the Power of Proper Argumentation

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/b2/ab/99/b2ab9975dd4e4c9910b6e5ab1b036afd.jpg

Argumentation and debate are tools of persuasion. More than that, they are powerful artwork expressed with words, sculpted with logic, and painted with passion. Good argumentation is an effective tool that can help on the journey towards progress. It will drive others to think, to ponder, to challenge their own thoughts. It will remain respectful while responding powerfully, ever ready to discover truth. When abused, it becomes an ugly and warped picture, a dissonant song. Whether embraced or abused, argumentation is a vital part of life and must be studied, mastered, and shared for the betterment of us all.  

The Power of Visual Argumentation

http://www.webdesignbooth.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/fedex-advertisement.jpg

Visuals in argumentation and persuasion are extremely effective. For example, this advertisement for FedEx is making the claim that FedEx will deliver the product to you in the same condition that it was sent. The use of a vase is particularly effective because vases are noticeably fragile and easily broken if mishandled.

An Appeal to Santa

http://megjohnsonspeaks.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Calvin-Hobbes-Comic-Strips-calvin-and-hobbes-27569856-500-160.gif

Here Calvin is arguing using the false cause approach. He is attributing his bad behavior to a bad environment and "mitigating circumstances" though that is clearly not true. He's a pretty funny kid though!

San Bernardino and Policy Claims

http://cdn.sandiegouniontrib.com/img/photos/2012/07/12/bce9f9b7-7b2e-4692-9291-1c462c45fbeenews.ap.org_r900x493.jpg?122770e84b36f1c039d5c4c2ca15c2d8bc4ecd52


Transcript of President's address regarding San Bernardino:

http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/06/politics/transcript-obama-san-bernardino-isis-address/

Following the tragic terrorist attack on San Bernardino, California, President Obama issued this statement. His words demonstrate an important part of argumentation - the policy claim. Here is his policy claim:

"Here's how. First, our military will continue to hunt down terrorist plotters in any country where it is necessary. In Iraq and Syria, airstrikes are taking out ISIL leaders, heavy weapons, oil tankers, infrastructure. And since the attacks in Paris, our closest allies -- including France, Germany, and the United Kingdom -- have ramped up their contributions to our military campaign, which will help us accelerate our effort to destroy ISIL. Second, we will continue to provide training and equipment to tens of thousands of Iraqi and Syrian forces fighting ISIL on the ground so that we take away their safe havens. In both countries, we're deploying Special Operations Forces who can accelerate that offensive. We've stepped up this effort since the attacks in Paris, and we'll continue to invest more in approaches that are working on the ground.

Third, we're working with friends and allies to stop ISIL's operations -- to disrupt plots, cut off their financing, and prevent them from recruiting more fighters. Since the attacks in Paris, we've surged intelligence-sharing with our European allies. We're working with Turkey to seal its border with Syria. And we are cooperating with Muslim-majority countries -- and with our Muslim communities here at home -- to counter the vicious ideology that ISIL promotes online.

Fourth, with American leadership, the international community has begun to establish a process -- and timeline -- to pursue ceasefires and a political resolution to the Syrian war. Doing so will allow the Syrian people and every country, including our allies, but also countries like Russia, to focus on the common goal of destroying ISIL -- a group that threatens us all.

This is our strategy to destroy ISIL. It is designed and supported by our military commanders and counterterrorism experts, together with 65 countries that have joined an American-led coalition. And we constantly examine our strategy to determine when additional steps are needed to get the job done. That's why I've ordered the Departments of State and Homeland Security to review the visa (waiver) program under which the female terrorist in San Bernardino originally came to this country. And that's why I will urge high-tech and law enforcement leaders to make it harder for terrorists to use technology to escape from justice.

Now, here at home, we have to work together to address the challenge. There are several steps that Congress should take right away.

To begin with, Congress should act to make sure no one on a no-fly list is able to buy a gun. What could possibly be the argument for allowing a terrorist suspect to buy a semi-automatic weapon? This is a matter of national security.

We also need to make it harder for people to buy powerful assault weapons like the ones that were used in San Bernardino. I know there are some who reject any gun safety measures. But the fact is that our intelligence and law enforcement agencies -- no matter how effective they are -- cannot identify every would-be mass shooter, whether that individual is motivated by ISIL or some other hateful ideology. What we can do -- and must do -- is make it harder for them to kill.

Next, we should put in place stronger screening for those who come to America without a visa so that we can take a hard look at whether they've traveled to warzones. And we're working with members of both parties in Congress to do exactly that.

Finally, if Congress believes, as I do, that we are at war with ISIL, it should go ahead and vote to authorize the continued use of military force against these terrorists. For over a year, I have ordered our military to take thousands of airstrikes against ISIL targets. I think it's time for Congress to vote to demonstrate that the American people are united, and committed, to this fight.

My fellow Americans, these are the steps that we can take together to defeat the terrorist threat." 

In this part of his speech, the President calls for a very specific course of action in response to the horrible attack. 

Finals............

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/52/44/12/5244127bd1ca02b0bd30a8f8db96875a.jpg

The Argument every College Student wants to make this week.

The Effectiveness of One-Liner Rebuttals

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pmYsH4reZek

This clip from "Boy Meets World" demonstrates the effectiveness of clever rebuttals. Though Mr. Turner (younger teacher) does not follow the proper rebuttal protocol, he certainly provides an answer for everything Mr. Feeny says. It is quite hilarious. Enjoy. 

