Paper 2 Assignment

Here is a reminder of the details for Paper 2, due on Monday 29/06.

This assignment is effectively a draft for your final paper, and will be about 5-6 pages.

1. You will do a 1-2 page introduction summarizing the main arguments in the debate you will be dealing with. This will let me see how you intend to situate your own argument in that debate. At the end of the introduction you will state your proposition, and then you will summarize your reasons, as well as your partner's reasons. This help me to see that you are not duplicating each others arguments and that you are both on track.

2. You will then provide an outline of the claims/reasons for your argument. This outline will provide a summary of your main claims, as well as evidence and reasons to support those claims. You will also include the main warrants/unstated assumptions in your argument in order to determine if they will be acceptable to your audience. This will not be in full prose, but your outline must be written in full sentences. You are also not required to have all your evidence in place. This will be about 2-3 pages.

3. The final portion of your assignment is an annotated bibliography. You can choose your citation format as long as it is consistent. Your annotation needs to include 2-3 sentences summarizing the argument of your source.

As always, this will be posted in the dropbox on Monday morning.

Paper 1

Here are the requirements for Paper 1:

This paper is a 2-page paper written in the style of an op-ed. As such, you will need to write a focused argument that briefly provides an insightful perspectives on a particular issue. The issue that we will be looking at is Obama's controversial commencement speech at Notre Dame. I have chosen this particular controversy because it covers a range of issues, from abortion, to religion, to political ideology, to argument, to protest, and more. As I will discuss in class today, you are free to choose what particular issue you will take up, and I think there is plenty of room in this controversy for you to find something to say.

There is one important requirement for this assignment - in making your argument, I would like you to take on a particular text in this controversy, whether it be Obama's speech, an op-ed written on this controversy, or comments written in response to the controversy. In making your argument, you need to be concerned with the issue of what constitutes good argument.

I will provide you with two examples student op-eds, and below I have included links to 4 different media pieces on the controversy, but there are plenty of examples of op-ed style argument for you to get a sense of what is the style of the op-ed. What is important about an op-ed is that you need to have a clear argument, and you need to get to the point quickly, although you can deploy your thesis strategically, whether it be at the beginning or end of your argument. Importantly, because they are not formal arguments, op-ed's rely extensively on emotional or stylistic appeals, and the goal is to be as accessible as possible. You will also see that many op-ed writers use the personal pronoun "I." Although they are opinion pieces, they generally have one or two pieces of strong evidence to support their claim; however, they do not use citations, so those are not required for your paper, although you can include them if you would like.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/19/opinion/l19notre.html
http://opinion.latimes.com/opinionla/2009/05/abortion-barack-obama-notre-dam.html
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/panelists/john_mark_reynolds/2009/05/president_obamas_notre_dame_speech_not_so_brave.html?hpid=talkbox1
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2009/05/17/amid_protests_obama_calls_for.html?wprss=44

Quotes from class today

In case you're interested (especially for exam prep), here are the quotes from today's presentation:

In a word, the type of opposition I am questioning is what I call “agonism.” I use this term, which derives from the Greek word for “contest,” agonia, to mean an automatic warlike stance - not the literal opposition of fighting against an attacker or the unavoidable opposition that arises organically in response to conflicting ideas or actions. An agonistic response, to me, is a kind of programmed contentiousness - a prepatterned, unthinking use of fighting to accomplish goals that do not necessarily require it.

Tannen, 8

Argument as play induces a comic frame in which mistakes are inevitable, where those who disagree are not spurred by evil intentions, but by errors, and where any decision is always provisional, contingent and uncertain; we can always play again (and would want to).

Palczewski, 2

Our thoughts about ethics and justice, about our practical and social lives, must acknowledge that the facts, the imperatives, and the motives of ourselves and others are not fixed but uncertain, in a sense always made by us conversation with each other. The conditions of pure ends-means rationality never exist. The habit of mind that yearns for these methods and their certainties is bound to be delusive, and ultimately – despite its claims to superior rationality – to be irrational, because it will not be in accordance with the nature of our world and experience.The only way to function rationally in these domains is to recognize the radical uncertainty in which we live; to proceed by trial and error; to operate with a constant pressure towards openness; to acknowledge the necessity of community and cooperation both to the definition and the attainment of any of our “ends”; to realize that the one aim of life is the transformation of our own perceptions, wishes and selves.

James Boyd White - Heracles Bow, p, 25

Assignment on reading

Tomorrow's readings provide some important context for the broader role of argument/deliberation, and are important in setting the context for our class practice. Please go through them. Here are some things you can think about:
What is the role and purpose of the public sphere? How is it different from the private sphere?
What does Mouffe say is the democratic paradox? In what way is argument normative? How is argument/deliberation a form of exclusion? Why does she argue for agonism? How does her argument about agonism differ from Tannen?
What does Dewey mean when he argues that democracy is an attitude? How does Dewey argue that we enact democracy?

In light of these questions, I want you to post a comment in the comments section of this post providing me around a 200 - 300 word response making a case for what you think is the role of argument in a democracy? Is is good for democracy, or bad for it? How does it help us make decision? How does it allow or not allow for inclusiveness? I recommend that you use the reading as a springboard to making your comment. Good luck.

Topic

Here is my first assignment for you: In the comments box, post an assignment idea, but you you can only add to list the topics from class which I included below if you refine the broad topic that is listed. Further, you have to add a different topic if someone else has already posted yours. Choosing the right topic is very important because it will be the basis for the majority of your work this semester. Try and think about what issues might be important in your life at the moment.

Here are the topics we mentioned today:
Scope of government
Abortion
Healthcare/taxation of healthcare benefits
Euthania
Private vs Public Spheres - Twitter/reality TV
Wikipedia/information/plagariarism
Economy
Family in democracy
Creationism
Immigration
Affirmative Action
UW Iniative

My topic idea:
Education reform in US Universities