Go back to the editorial or the op-ed piece that you blogged about this past weekend and generate an argument that somehow disagrees with or opposes the original argument. (Try to do this regardless of your own personal opinion just as an exercise in reasoning.) First, see if you can identify a commonplace or a major premise within the original argument that you think could be debated. Rewrite the commonplace in such a way that you can develop it to support your opposing argument. Then, construct a new enthymeme that you think could be the basis for it. Last, draft a 250 word letter to the editor that presents your argument in a persuasive way. Please emphasize the appeal to logos in your argument, but feel free to add other persuasive appeals if you think they will enhance your logical proof.
For example, if I wanted to argue against the initial enthymeme that I started our discussion with—that the perpetrators of 9/11 ought to be defeated—I might start with a commonplace that since evil cannot ever be defeated, it ought to be forgiven. My enthymeme might look something like this:
* Major premise: People who commit evil actions ought to be forgiven.
* Minor premise: The perpetrators of 9/11 committed evil actions.
* Conclusion: The perpetrators ought to be forgiven for their evil actions.
If I were to develop this argument, I think we all might agree that in this case, I would have to expend much persuasive energy in convincing my audience of my major premise and that the perpetrators of 9/11 committed the kind of evil action that can be forgiven.
Post your response here as a comment and be prepared to discuss it with the rest of class.
Major Premise: Those who break the law should not be supported in doing so.
ReplyDeleteMinor Premise: Illegal immigrants are not citizens and therefore should not be given the rights of one.
Conclusion: We should not be assisting illegal immigrants in furthering their life in the United States which is born from a crime.
In response to the editorial on giving illegal immigrants in-state tuition to benefit our society by investing in those who violated the law to get here in the first place. What other crime is punished by a head start to complete your education and support your stay in this country. This bill which would support those who are here illegally to flourish is an open invitation to those who are willing to make the journey here to start a new life, assuming that we are going to support their crime. Regardless of the situation in Mexico and other countries from which these illegal immigrants come, there is no reason for these immigrants to be helped in pillaging our country. Our economic position is already hurting enough, why would we allow those who contribute little to nothing to our country to take away positions from our citizens who are struggling themselves to pay for the expensive and competitive universities. Our country is not built on handouts; those who succeed do so because of their own dedication and perseverance. The bill being proposed offers handouts to those who do not deserve them and will lead to an influx of illegal immigration because of our poorly enforced immigration laws.
In an edition of last weeks Denver Post, the editorial board published an op-ed piece entitled, “Recovery by a thousand cuts.” The piece went on to explain why Governor Hickenlooper would be wise to continue to cut costs to bring us out of this economic recession. The articles main commonplace or premise is that Colorado needs to fix it’s economic standing. This is an incredibly hard major premise to disagree with, “for a state that has seen $5.5 billion in cumulative shortfalls during the last four years.” The conclusion is that cost cutting is the only viable solution. Cost cutting may well be a solution; there are other options that could be more effective. While I have taken some economic courses, I am hardly an economist, so there may be some flaw in my argument. I feel that a possible scenario would be to increase the budget in order to create more jobs for Coloradoans. As of November 2010 Colorado state unemployment was at 8.7%, so if they could create jobs thus lower unemployment the states GDP would raise and there would be less people relying on unemployment state benefits and a great population paying taxes. Another possible option, although one that would surely be very unpopular, would be to raise taxes. If the state is running a deficit, on a very basic note, there are two solutions; to decrease spending, or to increase revenue. Raising taxes, however unpopular, would be a means to increase the states revenue.
ReplyDeleteMany would agree that persons who break the law should not be rewarded for their actions. The bill that will be introduced in Colorado by senators Angela Giron and Michael Johnston is proposing just that. This bill will allow illegal immigrants to take the spots of hard working American students on college campuses in Colorado. Illegal immigrants have broken the law by crossing the boarder without permission of the United States government. In this country, breaking the law results in punishment. In this case, however, these immigrants will be rewarded.
ReplyDeleteImagine an American child working hard each day to create a bright future for him or herself. Now imagine that an illegal immigrant, who has done nothing for this country, takes the place of the hardworking citizen at a collegiate university. This is what will happen to several young citizens if this bill is passed. Someone you know may be subject to this terrible effect.
In order to stop perpetrators from stealing our children’s education, this bill must not be passed. It is in the best interest of our country to send our own children to college, who will support and fight for the best interests of this country, and to prevent foreign minds in benefiting from their illegal actions.