Frustrations and Generalizations

http://www.iran-daily.com/File/File/136640

READ THIS: http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/07/politics/donald-trump-muslim-ban-immigration/

This article reports of Donald Trump's latest publicity stunt. He makes me very frustrated. His recent comments regarding banning all Muslims is ridiculous, unAmerican, and cruel. It is a fallacious argument in which he generalizes a whole group of people based on the actions of a select few. There are many Muslims who are American and love this country. Similarly, there are many Muslims who seek to enter this country because they value the freedoms and safety that we offer. Trump's ridiculous proposal completely opposes all the values on which America stands. I cannot believe he is a front-runner. 

Why the World Needs More Aggies

https://c1.staticflickr.com/3/2162/2935703178_f76da4b8ff.jpg

READ THIS: http://wordsfromwags.com/why-we-would-be-a-better-world-if-we-were-all-from-texas-am/

This is a link to an article in which the man argues that the world needs more Aggies. His argument is good, and I completely agree. Though not all Aggies value and live up to the university spirit and code, those that do certainly shine a unique light. Thanks and gig'em, Texas A&M. 

Best Show Ever

http://orig04.deviantart.net/e760/f/2011/115/5/f/boy_meets_world_demotivational_by_will_o_the_wispy-d3ewbli.gif

This poster makes the claim that "Boy Meets World" is the best show ever. I happen to agree. Here is any example of the hilarity and poignancy at the same time offered in the show:

http://40.media.tumblr.com/74390c8ce9afc3139ed4d095f02b1898/tumblr_n8bo9pSoCR1sbqrjko1_500.jpg

What fashion would be like if Topanga Lawrence was President. Not only is it funny, but it comments on the dangers that stem from false perceptions and unrealistic expectations from the fashion industry. Life lessons from "Boy Meets World".

Privilege and Music

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UMhFyWEMlD4

This song, Boys Keep Swinging", by David Bowie presents an interesting argument regarding gender privilege. It was one of the first songs of it's kind and challenged gender privilege of the time.

Lyrics: 

Heaven loves ya
The clouds part for ya
Nothing stands in your way
When you're a boy

Clothes always fit ya
Life is a pop of the cherry
When you're a boy

When you're a boy
You can wear a uniform
When you're a boy
Other boys check you out
You get a girl
These are your favourite things
When you're a boy

Boys
Boys
Boys keep swinging
Boys always work it out

Uncage the colours
Unfurl the flag
Luck just kissed you hello
When you're a boy

They'll never clone ya
You're always first on the line
When you're a boy

When you're a boy
You can buy a home of your own
When you're a boy
Learn to drive and everything
You'll get your share
When you're a boy

Boys
Boys
Boys keep swinging

Boys always work it out

http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/davidbowie/boyskeepswinging.html

Laziness of Mind

http://www.liberator.net/humor/pic-dthink.gif

Understanding and questioning are important aspects of argumentation and daily life in general. Too often, we do not wish to think critically about topics or arguments. We have become lazy of mind. We do not want to be questioned, challenged, or opposed because..well...we are right and we know it even if we don't know why but we don't want to think about that because we know we're right! How sad the cycle of circular reasoning. It kills creativity, productivity, and progress.

Critical Thought and Ethos

http://aeo.sllf.qmul.ac.uk/Files/CriticalThinking/Critical%20Thinking%20Cartoon.bmp

This cartoon demonstrates the importance of critical thought when analyzing a source's validity. It is easy to blindly use a source because it fits our argument, but, if the statistics or facts are not true, it not only destroys the credibility of the source but also yours as well. It is important to argue with as up-to-date facts as available as well as with sources that are true authorities on topics.

Poor Argumentaiton

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WO23WBji_Z0

Here is a clip from the movie, "Annie Get Your Gun", an old western with Howard Keel and Betty Hutton. This song hilariously epitomizes poor argumentation. 

Blog Post 10 - Final Statement - Argumentation as an Artform

http://www.utne.com/~/media/Images/UTR/Editorial/Blogs/Mind%20and%20Body/Beyond%20Debate%20Club/argument.jpg

