Response to "They Say, I Say"

The main point the author seems to be getting at in this particular reading is that when one is writing an argument paper it should not be forgotten that you aren't talking to yourself, this is a converstation and your paper is meant to be your contribution to that conversation.  I find my problem when writing my argument is not that I forget there are others who might not agree with me but that their own arguments skew the can skew my original question.  There is a certain amount of tangents involved with any argument and to fully argue effectively you have to understand what those tangents are and their importance to the case. 
The movie "Thank You For Smoking" keeps being brought up in class and I can see why, the main character does a really good job of skewing the question so much that his answers are correct but not for the original question.  My attempts thus far at drafting are not including the counter arguements yet because I feel that I need to fully lay out my claim and it's supports for each facet of the arguement and then go through after the draft is complete and insert the opposition's claim with my rebutal to keep me on track and not let their own tangents distract me from my main purpose. 
I didn't really like the canned phrases the reading gives us for either agreeing, disagreeing and for being of two minds on the subject.  I don't like the idea of barrowing someone else's words when I write since a writter's style is so intertwined with word and phrase choice.  I realize we should be using these examples simply to get our minds thinking critically about how we will approach our opposition.

Reading Response: They Say, I Say

Page 1 Ella Yearicks English 102 Christy Vance October 30, 2009 Arguing is one of the most popular ways of associating with other people; it can be a positive thing or it could be a negative thing. Even though you disagree with someone does not mean that you are putting that person down in any way. Everyone has his or her own opinion and there’s nothing anyone can do about that. So the next time someone disagrees with you don’t take it as an insult, they are just merely expressing their own feelings and there is nothing wrong with that. They Say, I Say, is one of the most valuable readings there is to read before writing an argument paper. Whether for a class assignment or a letter to the editor, this essay gives numerous ideas of how to argue a good argument no matter what side you choose. While “constructing an argument, remember you are entering a conversation and therefore need to start with ‘what others are saying,’ and then introduce your own ideas as a response. Summarize what ‘they say’ as soon as you can and state your own opinion” right afterwards (19). This quote tells how to start an argument. I like the way the writer affectively states throughout his essay sure ways of getting ones point across without complication. The reader will understand a lot better, what your position is, if you state it at the very beginning of your argument. I also like the fact the writer tells specifically each way you can agree, disagree, or both. There are more than two sides to every argument. When you disagree you need to not only say that you disagree, but you need to explain why you disagree. Same thing if you agree with a particular subject, you need to state the fact that you agree and then give reasons why you agree. Even though it may seem lazy to both agree and disagree with anything it is a more affective decision than you may think. With this strategy you can agree with one side of the argument, and yet disagree with another side without causing confusion. No matter if you agree, disagree or both make sure it is clear to the reader which side you are on, and do it early or your paper will not be as effective as it could be. Remember, if you don’t choose a side you are not arguing you are just stating facts without any reason for doing so (They Say, I Say). The most effective way (well, pretty much the only way) of arguing is to either agree, disagree or both. You simply can’t argue if you don’t have your own opinion.

They Say

I thought this reading was very good. I really liked ho the author made me think that when writing a thesis, I need to state what others think about my subject as well, to give my stance substance and credit. I tend to leave this out a lot of the time when I write and it is something I need to take into consideration when writing. It makes your writing have more credit if you include others opinions in your writing, so you audience realizes that its a group opinion and not just yours. It just gives you, the writer more credibility with your audience. I thought it was a good topic that the author talked about when the auther addressed the topic of making you stance clear and precise. I seem to see that a lot in my reading. I have to get half way through a article before I find out what the writer is trying to point out. It seems llike a lot of current writers are almost like politicians. They just beat around the bush, instead of just coming right out and getting to the point.

"they say"

I did not like this reading as much as the Orwell reading, It seemed like the writer was in a hurry to get this done because it had no personality to the writing. that aside, there were some good points throughout the writing. When the writer talked about the lecture about Dr. X and how his work was wonderful and profound and yet no one knew why there was a need to defend this work was great! I cannot understand when people write papers, speeches, or anything without a point. That is great that his work is profound but who says it differently is a question i have asked myself more times than i would have liked. I did not like the templates at the end of the writing. Not because they are bad templates, but that I fear students will take these templates and use them rather than applying the Orwell talked about in "Politics in the English Language". Instead of making templates i think that it would have been better to have shown students how to get down and think about how they really want to say what it is they have to say. I liked the part about book lovers. Its a funny yet true point about how book readers really do congratulate themselves and that someone could read this and understand the point. (and teslin i forgot to tell you there is a spell check in the post screen, its across from the font and next to paragraph formatting but i could not get it to work)

Should the blog be entitled "Teslin, Ella, Stan and Justin's English 102 blog?" It's a mouthful, but I was just wondering... ;)

