the textbook

Our assigned reading for this third week was Chapter Eight, "Extrinsic Proofs: Arguments Waiting to be Used". I found the information about proofs and authorities particularly interesting. One thing I have taken away from this week's reading is a new interest in sources used in journalism other literature. It can be interesting to find out more about the background of sources used in newspaper and magazine articles. I have had to write research papers for classes before, but this chapter has helped me better understand the mechanics behind putting them together. The credibility given to proximate authorities can easily lead to false accusations. Another interesting section of Chapter Eight was the explanation of how scholarly disagreements occur. What I don't understand is how "rhetors should never accept facts at face value". Say for example you are reading a scientific paper. Most scientific papers that are published cannot be published without peer review, so why would you not be able to trust data from these papers? Also, it confused me a little that they wrote that 'rumors' were considered an extrinsic proof. How can just a rumor with no witness backing be considered proof? However, I guess a witness testimony might also be falsified by that individual. On the whole though, this chapter was slow reading, a little dull.

english

This week's classes focused on the subject of our research papers. Among other things we learned about MLA guidelines for research papers. There are so many rules that I did not know about previously. What is especially difficult is the format of the works cited page. It seems like there is a different method of citation for every one of my sources. This is going to be a busy weekend. I have a research project and Powerpoint presentation due in my other class on Monday as well as a rough draft for this class. It will be so nice when this summer school business is over. The class debate this week was about the legal drinking age her in the U.S. It was very interesting to hear people's beliefs on the subject. Just for kicks I decided to argue the position that there should be no drinking age. The debates can be challenging because of the requirement that we must respond to the previous speaker's statement. So last week I talked about writing about immigration for my research paper, but now the topic is hydraulic fracturing in the drilling industry. Some of the details about the health risks associated with hydraulic fracturing are quite disturbing.

Week 2 Post 2

Arguing both sides of contentious topics is proving to be more difficult than I had originally believed. Especially when there exits more supporting evidence for the side of the argument that I disagree with. For my second paper I'm attempting to prove that the United States government should provide roughly ten million undocumented immigrants with a path to citizenship by ratifying immigrant amnesty legislation. This is something I believe to be true -- mainly because the idea that immigration authorities can somehow locate, detain, and deport millions of individuals seems totally ludicrous. For a number of reasons such action strikes me as a serious waste of time and money. However, a number of arguments for why we should not provide amnesty are quite convincing on paper. Because of this I have been thinking about switching up my statement and arguing against immigrant amnesty legislation. This weekend I have to go to Austin to help someone move. Revising and finishing this second paper by the deadline just became more of a challenge. The research paper due at the end of this five-week summer session has been floating around in the back of my mind. Immigration in the United States sounds like an appropriate subject. My only concern is that it may prove to be too broad an issue to adequately address within the page limitations of the assignment.

Week 2 Post 1

This week we had a debate about capital punishment. I chose the side opposing the death penalty because I believe it is used too casually. Too often it seems we hear of new DNA evidence exonerating inmates on death row. It's my belief that the death penalty is justified only in a few rare cases and then only if the defendant is proven guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt. Another concern I have with the death penalty is the availability (or lack thereof) and equality of inmates' access to DNA tests when their innocence may be proven. One thing that has always struck me as odd is that the public would prefer to sentence a prisoner to die a quick, supposedly painless death by lethal injection rather than sentence that prisoner to life without parole. Life in prison without parole has always seemed, to me, a much harsher punishment than a painless execution. Life in prison means that an inmates have little to do but sit and contemplate the crimes that landed them there. The difficult part of the debate came when we had to argue the opposing side. I now had to argue in favor of capital punishment. Initially I could think of no way to do so, but I eventually settled on an economical argument. Surely, I contended, it must be more economically practical to terminate a prisoner rather than paying year after year to keep said prisoner incarcerated.