After reading this section in Ballenger’s book, I realized how much work was ahead of me in revising my drafts. Before reading this, I assumed that no further research was necessary in my revision and not a whole lot of moving stuff around. However, my draft still has a long ways to go. More research needs to be done, sentences need to be removed, paragraphs need to be revised, and the paper as a whole needs to be more focused all around.
I thought that Ballenger’s simile comparing a research paper to a relationship with another person to be clever. That’s exactly how I felt before reading this section, that my essay is good as it is and that nothing needs to be changed in it. Exercise 5.1 looked like it could be really helpful for initially realizing what needs to be changed in my paper. I have a feeling that much of my writing are just facts and other people’s ideas, and little of it is analysis and my own ideas.
Another exercise that will probably aid me in my revision process is the cut in paste. Many of my paragraphs will probably go under the “irrelevant” section and will need to be changed drastically. Also, the overall direction of my paper will probably need to be realigned to better point in the direction of my thesis statement. His sample questions pertaining to what pile my different paragraphs should be placed in will most likely also be helpful in the process.
Lastly, the website Ballenger gave out will probably help in finding some of the statistics I still need to include. Overall, this was a very efficient reading that will hopefully make my revision process a little easier.
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
Revision Re-thought
John Bonner
English 102
November 18, 2009
Reading Response
The final week of this paper is going to be solely revision. This is going to be difficult because like Ballenger said we all form a relationship with our papers and nobody will want to change. I know that I will look upon my paper with perfection, due to all the hard work I put in, but the reality is that I know that it is not perfect and that it is just simply a first draft. What will I do to get over this hump, I know lets do some exercises.
Now, I know that I may have had a mocking tone but I truly believe that this revision and the exercises will prove its worth to me. Like I said I am going to be stubborn and I need a way to look through my paper and see it with a fresh pair of eyes. Which is one of the processes I will chose to employ. There are certain people I know that I trust their opinion and they happen to be great at English, lucky for me they haven’t read a single word that I have wrote, so truly my paper will be looked upon by a fresh pair of eyes.
Along with the second look around there are some things that I learned from this reading that will benefit me, for instance the highlighting and the cut paste exercise. I believe that the cut and paste is what we will be doing on Wednesday, but I’ll wait and see. I know that if we do not perform this exercise I will do it for my own benefit.
The other point that I learned from this reading is how to physically re-write the paper, not change the stance but rather just take a step back and think to myself it my stance coming across clear and who is going to care about this subject. I know that I will learn a lot from this revision process, and hopefully make a great paper that I can look back on.
English 102
November 18, 2009
Reading Response
The final week of this paper is going to be solely revision. This is going to be difficult because like Ballenger said we all form a relationship with our papers and nobody will want to change. I know that I will look upon my paper with perfection, due to all the hard work I put in, but the reality is that I know that it is not perfect and that it is just simply a first draft. What will I do to get over this hump, I know lets do some exercises.
Now, I know that I may have had a mocking tone but I truly believe that this revision and the exercises will prove its worth to me. Like I said I am going to be stubborn and I need a way to look through my paper and see it with a fresh pair of eyes. Which is one of the processes I will chose to employ. There are certain people I know that I trust their opinion and they happen to be great at English, lucky for me they haven’t read a single word that I have wrote, so truly my paper will be looked upon by a fresh pair of eyes.
Along with the second look around there are some things that I learned from this reading that will benefit me, for instance the highlighting and the cut paste exercise. I believe that the cut and paste is what we will be doing on Wednesday, but I’ll wait and see. I know that if we do not perform this exercise I will do it for my own benefit.
The other point that I learned from this reading is how to physically re-write the paper, not change the stance but rather just take a step back and think to myself it my stance coming across clear and who is going to care about this subject. I know that I will learn a lot from this revision process, and hopefully make a great paper that I can look back on.
Revision. As I read this section from Ballenger, he pegged me in the first page. I have frequently felt that attachment to my draft that I worked so hard for, resentful of the expectation that I would re-write any of it. I have been heard to cry out "I wrote it how I wanted it the first time!"
With time, and much effort, I have gotten better about this. It is still not something I look forward to, but for different reasons -they mostly being the sheer ammount fo work my papers need. I know my drafts have weaknesses. Probably a lot of them as I do most of my writing late at night, after work. Having just been returned my argument paper, I heard the comment echoed in the reading "sound's more like a report."
I think my struggle with this could be coming from two main places. One; that I am not sure how much background information to provide, and I want to use all of the sources that I worked for, so I used it all. Two; that I had trouble, between lack of sleep and the large amount of time between my opportunities to write, finding and keeping my focus. In my ethnography, it developed as I wrote it, and I'm sure it's still a bit vague. In my argument, I'm not sure it surfaced at all.
But these are opportunities for me to improve the drafts. I feel like I'm standing on the threshold of actually looking forward to revising. I've gone from resisting making changes to the work I slaved over, to being proud that I can improve it and make it even better.
With time, and much effort, I have gotten better about this. It is still not something I look forward to, but for different reasons -they mostly being the sheer ammount fo work my papers need. I know my drafts have weaknesses. Probably a lot of them as I do most of my writing late at night, after work. Having just been returned my argument paper, I heard the comment echoed in the reading "sound's more like a report."
I think my struggle with this could be coming from two main places. One; that I am not sure how much background information to provide, and I want to use all of the sources that I worked for, so I used it all. Two; that I had trouble, between lack of sleep and the large amount of time between my opportunities to write, finding and keeping my focus. In my ethnography, it developed as I wrote it, and I'm sure it's still a bit vague. In my argument, I'm not sure it surfaced at all.
But these are opportunities for me to improve the drafts. I feel like I'm standing on the threshold of actually looking forward to revising. I've gone from resisting making changes to the work I slaved over, to being proud that I can improve it and make it even better.
Monday, November 16, 2009
Revising the Draft
After reading Chapter 5 in Bruce Ballenger's Curious Reader , the information provided me with a few thoughts on the process of revising my drafts for the final portfolio. First, I printed a copy of my ethnographic essay to execute the dirty deed of marking all over it with 2 highlighters. With trembling fingers I inched them towards the page to disfigure its pristine whiteness with bright yellow slashes. The marker tumbled from my finger tips towards the carpeted floor, as I stared at the untouched paper before my eyes. How could I do such a thing to something that took endless hours of thought and labored fingers upon the computer keyboard? I had cultivated the tight relationship to my essay which Bruce had mentioned in the beginning of Chapter 5.
Then the idea of cutting the precious essay into fragmented parts to hopefully resemble a cohesive article was definitely not on option in my mind. So, I convened at the keyboard restating and fixing the points that our professor, Christy Vance , had suggested in the margins of the supposed final draft. I carried my endeavors with me to work and asked fellow co-workers to mark upon its pure pages with the dreaded red pen. Now,the pages are passes from person to person receiving opinions to hopefully expand my work to perfection.
In the beginning, I thought to myself, how hard can it be to revise and fix the errors. It was more difficult than it appeared. After a couple of minutes of contemplating the changes from my colleagues, my fingers flew across the computer keys bringing out new views and language to improve the clarity of my ethnogrphic composition. Bruce was correct, this is challenging, but worth the endeavor into the revising excursion of my essay.
Then the idea of cutting the precious essay into fragmented parts to hopefully resemble a cohesive article was definitely not on option in my mind. So, I convened at the keyboard restating and fixing the points that our professor, Christy Vance , had suggested in the margins of the supposed final draft. I carried my endeavors with me to work and asked fellow co-workers to mark upon its pure pages with the dreaded red pen. Now,the pages are passes from person to person receiving opinions to hopefully expand my work to perfection.
In the beginning, I thought to myself, how hard can it be to revise and fix the errors. It was more difficult than it appeared. After a couple of minutes of contemplating the changes from my colleagues, my fingers flew across the computer keys bringing out new views and language to improve the clarity of my ethnogrphic composition. Bruce was correct, this is challenging, but worth the endeavor into the revising excursion of my essay.