          Argumentation is an art. It is a way of expressing the depth of our minds, our logic, our feelings with regards to the issues that form the very fabric of our world. As the fortune cookie asserts, arguing is not about beating the other person, rather, it is a journey meant to guide all towards progress and greater enlightenment. With that in mind, all forms of argumentation and persuasion are not created equal. Fallacious arguments such as ad hominems, red herrings, false analogies, and generalizations serve only to damage the beauty of a well-constructed argument. They may seem convincing but falter under any scrutiny. However, a proper mix of ethos, pathos, and logos create a well-balanced argument. Pathos and logos are key part of a good argument. Pathos speaks to those in touch with their emotional side. To this group, emotional stories move them to action and help them to feel motivated towards change and a new opinion. However, some are more logical and require logos to be convinced. For these people, hard facts and logical reasoning can convince them to alter their opinions. It is important, in argumentation, to know your audience, and, often times, it is wise to include both pathos and logos. However, for both, if the speaker has not authority, their words are immediately degraded which is why ethos is so vital.
           Today, many people place to much emphasis on images and clever phrases, rather than understanding the value of words. This is a detriment to argumentation because, like literature, it is an art of, sometimes many, words. While images can speak loudly when properly placed in arguments, they are infinitely more effective when accompanied by powerful text. Just as images have altered argumentation, Facebook, Twitter, and other social media outlets have led to the degradation of argumentation by reducing it to nothing more than a petty exchange of poorly constructed attacks. While, at times, logical arguments have happened on Facebook and other forums, the vast majority of arguments include hurled insults and accusatory generalizations. Such forms does not promote a journey towards progress.
            Argumentation is vital in today's multicultural platform because, while the cultures of the world are continually more diverse, the spaces between us is continually shrinking. Through proper argumentation, we have a platform to examine and learn about other cultures while challenging our own perceptions and cultural practices because not all cultural practices should continue. Through argumentation, we can expand our understanding, not only of cultural practices, but also of how different cultural practices are perceived across the globe. Within a more national context, argumentation is also important to promote the wisest solutions to economic and social problems. While it can be a tool for lobbyists or politicians, it is also an important part of life for the individual peoples to understand what their leaders believe and strive to implement. Sadly, argumentation in national politics has been reduced to bribery and personal favors. In history, however, it has been used to change the world. Consider the American Revolution. It was the eloquent and aptly expressed arguments of the Founding Fathers that helped to create the United States of America.
             Many, even great thinkers in history, have criticized rhetoricians; however, how can we determine the validity of certain beliefs and customs without argumentation? How can we challenge perceptions and practices without debate? Persuasion and argumentation are vital parts of communication. They permeate every aspect of life from the food we eat to the places we go. We encounter arguments, engage in persuasion, and examine debates throughout our lives. We are all artists of argumentation. While many are....not particularly good...others have studied and mastered its art. With it, we can create empowering perspectives that challenge the world around us. While I am no master, I would like to consider myself an apprentice, challenged by our class to be sure that my logic is sound and my rebuttals thought out. I would like to consider myself an artist and my arguments a work of art.

the Syrian Refugee Crisis

http://media.npr.org/assets/img/2014/08/29/453776652_custom-e8de32f4591e7648567e6e8f9fc3291057c21562-s900-c85.jpg

Perhaps there is no perfect solution. Perhaps there is no ideal situation. Perhaps there is no good answer to the Syrian Refugee Crisis. However, I was discussing it with a group of friends today and someone brought up a very good point. He reminded us that this panic surrounding the entrance of Syrian Refugees is not new. Just prior to the beginning of World War II and before American involvement, similar feelings rippled throughout the United States with regards to eastern European Jews. In a poll done during that time, 67.4% were opposed to allowing political refugees from Germany and Austria into the United States (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2015/11/17/what-americans-thought-of-jewish-refugees-on-the-eve-of-world-war-ii/). I understand that we live in a different time with different threats and certainly a new kind of terror that is more clandestine than Hilter's Nazis. However, the plight of the people - whether they were Jewish or are Syrian - has not changed. They all seek refuge from the danger that plagues their homeland. That is not to say that a small number of them did not or are not seeking entrance into this nation with nefarious intentions. I am not so blind as to say that there are not evil people who will use the misfortunes of others to achieve their sinister intentions. However, we cannot deny that the majority of these people are mothers, sisters, fathers, brothers, husbands, grandparents, uncles, and aunts who seek safety and sustenance, the opportunity to live peacefully - just as you or I do. These people see a homeland just as our ancestors once did so many years ago and were able to find safety on these shores. I understand that this issue is complex, our economic infrastructure complicated, our government bogged down with inefficiency; however, should we not seek to find a solution that provides aid without closing our doors? Yes-Provisions and checks must be made for those who are malicious. We must protect our homeland from terror and provide help without causing serious problems to our citizens. However, we cannot turn a blind eye or close our ears and hearts to the cries of the men, women, and children who desperately need our aid. How can we espouse values of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness and yet deny it to those who desperately seek it? By the end of the Second World War, between 60 and 80 million men, women, and children had perished. How many Syrian refugees will die before the countries of the world, before the United States, will step up and fulfill the ideals that she so proudly proclaims. I do not presume to know the best solution. I do not know how to fix the problem or naively assert that we implement some oversimplified solution. But this I know - something must be done. We cannot sit idly by any longer. No more children should ever wash up on the shores of a nation dead, victims of a deplorable world, snuffed out as their parents fled from evil, struggling towards the hope of a distant shore.

.  

http://headspacepress.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/syrian-baby.jpg

Emma Lazarus wrote in her poem "the New Colossus" :

"Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand 
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.
"Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she
With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

These words are inscribed on our Statue of Liberty. 

Are they true?

http://l.yimg.com/os/publish-images/news/2015-04-24/f7a521f0-eaa7-11e4-930a-5d739281be31_AP090602048119.jpg

Story-telling and Persuasion

https://youtu.be/4lnRK8QpC14

Story-telling is an important part of argumentation. It can be an extremely effective way to use pathos and/or ethos (if it is a personal story) to strength, at least emotionally, an argument. This speech from "A Time to Kill" is a fantastic example of story-telling in persuasion and argumentation.

Persuasion and Association

One of the most effective ways to persuade a person to do or believe in something is by connecting it to something with which they are familiar or identify. Consider this commercial by Glade which associates their candles and smells with Christmas and peace, something to which many relate with fond feelings.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LTJbKIRligo

Philips and Pathos

https://youtu.be/3WOJJ7NMJ80

Here is a video from Philips who produces electronic, healthcare products, and technology that masterfully uses pathos to encourage living life more fully while promoting their own product and healthcare innovations. It's a real tear-jerker. 

