Small Group Postings

Hey Team! the group breakdowns we worked on for Chapter Two, as well as the review of chapter 1 and 3 should be posted on this thread, one posting per group, but whoever posts, please list the names of everyone in your group. I am looking for about two paragraphs each from each group to help the rest of the class digest the section you focused on. Let's keep it interesting, colorful and clear. I'll go first with an example:
Page 53-56 in Chapter Three covers Terms Needing Definition, or ways for an advocate to help clarify the argument and persuade her audience. She has to define terms, like if someone said "Yes I wrote that paper myself" but really they copied it out of some one else's homework...they actually cheated, see technically, they wrote it...that is equivocation and it is a fallacy if a single meaning isn't clarified. Vaugue terms, like "great" and "everyone" should be made more specific and technical terms should be "dumbed down" for people who are not experts in a super specialized field. I don't know what a neurotransmitter and a peptide is, but if you said "the brain function that causes emotion" I can understand that, it is less technical, see? It invites more people into the argument. One example of new terms could be slang and hip words such as "That's how I roll..." which some older person might think means I get onto the ground and roll around instead of the current meaning: That's just how I do things, dawg. Finally, coined terms are when we make up a new word, like MacDonaldization is used to mean that we live in a fast-food, immediate gratification society...Oh, or when a celebrity couple's names get run together, like "Benniffer" for Ben and J-Lo back in ancient history...to help define these, see page 55 and 56 in our INTERESTING (I'd rather drag myself through broken glass than read it) TEXT BOOK!!!!! We can use other words that mean the same thing, or describe the function of a confusing word, like You say "That's just how I roll," when you don't want to be questioned about reckless or odd behavior...Sometimes you can describe what something is not to help people get what it is, like a private contractor does not work for some one else or single is "not married" --You can also use behaviors and operations to help describe things. My group included Sandra, Sandi and Ms. Wheeler, peace out homies!

The TOULMINATOR!!!

I read the data and claims you turned in in class today--not bad, not bad...who turned in the anonamous essay, I am dying to know!!!!! What a mystery! Okay, Here is a claim: Grass is green. What is my data or evidence? (Because) it contains minerals that contain phosphorus. Now, what is a warrant or shared value for this simple argument? Warrants are pretty abstract (non-specific) and simple, so try:
(Since) Chemical make up affects a plants coloring...Which is causal reasoning (phosphorus causes green tones).....Okay, now you guys try: Here is a data, claim and warrant: Can you identify the parts or try coming up with your own Toulminator? To test a warrant, add the word since in front of it...and add because in front of data to test it. A claim can always have "so" or therefore added before it.
Vote for Pedro
Leaders should make our world a better place.
All your wildest dreams will come true
HAVE A GREAT WEEKEND, PRACTICE YOUR SKILLS. ARGUE LIKE MIDIEVIL WARRIORS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
----S. Dynamite

Welcome to Our Blog!

Thanks for signing up for my class...Here is the Argumentativeness Scale [1]. I hope it lets you know where you are coming into our adventure this fall! Remember, chapter one ends with the quote: "Argumentation is about personal growth. Even if you don't win, you still grow!" (p. 21).

Indicate how often each statement is true for you personally by placing the appropriate number in the blank to the left of the statement.

If the statement is almost never true of you, place a “1” in the blank.
If the statement is rarely true of you, place a “2” in the blank.
If the statement is occasionally true of you, place a “3” in the blank.
If the statement is often true of you, place a “4” in the blank.
If the statement is almost always true of you, place a “5” in the blank.

_____ 1. While in an argument, I worry that the person I am arguing with will form a negative
impression of me.
_____ 2. Arguing over controversial issues improves my intelligence.
_____ 3. I enjoy avoiding arguments.
_____ 4. I am energetic and enthusiastic when I argue.
_____ 5. Once I finish an argument I promise myself that I will not get into another.
_____ 6. Arguing with a person creates more problems for me than it solves.
_____ 7. I have a pleasant, good feeling when I win a point in an argument.
_____ 8. When I finish arguing with someone I feel nervous and upset.
_____ 9. I enjoy a good argument over a controversial issue.
_____ 10. I get an unpleasant feeling when I realize I am about to get into an argument.
_____ 11. I enjoy defending my point of view on an issue.
_____ 12. I am happy when I keep an argument from happening.
_____ 13. I do not like to miss the opportunity to argue a controversial issue.
_____ 14. I prefer being with people who disagree with me.
_____ 15. I consider an argument an exciting intellectual challenge.
_____ 16. I find myself unable to think of effective points during an argument.
_____ 17. I feel refreshed and satisfied after an argument of a controversial issue.
_____ 18. I have the ability to do well in an argument.
_____ 19. I try to avoid getting into arguments.
_____ 20. I feel excitement when I expect that a conversation I am in is leading to an argument.


Argumentativeness Scoring

1. Add your scores on items: 2, 4, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15, 17, 18, 20.
2. Add 60 to the sum obtained in step 1.
3. Add your scores on items: 1, 3, 5, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16, 19.
4. To compute your argumentativeness score, subtract the total obtained in step 3 from the
total obtained in step 2.

Step 1. Step 3.
Add: Add:

2. _____ 1. _____
4. _____ 3. _____
7. _____ 5. _____
9. _____ 6. _____
11. _____ 8. _____
13. _____ 10. _____
15. _____ 12. _____
17. _____ 14. _____
18. _____ 16. _____
20. _____ 19. _____

Step 1, sub-Total _______ Step 3, sub-Total ______ (Line B)

Step 2. Step 1 sub-total above + 60 =
_____ ( Line A)

Step 4.
Line A Line B Argumentativeness Score
_____ - _____ = _______

Interpretation
73 – 100 = High in Argumentativeness
72 – 56 = Moderate in Argumentativeness
55 – 20 = Low in Argumentativeness
[1] Infante, D. A., & Rancer., A. S. (1992). A conceptualization and measure of argumentativeness. Journal of Personality Assessment, 46, 72-80.

Now post your score and tell us what you fear, hate, look forward to or may have allergies to in this class! Make sure I get your score!--Sandra