Thursday, November 12, 2009
Exotic Invaders
Although nobody is sure how or when, African Clawed Frogs have managed to take control of Lily Pond in San Francisco's Golden Gate Park. The frogs are extremely tough and rather large. By this time they have eaten nearly every other thing that used to live in or near the pond; the menu including native fish, turtles, other frogs and even birds. Not just preying on them, the frogs have completely obliterated the other species' populations in the pond. Not to be deterred, once the clawed frogs were the only things left, they began preying on each other. So far as anyone can tell, they haven't migrated out of the pond yet. And aside from trapping and removing some of the frogs, little has been done about them. Much like an experiment in a laboratory, the pond is isolated, its environment relatively stable, and no new elements were introduced. It illustrates how a single species, once kept as a pet, can invade an environment that it is not native to and completely destroy it.
Here in Idaho, those same African Clawed Frogs can be purchased for your aquarium. There is nothing between the states that regulates the sale and trade of pets. What is illegal in one state can be purchased in a store one state away. Although it is illegal, many pets that are banned in a given location are simply purchased elsewhere and transported back. Species that have already invaded and caused irreparable harm in certain natural systems continue to be sold unrestricted and right next to other species that have not caused a problem yet, but bear equal ability to. Clearly the system is flawed and suffers from a lack of cohesion and enforcement.
It was written by a law student, Robert Brown, in 2006 that there are two potential ways to address this problem. One way involves amending the Lacy Act again to use a “clean list” approach rather than a so-called “dirty list.” What this means is; instead of what we currently have (a list of species known to be harmful) which tends to be functional after the fact, adopt a method by which importers would have to prove first that a species won't be harmful before it could be imported into and potentially harm the U.S. This would then have to be followed by the individual states adopting uniform regulations on the subject of what species are banned and how they should be handled. The other method would be to pass a single federal law that regulates pet trade and allows the system to be made uniform all at once. The latter solution Brown favored in his note, stating that it was the easiest path and could further be improved by also adopting the “clean list” approach to imports and by creating a national permit system. (Similar to Florida's system by which individual's must obtain a permit to possess one of three classes of animals.)
Three years later, we have HR669. This, the Nonnative Wildlife Invasion Prevention Act, seems to be birthed right out of Brown's solution. It proposes to create a “risk assessment process” for importing wildlife. Unlike in Brown's ideal solution, it would utilize more of a dual list approach, creating both a “clean” and a “dirty” list -or in this case “approved” and “unapproved.” It takes the responsibility for deciding what species should be owned as pets from the individual state and places it in the hands of the Secretary of the Interior. He, then, would decide which species are approved, and therefore legal to import and possess, and which are unapproved. The unapproved species are, naturally, illegal to import or own and would carry heavy fines and jail time for violators of the ban.
There are two major flaws in the plan. One; the proposal is not just directed at imported animals, as it seems to imply, but rather will apply to any species not native to the United States prior to the arrival of Columbus. This means species that are not imported at all, but are bred here in the U.S. could become banned. In which case, such creatures would have to be rounded up and “destroyed” being as how there is no turning away at the customs checkpoint for them. Two; they forgot the nationwide permit system. Simply banning a species all over the States takes away the fairness. The only part of the state-level system that does make sense is that individual states' laws are customized for their environments and their residents. People living in a state where their pet cannot survive in the wild should be able to have that pet, given that they will not take it to a state where it could cause a problem. This is where a national permit and licensing system would shine. Certain permits could be denied in states where the animal in question would be problematic. This would allow us to have our freedom of choice in pets, so long as we are willing to go through the steps of obtaining a permit and licensing our pets.
Here in Idaho, those same African Clawed Frogs can be purchased for your aquarium. There is nothing between the states that regulates the sale and trade of pets. What is illegal in one state can be purchased in a store one state away. Although it is illegal, many pets that are banned in a given location are simply purchased elsewhere and transported back. Species that have already invaded and caused irreparable harm in certain natural systems continue to be sold unrestricted and right next to other species that have not caused a problem yet, but bear equal ability to. Clearly the system is flawed and suffers from a lack of cohesion and enforcement.
It was written by a law student, Robert Brown, in 2006 that there are two potential ways to address this problem. One way involves amending the Lacy Act again to use a “clean list” approach rather than a so-called “dirty list.” What this means is; instead of what we currently have (a list of species known to be harmful) which tends to be functional after the fact, adopt a method by which importers would have to prove first that a species won't be harmful before it could be imported into and potentially harm the U.S. This would then have to be followed by the individual states adopting uniform regulations on the subject of what species are banned and how they should be handled. The other method would be to pass a single federal law that regulates pet trade and allows the system to be made uniform all at once. The latter solution Brown favored in his note, stating that it was the easiest path and could further be improved by also adopting the “clean list” approach to imports and by creating a national permit system. (Similar to Florida's system by which individual's must obtain a permit to possess one of three classes of animals.)
Three years later, we have HR669. This, the Nonnative Wildlife Invasion Prevention Act, seems to be birthed right out of Brown's solution. It proposes to create a “risk assessment process” for importing wildlife. Unlike in Brown's ideal solution, it would utilize more of a dual list approach, creating both a “clean” and a “dirty” list -or in this case “approved” and “unapproved.” It takes the responsibility for deciding what species should be owned as pets from the individual state and places it in the hands of the Secretary of the Interior. He, then, would decide which species are approved, and therefore legal to import and possess, and which are unapproved. The unapproved species are, naturally, illegal to import or own and would carry heavy fines and jail time for violators of the ban.
There are two major flaws in the plan. One; the proposal is not just directed at imported animals, as it seems to imply, but rather will apply to any species not native to the United States prior to the arrival of Columbus. This means species that are not imported at all, but are bred here in the U.S. could become banned. In which case, such creatures would have to be rounded up and “destroyed” being as how there is no turning away at the customs checkpoint for them. Two; they forgot the nationwide permit system. Simply banning a species all over the States takes away the fairness. The only part of the state-level system that does make sense is that individual states' laws are customized for their environments and their residents. People living in a state where their pet cannot survive in the wild should be able to have that pet, given that they will not take it to a state where it could cause a problem. This is where a national permit and licensing system would shine. Certain permits could be denied in states where the animal in question would be problematic. This would allow us to have our freedom of choice in pets, so long as we are willing to go through the steps of obtaining a permit and licensing our pets.
Is Religion Necessary?
In the past, many countries across the world thought it was an act of lunacy to declare no religious affiliation. Everyone it seemed believed in some sort of God and also a place of absolute paradise when entering the afterlife. Many people these days still believe this is true, that a society would turn to chaos and become filled with immoral people. However, the percentage of Americans who declare themselves Christians is quickly decreasing, and the number of Americans claiming to be nonreligious has doubled in the passed twenty years. Jon Meacham believes that the religious foundations that our country was built on appear to be crumbling under our feet as we know it, and this has me wondering, why is religion now starting to disappear in today’s society? Is it even necessary for humanity to function?
William Donahue, who is President of the Catholic League, believes that individualism is a main reason why religion today appears to be fading. In America’s past, most people conformed to popular beliefs. Going against the norm of society would often lead to rejection of peers an even family members. Times are now changing in America, and people are starting to do what they want to do and believe in whatever they feel is right to believe in, regardless of other’s views of that belief.
Don’t get me wrong. Religion can be an extremely positive aspect in some societies. According to Phil Zuckerman, churches can strengthen bonds within the community, and families who attend church claim to have higher life satisfaction, better family life, and fewer cases of depression.
However, there is no correlation between believing in God and having a strong moral sense. Some of the most religious areas in the world are also the most violent and dangerous. In fact, some statistics prove that some nonreligious countries actually have happier, safer lives some religious communities. Zuckerman proved this by traveling to Denmark, a country known for its almost nonexistent belief in God. Surveys have shown that Scandinavia, the area that includes Denmark, is one of the most peaceful places on Earth, home to “one of the lowest crime and corruption rates in the world.”
William Donahue, who is President of the Catholic League, believes that individualism is a main reason why religion today appears to be fading. In America’s past, most people conformed to popular beliefs. Going against the norm of society would often lead to rejection of peers an even family members. Times are now changing in America, and people are starting to do what they want to do and believe in whatever they feel is right to believe in, regardless of other’s views of that belief.