Dastardly Debating - Blog Post 9

http://viintage.com/wp-content/uploads/stock-graphics-vintage-the-circus-procession-viintage-0001v.jpg

Transcript of debate: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/29/us/politics/transcript-republican-presidential-debate.html?_r=0

                 The Republican debate on October 28th of this year was nothing short of a three-ring circus. Both the moderators and the candidates were grossly ineffective, making the debate frustrating to me. Only one candidate managed to emerge looking competent and presidential. Ad hominems abounded while biased and poor questioning demonstrated terrible leadership on the part of the moderators. Let's examine each in turn:

The Moderators: Carl Quintanilla, Becky Quick, and John Harwood were the main moderators of the debate, and I use the term moderate loosely. Instead of fostering an environment to encourage competent exchanges and informative conversations, these moderators did not even ask truly pointed policy questions half the time. Many times their questions did not but spark a firestorm of insults and nonsensical discussion. For example, John Harwood asked Donald Trump, "Is this a comic book version of a presidential campaign?" While I agree that Trump's campaign is ridiculous to say the least such a question is inflammatory and does not seek to better illuminate his policies. Similarly, Marco Rubio was asked by Quintilla this gem : "So when the Sun-Sentinel says Rubio should resign, not rip us off, when they say Floridians sent you to Washington to do a job, when they say you act like you hate your job, do you?". Once again, this question does nothing by exacerbate the candidates. These questions and many others throughout the debate seem more like personal attacks rather than competent questioning of policies and facts. An example of poor moderating came after Rubio discussion of his tax plan. Rand Paul desired to follow up which many candidates had done indiscriminately throughout the debate and the moderators allowed it. However, when Paul asked to be allowed to follow up Quick responded "It is at the moderator discretion". I must say I found that to be pathetic on all their moderators' parts. Part of debating is allowing rebuttal. They told Paul that they would "come back around" and then moved to talking to Kasich about marijuana which I found to be disrespectful. Ted Cruz summed it up well according to an article by Vanity Fair which showed live tweets regarding the debate (http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2015/10/cnbc-gop-debate-criticism). He stated, "This is not a cage match. And, you look at the questions — “Donald Trump, are you a comic-book villain?” “Ben Carson, can you do math?” “John Kasich, will you insult two people over here?” “Marco Rubio, why don’t you resign?” “Jeb Bush, why have your numbers fallen?”'". To be perfectly honest, though I am not a big Cruz fan, I agree with him. While he paraphrases the questions poorly, he actually accurately depicts the basic issue. Each question is an automatic and agenda-setting tear down with very little to do with policy. I did not feel that many of the questions were informative or fair. They seemed designed to turn the candidates against each other rather than the issues. Now, that is not to say that Cruz did not have his fair share of tom-foolery. He should have answered Quintanilla's relatively legitimate question before getting on his soap box (although, once again, the question was very poorly worded as it attacked Cruz and "not being the problem solver that people want"). Such moderating is shame and perpetuates the divide that is so clearly emerging in America. While I agree that candidates much be able to handle criticism and questions regarding their character, actions, and policies, that did not seem like the purpose of this debate. I could go into much more detail about the ridiculous moderating, but that would be a very long discussion. To be fair, not all of their questions where horrible, but the ones that were certainly overshadowed the more competent parts of the debate. Honestly, I thought Santelli had some very competent and informative questions, and I wish he had been in control. No wonder we have no bi-partisanship in Washington.

the Candidates: While the moderators demonstrated poor leadership and questioning, the candidates absolutely did their fair share to follow the ridiculous example set. They waltzed right into the divisive questioning and demonstrated an inability to be effective and competent in spite of a tough situation.

Donald Trump: I cannot believe he was the front runner for so long. Trump was vague with many of his answers. Not only that, he certainly used red herrings and ad hominems and false information. For example, he says that Kasich was a general partner and Lehman Brothers which is not true. Similarly, he claims that he never said that Rubio is the personal senator of Zuckerberg which is also not true (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2015/oct/28/fact-checking-republican-cnbc-debate/). Not only is it not true, but Trump's point about Rubio is also a personal attack and not an actually argument. Fallacious tactics such as this permeated trump's debate performance.

John Kasich: Kasich spent most of the night trying to appeal to his own ethos. Could that be considered an appeal to authority even though he appealed to his own? It sure seemed like it. For example, he stated that "I’m the only person on this stage that actually was involved in the chief architect of balancing the Federal Budget", a sentiment that he echoed throughout the night. This poor argumentation did not build up his legitimacy as a candidate but rather made him appear to be begging for votes and acceptance. It felt like he talked about himself rather than his policies.

Mike Huckabee: Huckabee's performance was relatively nondescript. Neither was it impressive nor atrocious as some of the others. However, he did use some fallacies. Most notably, for example, when talking about Social Security, he compared it to getting mugged. This is a false analogy and an oversimplification of a very complex issues. On the other hand, I thought he made a good point regarding Wall Street Corporation and governmental favoritism as well as the health crisis plaguing America. It is nice to see that someone recognizes the wage gap is unfair and recognizes that people need to be educated on taking care of themselves, a better solution than money for the health industry.

Jeb Bush: Oh mercy. I wish he would drop out of the race. I appreciated that, in his opening, he was honest about his impatience and anger issues. I was glad to see he answered the question that was asked. However, the rest of the debate was a train wreck. One of his most notable fallacies was his ad hominem against Marco Rubio, attacking his voting record when trying to mask his own hypocritical standards. This is also a strawman because he did not address the issue. Similarly, he used red herrings and straw men several times to push his own agenda. For example, Harwood asked his a question regarding his slashing payroll, and Bush does not even all him to finish the question. Rather, he denies it and goes on to explain how effective he was as governor. He completely strayed from the issue posed in the question and seemed quite defensive. He also said that Florida has the lowest in-state tuition when speaking of higher education which is technically, not fully true ( http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2015/oct/28/fact-checking-republican-cnbc-debate).

