The Great Debate

I have never really been interested in politics, but for my argumentative writing class, one of my assignments was to watch the first of three presidential debates that was shown live on Friday night. To my surprise, I actually enjoyed it. I learned a lot by watching, such as many more issues and policies being discussed, but the part that I really thought to be fun to watch was that both candidates seemed very knowledgeable to me. Of course, I am no political science major, nor do I have any interest in politics, but as an unbiased viewer, I thought McCain and Obama did a nice job of presenting themselves and debating each other.

In my argumentative writing textbook, I learned that a topic is a term used to describe something that generates an argument. Additionally, there are two types of topics; common topics, "suited to any argument" (Crowley, 120), and special topics, "those that belonged to some specific field of argument" (Crowley, 120). Sharon Crowley also states that "rhetors need a good deal of specific knowledge to argue from special topics" (p.121). I think that McCain and Obama have a lot of specific knowledge about many different issues, which is what allowed them to debate so well on Friday. Each candidate seemed to know a lot about specific topics, such as McCain knowing the details of Obama's proposals, for example. This was very impressive to me, as I feel that most people use common topics in arguments because they have not built such a specific knowledge on one, or even many, subjects.

2 Late Nights on the "Late Show"

In reading the news over the past few days, I came across an article about McCain and how he was scheduled to be on the "Late Show," but cancelled his appearance and took a break from the campaign Wednesday night to focus on the economic crisis in our country. I did not actually see the show, and have only the information given to me in the article to go off of, but apparently "Letterman [unloaded] on McCain for not showing up" http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hIbK5ZyWUeEJrqOEcChTTkzHi3JgD93DP7U06. Letterman even stated: "Are we suspending it because there's an economic crisis or because the poll numbers are sliding?" Of course Letterman would feel a bit bitter about a presidential candidate cancelling coming on his show, but I do not believe that gives him the right to judge someone's character on national television. In fact, I feel that because of things in the media, such as this, happen everyday, ideas and opinions are formed by people other than ourselves. Another article I was reading was about the same topic: Letterman continued to "assault" McCain today and even went as far as to say, "Well, we might not see you on Inauguration Day" http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080925/ap_en_tv/mccain_letterman. This reminds me of something I read in my textbook in English class: Sharon Crowley discusses the topic of past and future conjecture and states that future conjectures are "educated guesses about something that will take place in the future" (Crowley, 121). In this case, it seems to me that Letterman is demonstrating the idea of future conjectures. He is assuming that because McCain cancelled his appearance on his show, that McCain is therefore not a good leader and would not make a good president in the future. I assume that because of his numerous "attacks" on McCain, Letterman is making an educated guess about McCain's leadership in the future, future conjecture.

As I was looking through the news today, I stumbled across an article in which the headline read, "Poll finds 18 percent of voters persuadable" http://news.yahoo.com/page/election-2008-political-pulse-the-persuadables. Not long before the presidential election itself, eighteen percent of voters say they do not know who they are going to vote for or are willing to change their decision. Many people agree that neither candidate is the right man for dealing with the issue of economics in the United States during the present time, which does not assist in choosing one person.

Eighteen percent of all voters seems like quite a few people who could easily be swayed to vote one way or another, or even change who they were originally voting for. The article states, "Whichever presidential candidate convinces a swath of persuadable voters that he gets it...Could win the White House http://news.yahoo.com/page/election-2008-political-pulse-the-persuadables. This stresses the exact point mentioned in Crowley's, Ancient Rhetoric for Contemporary Students: rhetoric. In the beginning of her book, Crowley mentions the fact that "[rhetors] can make language do what they want it to do, can make listeners or readers hear or read in the way they intended" (Crowley, 25). This comparison provides evidence that in ancient times, rhetors were much like the presidential candidates of modern time, in that both are striving to be persuasive. Rhetors used language to manipulate others to do as they wanted them to, while modern Presidential candidates use language to win the persuasion of the majority of the people and work their way into office.

Anxious to fly?