Don’t get me wrong. Religion can be an extremely positive aspect in some societies. According to Phil Zuckerman, churches can strengthen bonds within the community, and families who attend church claim to have higher life satisfaction, better family life, and fewer cases of depression.
However, there is no correlation between believing in God and having a strong moral sense. Some of the most religious areas in the world are also the most violent and dangerous. In fact, some statistics prove that some nonreligious countries actually have happier, safer lives some religious communities. Zuckerman proved this by traveling to Denmark, a country known for its almost nonexistent belief in God. Surveys have shown that Scandinavia, the area that includes Denmark, is one of the most peaceful places on Earth, home to “one of the lowest crime and corruption rates in the world.”
THE EGO
Why do people always feel the need to be defensive about every little thing? I mean you say something to someone, any little thing and they automatically pick it apart. Everyone does this. To feel defensive is just human nature, right? I disagree. These feelings of pointless aggressiveness and defensiveness are main functions controlled by the section of your personality titled: "the ego".
Everyone has an ego. Although some peoples egos are more prominent then others, the ego is there. It is important to recognize it because, the ego really isn't you. Yes, that's right, there is something living inside of you, that can control the way you react to and feel about certain situations. There is really no importance to the ego, in fact, it is actually a very negative thing. in fact some psychologists call it "the enemy inside of you".
The ego is not you, although it is hard to distinguish the difference. That little voice in your head is not you. Like when you first see someone, there is a voice in your head that automatically judges them based on their physical appearance. Or, have you ever noticed how your mental image of yourself isn't quite how you really look? I mean, it still looks like you, but all those stupid tiny imperfections you hate are just gone? That image in your head is not you, but your egos mental manifestation.
When you say 'I' in a sentence, who exactly are you referring to? Yourself in the physical sense of the word, or your mental image of yourself?
It is necessary to rid yourself of your ego. Not only because it will help you lead a happier and more conflict-free life, but also because the ego creates real enemies. They start off as fake enemies, someone says something that you take wrong and get offended, even though they didn't really mean any offense. But then they turn real, as in, an argument starts, and then maybe a fight breaks out, and then maybe you get stabbed in the jugular by a broken bottle. this is extreme, but the point is, letting your ego take control isn't just dangerous for your mind, it is also dangerous for your physical body.
In ancient religions the ego was known as the devil, which is funny, because the ego created the devil so you would have someone else to blame.
The ego is smart and manipulative, and will do whatever it can to get what it deems as necessary for its survival. Don't be a victim. Dissolve your ego today!
Everyone has an ego. Although some peoples egos are more prominent then others, the ego is there. It is important to recognize it because, the ego really isn't you. Yes, that's right, there is something living inside of you, that can control the way you react to and feel about certain situations. There is really no importance to the ego, in fact, it is actually a very negative thing. in fact some psychologists call it "the enemy inside of you".
The ego is not you, although it is hard to distinguish the difference. That little voice in your head is not you. Like when you first see someone, there is a voice in your head that automatically judges them based on their physical appearance. Or, have you ever noticed how your mental image of yourself isn't quite how you really look? I mean, it still looks like you, but all those stupid tiny imperfections you hate are just gone? That image in your head is not you, but your egos mental manifestation.
When you say 'I' in a sentence, who exactly are you referring to? Yourself in the physical sense of the word, or your mental image of yourself?
It is necessary to rid yourself of your ego. Not only because it will help you lead a happier and more conflict-free life, but also because the ego creates real enemies. They start off as fake enemies, someone says something that you take wrong and get offended, even though they didn't really mean any offense. But then they turn real, as in, an argument starts, and then maybe a fight breaks out, and then maybe you get stabbed in the jugular by a broken bottle. this is extreme, but the point is, letting your ego take control isn't just dangerous for your mind, it is also dangerous for your physical body.
In ancient religions the ego was known as the devil, which is funny, because the ego created the devil so you would have someone else to blame.
The ego is smart and manipulative, and will do whatever it can to get what it deems as necessary for its survival. Don't be a victim. Dissolve your ego today!
OP ED Rough Draft
Saundra Johnson
Christy Vance
English 102
12 November 2009
Is Winning Most Important”
In today’s competitive world of organized youth sports too much emphasis and pressures have been placed upon children to excel and produce winning results. Todd Roberts, coach and father to a gymnast, believes “We compete to take first place, or we don’t compete at all.” This has strongly influenced his daughter’s aggressive thinking even towards her fellow teammate whom she perceives to be a threat to her place on the podium.
PhD. Michael Kanters states a child’s development and socialization are mainly influenced by their parents. Studies have been done to demonstrate that young athletes imitate the attitude and actions of their parents. Many parents feel they are aiding their child to implement their dreams, but is it the child’s or the parent’s dream?
Sally White, journalist for medicine and science in sports wrote: parents, who make different attributions and hold different beliefs regarding the relative importance of effort versus outcome, may communicate those beliefs to their children, thereby influencing their children’s achievement-related cognition and subsequent behavior. In other words, as parents of athletes, we have some bearing on their behaviors and attitudes when it comes to participation and sportsmanship in their sport.
With the strong, competitive nature of sports, parents can unintentionally be overly aggressive without realizing their approach because they desire what is paramount for their competitor. Often, this creates a negative experience for their child. I agree winning is gratifying, but there has to be an improved method for encouraging our athletes to achieve their gifted abilities without crushing their spirits. Ann Michelle Davis wrote “Developing the appropriate atmosphere could certainly make a positive vehicle for youth development with cooperation skills are taught in the sports environment of the competitive arena.” This illustrates the idea of encouraging and fostering good sportsmanship while being competitive with other participants.
Author T. Orlick, composed “people playing with one another rather than against another, they play to overcome challenges, not to overcome people, and they are freed by the very structure of the game to enjoy the play experience itself” This philosophy enables the young athlete to view their participation as a learning prospect to advance their skills and appreciate the talent of their rivals to enhance their abilities.
If coaches and parents utilized the cooperation style in the mindset of their players, then teammates would view the individual efforts of each other as being important as the skill of each member. This would foster encouragement among players to conquer challenges, not conquer people. Therefore, each team member would put forth their best endeavors and skill in order to help the team attain its objective of being the finest.
I agree that effort does produce results, but young athletes need to be taught good sportsmanship qualities in a positive reinforced setting. Pressures need to be reduced on our young participates; so they can take pleasure in the activity of their sport. Parents have the ability to mold the minds of their young competitors through example.
Christy Vance
English 102
12 November 2009
Is Winning Most Important”
In today’s competitive world of organized youth sports too much emphasis and pressures have been placed upon children to excel and produce winning results. Todd Roberts, coach and father to a gymnast, believes “We compete to take first place, or we don’t compete at all.” This has strongly influenced his daughter’s aggressive thinking even towards her fellow teammate whom she perceives to be a threat to her place on the podium.
PhD. Michael Kanters states a child’s development and socialization are mainly influenced by their parents. Studies have been done to demonstrate that young athletes imitate the attitude and actions of their parents. Many parents feel they are aiding their child to implement their dreams, but is it the child’s or the parent’s dream?
Sally White, journalist for medicine and science in sports wrote: parents, who make different attributions and hold different beliefs regarding the relative importance of effort versus outcome, may communicate those beliefs to their children, thereby influencing their children’s achievement-related cognition and subsequent behavior. In other words, as parents of athletes, we have some bearing on their behaviors and attitudes when it comes to participation and sportsmanship in their sport.
With the strong, competitive nature of sports, parents can unintentionally be overly aggressive without realizing their approach because they desire what is paramount for their competitor. Often, this creates a negative experience for their child. I agree winning is gratifying, but there has to be an improved method for encouraging our athletes to achieve their gifted abilities without crushing their spirits. Ann Michelle Davis wrote “Developing the appropriate atmosphere could certainly make a positive vehicle for youth development with cooperation skills are taught in the sports environment of the competitive arena.” This illustrates the idea of encouraging and fostering good sportsmanship while being competitive with other participants.