Carly Fiorina: I thought Fiorina did pretty well in the debate. I was not overly horrified by her or overly impressed. She held herself well and was even a bit funny at times. However, she did say that more women have fallen into poverty under the current administration which is not entirely true (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2015/oct/28/fact-checking-republican-cnbc-debate/). I appreciated her idea of making the tax law only three pages, but I have to wonder- is such a plan even viable? I also thought she did a good job circumventing the question by Quick regarding Tom Perkins (who I think has ridiculous voting ideas). She could have easily come across as falsely appealing to an authority, but instead, she acknowledged that they disagreed and rather was using him to justify her legitimacy despite being fired.

Rand Paul: I don't have a lot to say about Paul. His plans are....unrealistic I think, to say the least.

Chris Christie: Not a fan of his opening. I wish he would have just answered the question and then moved on. Attacking the democratic candidates is not really effective at this point. It is an ad hominem and a red herring. Attack the issues, not the people. Leadership is not about childish mud-slinging. I did like how he called out Harwood out for his rudeness. I found that quite funny.

Ted Cruz: This man....can be very irksome. I felt that he appealed to tradition a lot, particularly by bringing up Ronald Reagan. He also made generalizations such as "the American people" say or feel; however, each candidate is guilty of this in their own right. While I agreed with his point, I thought his rant about the media bias and the moderators was a red herring and did not address the question. However, to his credit, perhaps he was trying to make a point that he did not feel he would be able to make later. He falsely stated that women's wages have fallen (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2015/oct/28/fact-checking-republican-cnbc-debate/). He interrupted a lot which I found frustrating.

Ben Carson: His math was a little bit scary. His numbers regarding regulations costs for employers was not accurate (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2015/oct/28/fact-checking-republican-cnbc-debate/). He also claimed he had no involvement with a company called Mannatech which was also, not entirely true (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2015/oct/28/fact-checking-republican-cnbc-debate/). Overall, I thought his debate performance was fine. He did well at being civil and answering questions, although his inexperience was evident at times.

Marco Rubio: While some of the things he said such as the stuff about his personal finances were not accurate (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2015/oct/28/fact-checking-republican-cnbc-debate/) which is extremely disconcerting, I thought his performance was one of the best. His answers were proficient, and he demonstrated resolve and purpose in his plans. Also, his shutdown of Bush's personal attack was, perhaps, the best thing about that debate. He did a good job of refusing to stoop to the personal attacks perpetuated by his fellow debaters and moderators. However, more needs to be revealed about his personal finances.

Overall, most of the candidates employed fallacies in their arguments. Whether they appealed to tradition or authority, used ad hominems, employed red herrings, generalized, or simply just interrupted, the candidates failed to demonstrate civil, coherent, accurate debating which was only exacerbated by the terrible moderating. A few candidates emerged relatively unscathed, but I certainly do not have a lot of confidence in them.

Refutation and Argumentation

https://s.yimg.com/lo/api/res/1.2/O6s2KYxTC.rNKzrhbkqDBQ--/YXBwaWQ9eWhvbWVydW4-/http://media.zenfs.com/en_us/News/ucomics.com/dt151124.gif


Refutation is a critical part of argumentation. In proper debating, there is even a formula necessary to properly address the falsity and destroy an opposing argument. Though this comic is not in the proper form, it demonstrates the power of effective refutation at addressing false arguments (mixed in with quite a lot of fallacious ad hominiem arguing).

Should Prostitution be Legalized?

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/29/opinion/buying-sex-should-not-be-legal.html?_r=2

While researching for a speech of legalizing prostitution, I came across this article. It is an excellent argument addressing the slew of European countries that have legalized prostitution in some way or form in the last decade. Written by a former prostitution, she effectively and authoritatively addresses many myths and failures surrounding the legalized forms of prostitution around the world and presents her own solution.

Cat vs Dog

http://pussingtonpost.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/dog_vs_cat-2.jpg

An amusing cartoon regarding the age-old debate of superiority - cats or dogs? The cartoon is making an argument that speaks to the stereotype of the "crazy cat lady" and turns it to suggest that, truly, cat owners and their cats are intelligent while dog owners and their canines are the crazy ones.  

Cheerios, Pathos, and Society

                                           https://youtu.be/Z01qH-jqGBY


In this Cheerios commercial, the company is striving to sell their product by highlighting its heart healthy qualities; however, the way in which it is done demonstrates the power of pathos in argumentation and also the ability of commercials to provide abbreviated yet poignant commentaries on societal issues. Here cheerios uses the little girl's love for her father to make an argument that speaks to the heart, connecting Cheerios with familial love. Also, the commercial comments on the beauty of a mixed race family that looks, feels, and loves no less than any other.

Supersized Superficiality - Blog 8

http://pomomusings.com/wp-content/uploads/2004/08/Super-Size-Me.jpg

    https://www.sciencenews.org/sites/default/files/6846

                 "Supersize Me", a documentary produced by independent filmmaker Morgan Spurlock, horrified the country in 2004. At its base, Spurlock's documentary asserts that a fast food diet has extremely detrimental consequences on human psychological and physical health. Spurlock makes his argument through a month-long, personal trial in which he consumed nothing but McDonald's for every single meal. Not only did he eat every bit of every meal, he also forced himself to supersize his meal any time he was asked. According to the film, that happened 9 times in Texas and in New York. Similarly, he also consumed sodas and milkshakes rather than opting for more healthy options such as water or iced tea. In order to demonstrate just how awful fast food is for human health, Spurlock purposed to make his meals as unhealthy as possible, eating as much as 5,000 calories a day, and coupled it by only walking as much as an average citizen on a daily basis. Though his point regarding the obesity epidemic in the United States is valid, his documentary and the evidence presented therein in was not necessarily entirely accurate.

