key veterans like Kenny "The Gambler" Rogers and Ivan Rodriguez. And the list goes on.

In the end, the Yankees looked like a parody of Uhmerrikah's $ Worshipping underbelly: no soul, no art, no soup for them. Harrogate thanks Detroit for keeping the dream alive.

My second post on College Football this weekend

File this under: I bet the players are philosophy students.

See what happens when good schools play cupcake schools.



or:

Welcome Back

To honor the presence of Harrorgate as he posts again:

Placebo - A song to say goodbye

Yon this past half year, Harrogate has enjoyed the incredible fortune of living across the street from Amy and Mr. Reads, known by way of
Arrogant Self-Reliance

This delectable couple has introduced Harrogate to a wonderful new universe of music, including such heavyweights (to name but a darling few) as Red House Painters, The Cranes, Muse, Spoon, and Sufjan Stevens.

But right now Harrogate has been solidly grooving to another gift from the Reads household, the bizarre candy-rock operettic tour de force known by millions across the globe simply as Placebo. To express his appreciation for their contribution to his aesthetic and moral development, Harrogate would like to dedicate this MTV video to Amy and Mr. Reads

Florida and Auburn

Game off.

How many times? How many times?
How many times will instant replay fail in college football.

It was an incomplete pass and not a fumble. [I say this with no interest in the SEC. My team is in the Big Ten and benefits from bad officiating.]

At least hockey is back in season. At least refs in hockey never get the call wrong. Well....

Let me get personal for a minute...

I want to take some time to thank Solon for introducing me to a new brand of beer this past weekend. After putting down several Modelos on Saturday night, I tried one of his Dogfish Head IPAs. Boy, was it good!

It was so good, in fact, that I ran to the liquor store earlier this week and picked up a few for myself. I had to purchase them in singles, as my local store had stopped carrying the brand and was selling off its remaining stock by the bottle (to make room in their larger coolers for more popular varieties of beer). I bought last two they had. I think they were 120-minute IPAs.

I brought my two beers home (along with a few other sample singles) and decided to pop them open after dinner. Keep in mind that I was not planning to get loopy that night; I just wanted a Doghead or two. And they sure hit the spot.

But I had no idea that they were 20% alcohol. Before finishing my second beer, I was buzzing pretty good. I didn't quite understand it. I thought that all beers were of the same alcohol content. Something like 4.5-5%, required by law. At least that what it used to be in my home state. I never knew that the %ABV went this high in beers.

So thank you, Solon, for turning me on to Dogfish Head. And thank you for encouraging me to always check the alcohol content of my beer.

-----------------------------

On another note, I'd like to welcome Southpaw to The Rhetorical Situation. As you may have gathered from his last few posts, he is an entertaining and intellegent bloke who is sure to offer a unique perspective to our humble blog. Welcome, Southpaw!

More bad quotes from the NFL

In an article from Don Banks about the possibility Rand Moss will be traded by the Raiders before Tuesday's trade deadline:

"We're hearing there are a couple suitors for Moss,'' one veteran general manager. "And when you look at his contract, a trade is not as unlikely as people think. There is some smoke there right now, and you can't be sure it won't turn into fire.''

How does smoke cause fire? I always thought, correct me if I am wrong, that smoke is a sign of a fire.

In all my years of teaching argumentation and debate and discussing the fire/smoke relationship as an argument by sign, it took the wisdom of an NFL GM to prove me wrong.

Perspectives by Incongruity

This is random: A site combined the annoying Family Circus cartoons with the lovable philosophy of Freidrich Nitezche. Wait, I mean. Oh well. Here is an Example:


Caption: All sciences are now under the obligation to prepare the ground for the future task of the philosopher, which is to solve the problem of value, to determine the true hierarchy of values.

What wonderful technology: If you hit refresh, you'll receive another cartoon!!!

I once saw Marx's ideology outlined by using Family Circus Cartoons. I wonder is it is online?