Author T. Orlick, composed “people playing with one another rather than against another, they play to overcome challenges, not to overcome people, and they are freed by the very structure of the game to enjoy the play experience itself” This philosophy enables the young athlete to view their participation as a learning prospect to advance their skills and appreciate the talent of their rivals to enhance their abilities.
If coaches and parents utilized the cooperation style in the mindset of their players, then teammates would view the individual efforts of each other as being important as the skill of each member. This would foster encouragement among players to conquer challenges, not conquer people. Therefore, each team member would put forth their best endeavors and skill in order to help the team attain its objective of being the finest.
I agree that effort does produce results, but young athletes need to be taught good sportsmanship qualities in a positive reinforced setting. Pressures need to be reduced on our young participates; so they can take pleasure in the activity of their sport. Parents have the ability to mold the minds of their young competitors through example.
Give Them Choice and Controversy
John Bonner
English 102-009
Christy Vance
11/12/09
Now why is it that in all public schools we do not teach both sides of the argument of Evolution vs. Creationism? I want to begin in saying that I understand the usefulness of teaching Evolution and I am in no way going to argue that we should not teach it. The lessons that can be learned from Evolutionism are essential to our educational growth.
Evolutionist, and myself included, have had a lot of reasons for fighting against the teaching of Creationism. Just to get the obvious out of the way, the Bible or the myths that followed have almost no scientific base and are almost completely irrational, so thus they shouldn’t be taught on that reason alone. What I want to look at is the underlying facts of creationism. To look at a system that solely teaches Creationism can be found in church youth groups.
In an article by Bradi Noriega, she described how to make your youth group better or more effective. As I read this article I started noticing strange similarities with how warrior based cultures transformed the youth. I have personally experienced this gathering and can say, with remorse, that after words I immediately regretted attending. In Noriega’s article she explained the teaching template, first you gather all the local children of the same faith. Secondly you get them to play games that build camaraderie with one another. Then after these children have bonded, you stop the game, gather them in a circle, and teach them your interpretation of the Bible. Along with the lesson of the Bible they, unfortunately, also teach who to dislike.
Compare this template to that of the Romans around 40 BC. I have just recently read a novel by Conn Iggulden that told of the life of Julius Gaius Cesar, most notably is his childhood. During his childhood he would venture to Rome with his father and while there he would take part in an important tradition. He would gather with all the local children and wrestle and race their horses, afterwards they would be taught lessons in fighting, war, and theology. So like youth groups, you build camaraderie and teach them biased interpretations.
If John Locke, a 19th century philosopher, is correct in thinking that we are all born with blank slates, and that whatever we are taught we come to believe is fact. No matter what is taught, whether it is that all Carthaginians are evil or that God created everything. If we in fact are born with blank slates then it is more than important that what we take in should be considered valuable and recommended.
In defense of teaching creationism, one should look at the morality factor. In other words I believe that teaching creationism would give lessons in morality to those who can’t justify moral actions on their own. Hence to a rational person you just don’t steal and murder, for it is wrong, but to some they need to be told that it is a sin to murder and steal.
There really is no conclusion to this question of what and how you should teach, all I can do is present the facts and let you decide for yourself. With that you should also consider a resolution that was passed by the United Nations. It was called the Rights of Children under Article 14, it stated that children be allowed the freedom of religion. With that freedom of religion come freedom of choice, so let us give it to them. If we give the children an unbiased teaching atmosphere they are more likely to form their own opinions.
English 102-009
Christy Vance
11/12/09
Give Them Choice and Controversy
When it comes to teaching students, it has always seemed to me that you need controversy to form personal opinion. First you start with the foundation of both arguments, as to build the background, and then you have to pose a question in regards to the foundation you just taught. This process creates questions and with any luck an answer or opinion is formed.Now why is it that in all public schools we do not teach both sides of the argument of Evolution vs. Creationism? I want to begin in saying that I understand the usefulness of teaching Evolution and I am in no way going to argue that we should not teach it. The lessons that can be learned from Evolutionism are essential to our educational growth.
Evolutionist, and myself included, have had a lot of reasons for fighting against the teaching of Creationism. Just to get the obvious out of the way, the Bible or the myths that followed have almost no scientific base and are almost completely irrational, so thus they shouldn’t be taught on that reason alone. What I want to look at is the underlying facts of creationism. To look at a system that solely teaches Creationism can be found in church youth groups.
In an article by Bradi Noriega, she described how to make your youth group better or more effective. As I read this article I started noticing strange similarities with how warrior based cultures transformed the youth. I have personally experienced this gathering and can say, with remorse, that after words I immediately regretted attending. In Noriega’s article she explained the teaching template, first you gather all the local children of the same faith. Secondly you get them to play games that build camaraderie with one another. Then after these children have bonded, you stop the game, gather them in a circle, and teach them your interpretation of the Bible. Along with the lesson of the Bible they, unfortunately, also teach who to dislike.
Compare this template to that of the Romans around 40 BC. I have just recently read a novel by Conn Iggulden that told of the life of Julius Gaius Cesar, most notably is his childhood. During his childhood he would venture to Rome with his father and while there he would take part in an important tradition. He would gather with all the local children and wrestle and race their horses, afterwards they would be taught lessons in fighting, war, and theology. So like youth groups, you build camaraderie and teach them biased interpretations.
If John Locke, a 19th century philosopher, is correct in thinking that we are all born with blank slates, and that whatever we are taught we come to believe is fact. No matter what is taught, whether it is that all Carthaginians are evil or that God created everything. If we in fact are born with blank slates then it is more than important that what we take in should be considered valuable and recommended.
In defense of teaching creationism, one should look at the morality factor. In other words I believe that teaching creationism would give lessons in morality to those who can’t justify moral actions on their own. Hence to a rational person you just don’t steal and murder, for it is wrong, but to some they need to be told that it is a sin to murder and steal.
There really is no conclusion to this question of what and how you should teach, all I can do is present the facts and let you decide for yourself. With that you should also consider a resolution that was passed by the United Nations. It was called the Rights of Children under Article 14, it stated that children be allowed the freedom of religion. With that freedom of religion come freedom of choice, so let us give it to them. If we give the children an unbiased teaching atmosphere they are more likely to form their own opinions.
Friday, October 30, 2009
They Say I say
John Bonner
Christy Vance
English 102
They Say I Say reading response
I thought overall this was a useful assignment, that I know I will use. Even though I'm sure to most this assignment seemed a little easy. I don't necessarily mean the writing itself but the overall concept, of how to form an argument paper. The entire concept seems as if it was stolen from a science textbook. When you are forming and expressing a hypothesis you need data to support your claim, that would be the "they say". The "I say" portion of the concept is nothing more that you gathering everything you learned and forming that to fit your hypothesis. Now hopefully if you have searched properly you don't have to do too much form fitting but you will need to do some, to me that is the nature of argument.
The only other thing that I would say in response to this reading, is about the templates, I feel they will help all of us organize our arguments. I know that I will need to use this template in revising my paper.
Christy Vance
English 102
They Say I Say reading response
I thought overall this was a useful assignment, that I know I will use. Even though I'm sure to most this assignment seemed a little easy. I don't necessarily mean the writing itself but the overall concept, of how to form an argument paper. The entire concept seems as if it was stolen from a science textbook. When you are forming and expressing a hypothesis you need data to support your claim, that would be the "they say". The "I say" portion of the concept is nothing more that you gathering everything you learned and forming that to fit your hypothesis. Now hopefully if you have searched properly you don't have to do too much form fitting but you will need to do some, to me that is the nature of argument.
The only other thing that I would say in response to this reading, is about the templates, I feel they will help all of us organize our arguments. I know that I will need to use this template in revising my paper.
Thursday, October 29, 2009
"They Say, I Say"
Laura Catter
Cristy Vance
English 102 -009
"They Say - I Say" Response
I thought that this reading was a little too structural. I understand the value of seeing it broken down into a structure with the intent of aiding understanding. On the other hand, I don't think it is necessary to give "templates" for writing. The templates are very obvious and totally unoriginal (in fact, the very act of using a template for writing is a complete abandonment of originality that should boarder on plagiarism) and I have to hope that the writer did not intend for us to actually employ them, per word, in our writing.