   

            Spurlock asserts that his case demonstrates the problem with the fast food industry; however, such could be considered an anecdotal fallacy because his story is not the only one regarding the fast food industry. Similarly, it could be considered a fallacy of composition because he is using a part (his experience) to describe the whole (all fast food eaters). For example, John Cisna, a school teacher from Iowa, also attempted the McDiet for 180 days. While Spurlock gained nearly 25 pounds in his experiment, Cisna actually lost around 60 pounds (http://www.al.com/entertainment/index.ssf/2015/08/meet_the_science_teacher_who_l.html). This was due, in part, to the fact that Cisna's diet was determined by his students who decided to place less unhealthy requirements on him such as maintainnig a 2,000/day caloric intake, avoiding supersizing, and resisting sodas or milkshakes with every meal (http://www.al.com/entertainment/index.ssf/2015/08/meet_the_science_teacher_who_l.html). However, he did eat french fries daily, but he also began to walk for 45 minutes a day four or five times a week (http://www.al.com/entertainment/index.ssf/2015/08/meet_the_science_teacher_who_l.html). Cisna wanted his experiment to demonstrate that McDonald's is not necessarily the culprit, rather, poor decisions when eating the food are unhealthy.  While Cisna's experiment is interesting, it cannot be ignored that Spurlock felt depressed, lethargic, and showed symptoms of addiction to his fast food diet.

                       He notes that his liver and heart suffered extreme damage while he also experienced vitamin deficiencies, discomfort in his eyes, and trouble sleeping. However, his final line, "Who would you like to see go first - you or them?" is an inaccurate either-or fallacy. As Cisna's experiment demonstrated, it is not a matter of eradicating fast food, but rather, making wise decisions when eating it and only eating it occasionally. Overall, Spurlock's film sheds light on the disturbing reality surrounding fast food and demonstrates, though in an extreme way, the danger of consuming it too much. This is something that American desperately need to consider when selecting their food choices.

Get it, Geico?

                                                        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iH1biQdyiQI

This and many other Geico commercials do an excellent job of arguing in a funny way. They present their argument as "those who wish to save money switch to Geico" and pair it with another more commonly accepted or humorous analogy, albeit possibly a false analogy because these things are not linked at all and usually don't provide good proof for the money saved by switching to Geico.

Building Reflections - Blog Post 7

        http://fcor.tamu.edu/downloads/2009%20Campus%20Aerial%20Tx%20Ave.jpg
   


     
      People have always been fascinated by the architecture of history. From the pyramids to the Sphinx, Stonehenge, and the Acropolis, buildings and structures have always served to peak our interests and broaden our understanding of peoples long past. Such fascination is logical for within the structure of the walls, we learn about the cultures, beliefs, and lives of a world long since gone. What about buildings today? Specifically, what about the structures on our very own Texas A&M?

       When walking around campus, many buildings stick out to me. For example, the MSC frequently stresses me out. With people walking everywhere, signs all over, papers being thrust at you, it is a very crowded and chaotic. Interestingly, however, the MSC can also be incredibly relaxing and foster great reflection. When I am walking around, weaving through vast numbers of people, I am stressed and anxious. However, if a quiet place can be found and earphones put in, the MSC becomes an interesting place for homework and thought. Outside of the MSC, there is also great elements. The many trees sprinkled throughout campus certainly help to relax and inspire me, and the most peaceful and pleasing view on campus must be looking down military walk. However, when I think of A&M, I do not picture the serene trees of military walk but rather the gigantic Kyle Field on a day in which the stadium is filled with students and former students. I think in ten years, the many Aggie football games I attended will still stick in my mind as the roar of the crowd cheers on our beloved team.

         If I were to picture campus as an argument, I would picture the Flag Room. A&M is a campus of great traditions and honorable codes. This is embodied in the Flag Room. That is not to say that, as at any university, A&M has not had its dark hours; however, it is built upon learning, honesty, honor, and respect - traits that are vital to argumentation. The Flag Room is a place where voices are not raised and insults are not hurled, rather, people enter its quiet walls to study and discuss things civilly. It tells a story of lives lost throughout the world and honors their memories, arguing that we, too, should respect its hallowed halls and that which it represents. In our arguments, we must speak with quiet respect, and, as the Aggie traditions assert, we must treat all with respect and honor, always remembering honesty and openness of mind. Only then can we all learn together and build upon the histories of our forefathers to create a better life for generations to come. 

Procrastination, the Global Pandemic - Blog Post 6

Arguments in Music

   

         Argumentation is generally thought of as occurring conversationally; however, we all often make arguments and protests in many other ways such as protesting with a sign or with our bodies. Perhaps one of the most impacting ways that people argue and make points is through music. For centuries, music has been a method of expression for people. Consider Billie Holiday's haunting song "Strange Fruit", addressing racism and the violence that erupts from it, or the song from the video above by Phil Collins, "Another Day in Paradise", which deals with poverty and the ignorance we all engage in on a daily basis about it. Through music, these artists strive to move people to action, to convince people that there is indeed a problem that needs to be addressed. Often times, arguments in music are much more effective, memorable, or emotional than a traditional conversational argument because the music adds an extremely moving quality to the logic presented within the lyrics.  