Commonplace: It is a constitutional right to bear arms; the restriction of this right is unpatriotic.
ReplyDeleteMajor Premise: High-capacity gun magazines are a constitutional right.
Minor Premise: Jared Loughner could have killed and wounded several innocent people using a gun with an average-capacity magazine.
Conclusion: High-capacity gun magazines should not be banned, as they are not the cause of shootings.
Dear Editor,
Although I agree that the shootings in Tuscon is a terrible tragedy, it does not necessitate a ban on high-capacity gun magazines. Jared Loughner is clearly a very disturbed person and even if he had an average-capacity magazine (15 rounds) in his semi-automatic Glock pistol, he still would have killed and wounded several innocent people. The fact that he had a high-capacity magazine capable of holding 33 rounds is certainly a horrific thing to ponder; but regardless of the capacity of his clip, Jared Loughner’s intentions were clear and premeditated. The high-capacity magazine in Loughner’s gun was not the cause of the shooting, he was. Blaming the shooting on the magazine is the same as blaming the semi-automatic pistol he had. I agree that nobody wants to think about a psychopath like Loughner having access to the weaponry he used but it is a constitutional right to own guns and the restriction of this right would be unpatriotic and unjustified.
Major premise: Government should not censor its records.
ReplyDeleteMinor premise: Hickenlooper plans to have a third party possibly sensor his cellphone records.
Conclusion: Hickenlooper should not censor his records.
To the editorial board:
While Governor Hickenlooper plans to make his administration more transparent by releasing cellphone records, are we able to trust him to not censor the data? Hickenlooper claims that he will be releasing the records as per the public-records law, but said he would have a neutral person to first look over the data, “to make sure there's nothing in there that's not appropriate.” How are we able to trust what is appropriate and what is not appropriate if it can be censored?
Governor Hickenlooper is simply trying to avoid the legal debacle that the former Governor Ritter faced when he refused to give his records to the public. Ritter used his private cellphone for both private and business calls and did not use his government cellphone. He then refused to show the public his cellphone records, which conflicts with the Colorado public-record laws. In response, the Denver Post sued Ritter for access to the records, but an appeals court sided with Ritter. This has only further escalated to an appeal to the Colorado Supreme Court.
In short, Hickenlooper is trying to woo the citizens of Colorado into a false comfort in which we believe that the government is becoming more transparent and trustworthy. In fact, while Hickenlooper has presented this action as revolutionary, this is required under state law to review all records. With the addition of a third party person to look and possibly censor data, I do not feel that I can trust the government with being totally transparent and accessible.
Everyone has a slightly different story of how they arrived in the US so why generalize all with one term, “illegal align”
ReplyDeleteThe writer of this post argues the use of words, their meaning and the changing of their use to be politically correct. My counter argument is, by creating better clarity of meaning we will better understand and categorize the general terms we use today to apply a better classification. ”Illegal immigrates” will then have a much different meaning then would “undocumented immigrants” In turn, this will encourage different laws in dealing with the different scenarios these general categorizations cause when creating laws dealing with immigration. Revising definitions and uses of words will better educate next generations of how to deal with different scenarios. Doing this will benefit society on multiple levels such as education, employment and criminal benefits and actions taken against immigrates.
Segregation of minority groups is not relevant issue today.
ReplyDeleteLatinos are a minority group.
Latinos are not being segregated against.
There is not negative backlash towards minority groups when someone from one of those groups commits a crime. Navarrette’s opinion is that when someone of Hispanic origin commits a crime, there is more hatred from opposing groups than if the accused would be white. But in opposition, it does not matter what race the felon belongs to. Just as there can be an ugly duckling in a bunch of beauties, a felon is a felon no matter the color of his or her skin. Furthermore, the unrest amongst the Latinos in Arizona roots from a law that is seemingly segregating towards the Latinos. The bill signed last April gives police the ability to question anyone that the cop deems to look ‘illegal.’ Navarrette says that many Latinos have since left Arizona, feeling that the law is personally demeaning to them. I agree that the law is terribly demeaning, but is in place in order to try and control the increasing amount of illegal immigrants entering into Arizona. Arizona felt that the increase in illegal immigrants needed to be dealt with, and giving cops the ability to check people at random indeed controls the problem. But Latinos feel that the law personally points a finger at any person who appears to be of Hispanic origin. In this way, the Hispanic community isolated itself in Arizona, and this is why they further feel that a finger is pointed at them in all other situations. The reality is that no one group of people is personally pointing a finger at the Hispanics every time a crime is committed. The law in Arizona offended the Hispanics once, and every time after that now they assume that a judgmental hand is placed on their forehead. When we have a community that now assumes they are the red target in every crime case, it is hard for people not in their community to be supportive.
