Posts Tagged ‘current events’

Horizontal divider

What Rhetoric May Illuminate About the Charleston Shootings

posted: 6.25.15 by Andrea Lunsford

In the days that have passed since the murder of nine worshippers at Charleston’s historic Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church, I have been able to think of little else. Nine lives offered up to white supremacist hatred. I will not write or say the name of the murderer. He doesn’t deserve the distinction. [read more]

Comments Off on What Rhetoric May Illuminate About the Charleston Shootings
Categories: Andrea Lunsford, Rhetorical Situation
Read All Andrea Lunsford

Horizontal divider

Beyond Our Classrooms

posted: 5.8.15 by Donna Winchell

All teachers hope that their students will make use of the knowledge and skills taught in their courses–in spite of the students’ protestations that “I’ll never use this after the class ends!” One example from a writing course:  “I’ll have a secretary to catch grammar and punctuation errors for me.” I must admit that I don’t see either of my sons ever using the advanced math they were learning by the end of high school. But as teachers of writing, we can rest assured that more of our students will make use of the skills we teach than will ever make use of imaginary numbers. As teachers of critical thinking, our hope is that all of them will take that skill out into the world and put it to use as workers, voters, parents, community members, and just as people alive in the world. [read more]

Comments Off on Beyond Our Classrooms
Categories: Argument, Critical Thinking, Donna Winchell
Read All Donna Winchell

Horizontal divider

Star Wars Forever

posted: 4.30.15 by Jack Solomon

In my last blog post I wrote about Mad Men, a pop cultural sensation that is now winding down.  This time I want to reflect a bit on the Star Wars franchise, a pop culture phenomenon for which the word “sensation” is wholly inadequate, and which, far from winding down, is instead winding up in preparation for the release of its seventh installment (The Force Awakens), with at least two more “episodes” in the works. [read more]

Comments Off on Star Wars Forever
Categories: Genre, Jack Solomon, Popular Culture, Semiotics
Read All Jack Solomon

Horizontal divider

DOMA Down

posted: 8.1.13 by Barclay Barrios

As a gay man living in a state that constitutionally bans gay marriage and partnered to a man living in a state that does allow it, I am of course rather pleased with the Supreme Court’s ruling on the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).  Not everyone is, nor should they be.  I’ve been thinking about how to teach this issue in a way that allows everyone—no matter their political views—to come to the table. [read more]

Comments Off on DOMA Down
Categories: Barclay Barrios
Read All Barclay Barrios

Horizontal divider

Teaching Edward Snowden

posted: 7.25.13 by Barclay Barrios

As I write this, Edward Snowden—NSA secret leaker—is still very much in the news, though in a “Where in the world is Edward Snowden?” kind of way.  At the same time, the current issue of Time is devoted to “The Informers” and anti-government hacktivism.

Peter Singer’s essay “Visible Man: Ethics in a World without Secrets” would be a great essay to be teaching right now.  [read more]

Comments Off on Teaching Edward Snowden
Categories: Barclay Barrios
Read All Barclay Barrios

Horizontal divider

Rebutter in Chief

posted: 8.12.09 by Nick Carbone

This post by Steve Benen at the Washington Monthly blog features excerpts from a New Hampshire Town Hall conducted by President Obama.

It occurs to me, on reading Benen’s summary and having listened to some of Obama’s press conferences and speeches, that Obama’s legal training combined with his writing ability make him a master of rebutting the critiques of his policies and positions through explicit counter-arguments, no matter–in the case of the illogical and demagogic claim that the health plan under debate in Congress calls for “death camps”–how disingenuous and dishonest the criticism is.

Compare, for example, Obama’s response to the “death panel” claim to one of the most prominent assertions of that claim, Sarah Palin’s.

Palin wrote in Facebook:

The Democrats promise that a government health care system will reduce the cost of health care, but as the economist Thomas Sowell has pointed out, government health care will not reduce the cost; it will simply refuse to pay the cost. And who will suffer the most when they ration care? The sick, the elderly, and the disabled, of course. The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama’s “death panel” so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their “level of productivity in society,” whether they are worthy of health care. Such a system is downright evil.

Health care by definition involves life and death decisions. Human rights and human dignity must be at the center of any health care discussion.

What is the logic of her paragraph? What is the train of thought? Can it be mapped by students? Are her claims fair? Is there a “death panel” clause in any of the proposed bills now in Congress?

What is the purpose of the final two sentences? They are statements no one will disagree with; is she using them to assert that the plans in Congress don’t care about dignity?

With those questions in mind, now look at Obama’s explicit rebuttal of this argument as represented by Palin. Obama said in New Hampshire:

“The rumor that’s been circulating a lot lately is this idea that somehow the House of Representatives voted for ‘death panels’ that will basically pull the plug on grandma because we’ve decided that we don’t — it’s too expensive to let her live anymore. And there are various — there are some variations on this theme. It turns out that I guess this arose out of a provision in one of the House bills that allowed Medicare to reimburse people for consultations about end-of-life care, setting up living wills, the availability of hospice, et cetera. So the intention of the members of Congress was to give people more information so that they could handle issues of end-of-life care when they’re ready, on their own terms. It wasn’t forcing anybody to do anything. This is I guess where the rumor came from.”The irony is that actually one of the chief sponsors of this bill originally was a Republican — then House member, now senator, named Johnny Isakson from Georgia — who very sensibly thought this is something that would expand people’s options. And somehow it’s gotten spun into this idea of ‘death panels.’ I am not in favor of that. So just I want to clear the air here.”

Obama first categorically rejects the charge that he wants “death panels,” and then looks to the bill in question, to the item in the bill his opponents have distorted, and explains its origins.

How does the use of logic and evidence in the two arguments compare? Which statement is more factually accurate?

Questions such as these make the current debate on health care in our country a useful one for studying and analyzing argument and rhetoric. It might also lead to a good discussion of civil discourse and how to tell it from inflammatory discourse and violent discourse.

Comments: (2)
Categories: Argument, Assignment Idea, Genre, Popular Culture, Rhetorical Situation
Read All Nick Carbone