Orwell Reading

I really enjoyed this reading. Using shorter, more concise and english rather than greek words seems like common sense. apparently not for the time period that Mr. Orwell had wrote this essay. I have always tried to use shorter sentences when possible and clearer words when possible and it was neat to read an essay by someone famous who thinks along the same lines as me. when Mr. Orwell used the first examples I had a hard time finding the issues with the writing, probably because I have become accustomed to using catch phrases come to mind and describe things for me. after reading through the essay, i realized that i am at fault just as much as those writers. even in my ethnography I am just as at fault(even here with this catch phrase) as any writer that Orwell could have cited. My favorite parts were about the pretentious dictation and useless words. Doing some of the research I have found more that my fair share of pretentious dictation from high and mighty writers. There is no reason that people have to talk down to others since they have done a little research. useless words are another great part of his essay. some of these words are just plain ridiculous. words that have mroe than one meaning or meanings that cannot be agreed upon are just another way of putting extra words into papers, essays, and other forms of writing especially political.

Response to Orwell's "Politics and the English Language"

When I Googled this to actually find the essay I saw that George Orwell wrote it in 1946. All the countries of the world were trying to recover from a war that was caused by a dictator who's cult of personality lay squarely in his ability to speak passionately to his people and dupe them into genocide, murder and a war that would eventually destroy half of Europe.  We have had many more dictators since then and many more politicians who have used the same tactics to push their agendas and yet we havn't stopped as Orwell did to say a word about why we keep letting these veiled speeches rule us over.
 It is hard to imagine how much our language and writing has changed since then.  I can relate to his frustration towards bad writing  because I see how bad it is today.  Pick up just about any news paper or magazine and they are filled with bad metaphors and buzz words which don't really express the true meaning that the writer should convey.  They are often meer puppets to conventional wisdom and play every scene to the masses that consume them rather than saying something real that makes a person actually think not stand up and cheer.  Likewise our literary works have gone downhill in quality where a book writen for teenage girls is a best seller, (talking about the Twighlight series here), who is reading this crap with any sort of seriousness? 
The way Orwell ties political speeches into this is masterfull.  I can't think that I've seen one single speech delivered by a politician in my time that was anything but a vailed effort to conseal something or say a lot about nothing while sounding and looking really powerfull.  I can say without worry of reproach by nearly anyone that watching former President George W. Bush speak actually made me feel scared for the future of our country and not because the terrorism threat level was red, but because I was afraid in his vagueness and stupidity that he would say something that would outrage his own people and end in a bloody overthrow on the White House lawn. 
Now we have President Obama, a wonderous pontificator but only because his audience is being swayed by fancy rhetoric and aren't actually listening to what he says which doesn't make any real sense anyway or watching what he is doing while they are buying plates with his face on it off the television.  If he were actually sucessfully pulling us out of some nasty situation, perhaps on a Nelson Mandella level where we are now free from Apartide, then I could understand the lauding and fawning over him, but he hasn't done that and he probably won't do that because as is he doesn't have to, he seems to be able to stand on the shear fact that he made it to the White House.  Now he has speech writers who can spin a web of well intentioned phrases that sound really nice but are useless in all practical application and the people will love him for it because they don't understand what is being said.
I wonder if it really is the writers responsiblity to change this trend as Orwell says.  I can see where they would have the power to change the way they write but are the masses going to respond anymore to this better way of writing?  I wonder if we are too late.  Have we all become numb to this reduced form of expression?  Would we even know good writing if it was staring us in the face?  I would have to say the answer is a resounding no considering the newspaper with the highest current circulation is a tabloid.  If writers are goind to start writing better I suggest they use baby steps and start there, although I would hate to see a writer toil to write a better written story on the next level of stupidity to come out of the "Jon and Kate Plus 8" drama.  George Orwell would be rolling in his grave.

Reading Response In chapter 7 of Bruce Ballenger’s the Curious Writer (Concise Edition), she merely discusses the steps needed to writing an argument paper that not only catches the audience’s attention, but also accurately comes to one conclusion pointing out other point of views along the way. Bruce tells about many examples of informal arguments one such is writing letters to the editor of a newspaper. She explains, “While these essays are often informal, they are still persuasive forms, and as you’ll see later, they often employ the same methods of more formal arguments.” Just like in “more formal” written arguments, newspaper letters to the editor, argue a main point and usually for the most part are interesting and can draw a reader in to the main point (202). There are numerous different ways to argue a point. A lot of people argue everyday whether in relationships, at school, or at work; they all have their own opinion and think that other people should know about it. If you are a lawyer you argue for a living. “When scientists seek to understand something about the way the earth works, they often begin with hypothesis. They then design an experiment to collect data that is meant to determine the truth of the hypothesis.” This is an example of a scientific argument. An argument paper is similar because you too have to do some form of research to support your topic well; plus a topic of an argument paper has a unique hypothesis of its own. In an argument paper you aren’t supposed to “reinforce” any already known “ideas”, you are supposed to come up with your own way of seeing something and let others know so it can lead people closer to the truth about something, or even just to “discover a new way of thinking about a topic” (203). A good argument is one that has not yet been acknowledged by most people, and it’s a strong argument if you show other peoples opinions and “evidence” of why your own should be considered. Bruce also explained a lot of important argument paper misconceptions such as: the similarities and differences between “argument and inquiry,” “making claims,” and the fact that there aren’t always just “two sides to an argument.” These are all important factors to consider while writing a persuasive argument paper.

