Argument

1 The University Writing Center “Because writers need readers” Research Paper and Argument Topics Race and Ethnicity Gender and Sexuality Multiculturalism and Diversity Advertising and Marketing Economic Issues Environmental Issues Media Issues Consumerism and Convenience Culture TV and Film Sports and Entertainment Race and Ethnicity • • • • • • • • • • • Should racial profiling be a legitimate law enforcement policy in some areas? Should Affirmative Action for state university enrollment be continued

My honest thought on argumentation prior to starting this course were that argumentation was going to very easy. I simply thought that it would consist of arguing with someone back and forth trying to get my point across. But i was wrong, base off my pro/con speech and the few chapters that we have covered i've realized that argumentation is more complex than what i had expected it to be. There is different ways that someone can go about when state their claim using Rogerian argumentations style

argumentation, called the Toulmin Model. The Toulmin Model breaks down an argument into six parts: claims (what I hope to prove), evidence (support), warrant (connection between “claims” and “evidence), backing (support for the warrant), rebuttal (potential objection to the claim), and qualifier (limits put on the claim). The first three parts are the most important. The Toulmin Model is an actual structure that can be used in any argument, from academic essays to commercial advertisement. It can also be

When looking back of how all of the arguments in philosophy started we must at least be willing to admit the universe had to come from somewhere. The Cosmological argument would be one that most of the universe will agree with, the existence that God did had some part in the universe. We all do not have to agree on the amount of input that God has had, we just know that he did have some part in it. The other problem is that no one is actually saying there is a true existence of God. Anything that

In this paper I will explain the Argument from Design. From there I will address what I find to be the two best objections to the Argument from Design. Then I will explain why I do not find these arguments persuasive. The Argument from Design is based upon two basic premises. The first premise is that if something performs a function then it is a product of intelligent design and is produced by the designer in order to serve this purpose. The second premise is that the material universe also includes

Cosmological arguments are one of the oldest types of arguments for the existence of god beginning in the world of the ancient Greek philosophers such as Plato………………. These types of arguments can be a priori or a posterori. Many great philosophers since have tackled this argument. Many theists have used this the cosmological argument to justify their beliefs in God some include Aquinas, Leibniz, Swinburne or Spinoza while many famous atheists challenge this view such as Hume, Kant, Russell. In this

need of new ways to argue: arguments that end positively for every member participating in the argument. According to Cohen, there are currently three different “models for arguing.” The first model, “arguments as war,” is where two sides treat the debate as a battle and are willing to do whatever they can to emerge victorious. The second model is “arguments as proofs,” where the argument has no adversary and is simply being proved to be true or false. The third is “arguments as performance,” and has

Logic is the foundation to a good argument. In arguments people try to persuade others, by giving them as many reason a possible, why they should accept their view of things. In order to do so an argument involves either a logic or rhetoric component. Logical reasoning should hold without appealing to personal feelings, sympathies, or prejudices. Rhetoric, however, does involve such personal appeals. Since logic is impersonal it may be less flamboyant and personally exciting, but has the advantage

discuss Descartes dreaming argument and evil demon. Descartes argues that there is no certain way to distinguish a waking state from a dreaming state. I will argue that the dreaming argument is not sound and there may be a possibility that there are distinctions between waking and dreaming, putting Descartes certainty into doubt. I will also argue the evil demon argument is a stronger argument than the dreaming argument. In this paragraph I will introduce both arguments and in subsequent paragraphs

Fallacies in Williams’s argument against Obamacare As defined in A Concise Introduction to Logical by Patrick J. Hurley, a fallacy is a defect in an argument from a mistake in reasoning or the creation of an illusion that makes a bad argument appear good. (Hurley 122). In the argument entitled “WILLIAMS: Why are we against Obamacare?” By Armstrong William, dated October 27, 2013, Williams uses fallacies to critique the Obamacare. Obamacare is an act of 2010 which requires everyone to have insurance