Be Happy. Be Healthy.

http://www.moneysavingmadness.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/honey-nut-cheerios.jpg

WATCH: https://youtu.be/ehi7XT_Avbc

My roommate was eating Cheerios this morning, and she grabbed the box and said their famous line, "Be Happy. Be Healthy". Upon hearing that, I realized that General Mills was making a claim with their beloved cereal. They were arguing that, by eating their cereal, the consumer could be happy and healthy, as evident by their many commercials with that line. Similarly, on their box, they also claim that their cereal can help to lower cholesterol because of the soluble fiber it contains. Are these claims true? I suppose you'll have to eat them to find out.

Strawman Fallacy

http://www.examiner.com/images/blog/EXID13237/images/Strawman(1).jpg

This cartoon is an example of the Strawman fallacy because it seems to be providing evidence against creationists. However, upon further inspection, it becomes clear that the arguments made are not always true, rather, they are hasty generalizations that seek to draw attention away from the real arguments. They are weak distractions. Similarly, the cartoon also contains the ad hominem fallacy as it attacks creationists as being brainless.

Bandwagon in Argumentation

http://budriscc2.weebly.com/uploads/1/8/4/6/18469126/9110321_orig.jpeg

This is an example of the fallacy of bandwagon in argumentation. It demonstrates the fallacy because it plays on how many iOS devices have been shipped, highlighting their success and using that to point out to others that, they too, should join the 120 million and get an iOS device. 

Killer Smoking Ads - Blog Post 5

https://sites.google.com/a/westcta.ccsd.net/drug-awareness-panels/anti-smoking-ad-panel-one


http://webneel.com/daily/sites/default/files/images/daily/03-2013/28-creative-anti-smoking-ad.jpg

             Smoking has been a huge issue for decades. With each passing year, the dangers of tobacco and nicotine continue to multiply, and yet, it continues to be a common habit among all ages. As a result, organizations that seek to educate people and raise awareness of the dangers of this habit are always putting out new ads to extinguish the desire in people to smoke. However, questions surround their ad choices which are often shocking, to say the least. Both these ads effectively portray their respective messages.

            The first one, using the image of a corpse with a toe tag on it colored similarly to a Marlboro cigarette pack, enhances its text which notes that number of people who die from smoke-related diseases and how many began as teen smokers. That particular ads suggested that tobacco consumption leads to diseases that can cause death and is directed towards both smokers and non-smokers because it is meant to encourage either party to take action whether that action be quitting or never starting the habit. However, it seems to especially speak to the smoker who uses Marlboro by connecting the brand to the corpse, literally. This ad, while disconcerting, does not seem to suggest anything unreasonable or harmful for smoking has been proven to contribute to many different diseases such as heart disease, cancer, and other respiratory issues.

             The second ad is much more disturbing because it raises the issue of second hand smoke and its affect on children. Children always make an argument more personal and emotional because no one likes to see an innocent child harmed in any way. The Chilean Corporation Against Cancer uses this to their advantage by suggesting that smoking is "not only suicide. It's murder". This strikes deeply in the heart of nonsmokers and smokers alike. The issue raised by this ad is indeed a legitimate one. I, personally, know people who, as adults, suffer from the effects of their parents' smoking habits. Though their method is shocking and disturbing, their point is valid.

             Smoking is a sensitive issue. Despite all of the studies and knowledge surround it, many people still smoke. Often times, it is because they are addicted to the chemicals, enjoy the stress relieving aspect of smoking, or simply do not want to quit. However, perhaps the most disturbing reason is the complete ignorance many youth smokers embrace regarding smoking. Many do not understand the long-lasting consequences of the habit and simply what to "try it out", not realizing that they would get hooked very quickly. According to an article in the New York Times entitled "Why Smokers Still Smoke", the problem is as simply as a lack of self-control (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/28/opinion/sunday/why-smokers-still-smoke.html?_r=0). 

               Research suggests, however, that perhaps the most influential reasons that people quit smoking are because of their health and their family. Knowing this, it seems that the best way to encourage people to stop is to emphasize the dangers to health and to family which is the approach many anti-smoking organizations are utilizing. However, efforts clearly need to be increased in order to dissuade people from smoking. Also, greater access to the necessary steps to quit should be emphasized as well. People need to be educated, but, ultimately, they will make their own decisions. That is, indeed, the sad reality.

           

the Either-or Fallacy

http://www.buzzle.com/img/articleImages/611023-11626-42.jpg

We have all experienced the traditional faulty argument that, "We can either do this or we have to do that". I, for one, often feel very defeated by so few choices. Rarely do I respond with something such as "Those are not the only two options in the world". As demonstrated by the cartoon, the either-or fallacy often assumes one solution or another without examining or admitting the possibility of something else. It is extremely ineffective in argumentation and can lead to the appearance of ignorance on the part of the arguer.

Scapegoats in Hollywood

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/shooter/

             The use of a scapegoat in Hollywood is almost as common as scapegoating in argumentation. A film that demonstrates the use of a scapegoat is Shooter.  In the film, Swagger, played by Mark Wahlberg, is set up to take the fall for an assassination. A scapegoat is placing blame or causation on an easy target without proof. Wahlberg's character exemplifies this when he, believing that he is helping his government, is actually being set up and accused of assassinating a foreign dignitary. Often times, when scapegoating, the accused party cannot defend itself, similarly to Wahlberg in the movie who is forced to run and use any means necessary to defend himself. Just as Wahlberg is accused of something he did not do, in argumentation, many are prone to place blame where it does not belong rather than dealing with the issue or argument at hand. It is a distraction and will not lead to a solution or effective argumentation.