Major Premise: illegal immigrant children should not be given in-state tuition
ReplyDeleteMinor premise: the children are associated with their parents and have to deal with the consequences their parents made
Conclusion: There shouldn’t be any kind of benefit from doing something illegal.
Illegal immigrant children have to understand and accept the consequences of a wrongful action even though they did not directly commit this action. They, by association, to their parents will have to embrace the fact that they will not be able to get in-state tuition because they are not citizens. There are too many implications to future illegal immigrants that if you get your child into the country at a young enough age then they will be able to get in-state tuition. By allowing these kids to have in-state tuition it correlates to more kids in college, leading to more competitive application processes, and less opportunities to obtain because there will be more people pursing those opportunities. There is the chance that they will enhance the overall quality of the state, but who is to say that these kids will stay around CO after they get their degree. If they move to another state then the money we spent on them is not being put back into our economy. The image being portrayed from rewarding someone for doing something illegal is a concept that cannot become commonplace in people’s minds.
A commonplace or major premise that could be debated is that providing in-state tuition rates to the foreign-born children of illegal immigrants is the morally and fiscally responsible thing to do and will make Colorado a stronger state. Another way to approach the major premise could be to state that providing in-state tuition rates to the foreign-born children of illegal immigrants will only further complicate the issue of illegal immigration and would not be in the best interest of the state of Colorado. The minor premise here may be that the children of these illegal immigrants are still illegal immigrants. The conclusion would be that the children of illegal immigrants should not be rewarded the rights of citizenship such as reduced tuition due to their parents’ unlawful actions.
ReplyDeleteDear Editor,
I found your editorial in Friday’s Post supporting in-state tuition rates for illegal immigrants to be deeply flawed by proposing a band-aid for the complex issue of immigration while at the same time rewarding those who broke the law. The plan the Post proposes will do nothing to fix what is wrong with the immigration system while enticing people to continue to break the law with the promise of a subsidized college education. While rewarding illegal immigrants, your plan will also put citizens at a disadvantage. Why should a documented student from out of state have to pay higher tuition in Colorado than someone who is in the country illegally? Furthermore, this plan will hurt Colorado as well. If the plan is put into action, Colorado will become even more of a magnet for illegal immigration as those who cross the border illegally will choose to come to Colorado for its salutary neglect on immigration laws. This will force the state to be on the hook for the $10 thousand plus difference per student in tuition. This will lead to further fiscal difficulties in the state and frankly, it’s a horrible idea to invest in the education of people who will only be unable to legally obtain good jobs upon graduation due to lack of documentation. A better idea is to fix the issue of illegal immigration altogether by other means such as creating a path to citizenship.
***This is not my personal opinion***
ReplyDeleteTo the Editors of the Denver Post,
In his article “Charge 10-year old in accidental fire? Grow up”, Bill Johnson follows certain logic to make his claim that the 10-year-old boy should not be charged in criminal court for arson his reasoning stemmed from the common place that children make innocent mistakes that should be forgiven. From this, Johnson then used the premise that as a child, the 10 year old boy made an innocent mistake and did not purposefully start the fire, drawing the conclusion that this 10 year old should be forgiven and not tried in criminal court.
However, I would argue that the major premise of Johnson’s argument is debatable. Yes, children make mistakes, however, some one should be held responsible for the event. After all, it did cause almost a quarter of a million dollars worth of damage. So yes, everyone, including children make innocent mistakes, however, there are consequences, which should be used as a learning opportunity, especially for children. In this case in particular, someone should be held accountable. Because the children were minors, the parents should and will be held economically responsible to the event, however, these kids, as well as all others should be punished in some way. What kind of message are we sending to the public if we can just over look the cause of a major fire? We should be teaching American children, right and wrong and that there are consequences to every action. With the introduction of technology and the infiltration of pop culture, at younger and younger ages, children are acting more like adults, so it is time to start treating them like adults. Yes, children make mistakes, however, we must teach them about consequences, and for this 10-year-old, that means he must also learn about the consequences in this society for starting a major fire.
