Disagree to Agree.

This reading is all about how to take a side in an argument, whether it is to disagree, agree, or be ambivalent to both sides and neither discredit nor condone one view over the other. The very first thing talked about is declaring your stance early on. It’s always the right idea to make sure your reader knows exactly what you are going to be arguing for at the start of the paper other wise it seems to be just a jumble of facts and views that make little sense. Also declaring a side may in fact be one of the best ways to critically evaluate the perspectives of an issue to really dig deep and find every possible interpretation and angle to work off of, so what side should you choose?
Disagreeing with a view, as stated in the reading, “…May seem like on of the simpler moves a writer can make, but in fact it poses hidden challenges.” It’s exactly right in the sense that one cannot simply disagree to make an effective argument; the reading makes the point get to the heart of disagreement, which is to take a view, disagree with the view, and then back up your counter argument with facts, personal experience, or anything else that strengthens your contradicting view.
Agreement, just like disagreement, sounds easy enough doesn’t it? What could be easier? Just say “I agree” and that’s that right? Not even close. Agreement may be even more challenging than disagreement because agreement means that whatever view is brought to the table, you’ve already side with, so where’s the work to be done? There’s lots of work to be done as an independent researcher. One view will not have every single shred of evidence to support it so that is where your brain needs to start turning the screws and tightening the seals. Bring to the table personal experiences, or studies and surveys that support the view your agreeing with. Dig deeper to figure out just why you agree with the view you agree with.
Of course you can always take the combo approach as given by the reading, the ambivalence approach, but as the reading says, “Some may worry that by expressing ambivalence they will come across as evasive, wishy –washy, or unsure of themselves.” But ambivalence doesn’t have to be an issue of commitment, bringing both sides of the argument to the table can also be engaging for a reader, just as long as they know of your ambivalence in the first place. But you can’t be afraid to take a stance, whatever it is.

Response: They Say I Say

This excerpt gives a few pieces of advice for people who are striving to make an argument. Chapter one has a very specific point. It states that writers should explain the opposing side of their argument. The essay gives an example of someone giving a presentation. The person giving the presentation goes on and on about how great a sociologist is but she never tells why she's making the argument. She was making the argument because many people looked down on the sociologist's views. In other words, a writer should explain what others think about the subject they are trying to argue. It gives the argument more purpose. It shows why the writer feels the way they do and keeps the audience "engaged". In the fourth chapter, the author first emphasizes the importance of explaining why you disagree with something. One way to disagree is by using a "twist it". I found that very interesting. I actually use that in many of my arguments. Then, the author tells about agreeing and expanding your position on the agreement. After that, the essay explains how to agree and disagree at the same time. For each of these three ways to argue, the author gives templates that are actually quite helpful. In chapter four, the author just tries to show the reader better ways to present their ideas. I think this reading will be helpful for the class. The templates offer a lot of great examples that can be used in our writing.

Reading Response Politics and the English Language.

In this essay, Orwell tries to educate the reader on the differences between good English and bad English. At the very start of his writing, Orwell makes his point about writing: "It becomes ugly and inaccurate because our thoughts are foolish, but the slovenliness of our language makes it easier for us to have foolish thoughts." To help make his point, Orwell gives a few examples of what he thinks is poor writing. Then, he breaks the essay up into different parts and explains a little for each part. For example, he talks about "verbal false limbs" and gives some examples of it. He warns that passive voice ruins all writing and active voice works better whenever possible. He even takes a rather well-written paragraph and translates it into all the examples that he had just warned of. By doing this, he shows how much better the first paragraph really was, which further makes his point. What I got out of it was that Orwell was trying to say that horrible "modern writing" is filled with fluff. He goes on to explain political speech and the vague words used in it. Orwell makes his point very well and explains a lot of his beliefs strongly. I think this will be helpful to us because in our argument papers, we should try to use straight-forward language rather than fluff. Also, this essay is a good example of an actual argument paper. Orwell argues his point of view about writing and the way he thinks that writing should be. He gives examples to support his stance and uses firm language to back up his beliefs.

An argument of my own.