Clever Ad

http://itcolossal.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Outstanding-Advertisements-00.jpg

This is a clever ad by Volkswagen about their precision parking. The argument presented by their ad is that their park assist is accurate and effective in any situation- no matter how precarious- as demonstrated by the porcupine's dangerous needles so close to the thin plastic bags that house the goldfish. It is simple yet effective.

Red Herrings in Argumentation

http://chquotes.synthasite.com/resources/ch_context.gif

This comic strip is an example of a red herring, a fallacy in argumentation that distracts from the actual issue. This comic demonstrates that when Calvin distracts his dad from his disobedience by saying that it could be much worse. While context is important, Calvin's argument is invalid as it attempts to set aside the heart of the issue-his disobeying his dad.

On the Flip Side: Perspective and Argumentation

https://paulmarsic.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/bikini-vs-burqa.jpg

          Arguments are all about perspective. We argue as a result of our opinions, our experiences, our beliefs which culminate into our perspective. This comic epitomizes the importance of perspective in argumentation. If we do not seek to understand others' perspectives, our arguments will be based on misinformation and assumptions. To the woman in the bikini, she sees her dress as her freedom and the burka as a societal hindrance of that freedom; however, on the flip side, the woman in the burka wears it our of respect for her family and herself but perceives the scantily clad woman to be yield to societal pressures to display her body for all to stare. Neither woman recognizes the perspective of the other nor do they acknowledge each other's perspectives and their legitimaticies. As a result, they will not approach an argument with each other with respect, seeking to understand. Instead, they appear to be judgmental about the other's situation and see the other as the one in need of help. This is not conducive to healthy argumentation about their cultures and practices. It is critical in argumentation to seek to understand and always look on the flip side in order to come together to find a solution and to understand.

the Paper Clip: Blog Post 4

Start with a paper clip and see what you can get for it. Continue to trade as many times as you can, making an argument for why people should trade with you. What did you say to persuade people to make these trades? 

http://www.bloomberg.com/ss/06/07/redpaperclip/source/2.htm

         Trading is a integral part of history. We trade stories. We trade services. We trade commodities, and often, we trade lies. Salesmanship is a tough but legitimate job at which many are incredibly successful. Trade and salesmanship both had an element of persuasion. Without the power to persuade, appeals to trade of sell an item will often fall on deaf ears. It is the individual with the power to persuade the trade partner that they need or want this item desperately in order to facilitate a trade or sale.

         This held true for the assignment that prompted this blog post. Starting with a paper clip, I worked my way up to see what I could get. I felt in the situation with my roommate that the most effective form of persuasion was to tell her that this was for an assignment in school. Because we are close friends, she wanted to help which made her more willing to sit and listen/trade with me. Initially, she gave me tape in exchange for the paper clip. Then she gave me a pen for the tape. After that, she offered a quarter for the pen and a piece of gum for the quarter. However, when it came to trading for the gum, she said "I would just take it" because gum is not particularly valuable to her or to me. The times that she was most open to trading was when she considered a situation in which she would be in a particular need for the item I offered. This is key to persuasion when it comes to trading and selling items. The buyer must truly believe they need the item or desperately want the item in order to give something in exchange for it. Whatever they give will be of lesser value to them than the thing they are getting.    

Respect in Argumentation

http://quotesgram.com/jackie-robinson-quotes/

                      A vital part of argumentation is mutual respect. Without it, there are no boundaries to hold back the violent waves of irrational, name-calling, illogical, and down-right rude tactics that so often plague modern debates. In an age plagued by heightened emotions, political correctness, and a lack of logical thought when debating, respect is sorely lacking and desperately needed to revive the near-dead art of argumentation. When exercised properly, argumentation is a fantastic tool to share opinions, challenge perspectives, analyze thoughts, and exercise each other's brains. It is vital to discovering new ways of thinking, improving answers, and sharpening skills and plans. However, when argumentation is abused, it becomes nothing more than name-calling and a battle won by whomever is most insulting. A pathetic abused of such a difficult art indeed.
                      Many believe that respect in argumentation means one must respect the opposing position. However, such is not the case. As Mr. Robinson wisely points out, respect is not about liking a person or the position on which they stand. No, rather, it is respecting them as an individual and respecting their right to their own opinion. Freedom of thought is a wonderful thing, and freedom to express such thoughts is equally as precious and infinitely more rare. It should be treated with great value for not all are able to enjoy such abilities to openly discuss their opinions. It is for this reason that respect in such discussions is so important for we are all valuable human being, and, while not all ideas are created equal, those who express them deserve the proper treatment to express them. Each individual must be able to decide for themselves what is right, wrong, logical, or nonsensical, and no individual should be afraid to share their thoughts. How shall we learn from a diverse pool of ideals if we do not share with one another our opinions? Furthermore, how will we be able to fish from said pool of thought if we keep others from contributing their ideas because they are inferior? To do so will certainly lead to a sorely depleted idea pool.
                    As Mr. Robinson alluded to in his quote, one does not have to respect the ideology in an argument; however, he must respect the right of the one who has it to hold such a view. It is in failing to show such respect that arguments will no longer be productive; rather, they will become shouting matches and a battle of insults. When this begins to happen in a society, that is when freedom will slowly begin to fade behind a guise of superior intellect and divided perspectives which are forced upon a society by whichever group is more powerful at the time.