In the news today, a security scanner that can measure levels of anxiety was talked about. The article can be found at http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,425722,00.html. This scanner is in the beginning stages and still has a few more years until it will actually do its job of detecting terrorists, or perhaps it will be decided then that it will not work effectively at all. For now, scientists are studying ways of reading the levels of anxiety of a person as they walk through the scanner by measuring their body temperature, their heart rate, perspiration, etc. All in all, the goal of their research now is to be able to measure different levels of anxiety, so those who are just anxious about flying are not receiving the same reading as those who have other plans.

Although I do believe it is a good idea to invent a scanner for this purpose, so we are not only relying on reading a person's facial expression, I do not think it will be possible to separate those with anxiety about flying from those who are actually terrorists. The argument can be made for either position, I feel, but in this case I would have to side with the argument that this technology probably will not work. I think that if people knew they were walking through a machine that would scan physiological aspects of themselves, like breathing rate and heart rate, that they would be anxious not only about flying or missing a flight, but also about entering the scanner itself. Wouldn't most people's breathing rate and heart rate rise if they knew they were being evaluated in such a way? I think that this level of anxiety in addition to the anxiety some people already feel about being in airports and airplanes would just make the level reading skyrocket. I don't know enough about physiology or technology to state my argument with 100% clarity, but I raise the question: wouldn't high levels of anxiety appear on the screen the same as a terrorist's levels of anxiety? After all, aren't they terrorists trained to be calm in such situations?

Comic relief

Last Saturday, the well-renown comedy show Saturday Night Live made its season premiere, and with Tina Fey portraying Vice President candidate Sarah Palin, it seemed to be a success. It is clear that SNL has a democratic bias, but I believe that Tina Fey did a wonderful job impersonating Sarah Palin in a non-offensive way. Of course her performance was exaggerated, but isn't that the point of SNL? In my opinion, Saturday Night Live is a satire, it exaggerates characters and their flaws, which is what makes it funny. However, I also believe that the situation makes the show funny as well. In other words, I think that because of the reputation of Saturday Night Live being a comedy show, people expect it to be funny. With the expectation of comedy combined with the exquisite performance of Tina Fey's Sarah Palin, the show was a huge triumph. Although it clearly expresses a democratic bias, I believe it is fair, in this episode particularly, because Hillary Clinton was also portrayed by Amy Poehler in a very exaggerated manner. By amplifying the flaws of the characters they played, Tina Fey and Amy Poehler were within the boundaries of comedic appropriateness. After all, it is their task to make us laugh.

A storm that blew over?

Recently, and with good reason, there has been a lot of news surrounding the topic of Hurricane Ike. A storm so viscous, that it left upwards of 50 people dead, millions without power, and damages far beyond repair. "The specific arguments that are currently circulating about a particular issue play an important role in creating kairos" (Crowley, p. 53). Kairos, as I discussed in a previous blog, are moments of opportunity that invite rhetorical responses. In this case, Hurricane Ike is a perfect example of a kairo because its surfacing opened the floor for numerous arguments to take place. A common topic of rhetoric in the news recently has been arguments presented for staying behind or evacuating areas such as Galveston, TX despite persistent warnings.

Many people ignore evacuation orders, based on a variety of reasons. Some may not have anywhere to go, some may not have heard the warnings, if they are hearing impaired for example, and others may have decided to wait out the storm http://www.usnews.com/articles/science/culture/2008/09/15/why-people-ignore-hurricane-evacuation-warnings.html.

On the other hand, many people evacuated upon the orders because it was explicitly stated that those in the path of Ike would face"certain death" if they did not leave http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/weather/09/11/hurricane.ike.texas/index.html.

It is possible for arguments to be made for either side, both leaving or staying, but I believe that it would not have been smart to ignore orders such as these. Of course, it is a little different if someone does not have the money or transportation to leave than if they are just choosing to stay and tough out the storm. Clearly Ike was not something that would just blow over. People were warned of the power of Ike and ordered to evacuate, so choosing to stay in harms way does not seem logical to me.