Building a valid argument with a strong foundation is a difficult process. In this essay, Ballinger strives to educate the reader on how to write better argument papers. He explains the reasons for arguments and and the dangers of a close-minded argument that is only focused on one side. After reading this essay, I have come to the realization that it is very important to explore all of the options of opinions revolving around your subject, essentially thinking outside the box. According to Ballinger, writing an argument "involves suspending judgement and coming to conclusion, hearing what has already been said and discovering what you think." In other words, an argument paper must be very well-rounded. This essay will be very helpful to all of us in the next couple of weeks because it gives us all a new background on arguments that we might not have possessed before. The chart that outlines the differences between academic arguments and informal arguments will become very useful to me. This essay also draws upon op-eds, which the class will be actively participating in soon enough. I found it interesting to read about Stephen Toulmin's method of arguing. Warrants and backing , two things I'm not very acquainted with, increase how "effective" an argument actually is. Finally, this essay explains some different ways of writing drafts, and some taboos to try and steer clear of. With all of this, Ballinger attempts to strengthen the writing of those students who are eager to embrace these methods. I feel like this reading is essential to what the class will be covering for the rest of the semester, and I will find it very useful once I begin an argument of my own.

Stop Arguing!

Ballenger goes over the basic types of arguments both informal and formal. He walks us through the basic rules and formats, but this is not the real point of his writing. What I believe he is getting at is why we argue. Argueing will go on forever and in an educated format like editorials it has many formats of outlet. The whole idea behind argueing is passion for the subject. Whatever you argue about you must have passion to get the point across. Points of arguments are to try and persuade the opposite person towards your side of belief. Using interesting points and quotes help back an argument and give it more supporting foundation. Backing the argument make it more realistic and give you more evidence to help persuade the other side. This is a very important aspect of arguments that is key to their validity. Also facts help you combat facts from the other point of view. This helps create a good argument. As arguments continue to evolve so does the depth backing them. Arguments start off fairly basic and change to become more and more complex and the facts behind them are more focused. Overall this essay shows us how to put the passion into our arguments to use them properly in support for ourselves.

Am i arguing?

Ballenger’s article on argument essays was very detail orientated, as well as inclusive and interesting! He discusses why people and cultures, in general, argue: they argue for the sake of it, are partial to the subject, think that it is a normal dinner setting, or oppose and disregard it. Whatever their standpoint on arguing is though, most people will conclude that it is a part of human culture and more specifically: American Culture. Most authors choose to argue for the sake of persuasion, and a good argument paper is basically a well written, persuasive essay that is “respectful” of all the different focal points of that particular subject.
There is a certain process one must take in order to write a successful argument essay including: gathering enough supplemental information ( as well as valid evidence that backs up your claims), analyzing your motives for writing the essay, looking at more than the two sides to your subject, taking note of your audience, and composing many drafts.
In my opinion, Ballenger really wants the writer to really focus on why he/ she is writing the argument. He stresses that if the writer does not put extensive effort into their piece, than not only will the mistakes show, but it will also fail to be an argument essay- which defeats the whole purpose of even writing it.

Reading Response

Bruce Ballenger writes quite a bit about what makes an argument essay a good argument paper and thoroughly details what a writer should do and should not do when writing an argument essay. Ballenger discusses the types of argument essays; formal and informal styles, each one is essentially used to for the same purpose but the approaches to them are greatly varied, i.e. the amount of research done, whether citations are used or not, for whom the essay is intended, and even what the essay’s topic is. Ballenger also outlines a few of the ways to start argument papers and some of the ways writers get into trouble with logical fallacies.

But what I think Ballenger is trying to get across is the soul of an argument, and the answer to the question, why do we argue? The reasons for arguments on varying topics around the world are numerous and varying, but Ballenger talks about some people viewing an argument as a way to impart to another group just how much one cares and wishes to defend a certain viewpoint. To some, defending and arguing for something is a much large reason to argue than to argue to see opponents lose or be put to shame and it is hopeful that one would have investment into their argument essay other than just to raise awareness of their own arrogance.

welcome to your blog :)

this is a test

Rawrr