Commonplace: Republican’s who had to make budget cuts within schools should be blamed for kid’s situations.
ReplyDeleteMinor premise: Republican’s had to cut budgets.
Conclusion: The lawmakers ought to be forgiven for cutting budgets.
Major Premis: The 10 year old boy should not be charged with a felony.
ReplyDeleteMinor Premis: The 10 year old boy started a fire on a town home.
Conclusion: The felony charges are going to far with the boy’s punishment
I disagree with the article on the 10-year-old boy facing felony charges for arson. The boy and a friend were playing outside and found a lighter. They decided to light a piece of paper on fire. The paper caught some bushes on fire and also caught the side of a town home on fire. The town home suffered a lot of damage totaling up to $200,000. The district attorney stated that he knows that the fire was an accident but he doesn’t want an accidental fire to turn into a fire starting on purpose. If the boy is convicted the boy could spend up to two years in juvenile system with an emphasis on treatment over confinement.
The victim from the fire states that the criminal system is not doing enough. The victim says that the charges should be stronger. The 10-year-old boy wrote an apology letter to the victim and gave it to her face to face.
The boy is only 10 years old. At that age everyone did something stupid. At this age you don’t think of the consequences. If the boy is convicted then the boy will have a felony charge on his record for the rest of his life. It will be hard to get a job when he gets older or even get into a collage. The boy should have some kind of punishment. Help rebuild the town home, work for the victim. The mother could help with paying for the repairs on the house. Charging the boy with a felony of arson is going to far. The boys is set to go to trial February 17the, 2011
A bill expected to be introduced this month by Sens. Angela Giron and Michael Johnston will propose that students who are in the country illegally, but have graduated from Colorado high schools, be able to pay in-state tuition when they go to college. This debate has been brought up many times in past legislation, yet has been turned down for excellent reasons. A good portion of the country is in justified anger over the lack of immigration enforcement. People are criminally crossing the United States boarders in order to receive a free education in our k-12 schools, lowering the public schools’ test scores, causing less funding to be given to those particular institutions. The community that is being affected the most by this not ideal situation, sadly, is the American students. They are forced to give up valuable class time when their teachers has to cater to a child that is an illegal alien that may not even speak English. The bottom line is this, rewarding law breakers is not in the best interest of our country. Specifically, if Colorado were to break away from the other states and decide to suddenly accommodate higher education to illegal immigrants, the state would be in a world of trouble. The state is already fiscally strained and higher education has been particularly susceptible to cuts during this sluggish economy. It is simply unethical to help pay, with the tax-payer’s money, for the education of someone who cheated our system for a free ride, versus a hard working child that is a lawful, deserving, United States citizen.
ReplyDeleteHarsanyi’s point:
ReplyDeleteMajor: People shouldn’t be offended as easily
Minor: Very liberal Jewish man agrees
Conclusion: This entire discussion over “Blood Libel” is ridiculous
Taking the opposing side:
Major: We don’t know how people feel
Minor: Even in middle school, some people say something that they don’t find offensive to the other person, even though the other person can be hurt by it.
Conclusion: People being outraged over the use of the term “Blood Libel” is completely legitimate.
Mr. Harsanyi states that he feels Jewish people should not be getting offended over the use of the term “blood libel” when used in reference to Sarah Palin’s words which may have indirectly led to the shootings in Arizona this month.
I believe that his comments are offensive to the Jewish community because he is attempting to deny them their right to be offended.
First, people should be able to get offended over whatever they want. Yes, people have the right to fee speech, but doesn’t that mean that they have the right to free emotions as well? Everything in this world is relative and therefore Mr. Harsanyi should respect that.
Who are we to judge what others feel? Mr. Harsanyi may be Jewish, but that does not make him an executive to their feelings, he does not represent “his people” as it were. He appears to be a well to do man who has not directly experienced the horrors of injustice against the Jews.
Hell, I am offended for the Jews. My grandfather helped liberate Auschwitz, and after everything he saw there, words which illuminate the Jewish persecution in a light and “don’t be offended” kind of way are extremely dangerous.
It is just one step closer to becoming a Nazi state.
(I am a bleeding heart liberal, but not this bad of one, I actually agree with Mr. Harsanyi’s point of view on the matter. I also don’t think we are closer to becoming a Nazi state).