Reading Response

I really liked at the start of the article when Ballanger makes reference to the Idaho Statesman. There isn't a more opinionated newspaper out there and get a kick out of reading the editorials and the letters in response to them. You are going to always have two views on things and there isn't a better place to do it than in a newspaper or on a talk show. On the second page where Ballanger makes reference to arguing with his father really hit home to me. Seemed like unless i was arguing with him, we never talked. The two most important thing I have learned about getting into a argument is to to me pick one that is winnable and to make sure you know what you are talking about. I had really never thought of a argument being a process until reading this article. Most of the time it seems to just come second nature. The open model of argument was very interesting to me and made me take a step back and think about the process. you really don't think about the investigation portion of it until it is right in front of you. Ballanger points out that there are always two sides of a argument but if it is a a topic or subject that you strongly believe in, you always tend to forget the one that doesn't necessary agree with you view point. I also agree that it is a civic duty as well. We have had many men and women die for the right that we have. Many people do not get the opportunity to argue or question things and we shouldn't take it for granted. I had never really considered that there were different types of argumentative writing until this article and where each comes into play. Ballanger does a very good job of explaining the differences. I believe that this has been the most interesting piece that we have read to this date. Stanton

Response to "Writing an Argument"

I see the purpose of this essay as being why we need to learn to argue effectively as a writer. The most famous discourses on government, ethics, politics and religion were all argued in this fashion, not necessarily to prove a point but to at least get others to think about the issues on a deeper level. American society these days seems to have gone away from an objective presentation of ideas to one of vehement defense of principles that might not be totally understood by those touting them. For example, people pick sides in a political race based on party lines or a few basic assumptions of what a candidate plans to do, not on the reality of what a candidate stands for, their track record or even their ethics.


The media does a pretty thorough job of spoon feeding the masses whatever they think they should believe without, as Mr. Ballenger puts it, "bowing respectfully to the complexity of the subject, examining it from a variety of perspectives, not just two opposing poles." It is not so much news anymore as it is a one sided editorial with a very narrow perspective on the issues that affect us. We may as well just watch the commercials, that way we know we are being sold something instead of them sneaking it in through the back door. So if "arguing is our civic duty" then we should learn to correct this by teaching the next generation to think for themselves and that real wisdom comes from genuine understanding from listening and questioning not from a person's ability to pontificate. If you teach a person to research and really discover the truth of matters than the argument is somewhat moot, if anything the argument paper should be designed to inspire a person to go look for the answers themselves.

Coincidentally enough my own argument paper centers on the idea that the control of knowledge by those in power is the reason for the decline of our society. I see the biggest hurdle to presenting my point may be finding experts who would agree with me, after all, the authorities are the people I'm pointing the finger at and those who might agree with me have been painted as quacks and conspiracy theorists by those in authority. I will have to appeal then rather to direct evidence and perhaps use the authority of the great philosophers to back me up. Funny how Socrates was thought of as a quack and a dangerous man in his own time but now his thoughts are taught in text books, go figure.

Mr. Ballenger breaks the argument paper down into two forms, the Academic Argument Essay and the Informal Argument Essay, I see our papers as being something in between the two of these because we will have research to back it up but we ourselves are not necessarily authorities on the subjects we are writing about. My understanding is that we will take this first argument paper and turn it into an Op-ed at the end of the semester which will have to be much shorter. I'm not in love with that idea, getting to the point in 500 to 1,000 words can be pretty tricky, especially if your topic is as complex as my own, I will perhaps have to argue only a certain instance of my arguement such as how the corporate ownership of media outlets leads to biased reporting and therefore an inaccurate presentation of the facts or perhaps how the influence of lobbyists has corrupted what is to be taught in our public schools. Either way, it will curtail my argument somewhat but it is the nature of the beast.

I would appreciate any feedback or ideas, leads or personal thoughts on the matter, feel free to post.

Our topic (administrator note)

I thought it might be a good idea to explain to people outside of our class what we are doing so that maybe we can get some outside sources and different points of view.
For people outside the class we are responding to the "Arguments" section of  The Curious Writer by Bruce Ballenger.  We will be writing argument papers which will then be widdled down to Op-eds at the end of the semester so this reading was intended to enlighten us to a few features of this type of writting.   Any writers out there who have some insights into what makes for a good argument paper or Op-ed are welcomed to add their ideas here, all of us would appreciate it. 

I am bummed as well

I'm so bummed we don't have argyl for our backgrounds!

Welcome everyone to the new blogging generation, I will now have to close down my "MySpace" for good because I no longer have time for it.  I'm too busy with class, "Facebook", "Twitter" and my new blog to worry about which new rap group wants to be my "friend". 

Hey

Congrats on your new blogging account everyone...

Test

Testing . . . testing. . ..

Hello

Hello everyone.