Kairos

In the textbook we are reading in class, Crowley and Hawhee explain kairos as being "a window of time during which action is most advantageous" (p.45, Ancient Rhetorics for Contemporary Students). It is in this time of opportunity in which the success or failure of an argument, story, or a joke can be determined. Kairos can also serve as the moment of opportunity in which an argument rises. For example, gun control has been a topic of debate for hundreds of years now in the United States, but it is often at moments of despair, such as gun shootings, that lead to an upheaval of debates, policies, and laws.

In an article written last spring in Time http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1731195,00.html?cnn=yes, the Virginia Tech shooting is discussed, demonstrating that events such as this reaffirm people's thoughts about privacy rights and gun control, and rightfully so considering the kairos, or timing. A few laws have been challenged since the tragedy, both in terms of notifying parents when their child seeks counseling and allowing concealed weapons for the purpose of protection. Had it not been for the shooting or other events in which the kairos, or the proper opportunity presented itself, I feel that many issues would remain unaddressed. On the other hand, would we need to address policies and laws if not for kairos in the first place?

Fables, Tales, Urban Legends

In the news this week there was a story that caught my attention. In Miami there was a six-year-old boy who got stuck in a washing machine in a laundromat http://www.thedenverchannel.com/irresistible/17438022/detail.html. The horrible part about this story was that the machine was actually running. The boy's mother thought the machine was broken and moved to a different machine after inserting her money into, and leaving, the first machine. Her two children proceeded to play in the machine and minutes later her daughter was screaming that her older brother was caught. After finally getting the door open, the boy was rushed to a nearby hospital, where he was recovering well.

Although this may sound like a fable, it is indeed true in fact. This tale can be used to teach a moral story without any fabrication of the truth: always watch your children, especially in public areas containing numerous machines. This story is scary in and of itself without adding any false facts. By presenting it in such a straightforward manner, the attention of readers and viewers alike is grabbed, making them think twice about how careful they are about watching their children in unfamiliar settings. By simply stating the facts of such an unbelievable tale, the audience reading or watching this story feels compassion for the family and makes them become aware of the dangers of a simple piece of machinery.

Further, this article could be used to make a couple of arguments. Firstly, one might argue that washing machines are unsafe, especially for children. This article would prove that point head on. Secondly, one might argue that parents nowadays do not keep a close enough watch over their children and kids are able to run too freely. Again, this story would prove the point that children require a watchful eye at almost all times. In contrast, this story could be used to refute an argument in which one is trying to prove the dangers of a laundromat.

In conclusion, a simple tale can be used to teach a lesson, it doesn't even need to be something as outrageous as a fable or urban legend. Scary experiences happen everyday, and something can be learned from almost all of them.

Is a definition truly definite?

Does the act of defining something truly making it definite? I believe that it is possible for people to interpret things in different ways depending on a their perspective. This agrees with what Crowley states, as noted in my previous blog entry in that there is no "absolute truth." With this being said, I believe that when people debate or argue about an issue, they are fighting for what they believe is the truth. But who is to define what is really right and wrong, true or false? As I pose this question, however, wouldn't that mean that a definition is not something definite or absolute, because there will always be people interpreting words, or definitions differently?

Jean-Jacques Rousseau, a philosopher and literary figure in the 18th century wrote, "Just as the shepherd is superior in kind to his sheep, so, too, the shepherds of men, or, in other words, their rulers, are superior in kind to their peoples" (p. 58, A World of Ideas). This exemplifies the exact question I raised earlier. If one was trying to "define" qualities a leader should possess, and they came across this passage, it could be interpreted in a few different ways. In one way, this passage could be interpreted in a way that means Rousseau defines a leader as someone who is superior above his/her people. However, another way this could be interpreted is that a leader is someone who is given his/her position as ruler and is therefore expected to be superior above all. In this case, it is unclear whether or not Rousseau believes that a leader should possess qualities of power and superiority, or if it is something that comes along with the territory that is perhaps not such a wonderful quality.

Therefore, how Rousseau defines a ruler in this particular passage is far from distinct. His definition of a leader is left up for interpretation from his audience.