"Call the attorney. Habeas Corpus. Call the Attorney!"

It is not as if we actually need this Habeas Corpus idea. People did fine without it. Why should we consider ourselves to be so special?

This is a sound party platform...

"At least no one died."

This is the defense by Republican Representative Christopher Shays (Connecticut) over the Foley Scandle. According to CNN, "Republican Rep. Christopher Shays defended the House speaker's handling of a congressional page scandal, saying no one died like during the 1969 Chappaquiddick incident involving Democratic Sen. Ted Kennedy."

Does he defend the current disaster of Iraq by arguing Sadam killed more? Oh. Wait. That defense is no longer valid.

While I am not sure if I actually want the Democrats to win the midterms, I do think the country will implode or spontaneously combust if the Republicans were to win.

If only our political system would allow a viable third party to compete. But, coporations, er, I mean people, would not allow for...that...um...oh...um....democracy to work.

At times like these I can only think of Monty Python. Unfortunately, I think of them, in general, and this skit, in particular, as a metaphor for our democracy, or republic, or aristocracy, or...whatever.

Bell RInger: "Bring out your Dead."
Body: "I'm not dead yet."
Bell Ringer: "What?"
Body Carrier: "Nothing. Here's your nine pouds."
Bell Ringer: "He says he's not dead."
Body Carrier: "Yes he is."
Body: "I'm not."
Bell Ringer: "He isn't?"
Body Carrier: "We'll he will be soon. He's very ill."
Body: "I'm getting better."
Carrier of Body: "No you're not. You'll be stone dead in a moment."
Bell Ringer: "I can't take him like that. It's against regulaitons."
Body: "I Don't want to go in the cart."
Carrier of Body: "Oh, don't be such a baby."
Carrier: "Oh do us a favor...."
Body: "I feel fine."
Carrier: (to Bell Ringer) "Isn't there anything you can do?"
Body: "I think I'll go for a walk."
Carrier: "Your not fooling anyone you know."
Body: "I feel happy. I feel happy."

Thump.

(It's at the end of the clip, after "Ralph the Wonder LLama.")

We all make mistakes, Solon

For your amusement, Solon, I thought I'd share a mistake from my dissertation:

"Chatper 1."

Yes, that's right, I misspelled my first word. And this is all I've written.

Humorous moments while writing and editing

Right now I am reediting the first chapter for my dissertation. Even after proofreading this chapter, there are still a few mistakes. It seems that I get too claose to the work and my brain fills in the gaps so I can no longer notice the errors in my writing.

Here is my favorite mistake so far:

"The justices themselves are aware of their power and their ability to constitute the social world through words. Before Samuel Alito Jr.'s confirmation hearing to the Supreme Court, Justice Stephen Breyer discussed his fear of language while on the Court with a reporter."

How big is the Court? And what they were doing there? Is this the post-game interview?

The intersection of Sports and Politics, again

An article on "Daily Kos" (via Raw Story) suggests that when Mike Tirico announced former President Bush during the New Orleans v. Atlanta game (on Monday night), ESPN manufactured fake "cheers" and broadcast those cheers. Further, the article claims that ESPN favors Republicans and disfavors Demcoracts.

The story revolves around an argument by authority, which the author does not provide backing to support it. Anayway, it is interesting as a concpiracy theory or to reflect the paranoid style (see Richard Hofstader's "Paranoid Style in American Politics"

ESPN is owned by the Mickey Mouse Corporation, which seems to favor elephants to jack asses. But, personally, I think ESPN is biased towards masturbation: "ESPN's Rick Majerus, on a Kentucky-Tennessee college game announced: "At this point in time, the game's over ... but I'm starting to look for Ashley Judd so I don't have to go home to the adult videos tonight."

This argument also revolves around an argument by authority. However, I do not care whether or nor Majerus provides backing for his warrant.