As far as the rest of the reading goes; it was a bit repetitive, but drove home the idea that there are many different ways to deal with arguments and focusing on three basic ones. I can see how I'm going to end up using each of them in a variety of ways in my paper. My topic is somewhat controversial at the moment. I see a lot of people supporting it who are missing the important points, and a lot of people attacking it who are also. As I read through this, my mind kept going back to all of the research I've done so far and thinking on these points.
Now I'm looking at the support and opposition I'd decided to use and trying to consider how best to introduce and handle them. Some of them I'm even reconsidering. It is such an emotional topic that much of the reaction to the topic lacks proper logical foundation. It will be interesting, and I hope not too difficult, to stick with the facts and keep my personal feelings out of the way. After all, I want to inform others about my topic, not just whine about it.
Cristy Vance
English 102 -009
"They Say - I Say" Response
I thought that this reading was a little too structural. I understand the value of seeing it broken down into a structure with the intent of aiding understanding. On the other hand, I don't think it is necessary to give "templates" for writing. The templates are very obvious and totally unoriginal (in fact, the very act of using a template for writing is a complete abandonment of originality that should boarder on plagiarism) and I have to hope that the writer did not intend for us to actually employ them, per word, in our writing.
As far as the rest of the reading goes; it was a bit repetitive, but drove home the idea that there are many different ways to deal with arguments and focusing on three basic ones. I can see how I'm going to end up using each of them in a variety of ways in my paper. My topic is somewhat controversial at the moment. I see a lot of people supporting it who are missing the important points, and a lot of people attacking it who are also. As I read through this, my mind kept going back to all of the research I've done so far and thinking on these points.
Now I'm looking at the support and opposition I'd decided to use and trying to consider how best to introduce and handle them. Some of them I'm even reconsidering. It is such an emotional topic that much of the reaction to the topic lacks proper logical foundation. It will be interesting, and I hope not too difficult, to stick with the facts and keep my personal feelings out of the way. After all, I want to inform others about my topic, not just whine about it.
I say
I thought that this reading was very helpful in breaking down how exactly to format your argument. Even the title: "They Say, I Say" says a lot about the proper format to put your paper in. It is important to not just use what you say, or just use what they say. In an argument paper it is best to pepper in the "they say" bits with your overall "i say" paper. The best way to start an argument paper is to first state the basic argument. This was the first section we read.
This was a very useful thing to read, since I have been wondering how the best way to format my paper would be. It clarified things a lot, and gave me some really useful advice, although I still don't know exactly where I should start.
"They Say"
Saundra Johnson
Christy Vance
English 102
Reading Response
Developing the Argument
After reading the assigned pages given to us by our English teacher, Christy Vance, I felt a relief and comfort that had developed because the article gave me some insights into preparing my argument paper. The reading brought a new angle for me to ponder and choose which one of the three ways to support my thesis stance. Majority of us have an idea of how we wish to develop our essays, and the article gave us a few different formats in which we could build our arguments.
Producing and stating the argument question as clearly and quickly as possible is considered the "they say" segment. The most important piece of advice that I gleaned from the reading was to make your essay a conversation with your intended audience. Gaining this piece of knowledge will hopefully reflect in my paper the stance I have chosen to support. The templates are a good guide to help produce a cohesive, straightforward argument question.
The "Yes/No/Okay, But" section introduced the three most used techniques for agreeing,disagreeing, or some combination of the two. It is referred to as the "I say" portion of the essay paper. This part of the article showed some varied styles of how to respond to the "they say" piece of the reading assignment. This required study has been beneficial in showing me ways to cultivate replies to the opposite stance of the argument I propose in the composition.
English Language
Saundra Johnson
Christy Vance
English 102
27 October 2009
George Orwell's article, Politics and the English Language, is basically about the lost art of direct writing with words that make sense when put together unlike political speeches and proposals. He showed some great passages that had me thinking to myself, "What is this all about?" or maybe a few "huhs" here and there. As the article continued , I felt he was doing the same as he progressed into his own ideas and arguments. Then it became clear that he was being sarcastic and using his own agenda to prove his point.
It took me quite a while to finish the required reading as it lost my interest from time to time. I would simply put it down for a while and pick it back up to move forward till I finished the lengthy study of Orwell's Politics and the English Language . Sometimes , I would get lost in the idea he was trying to portray and had to go back to read it again and think about the passage's meaning until I understood his concept. Frustration would creep in to cloud my thoughts and delay my comprehension of his words. After reading his article several times, I finally got the jest of what he was trying to portray.
This was an excellent example of how not to write for our argument paper. Be clear, concise, and call a spade a spade and not a diamond. As a writer, I need to keep to my topic and stance clear being mindful of producing metaphors and over used phrases which could lead the reader astray. After struggling through to the end of Orwell's article and understanding his point, it should help keep my own writing on track.
Christy Vance
English 102
27 October 2009
Losing the English Language
George Orwell's article, Politics and the English Language, is basically about the lost art of direct writing with words that make sense when put together unlike political speeches and proposals. He showed some great passages that had me thinking to myself, "What is this all about?" or maybe a few "huhs" here and there. As the article continued , I felt he was doing the same as he progressed into his own ideas and arguments. Then it became clear that he was being sarcastic and using his own agenda to prove his point.
It took me quite a while to finish the required reading as it lost my interest from time to time. I would simply put it down for a while and pick it back up to move forward till I finished the lengthy study of Orwell's Politics and the English Language . Sometimes , I would get lost in the idea he was trying to portray and had to go back to read it again and think about the passage's meaning until I understood his concept. Frustration would creep in to cloud my thoughts and delay my comprehension of his words. After reading his article several times, I finally got the jest of what he was trying to portray.
This was an excellent example of how not to write for our argument paper. Be clear, concise, and call a spade a spade and not a diamond. As a writer, I need to keep to my topic and stance clear being mindful of producing metaphors and over used phrases which could lead the reader astray. After struggling through to the end of Orwell's article and understanding his point, it should help keep my own writing on track.
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
Speaking to your audience
John Bonner
English 102, Christy Vance
Reading Response
English 102, Christy Vance
Reading Response
Advice from George Orwell
When I first started reading this I was a little apprehensive but as I continued my opinion of it completely changed. I started to notice that Orwell was not talking at me, but rather to me. I started noticing little mistakes that I commonly make when writing papers.
The first of which is my tendency to ramble on, I can’t help that fact it has just always been the nature of me. When Orwell said that our language becomes ugly because our thoughts were foolish, I thought this was brilliant, which may indeed be a foolish thought. This might be the root cause of all my ramblings; I might just seem to get to emotion in a piece of writing and just never shut up. I hope that I can learn from this reading and improve upon the writing that I have already done.
The other thing that Orwell mentioned was about the way we can dress up certain words or phrases, so that we can give it an air of scientific impartiality to our claim. What I gather from this was that Orwell wanted us to use large scientific words in our paper to give our ludicrous proposals some sort of importance. He later counteracts this with his simple rules on the back sheet by saying that we should never use scientific jargon when a simple English word will do just fine. This is by far the greatest lesson he could have taught me.
All in all this was an important read, at least for me. I believe I have learned to clarify my paper so that I may be able to speak to my audience and hopefully connect with them.
Saundra Johnson
Christy Vance
English 102
27 October 2009
George Orwell's article, Politics and the English Language, is basically about the lost art of direct writing with words that make sense when put together unlike political speeches and proposals. He showed some great passages that had me thinking to myself, "What is this all about?" or maybe a few "huhs" here and there. As the article continued , I felt he was doing the same as he progressed into his own ideas and arguments. Then it became clear that he was being sarcastic and using his own agenda to prove his point.
It took me quite a while to finish the required reading as it lost my interest from time to time. I would simply put it down for a while and pick it back up to move forward till I finished the lengthy study of Orwell's Politics and the English Language . Sometimes , I would get lost in the idea he was trying to portray and had to go back to read it again and think about the passage's meaning until I understood his concept. Frustration would creep in to cloud my thoughts and delay my comprehension of his words. After reading his article several times, I finally got the jest of what he was trying to portray.
