Here are a few things I noticed on Thursday night's debate between the presidential nominees for the Democratic Party.

  Dictionary.com defines affirmative action as, "A policy or a program that seeks to redress past discrimination through active measures to ensure equal opportunity, as in education and employment." Unfortunately the definition is quite accurate. The misguided aims of the policy are effective and need to be changed in order to assist those who are really in need. The current policy bases much of the criteria upon race rather than socioeconomic standing. It is in the focusing upon race that the policy avoids the actual discrepancies at hand.

You have read basic material describing the Toulmin model. At its simplest, the model says that any argument consists of a claim with support, and that the support takes the form of a warrant that connects some data to the claim.

In a comment on this thread, your assignment is to provide examples of arguments as follows:

1. Use the subject line of the comment for the claim.
   
2. Embed a link to a quote that supports the claim
   
3. In the quote, use bold to highlight the data and warrant.

My first comment on this thread illustrates the form.

Let's make arguments about whether or not there is enough argument in our culture. For your last assignment you were told:

3) As you read, make a list of the arguments for and against the proposition that the media and society need more debate. Open a word document in your computer to save the notes in.

4. Find a newspaper article or transcript from a TV show that uses the "he said/she said" approach to journalism. Copy and paste the link to the article you find into your notes.

5. Post a comment in the "Debate Debate" thread after it appears at on the arguendoclass.com blog.

Click on "There's more" to see what to do now.

Welcome to Spring 22007 on ArguendoClass.com.  Use this diary to post a test comment and introduce yourself to the virtual class.  More to come!

Final Project- Interrogation Bill will allow the U.S. to obtain the required information to prevent more loss of life domestically and abroad in the war on terror.

This is a diary judging the debate on Meet the Press between between then Senator Rick Santorum (R-PN) vs. then Democratic challenger and state treasurer Bob Casey.

In the debate concerning the Jefferson County Board of Education and Mrs. Meredith, there were a great amount of good points made.  Teddy Gordon represented Mrs. Meredith and her son Joseph.  On the other hand, Francis Mellen, attorney for Jefferson County Board of Education was on the apposing side of this debate.  I think that this debate could have gone either way based on the evidence provided.  If Mrs. Meredith's side would have provided more factual and evidence material this debate would have quickly gone the opposite way that I thought it did.  I think that Francis Mellen and the Board of Education provided more evidence with less negative impacts in their claims.

The following is the text of my Affirmative Brief from my in class debate on the draft and mandatory service as it pertains to the modern world and the war on terror.

If you find the following interesting, I would encourage you to investigate further and join my Global Facebook Groupe: THE CASE FOR THE DRAFT!

Please join and share your opinions.  Without further ado:

This debate was between Republican Ken Blackwell and Democrat Ted Strickland. It was the third debate in a series that took place on October 4, 2006. In judging this senatorial debate, I considered several aspects of each person's behavior/words during the debate. I watched for how man answered the other man's questions and how they each responded to the answers given. I also watched for who wanted pity from the audience and who actually provided the audience with a plan and a solution to the problem that is occuring within the Ohio economy. Becuase of the aformentioned standards, I believe that in this debate the clear winner would be Republican Ken Blackwell.

The Doolittle vs. Brown Debate was watched on You Tube.

debate

This details the senate debate in PA:

Before watching this debate, I set my criteria to judge candidate as being the consistency of their narrative and the quality of their arguments, both in terms of articulation and support.  In light of these guidelines, Republican Challenger Lynn Swann won.

The media has differing views about the outcome of the third and final debate between the three senate candidates in the Connecticut race. The Associated Press thought that Lamont improved in this debate.

Putting a fresh focus on the issue that powered him to victory in August's Democratic primary, Lamont mentioned Vietnam in criticizing Lieberman, who is running as an independent in his re-election bid.

"Iraq is Joe's war of choice, and he's been its strongest and staunchest supporter every step of the way," Lamont said in a speech at the University of Hartford. "And in the greatest act of audacity of all, he is now asking Connecticut voters not just for a fourth term, but to hold him harmless for his role in the most dangerous foreign policy blunder of our generation."

The criticisms were some of Lamont's strongest yet of Lieberman.
Full Story