Rhetoric and Composition The concept of a discourse community is vital to academic writers across nearly all disciplines, for the academic writer's purpose is to influence a discourse community to think differently.
These are basically unresolvable with anything less than a lifetime of philosophical work, but they usually allow mutual understanding and respect.
More detail on what I mean by each level: Meta-debate is discussion of the debate itself rather than the ideas being debated. Is one side being hypocritical? Are some of the arguments involved offensive?
Is someone being silenced? What biases motivate either side? Is someone defying a consensus? Who is the underdog? I even think it can sometimes be helpful to argue about which side is the underdog.
If it works, supporting one side of an argument imposes so much reputational cost that only a few weirdos dare to do it, it sinks outside the Overton Window, and the other side wins by default.
This is part of the process that creates polarization and echo chambers. The best result is that you never went into that space at all. They may sometimes suggest what might, with a lot more work, be a good point. And it might greatly decrease the number of guns available to law-abiding people hoping to defend themselves.
So the cost of people not being able to defend themselves might be greater than the benefit of fewer criminals being able to commit crimes.
But this would be a reasonable argument and not just a gotcha. Single facts are when someone presents one fact, which admittedly does support their argument, as if it solves the debate in and of itself.
Second, even things with some bad features are overall net good. Trump could be a dishonest businessman, but still have other good qualities. Hillary Clinton may be crap at email security, but skilled at other things.
Even if these facts are true and causal, they only prove that a plan has at least one bad quality. At best they would be followed up by an argument for why this is really important. I think the move from shaming to good argument is kind of a continuum.
This level is around the middle. Single studies are better than scattered facts since they at least prove some competent person looked into the issue formally. Scientific studies are much less reliable guides to truth than most people think. On any controversial issue, there are usually many peer-reviewed studies supporting each side.
Sometimes these studies are just wrong. Other times they investigate a much weaker subproblem but get billed as solving the larger problem. Probably it depends a lot on the particular job, the size of the minimum wage, how the economy is doing otherwise, etc, etc, etc.
Gary Kleck does have a lot of studies showing that more guns decrease crime, but a lot of other criminologists disagree with him. Overall I think that would be worth it.The American Empire.
By Wade Frazier. Revised July Purpose and Disclaimer. Timeline. Introduction. The New World Before “Discovery,” and the First Contacts.
The Declaration of Independence Rhetorical Analysis Christian Johnson / P6 PART I The Declaration of Independence is considered by many to be the finest piece of political prose ever written.
Teacher-created and classroom-tested lesson plans using primary sources from the Library of Congress. This essay delves deeply into the origins of the Vietnam War, critiques U.S.
justifications for intervention, examines the brutal conduct of the war, and discusses the . Rhetorical devices are used to convey a particular meaning with the aim of persuasion or provoking an argument about a topic.
These devices are mostly used in an argumentative or oratory. Declaration of Independence: Rhetorical Analysis Historical Background Purpose of the Declaration: Audience Congress Everyday man Claim Thomas Jefferson relied mainly on pathos to present his claim to his audience and unite them against the King.