Notice how he structures his argument. He makes a claim, supports it with evidence (and notice also what kinds of evidence he uses) and then moves to the next link. How would you diagram this argument? What are its weaknesses?
At first, this isn't major but I can see a small appeal to statistics fallacy? Sure he backs everything up but it does feel like he's leaning on numbers. At least for a few of his earlier points. That leads into something else, he give statistics about voter fraud and talks about Dorothy Cooper. He humanizes the argument by repeatedly showing her picture, saying her full name and bringer her up to make sure we do not forget. He talks with a lot of facts and a lot of sources. It would be almost robotic if not for Dorothy Cooper. He also adds more power to the argument by saying he is a republican. It humanizes him and gives the argument more weight. He is a member of the party. He has some qualifications to talk about what republicans believe in. I do also have to bring up, why can't Dorothy Cooper get a photo idea? He brings up statistics about the amount of voter fraud and that several states are passing laws to get photo ideas and that it might just be a ploy by Republicans to stop certain people from voting but the election is not until November. What is stopping her from getting a photo idea? I do not exactly see the problem with the law. You do not need a drivers license but maybe a passport? If she is getting any kind of government aid she already has to have credentials. What's wrong with getting one more piece of paper? He connects every point very well but breaking down that first part about Dorothy Cooper makes the lead in a bit less powerful.
He defends every statement he makes. There are a lot of quotes, information and clips that build his argument up. He gives several quotes and some are just horrible things politicians say but others could have a different meaning. For example John McCain's quote which starts and cuts exactly where they need it to without any real context. In class, we were talking about Politicians saying something like "I'll cut taxes" but not mention who they are cutting taxes for. That can go the other way. A politician could say "The government builds businesses". Now your first reaction is "This is crazy! Their taking credit for our hard work!" but...what if they went on and said that the government supports businesses and small business owners? You could easily take those 4 words out of context and give it a bad spin and just ignore the next sentence which could say "The government builds businesses by helping the people who run them with tax breaks and government aid"? Now I'm not saying that those quotes used in the video when put into context have a different message, I doubt John McCain said "...It is a Christian government in the sense that we have high moral values like other religions and while we don't support one religion over another it is important to learn from all people" but what if he did say that? We do not know so we have to ask questions about the quotes in context.
The argument transitions very well from point to point. It has a lot of hard evidence and it explains every claim that was brought up. The ending with all the points leading to the "American Taliban" is a perfect wrap up. However, it does have points where it could have been ripped apart. We do not have the evidence to rip it apart and maybe he's completely right about everything, but there's still small areas for questioning. The argument is not air tight.
This argument is very well done but its conclusion is questionable. The argument seems to be an analysis on republicans. And unless you know that Herman Cain is supported by the Tea Party, one would call this an irrelevant conclusion. Also if you did have knowledge in politics, you would find that republicans share several traits with the Tea Party (Especially Paul Ryan) The argument has a lot of evidence to back it up. Using statistics and numbers he refutes the claims about voter fraud. Indeed this does seem to be an attempt to stop people from voting. He also goes on to analyze the religious aspects of republicans and refutes their claims that America is a Christian country with the quotes by our deist founding fathers. He also references to the same argument I saw Mr. Harris making about the connection to Jesus and the socialism Obama is (to them) spreading. Both arguments are ones that I have seen several times and find no room for rebuttal. The only possible weakness is the conclusion. He stereotypes the Tea Party and calls them things that he has yet to justify such as "Denying facts, Unmoved by facts" However this can be seen as assuming one's knowledge. If you believe that he is quote mining, you must first prove he is by looking at the whole video. You cannot expect him to present everything to prove nothing is out of context. This is the news; they don't have time for that. For example, one may not believe the quote made by McCain is true and that the Treaty of Tripoli actually states that about Christianity, but if one knows how annoyingly fundamentalist republicans can be, and if one has seen and used that quote in a similar argument, they would not claim any quote mining. In order to prove one is quote mining, you must prove it with the full context. Unfortunately, a rebuttal still has the burden of truth. In general, the only unsubstantiated claim is the conclusion on the Tea Party.
When I started watching this clip, instead of looking at the argument structure I was listening to what he said. The way he presented the report blown me away.He did a good job in presenting the report. As you said Mr.Harris he presents a claim and then supports it with evidence. It was interesting how he mentioned Dorothy Cooper several times to make it powerful. And in one part the claim was unsettled when he started talking about Republicans and Tea party and concluded with his first claim on Dorothy Cooper. The conclusion was dubious. In my opinion it seems like it didn't match up with what he said in the claim but overall the argument was well structured.
Honestly, this guy spoke on a issue that many politicians attempt to hide. This is what politics is sometimes about, manipulating the public and covering the malicious task. I feel he does a great job of bringing this out. The Tea Party does give many "true" Republicans a bad look. His facts are well supported and he does a great job of comparing the Tea Party and the American Taliban. Every point is backed by substantial facts and information. It's very difficult to oppose anything he is saying. All I can do is shake my head at many ideals or morals that politicians hold. I would love to hear more arguments from this guy. And Mr Harris, I'm still waiting to hear your response about that debate.