This was an excellent example of how not to write for our argument paper. Be clear, concise, and call a spade a spade and not a diamond. As a writer, I need to keep to my topic and stance clear being mindful of producing metaphors and over used phrases which could lead the reader astray. After struggling through to the end of Orwell's article and understanding his point, it should help keep my own writing on track.
Christy Vance
English 102
27 October 2009
Losing the English Language
George Orwell's article, Politics and the English Language, is basically about the lost art of direct writing with words that make sense when put together unlike political speeches and proposals. He showed some great passages that had me thinking to myself, "What is this all about?" or maybe a few "huhs" here and there. As the article continued , I felt he was doing the same as he progressed into his own ideas and arguments. Then it became clear that he was being sarcastic and using his own agenda to prove his point.
It took me quite a while to finish the required reading as it lost my interest from time to time. I would simply put it down for a while and pick it back up to move forward till I finished the lengthy study of Orwell's Politics and the English Language . Sometimes , I would get lost in the idea he was trying to portray and had to go back to read it again and think about the passage's meaning until I understood his concept. Frustration would creep in to cloud my thoughts and delay my comprehension of his words. After reading his article several times, I finally got the jest of what he was trying to portray.
This was an excellent example of how not to write for our argument paper. Be clear, concise, and call a spade a spade and not a diamond. As a writer, I need to keep to my topic and stance clear being mindful of producing metaphors and over used phrases which could lead the reader astray. After struggling through to the end of Orwell's article and understanding his point, it should help keep my own writing on track.
Monday, October 26, 2009
Words and Meaning
Bradley Armstrong
October 26, 2009
Professor Christy Vance
Words and Meaning
Frequently during AP English courses in high school, I read passages authored by some of the world’s best known and most highly esteemed writers and failed to grasp by which scale they were deemed great. Many of the pieces which we studied employed the use of far too many syllables to say little or nothing at all. The inspiration for these pieces seems to be derived from an arrogant desire to display one’s ability to write at a plane above that which we mortals are capable, and not merely at an educated, intelligent level designed to raise up the reader together with the literature. Those subjected to such thought-stifling compositions are left confused and uninspired. The objective of such writing is selfish and ought to be left within the confines of the author’s own mind.
Orwell’s essay left me feeling a bit too gratified in my frustrated analysis. After reading the examples included in his essay, the same feelings of bewilderment that I had experienced during high school English returned with a vengeance. In all honestly, I expected that Orwell would suggest several ways to improve the passage, while qualifying his critique with some sort of praise or approval. I prepared myself for that familiar feeling of incompetence. However, I was quite surprised when I found that Orwell’s assessment of those passages agreed completely with my own. I found myself making a silent and private oath that my writing would never be so priggish as to merit such an evaluation.
I found his ideas for good writing refreshing and helpful. His suggestion, “If it is possible to cut a word out, always cut it out,” is particularly demanding. If every piece of writing were dissected in this way, only the most meaningful words and phrases would be left to communicate the writer’s intention. This would remove the option to fill space with a lot of literary fluff and require explicit explanation of each purpose.
October 26, 2009
Professor Christy Vance
Words and Meaning
Frequently during AP English courses in high school, I read passages authored by some of the world’s best known and most highly esteemed writers and failed to grasp by which scale they were deemed great. Many of the pieces which we studied employed the use of far too many syllables to say little or nothing at all. The inspiration for these pieces seems to be derived from an arrogant desire to display one’s ability to write at a plane above that which we mortals are capable, and not merely at an educated, intelligent level designed to raise up the reader together with the literature. Those subjected to such thought-stifling compositions are left confused and uninspired. The objective of such writing is selfish and ought to be left within the confines of the author’s own mind.
Orwell’s essay left me feeling a bit too gratified in my frustrated analysis. After reading the examples included in his essay, the same feelings of bewilderment that I had experienced during high school English returned with a vengeance. In all honestly, I expected that Orwell would suggest several ways to improve the passage, while qualifying his critique with some sort of praise or approval. I prepared myself for that familiar feeling of incompetence. However, I was quite surprised when I found that Orwell’s assessment of those passages agreed completely with my own. I found myself making a silent and private oath that my writing would never be so priggish as to merit such an evaluation.
I found his ideas for good writing refreshing and helpful. His suggestion, “If it is possible to cut a word out, always cut it out,” is particularly demanding. If every piece of writing were dissected in this way, only the most meaningful words and phrases would be left to communicate the writer’s intention. This would remove the option to fill space with a lot of literary fluff and require explicit explanation of each purpose.
Sunday, October 25, 2009
Politics
Laura Catter
Christy Vance
English 102 -009
Response to "Politics and the English Language"
At first I wasn't very excited about this reading. As I read the introduction, I felt like it was the beginning of the same argument that I have seen several times already in my Anthropology class; that the English language is being lost and that there needs to be a return to “standard” English and pious observation of grammatical laws. It is an argument that I fundamentally disagree with, but that's another topic.
As I continued to read Politics and Orwell slowly came to his point, I found myself warming up to his topic. I even found myself laughing at his sarcasm a couple of times. He makes a rather moving point, so much that I am finding it difficult to write this as I look over my words and notice how predictable they are. The trite, warn out phrases that Orwell denounces in Politics are something that I have noticed and hated about my own writing. These phrases do seem to come naturally. On one hand, I would like to avoid them and be more creative – or precise as Orwell would have it. On the other, I feel like these phrases, this language he writes about, is almost obligatory. It seems like it is becoming necessary to be understood and/or to be taken seriously to inflate your writing with this pretentiousness.
This could be due to the prolonged use of “fluff,” as it is apparent that no movement was begun as Orwell plead to eradicate this type of writing by the fact that Politics was written some sixty three years ago and is still all too true. It is dated in some places, and some of the particulars mentioned are no longer prevalent, and it is also clear at times that his audience is not American students (“avoiding Americanisms”) but overall is still applicable to “modern” writing. If anything, it may be even more common today, bordering on mandatory.
As far as being a persuasive piece of writing goes, Politics is successful. I began reading it with doubt, but ended up understanding Orwell's point, and even agreeing with it to an extent. The actualy "politics" bit of it does come in a bit late. In fact, Orwell takes some time to develop the point that writing is devolving in the first place, and only toward the end gets around to mentioning the involvment of politics in this. But I feel like it was still an effective strategy and I think Politics serves both as an example of an argument essay, and a good piece of advice for writing in general.
Christy Vance
English 102 -009
Response to "Politics and the English Language"
At first I wasn't very excited about this reading. As I read the introduction, I felt like it was the beginning of the same argument that I have seen several times already in my Anthropology class; that the English language is being lost and that there needs to be a return to “standard” English and pious observation of grammatical laws. It is an argument that I fundamentally disagree with, but that's another topic.
As I continued to read Politics and Orwell slowly came to his point, I found myself warming up to his topic. I even found myself laughing at his sarcasm a couple of times. He makes a rather moving point, so much that I am finding it difficult to write this as I look over my words and notice how predictable they are. The trite, warn out phrases that Orwell denounces in Politics are something that I have noticed and hated about my own writing. These phrases do seem to come naturally. On one hand, I would like to avoid them and be more creative – or precise as Orwell would have it. On the other, I feel like these phrases, this language he writes about, is almost obligatory. It seems like it is becoming necessary to be understood and/or to be taken seriously to inflate your writing with this pretentiousness.
This could be due to the prolonged use of “fluff,” as it is apparent that no movement was begun as Orwell plead to eradicate this type of writing by the fact that Politics was written some sixty three years ago and is still all too true. It is dated in some places, and some of the particulars mentioned are no longer prevalent, and it is also clear at times that his audience is not American students (“avoiding Americanisms”) but overall is still applicable to “modern” writing. If anything, it may be even more common today, bordering on mandatory.
As far as being a persuasive piece of writing goes, Politics is successful. I began reading it with doubt, but ended up understanding Orwell's point, and even agreeing with it to an extent. The actualy "politics" bit of it does come in a bit late. In fact, Orwell takes some time to develop the point that writing is devolving in the first place, and only toward the end gets around to mentioning the involvment of politics in this. But I feel like it was still an effective strategy and I think Politics serves both as an example of an argument essay, and a good piece of advice for writing in general.