Nature of disagreement in public debate

In my argumentative writing class, we are reading a book called "Ancient Rhetorics for Contemporary Students," by Sharon Crowley and Debra Hawhee. In my blog today, I will begin with a passage in which Sharon Crowley writes,

"Because knowledge originates with human knowers, and not from somewhere outside them, there is no absolute truth that exists separately from human knowledge. Moreover, contradictory truths will appear, since everyone's knowledge differs slightly from everyone else's, depending on one's perspective and one's language. Thus Protagoras taught that at least two opposing and contradictory logs (statements or accounts) exist in every experience. He called these oppositions dissoi logoi."

Protagoras was a Greek philosopher who believed that there is no absolute truth, but only the truth as each individual perceives it. In other words, one might say there is no right or wrong. A person's perception of the truth may be impacted by ether their individual perspective or their language as it relates to a specific topic. Perhaps a very simple example that my help illustrate this point: Let's say you want to argue the thesis (truth) that "it's good to have a dog as a pet" based on your experience with dogs. Some people may argue that your "truth" is wrong because they have different perspectives. Perhaps they've been attacked by a dog, or they're allergic to dogs. Other people may argue that your truth is wrong because of cultural language or definitional differences. In some cultures "dog" may refer to a wild vicious wolf that no one in their right mind would want to have as a pet.

Of course the statement that "absolute truth" does not exist is somewhat comical since that statement in and of itself could be considered a statement of "absolute truth," and so the circular argument continues! Because people generally believe that the purpose of debate is to convince either the opposing side or other listeners (as it is in public debate), if you accept the theories of Protagoras or Cowley, one might ask what the purpose of debate would be given that there is no absolute truth or right or wrong, and consequently, there can be no winner or loser. In very simple terms, if everyone were to agree that there is no absolute truth, then why bother debating issues?

My academic discipline is brain, behavior, and cognitive science, which is a biology-based psychology major. I actually plan to go on and complete a Second Career in Nursing program that is one year long in hopes of recieving my bachelor's in Nursing. Since this blog is for an argumentative writing class, though, I feel it is necessary for me to think about how argumentation relates to my personal interests, and not only those presented to me in the classroom.

Argumentation is used in the field of nursing on a daily basis as doctors and nurses have varying opinions about the treatment and care of a patient, for example. Although I do not know firsthand, I imagine that the main issue of debate in the medical field would deal with what medicines patients should be prescribed for the best possible recovery or pain killer, for instance. In these debates, the doctors would most likely be the leaders since they are the ones who decide on and finalize treatment plans. Nurses would be involved in these debates as well, I would presume, as they are the people actually giving direct care to patients in hospitals. Although they hold lesser power than doctors, nurses would most likely express their opinions about treatment options because of their personal relationships with patients and their knowledge of a patient's pain level, worries, doubts, etc. Together, doctors and nurses alike would then be having an "argument" in hopes to resolve to the best form of care possible.

All fields of study and careers use argument and debate, certainly not only nursing. This is only one example of how the field of nursing uses debate to accomplish goals and is certainly not limited to this.

Writing a blog has never been something I have done, but due to an argumentative writing english class, I now have a reason to! As an undergraduate student, I am beginning my blogging experience as a requirement, but also as an opportunity to explore my own thoughts and opinions about various topics of discussion. I hope the audience I will be writing to in this blog will encompass a wide range of people, including my teacher, my classmates, my family, and my peers. Therefore, please bear with me as I may provide extensive information about certain topics or assignments. I will only do this so my blog will pertain to all of my audiences.

With this being said, I am writing for an argumentative english class and my first topic of discussion surrounds the idea of what an argument actually is. An argument is a disagreement about any point of discussion, but is difficult to define because an argument can also be a discussion in my opinion. Most people, myself included might think of an argument as being a fight or an unpleasant experience, but in thinking further into the subject, I have concluded that an argument can be something as simple as individuals expressing their own, opposing opinions and attempting to reason through them with each other.

Going along on the same subject, public debate is the next topic of discussion for this blog posting. Public debate is, not surprisingly at all, very similar to an argument with some differences of course. In my own opinion, I believe a public debate is a more formal argument that is often times restricted with rules, as it is in politics. In otherwords, I think that with these guidelines, public debates are far more restricted, more organized forms of arguments.