Claim: People should honor the true definitions of “Patriotism” and “supporting the Troops,” not the political and media’s definitions.
Qualifier: Most people only understand the political definitions and “hard evidence” definitions.
Good Reasons: Patriotism cannot be limited to commercialism.
People will die for these terms; the definitions should be known.
Warrants: People should understand the difference between the two definitions.
If people are willing to die for something, the reasoning should be known.
Backing: The general public has a need for knowledge and that should not be skewed by any force.
Evidence: People dying for a word.
Government taking advantage of US unity and patriotism.
Authority: Various quotes from known public figures about Patriotism and supporting the troops.
Rebuttal: Some people don’t care about the definitions of words as long as it suits their purposes.
Response: Everyone has the basic need and want of being informed. If they do not wish to listen, they do not have to.
In my opinion, this essay was not suited for a Toulmin analysis. There are too many abstract ideas here, and not enough hard evidence either way. It is an opinionated essay, bound by those ideals. Most all of the facts are supported by opinions. I was able to fill in most of the slots, but am not sure if I completed the activity correctly. In my essay I was not short of evidence, and rebuttal was not needed, but the Toulmin analysis shows I was lacking in both categories.
I guess, if I were to rewrite this paper using a Toulmin style, I would have to construct my arguments on more than just opinion. More information would have to be brought in, this time over factual evidence supporting my claims. Also, I would have to think more in-depth about what I want to get across. Do I simply want to define how I view Patriotism, or do I want others to see that the definition has become grossly disproportioned?
Qualifier: Most people only understand the political definitions and “hard evidence” definitions.
Good Reasons: Patriotism cannot be limited to commercialism.
People will die for these terms; the definitions should be known.
Warrants: People should understand the difference between the two definitions.
If people are willing to die for something, the reasoning should be known.
Backing: The general public has a need for knowledge and that should not be skewed by any force.
Evidence: People dying for a word.
Government taking advantage of US unity and patriotism.
Authority: Various quotes from known public figures about Patriotism and supporting the troops.
Rebuttal: Some people don’t care about the definitions of words as long as it suits their purposes.
Response: Everyone has the basic need and want of being informed. If they do not wish to listen, they do not have to.
In my opinion, this essay was not suited for a Toulmin analysis. There are too many abstract ideas here, and not enough hard evidence either way. It is an opinionated essay, bound by those ideals. Most all of the facts are supported by opinions. I was able to fill in most of the slots, but am not sure if I completed the activity correctly. In my essay I was not short of evidence, and rebuttal was not needed, but the Toulmin analysis shows I was lacking in both categories.
I guess, if I were to rewrite this paper using a Toulmin style, I would have to construct my arguments on more than just opinion. More information would have to be brought in, this time over factual evidence supporting my claims. Also, I would have to think more in-depth about what I want to get across. Do I simply want to define how I view Patriotism, or do I want others to see that the definition has become grossly disproportioned?
No comments:
Post a Comment