Monday, October 19, 2009
Brad Armstrong
October 19th, 2009
Professor Christy Vance
Fight, Bicker, or Argue?
Wouldn’t it be wonderful if we could all learn to argue the way Bruce Ballenger teaches? Well-constructed, intelligent, persuasive arguments would be the norm. Reasonable discussion and constructive conflict would pervade society. Societal and governmental issues that cause so much hate and harm today might instead be a platform for mutual understanding and growth.
I enjoyed reading the observations and instruction this piece provides on argument and inquiry; their differences and uses. In applying the material to my own ideas of what an argument is, as well as to the beginnings of my own argument for this unit, I realize that I am writing more from an argument standpoint, rather than from open-minded inquiry. As I continue to shape my ideas and form an outline, I am excited to put Ballenger’s methods to the test.
I don’t believe I am able to begin with “no initial opinion or belief,” as he states as the first step of his “Open Model of Argument.” I have begun this paper with a number of preconceptions that slant my writing, and even my research, in one direction. Although I don’t expect my ideas to change through further research, I am genuinely interested in exploring other sides to the issue I have chosen to investigate. Whether I choose to maintain my current position or not, the investigation of other points of view will add depth and credibility to my argument, as well as assisting me in gaining greater understanding and appreciation for those who embrace other belief systems.
There is one point with which cannot entirely agree. Ballenger asks a questions, “Rather than either for, can it be both/and? Instead of two sides to every issue, might there be thirteen?” He continues on to state that he clearly believes that there are many sides to every argument.
While I am in agreement that there are many opinions available on nearly every subject, there is something to be said for making decisions and choosing sides. While this open-minded model of argument may be useful in social circles to discuss issues without offending, it is not helpful when applied to real life. Every person must develop for him or herself a code of ethics, or a set of behavioral standards by which to live. If not, we must surrender ourselves to society, tossed to and fro with every change in political or social mood.
The most influential people throughout history are those who have chosen a side and have stood for it. Lincoln, Hitler, Darwin, and Mohammed all picked a side and argued it. I for one would choose to follow in their footsteps and stand for something rather than fall for anything.
October 19th, 2009
Professor Christy Vance
Fight, Bicker, or Argue?
Wouldn’t it be wonderful if we could all learn to argue the way Bruce Ballenger teaches? Well-constructed, intelligent, persuasive arguments would be the norm. Reasonable discussion and constructive conflict would pervade society. Societal and governmental issues that cause so much hate and harm today might instead be a platform for mutual understanding and growth.
I enjoyed reading the observations and instruction this piece provides on argument and inquiry; their differences and uses. In applying the material to my own ideas of what an argument is, as well as to the beginnings of my own argument for this unit, I realize that I am writing more from an argument standpoint, rather than from open-minded inquiry. As I continue to shape my ideas and form an outline, I am excited to put Ballenger’s methods to the test.
I don’t believe I am able to begin with “no initial opinion or belief,” as he states as the first step of his “Open Model of Argument.” I have begun this paper with a number of preconceptions that slant my writing, and even my research, in one direction. Although I don’t expect my ideas to change through further research, I am genuinely interested in exploring other sides to the issue I have chosen to investigate. Whether I choose to maintain my current position or not, the investigation of other points of view will add depth and credibility to my argument, as well as assisting me in gaining greater understanding and appreciation for those who embrace other belief systems.
There is one point with which cannot entirely agree. Ballenger asks a questions, “Rather than either for, can it be both/and? Instead of two sides to every issue, might there be thirteen?” He continues on to state that he clearly believes that there are many sides to every argument.
While I am in agreement that there are many opinions available on nearly every subject, there is something to be said for making decisions and choosing sides. While this open-minded model of argument may be useful in social circles to discuss issues without offending, it is not helpful when applied to real life. Every person must develop for him or herself a code of ethics, or a set of behavioral standards by which to live. If not, we must surrender ourselves to society, tossed to and fro with every change in political or social mood.
The most influential people throughout history are those who have chosen a side and have stood for it. Lincoln, Hitler, Darwin, and Mohammed all picked a side and argued it. I for one would choose to follow in their footsteps and stand for something rather than fall for anything.
Sunday, October 18, 2009
Connor Johnson
English 102
Christy Vance
Argument Reading Response
Bruce Ballenger’s writing in the Curious Researcher was very helpful in learning about what an argument paper actually is. It answered a couple questions I had about the process of writing an argument paper and also what to include and exclude in my argument. I actually wasn’t sure what I was going to write my paper on before reading this, but after interpreting and analyzing his advice, I managed to choose an interesting topic. The graphs showing the process in writing an organized and well balanced paper were helpful and illustrated how to initially start to research your topic, and the section on warrants and backing will hopefully help add depth to my paper. Currently, I have not chosen a side to my paper, which is whether religion is needed in today’s society. Obviously I will need to research quite a bit about this topic before choosing a side, because I really wouldn’t like to write several pages praising one group that I don’t even believe in. The different sides of my religion paper have very strong viewpoints and beliefs about the necessity of religion, so this will make it easier in realizing what side to pick.
Although this writing was a little long with some parts that seemed irrelevant to the process of writing an argument paper, there was some very constructive advice. I am looking forward to starting my paper, and I am hoping that reading Ballenger’s essay will make this whole process go by much smoother and efficient.
English 102
Christy Vance
Argument Reading Response
Bruce Ballenger’s writing in the Curious Researcher was very helpful in learning about what an argument paper actually is. It answered a couple questions I had about the process of writing an argument paper and also what to include and exclude in my argument. I actually wasn’t sure what I was going to write my paper on before reading this, but after interpreting and analyzing his advice, I managed to choose an interesting topic. The graphs showing the process in writing an organized and well balanced paper were helpful and illustrated how to initially start to research your topic, and the section on warrants and backing will hopefully help add depth to my paper. Currently, I have not chosen a side to my paper, which is whether religion is needed in today’s society. Obviously I will need to research quite a bit about this topic before choosing a side, because I really wouldn’t like to write several pages praising one group that I don’t even believe in. The different sides of my religion paper have very strong viewpoints and beliefs about the necessity of religion, so this will make it easier in realizing what side to pick.
Although this writing was a little long with some parts that seemed irrelevant to the process of writing an argument paper, there was some very constructive advice. I am looking forward to starting my paper, and I am hoping that reading Ballenger’s essay will make this whole process go by much smoother and efficient.
Argument Reading Response
John Bonner
Christy Vance
English 102-009
Christy Vance
English 102-009
Argument Reading Response
Luckily, I was raised in a house where asking questions and arguing were part of the normal routine or behavior. Because of this up-bringing I now understand what Bruce Ballenger is saying when it comes to forming an argument paper. I generally only have to act like I always have; ever questioning.
This reading material correlates well with what our class in what we are about to undertake, I believe that this paper will help me formulate my ideas and concepts more clearly. I might even go so far as bringing up my topic to another individual and see where the argument leads; you never know I might stumble on to a point of the topic that I wasn’t aware of being passionate about. According to Bruce, “Argument and conflict in some cultures is an expression of commitment and caring.” I hopefully will find this commitment and with any luck the direction to research.
This is why this material was important to us, it just gave us a new way of looking at our problem topic, and if it didn’t do that for you, I’m sure you found something to take away from it. Even if all it was learning about discussion group websites, like Google Groups. I know I personally took enough away from this to make my paper worthwhile.
Reading Response
Wayne Hoseck
Christy Vance
English 102-009
I thought that this excerpt from Bruce Ballenger's book, The Curious Writer, was very insightful and helpful. His information really alleviated a lot of the stresses I had associated with this paper. It really helped clear things up.
I liked the first graph he shows. It really narrows down the process into four clear steps for how your paper should be structured. Of course, he eventually goes into the Toulmin model, which basically goes into details about the different sections of a persuasive paper. It was very easy to understand.