The argument presented in this video is structured very well. The news reporter makes a claim and supports it with numerous facts and from there moves on to his next claim. He explains his argument thoroughly and supports it with the information he presents. From this video, I have finally learned what a true republican is vs. what society believes a republican represents. Also, I have insight on what the TEA party embodies. I like how his personal opinions are even explained and supported by facts and information he has found which supports his claim.
The argument made in this video is very well done. He had an ideally structured argument. He made a claim, backed it up with facts, and then moved on to the next claim. His arguments are clear and thoroughly explained. And, like Saidah, he helped me gain some knowledge on the Tea Party and what exactly they're about. However, like Steve, I felt that some of the clips could have possibly had a different meaning if they hadn't been cut. Other than that, though, I felt that he made a great argument and I'd give him a 19/20 (Because there is no 20 lol)
His argument was very organized and clearly explained. I liked Steve's comment on the government working with the business and how it can be taken out of context sometimes. But, overall, I think that he did a very good speech and I could clearly understand everything.d-_-b
The structure of the argument was well put. he started with a story and told his claim. Then he kept bring up evidence after evidence with support behind it and his argument just flow with ease.
There is some truth in the finely crafted argument of this news reporter. The story about Dorothy Cooper does support his claim of Republicans prevent certain crucial people from voting in the upcoming election. His claim about voter fraud has some truth as well. Requiring a piece of paper with similar or the same information as the information on a voter registration in order to vote is preposterous and unnecessary. The statistics showing how little the percentage of voter fraud is accentuates his claim that voter fraud is just an excuse to cut certain people out of the voters count by Republicans. The news reporter states his claim and supports it accordingly, which gives him a strong argument. His argument has even more support due to the fact he IS a Republican. Therefore, he would know the difference between a "True" Republican and a Tea-Partyist trying to pose as one. The clips, however, make room for questioning simply because the politicians' words are taken out of context. Although his interpretation may be truthful, other interpretations can be made about what they said as well. I didn't know pretty much anything about the Tea Party before watching this clip, but after watching, I definitely learned valuable information.
Ending off with naming the Tea Party an the "American Taliban" and then giving a list of ideals and things about them sealed the deal of a great argument. I wanna know more about this show Mr. Harris.
Notice how he structures his argument. He makes a claim, supports it with evidence (and notice also what kinds of evidence he uses) and then moves to the next link. How would you diagram this argument? What are its weaknesses?
ReplyDeleteAt first, this isn't major but I can see a small appeal to statistics fallacy? Sure he backs everything up but it does feel like he's leaning on numbers. At least for a few of his earlier points. That leads into something else, he give statistics about voter fraud and talks about Dorothy Cooper. He humanizes the argument by repeatedly showing her picture, saying her full name and bringer her up to make sure we do not forget. He talks with a lot of facts and a lot of sources. It would be almost robotic if not for Dorothy Cooper. He also adds more power to the argument by saying he is a republican. It humanizes him and gives the argument more weight. He is a member of the party. He has some qualifications to talk about what republicans believe in. I do also have to bring up, why can't Dorothy Cooper get a photo idea? He brings up statistics about the amount of voter fraud and that several states are passing laws to get photo ideas and that it might just be a ploy by Republicans to stop certain people from voting but the election is not until November. What is stopping her from getting a photo idea? I do not exactly see the problem with the law. You do not need a drivers license but maybe a passport? If she is getting any kind of government aid she already has to have credentials. What's wrong with getting one more piece of paper? He connects every point very well but breaking down that first part about Dorothy Cooper makes the lead in a bit less powerful.
ReplyDeleteHe defends every statement he makes. There are a lot of quotes, information and clips that build his argument up. He gives several quotes and some are just horrible things politicians say but others could have a different meaning. For example John McCain's quote which starts and cuts exactly where they need it to without any real context. In class, we were talking about Politicians saying something like "I'll cut taxes" but not mention who they are cutting taxes for. That can go the other way. A politician could say "The government builds businesses". Now your first reaction is "This is crazy! Their taking credit for our hard work!" but...what if they went on and said that the government supports businesses and small business owners? You could easily take those 4 words out of context and give it a bad spin and just ignore the next sentence which could say "The government builds businesses by helping the people who run them with tax breaks and government aid"? Now I'm not saying that those quotes used in the video when put into context have a different message, I doubt John McCain said "...It is a Christian government in the sense that we have high moral values like other religions and while we don't support one religion over another it is important to learn from all people" but what if he did say that? We do not know so we have to ask questions about the quotes in context.
The argument transitions very well from point to point. It has a lot of hard evidence and it explains every claim that was brought up. The ending with all the points leading to the "American Taliban" is a perfect wrap up. However, it does have points where it could have been ripped apart. We do not have the evidence to rip it apart and maybe he's completely right about everything, but there's still small areas for questioning. The argument is not air tight.
