Hello My Definitional Muses--
Later in class today, (Wed 2/23) we begin the journey through definitional argument and "genus vs species," from your textbook. Don't feel like the guy with the thick glasses stuck in the basement looking for his stapler in Office Space, here is an overview of the speech which may help you with yout outline. As you prepare your case, selected from our class packet, and get ready to argue in a speech format, consider the following structure:
1. Intro, with a clear thesis statement of your main claim. ie: I am here today to argue that Billy stold the ketchup! Preview of your mainpoints, or the BECAUSE part of the enthymeme you began with your major claim above(about key definitional terms and clarification, such as "stealing" vs "oversight or accident")
and a review of the case for your audience, (from the packet, which you should provide a citation for) followed by a transition to the body of speech.
2. body of speech to include identification of key definitional terms, references to APA/MLA citations from your bibliography that give you authority/credibility to make your claim (legal websites, journals on your topic, newspaper examples of similar cases, etc. ) and discussion of genus and species from your book, as well as how it applies to YOUR particular case. Then, transition into a summary.
3. Begin the conclusion with conclusive language, letting us know you are wrapping up. ie: Before we wrap this up, let me quickly review my main ponts.
Next, Review the evidence you gave in the body of speech briefly, followed by your thesis statement AGAIN, repeated from intro and now, followed by your explicit warrant. For instance: Today I have clarified how the legal definition of stealing (stealing is a key term) makes it very clear that concealing ketchup under one's clothing and running out the front door of Safeway without paying is clearly "stealing" rather than an "accident." (accident is another key term) THESIS: As I stated in my introduction today, (SO) Billy stold the ketchup/EVIDENCE: because if he had forgotten to pay, he would not have hidden it under his jacket and run out of the store. While the term "accident" fits the genus of stealing, it clearly violates the species, THEREFORE (repeat thesis) Billy stold the ketchup. (SINCE) We all know that in a civilized society, you only get what you pay for (explicit warrant), the actual court trial agreed with my argument here today, and Judge Johnson found Billy guilty as well. (I will give you the ACTUAL RULING for this part in class today, but you must state it in the end, after your warrant, as shown here).
"Uh, yeah, it's not a Half-Day...."
Hand in after your speech, to me, your notecards, and your typed APA or MLA bibliography of all sources used, including the packet for the case itself. As you prepare for this speech, your 2-part blogging assignment is this:
1.Using the movie and the clip we saw in class, post a serious question you have about developing your definitional argument. (ie: What are the key terms about "stealing" that come up when the three main characters decide to rip off the company and how do they justify this as "not REALLY stealing?"Number this as part one.
2. In a short part two, respond to anyone else in the classes' posting and try to help them with their question, offer advice and/or another example from the movie Office Space, the book or your own personal experience. Make it clear to whom you are addressing this part, so they can benefit from your input. Enjoy the fact that Office Space is HILARIOUS, but please take the nuts and bolts of Definitonal argument seriously so we can all achieve the best grades possible on this first speech! Feel free to post questions to me as well that the whole class will benefit from, but use Office Space, not your actual case. Any specific questions about your own case should be directed to me in class or via private email, okay? -- NOW: WHERE'S YOUR "FLAIR???"
4 comments:
Dear Sandra,
This posting is so catchy and clever! So, un-battez! Say, wasn't there an argument in the part of Office Space about defining "enough" flair versus "too much" for Jennifer Anniston's waitress character? INTRODUCTION:
Attention getter
Thesis: I would rule FOR Jenn against her boss BECAUSE (evidence/date)he was using a 'flawed' definition of the term "enough" in reference to "flair" (goofy pins and message buttons). With my main points, I will define "enough" versus "excessive" to show that Jenn was not at fault. I will also use genus versus species to explain this. (Transition:) Now--Let me summarize the part of the movie I plan to discuss and then we will turn to the main definitional issues
BODY: Three main point with transitions
CONCLUSION: As I stated above, Jenn was not at fault for failing to wear too much flair. (sumarize evidence again) Warrant: AND SINCE everyone knows that everything in moderation is the way to go..." the court agreed with my decision (Actual court ruling you got from me on Wed in class)--S
1. In Office Space, the three plan on taking fractions of a cent out of every transaction the company does. The three are tired of being bossed around and justify the "stealing" as a way to stand up against the corporation. Since it is only taking little amounts of money, the three don't really view it as stealing. It is as if they are taking the money as reparations for being manipulated all these years.
2. In response to Natalie: I think Chappelle's definition of stereotype was suffice. If he was any more blatant, it wouldn't be as funny. I thought it was funny because all the minority groups had hella overexaggerated responses. The moshing of the white group in a high class restaurant was hella funny to me. The other stereotype that stood out to me was the one in the barbershop when the drums came on the black guys immediately stopped everything and started freestyling. Dave was just showing how stupid the "all black guys like rap" stereotype.
Wow!I am glad you all feel so comfortable saying how you feel and I appreciate your participation!
For G & S on Office Space:
Genus and species...On example:
Define: What is "stealing?"
Then define: What is "opportunistic" Then ask and defend or prove that the three guys in the film were or were not stealing versus "taking advantage of an opportunity where no one would get hurt as a move against a company that was taking advantage of them" by using these definitions. How did Chappelle get into this Blog thread? You guys are SO BATTEZ! (It works though. We aren't supposed to discuss the actual cases, Sarah, but seriously--thanks for the "irrelevant" comment, it gave me a warm fuzzy feeling inside! (Wink)--S PS Nat and anyone else: email me at idnasss@yahoo.com with last minute speech questions. it is 920pm, I will check email @ 11pm.
Once again, you demonstarte a fallacy , young Jeffrey: Equivocation in the word "missing" -- As well as a good connotative definitional example (secondary meanings of words) ""Shared values"" and all...It is a funny movie because of the postmodern propensity for irreverent praxis and the collapse of meaning into the hyper-real which lacks a referent and thus relies soley on misplaced nostalgia. Duh!!!!
Post a Comment