Interpreting the Words of Bush:

File this under: “Why Hermeneutics Matter.” From Political Wire

"In a recent CNN interview, President Bush suggested history would judge the Iraq war as "just a comma." He repeated the statement today in Alabama. While it seems an odd thing to say, a Political Wire reader suggests it's designed to speak to the religious right while not unnecessarily alarming others. In other words, it's a classic example of "dog whistle politics" used to energize his base.

The Christian proverb Bush was evidently referring to is "Never put a period where God has put a comma." In essence, trust in God to make a bad situation better."

In the Presidential Debates of 2004, President Bush always discussed abortion in terms of Dread Scot, meaning he does not like how the Supreme Court refuses to acknowledge humans as citizens, or, he does not like how the Supreme Court refuses to acknowledge the fetus as a living being and, hence, not a citizen. Of course, others have pointed out how Bush believes in the protection of Life.

Anyway, this provides another reason why people need to pay closer attention to the connection between language and motives. This is another attempt by Bush to focus on one audience while speaking to multiple audiences.

Students petition against Turnitin

A colleague of mine recently directed my attention to this article in the Washington Post. Over 1100 students at a Virginia high school have petitioned school officials to stop using Turnitin, for they claim that the online anti-plagiarism service violates their intellectual property rights. In addition to violating their rights, students say that use of the service implies guilt and that the subscription fees paid to Turnitin could be better spent.

Much of the debate over Turnitin has centered on the intellectual property rights of students and the implication of assumed guilt that allegedly accompanies the use of the service, but little has been said, to my knowledge, about the allocation of school funds to subscribe to Turnitin. I wish to address that topic here.

The Washington Post reports the following: "members of the Committee for Students' Rights want the school to allow students to opt out. In an interview at a Starbucks near the campus, they said that they can learn about plagiarism directly from teachers and that there are other ways to catch cheaters. They also said fees paid to Turnitin would be better spent on other educational matters." Despite contrary statements by teachers and school officials, students continue to focus on the "gotcha" aspects of Turnitin. They ignore the pedagogical potential of the online service. If they would take a moment to consider the ways that Turnitin might help them learn proper citation and avoid plagiairism, then they would likely not see Turnitin as a threat but as a safety precaution or even a friend.

The argument that subscription fees could be "better spend on other educational matters" loses much of its force when the pedagogical potential of Turnitin takes center stage. When used as a pedagogical tool, Turnitin lets students find and fix instances of accidental (or intentional) plagiarism. It identifies those passages where students did not properly paraphrase or cite the work of others and gives them an opportunity to revise those portions before "officially" turning in their work to teachers. To be sure, this process is much different than traditional lecture-based methods of teaching and learning about source attribution; it's more student-centered. And most of the scholarship about the teaching of writing in the last forty years have favored the self-directed and learn-through-practice methods of teaching composition. So why should learning to paraphrase and cite sources be excluded from these proven methods of teaching writing when they are, themselves, an essential part of writing and learning to write? The answer is simple: they shouldn't.

When viewed through a pedagogical lens, it seems that 80 cents per student is not a lot of money to spend on something that effectively teaches students to cite sources. Through my own experiences as a teacher of writing, Turnitin helps students avoid plagiarism much better than any lecture on the topic. And it frees up a lot of classroom time to talk about other writerly issues and strategies.

No Child, College, or God Left Behind

No this is not about the Left Behind series.

An article from Inside Higher Education discusses the revelation that certain interests want to make college education standardized. Who needs a liberal arts educaiton when the business model works so well for CEOs.

Maybe we should quantify everything. It would save time.

William Jefferson Clinton versus Chris Wallace

Here is the interview between former President Clinton and Chris Wallace. The interview was scheduled to be about Clinton's Global Initiative. However, it seems as if there was a change of plans. President Clinton did not back down and questioned the "objectivity" of Fox as he attacked Wallace. I am not sure if Wallace thought he could outsmart Clinton. I wish someone would question our current president like this.

Part One:


Part Two:


A full, uninterupted broadcast can be found at Think Progress.