Analyzing My Argument

Claim: Patriotism cannot be described by only one definition.

Qualifier: Most people only think of one definition for patriotism. Either the dictionary definition or those provided by the media.

Good Reasons: People die in the name of being Patriotic.
There are a multitude of different definitions for every word.
Every word can have a different meaning for every person.

Warrant: People should realize that the definition of patriotism depends on the person doing the defining and that it is all of the ideas and thoughts of all Americans combined that makes up the genuine and complex definition of Patriotism.

Backing: The general public should be aware that each definition is unique to the situation and person, and that one should take what the media says with a grain of salt.

Evidence: People are dying for their definition of patriotism.
The government and media take advantage of the community’s feelings of unanimity and patriotism.

Authority: Quotations from different public figures regarding patriotism.

Rebuttal: Some people in the community use the idea of patriotism for their purposes only and don’t care about the true definition.

Response: If people do not wish to be informed or taught, they do not have to listen. However, everyone has the same right to being educated and informed.

I thought that this essay was incredibly hard to do a Toulmin Analysis on since there was really no hard evidence provided. My essay was basically based on opinions and thoughts. However, it did present the different views and versions of definitions of patriotism. If I had to rewrite this essay in a Toulmin style I would most likely need to find some more hard evidence and use that to support my ideas that were presented. I would possibly use more statistics and polls from the general public on their ideas and feelings.

GE's Claims

I thought that this was an interesting way to analyze. However, I found that analyzing a written paper was much easier than evaluating a photographed or drawn image. There were not any Toulmin terms left out that I saw, but there may have been something that I missed. I thought that the arugment was very well turned-out.

Claim One: The Evolution is the cleanest locomotive ever made.

Claim Two: GE locomotives are at work maintaining and preserving the world around us.

Claim Three: People should ride the GE Evolution locomotive because it is the best for the environment.

Claim Four: If people ride the GE Evolution locomotive they will help to preserve the environment.

Reason One: The GE locomotive does not disturb the environment.

Reason Two: The GE locomotive is in sync and at peace with nature.

Warrant One: What gets along with nature and does not disturb it must be good for the rest of the environment.

Warrant Two: If the GE Evolution locomotive does not do any harm or injure the environment, then it must be the safest, cleanest and the finest to travel on.

Evidence One: The birds are content to have the locomotive pass them by.

Evidence Two: The image presents a calm, clean, beautiful and serene environment.

Evidence Three: There are no train tracks to mar the perfection of nature.

Evidence Four: In the image there is no pollution, trash or smoke that could potentially harm the environment.

Qualifier One: Most trains add to pollution.

Qualifier Two: Most trains do not protect nature.

Qualifier Three: Most trains disrupt and harm the environment they run through.

Censorship Issues

I seriously loved this essay by Alan Dershowitz. He basically said everything that I was thinking but more eloquently then I ever could. He made some great points about censoring hate speech. I completely agree with his last statement about criticizing and analyzing the speech instead of censoring it.

There is no way that any government or any university could fairly pick and choose what subjects or topics to censor. If one touchy subject that is offensive to one group of people is banned, then in order to be fair, every subject that is insulting to every possible group of people would also have to be banned. I really have not changed my feelings or thoughts on this subject other than to agree about criticizing the hate speeches. I still really do not believe that anyone has the right to censor someone else’s thoughts, no matter how offensive they can be. If a person does not want to hear an offensive speech, they really are not forced to sit there and listen to it.

AHHHHH Plagiarism!!!!

I found this to be an interesting and informing essay about plagiarism. I thought that the links in the essay helped to illustrate his points. They also helped to provide more substantial proof and evidence to back up his arguments. I think that one of the best links he had, was the link that sent you to the page that had Ms. Goodwin’s plagiarized paper. That way the readers could actually know what he was talking about as he critiqued her. There really was not a link that I clicked on that was not at least a little bit helpful. All of the links I followed related to his topic and helped support his argument. I would definitely consider using links in an argument if I was posting it on the internet. I found the links to be useful in clearing up any questions I had and they did a good job defending points made in an argument.

Noah did an excellent job backing up his argument with quotations used from Goodwin’s work. He argued his claim quite persuasively. I think one of the most persuasive parts of his argument was when he was talking about how Goodwin is not just a one time offender of plagiarism. He used a great quotation from her works to prove the point of his argument.

Picture the Wonders

*Image: Our Love Is Free. http://www.cartoonstock.com/newscartoons/directory/c/cloning.asp

This is a great picture that would help argue the point against cloning companion pets. It's great for illustrating the point of how silly it is to pay thousands of dollars to clone a dead pet when there are millions of stray pets that are waiting to be adopted.

*Image: Baby Noah. http://sagada.crimsonblog.com/archives20040222.html

This is a picture of the baby ox Noah, who was the first endangered animal to ever be cloned. He was cloned from a single skin cell that was taken from a dead ox. He was also the first clone to be born from a different species than his own (he was born from a cow).

*Image: Baby Factory. http://illinoisfamily.org/informed/?s=749

I think that this is a really interesting picture. It could be used to help in the argument about human reproductive cloning. Throwing out the points and fears of eventually having a designer babies made in a factory; which would basically be like man playing God, because who would CHOOSE to have a baby with cleft palate or an incurable disease?