Mr. Harris: tl;dr :P
DeleteThis argument is very well done but its conclusion is questionable. The argument seems to be an analysis on republicans. And unless you know that Herman Cain is supported by the Tea Party, one would call this an irrelevant conclusion. Also if you did have knowledge in politics, you would find that republicans share several traits with the Tea Party (Especially Paul Ryan) The argument has a lot of evidence to back it up. Using statistics and numbers he refutes the claims about voter fraud. Indeed this does seem to be an attempt to stop people from voting. He also goes on to analyze the religious aspects of republicans and refutes their claims that America is a Christian country with the quotes by our deist founding fathers. He also references to the same argument I saw Mr. Harris making about the connection to Jesus and the socialism Obama is (to them) spreading. Both arguments are ones that I have seen several times and find no room for rebuttal. The only possible weakness is the conclusion. He stereotypes the Tea Party and calls them things that he has yet to justify such as "Denying facts, Unmoved by facts" However this can be seen as assuming one's knowledge. If you believe that he is quote mining, you must first prove he is by looking at the whole video. You cannot expect him to present everything to prove nothing is out of context. This is the news; they don't have time for that. For example, one may not believe the quote made by McCain is true and that the Treaty of Tripoli actually states that about Christianity, but if one knows how annoyingly fundamentalist republicans can be, and if one has seen and used that quote in a similar argument, they would not claim any quote mining. In order to prove one is quote mining, you must prove it with the full context. Unfortunately, a rebuttal still has the burden of truth. In general, the only unsubstantiated claim is the conclusion on the Tea Party.
ReplyDeleteWhen I started watching this clip, instead of looking at the argument structure I was listening to what he said. The way he presented the report blown me away.He did a good job in presenting the report. As you said Mr.Harris he presents a claim and then supports it with evidence. It was interesting how he mentioned Dorothy Cooper several times to make it powerful. And in one part the claim was unsettled when he started talking about Republicans and Tea party and concluded with his first claim on Dorothy Cooper. The conclusion was dubious. In my opinion it seems like it didn't match up with what he said in the claim but overall the argument was well structured.
ReplyDeleteHonestly, this guy spoke on a issue that many politicians attempt to hide. This is what politics is sometimes about, manipulating the public and covering the malicious task. I feel he does a great job of bringing this out. The Tea Party does give many "true" Republicans a bad look. His facts are well supported and he does a great job of comparing the Tea Party and the American Taliban. Every point is backed by substantial facts and information. It's very difficult to oppose anything he is saying. All I can do is shake my head at many ideals or morals that politicians hold. I would love to hear more arguments from this guy. And Mr Harris, I'm still waiting to hear your response about that debate.
ReplyDeleteThe argument presented in this video is structured very well. The news reporter makes a claim and supports it with numerous facts and from there moves on to his next claim. He explains his argument thoroughly and supports it with the information he presents. From this video, I have finally learned what a true republican is vs. what society believes a republican represents. Also, I have insight on what the TEA party embodies. I like how his personal opinions are even explained and supported by facts and information he has found which supports his claim.
ReplyDelete-- Saidah R. Wright
The argument made in this video is very well done. He had an ideally structured argument. He made a claim, backed it up with facts, and then moved on to the next claim. His arguments are clear and thoroughly explained. And, like Saidah, he helped me gain some knowledge on the Tea Party and what exactly they're about. However, like Steve, I felt that some of the clips could have possibly had a different meaning if they hadn't been cut. Other than that, though, I felt that he made a great argument and I'd give him a 19/20 (Because there is no 20 lol)
ReplyDeleteHis argument was very organized and clearly explained. I liked Steve's comment on the government working with the business and how it can be taken out of context sometimes. But, overall, I think that he did a very good speech and I could clearly understand everything.d-_-b
ReplyDeleteThe structure of the argument was well put. he started with a story and told his claim. Then he kept bring up evidence after evidence with support behind it and his argument just flow with ease.
ReplyDeleteThere is some truth in the finely crafted argument of this news reporter. The story about Dorothy Cooper does support his claim of Republicans prevent certain crucial people from voting in the upcoming election. His claim about voter fraud has some truth as well. Requiring a piece of paper with similar or the same information as the information on a voter registration in order to vote is preposterous and unnecessary. The statistics showing how little the percentage of voter fraud is accentuates his claim that voter fraud is just an excuse to cut certain people out of the voters count by Republicans. The news reporter states his claim and supports it accordingly, which gives him a strong argument. His argument has even more support due to the fact he IS a Republican. Therefore, he would know the difference between a "True" Republican and a Tea-Partyist trying to pose as one. The clips, however, make room for questioning simply because the politicians' words are taken out of context. Although his interpretation may be truthful, other interpretations can be made about what they said as well. I didn't know pretty much anything about the Tea Party before watching this clip, but after watching, I definitely learned valuable information.
ReplyDeleteEnding off with naming the Tea Party an the "American Taliban" and then giving a list of ideals and things about them sealed the deal of a great argument. I wanna know more about this show Mr. Harris.
ReplyDelete