I especially liked Ballengers points on how it is nearly impossible to write a good-side, bad-side paper, simply because most topics you could choose have more then just two sides. This really got me to thinking about my own topic. Since I had chose it, I have kind of been looking at it from just one perspective, my own. It kind of made me realize that I was seeing my topic in black and whit, unfortunately this opened up much more questions then it answered. I am not worried though, my research is going very well, I'm just saying, I might switch sides on my topic.
I also liked the methods of development that he writes down. I knew most of them, but honestly, a couple of them surprised me. Like cause to effect, effect to cause. I especially found this method interesting, and i think it will help me a lot with my paper.
I also liked his listing of logical fallacies, which will be helpful when revising my first rough draft. There are a lot of things that you shouldn't do while writing a persuasive paper. I was surprised at the appeal to popularity one at first, but Ballenger makes the excellent point that, majority isn't always right.
I think that this excerpt will be very helpful in writing of my own paper. But it also kind of piques my interest in the book as a whole. I like writing a lot, I'm thinking about picking up a copy.
Wayne Hoseck
Christy Vance
English 102-009
I thought that this excerpt from Bruce Ballenger's book, The Curious Writer, was very insightful and helpful. His information really alleviated a lot of the stresses I had associated with this paper. It really helped clear things up.
I liked the first graph he shows. It really narrows down the process into four clear steps for how your paper should be structured. Of course, he eventually goes into the Toulmin model, which basically goes into details about the different sections of a persuasive paper. It was very easy to understand.
I especially liked Ballengers points on how it is nearly impossible to write a good-side, bad-side paper, simply because most topics you could choose have more then just two sides. This really got me to thinking about my own topic. Since I had chose it, I have kind of been looking at it from just one perspective, my own. It kind of made me realize that I was seeing my topic in black and whit, unfortunately this opened up much more questions then it answered. I am not worried though, my research is going very well, I'm just saying, I might switch sides on my topic.
I also liked the methods of development that he writes down. I knew most of them, but honestly, a couple of them surprised me. Like cause to effect, effect to cause. I especially found this method interesting, and i think it will help me a lot with my paper.
I also liked his listing of logical fallacies, which will be helpful when revising my first rough draft. There are a lot of things that you shouldn't do while writing a persuasive paper. I was surprised at the appeal to popularity one at first, but Ballenger makes the excellent point that, majority isn't always right.
I think that this excerpt will be very helpful in writing of my own paper. But it also kind of piques my interest in the book as a whole. I like writing a lot, I'm thinking about picking up a copy.
Wayne Hoseck
Response to "Writing an Argument"
Laura Catter
Christy Vance
English 102 -009
10-18-09
There certainly was a lot of information in this reading. I am still digesting it all. Some of it was familiar to me from my Reasoned Discourse and Philosophy classes before -mostly the bit about fallacies. Ballenger makes references to a lot of other essays in the reading that I was hoping would be included. Particularly the one by Ellen Goodman called "Getting real in the Classroom." But, mostly for curiosity; he made a lot of points about it that I would have liked to have seen illustrated.
The section about Toulman was interesting. The distinction between claims and warrants is good to keep in mind. It is something I have encountered in others' writing, and have wondered about my own. However, I don't quite understand what he means by the Toulman “model.” Is he just referring to the process of identifying one's own claims and warrants?
The transition between Toulman and the following page tripped me up completely. It seems like a rather random placement for that bit of information on sources. Although it did mention some interesting places to look for facts (and I have to wonder if one of them might have helped me with my ethnography, investigation will follow), I still can't quite figure out why it's there.
The following section about development was interesting. I have learned about those organizational strategies before but Ballenger, in his way, puts some deeper detail to it. He gives good examples and uses them to help actually illustrate how they could work, rather than make it sound formulaic. From the beginning of this reading (and in all of his writing so far) Ballenger takes these things beyond “recipe for an essay” and tries (succeeding, in my opinion) to explain how it is done while stressing it still as something you do for yourself.
The sections on the fallacies (which are a good refresher), workshopping, and revising are likely ones I'll be highlighting heavily and keeping handy as I work on this project. I have an aversion to the word “revising” from past classes wherein I was instructed that papers were to be turned in in three drafts and that there needed to be marked differences between each draft to prove that “revision”occurred.
By nature, my writing style is very unorganized. I start with piles of freewrites and notes and slowly filter them into something that actually resembles an essay format. I have been guilty of calling it good at that point (particularly on the night of a deadline), but I know that if I just read it through once -well, I won't make it through without redoing something. Usually several times through. I wonder if we'll be taking a look at the “Revision Strategies” he mentions at the very end; or is there a version of those in the book we do have?
Christy Vance
English 102 -009
10-18-09
There certainly was a lot of information in this reading. I am still digesting it all. Some of it was familiar to me from my Reasoned Discourse and Philosophy classes before -mostly the bit about fallacies. Ballenger makes references to a lot of other essays in the reading that I was hoping would be included. Particularly the one by Ellen Goodman called "Getting real in the Classroom." But, mostly for curiosity; he made a lot of points about it that I would have liked to have seen illustrated.
The section about Toulman was interesting. The distinction between claims and warrants is good to keep in mind. It is something I have encountered in others' writing, and have wondered about my own. However, I don't quite understand what he means by the Toulman “model.” Is he just referring to the process of identifying one's own claims and warrants?
The transition between Toulman and the following page tripped me up completely. It seems like a rather random placement for that bit of information on sources. Although it did mention some interesting places to look for facts (and I have to wonder if one of them might have helped me with my ethnography, investigation will follow), I still can't quite figure out why it's there.
The following section about development was interesting. I have learned about those organizational strategies before but Ballenger, in his way, puts some deeper detail to it. He gives good examples and uses them to help actually illustrate how they could work, rather than make it sound formulaic. From the beginning of this reading (and in all of his writing so far) Ballenger takes these things beyond “recipe for an essay” and tries (succeeding, in my opinion) to explain how it is done while stressing it still as something you do for yourself.
The sections on the fallacies (which are a good refresher), workshopping, and revising are likely ones I'll be highlighting heavily and keeping handy as I work on this project. I have an aversion to the word “revising” from past classes wherein I was instructed that papers were to be turned in in three drafts and that there needed to be marked differences between each draft to prove that “revision”occurred.
By nature, my writing style is very unorganized. I start with piles of freewrites and notes and slowly filter them into something that actually resembles an essay format. I have been guilty of calling it good at that point (particularly on the night of a deadline), but I know that if I just read it through once -well, I won't make it through without redoing something. Usually several times through. I wonder if we'll be taking a look at the “Revision Strategies” he mentions at the very end; or is there a version of those in the book we do have?
Friday, October 16, 2009
Saundra Johnson
Christy Vance
English 102
16 October 2009
Op Eds are short, influential compositions with a decisive theme to the author's thought. The academic dissertation is longer and formal in its approach. An informal argument paper is generally shorter on length and has the writer's personality shining throughout the topic. Ballenger further expands our knowledge base by giving the 10 common mistakes that the novice writer produces in their composition.
I found his tutorial beneficial in keeping my information on track while mounting my evidence in a cohesive manner. Using his list of common fallacies will help me to remain focused and on track. Ballenger's lesson will be a wonderful reference source to double check my argument paper.
Christy Vance
English 102
16 October 2009
Argument Reading Response
The author of The Curious Writer, Bruce Ballenger, depicts diverse ways of cultivating an argument paper. He even describes the differences between the Eastern and Western philosophy about political debating in public which I found interesting. His lesson discusses the different modes of essays, such as the Op Eds, academic, and informal, and how to best formulate a cohesive thesis statement with validation.Op Eds are short, influential compositions with a decisive theme to the author's thought. The academic dissertation is longer and formal in its approach. An informal argument paper is generally shorter on length and has the writer's personality shining throughout the topic. Ballenger further expands our knowledge base by giving the 10 common mistakes that the novice writer produces in their composition.
I found his tutorial beneficial in keeping my information on track while mounting my evidence in a cohesive manner. Using his list of common fallacies will help me to remain focused and on track. Ballenger's lesson will be a wonderful reference source to double check my argument paper.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)