Post 3 2011.02.16

I didn't really understand the necessity of this chapter. I understand the concept of why arguments are good and bad. Of course, someone makes a bad argument if there are illogical ideas, misinterpretation of info, and/or missing facts.
Arguments can be challenging situations. We need to leave all the arguing to the politicians and old people. We ( my generation) argues too much and for all the wrong reasons. Arguments should not be an effective way of communication, yet it is probably the most popular. Arguments should only be dissected and analyzed the way they do by lawyers (most of which go onto politics).
The biggest reason people hate politics is because of the misinterpretation of what it really happening in America. People will believe anything if one person says it right. I feel this is what arguments has come to because of politics. If one politician says something eloquently, his or her audience will believe it.

Post 2 2011.02.15

Strawman
It's easier to knock down someone's argument if you misrepresent it, putting words in the other person's mouth.
This fallacy seems to involve arguing with a person who is too stupid to comprehend what is being said. The person arguing wants to do is sound smarter by misrepresenting the information. A real world example is Fox News' coverage of President Obama. During this past midterm elections, President Obama was campaigning. While campaigning, President Obama made a comment some tried to tie to racism. President Obama said that Republicans can sit in the back of the car in regards to saying "No" to all of his (Obama) policies. Fox News commentators took this to mean that President Obama meant Republicans could sit in the back of the bus referring to the Civil Rights Jim Crow laws. Fox News tried to convince its audience that Obama was a racist. This is a classic example of the lies Fox News uses in its message and theme of anti-Obamaism. Clearly, the commentators were putting words in Obama's mouth that he did not say.

Excersise page 225 2011.02.14

My neighbor should be forced to get rid of all the cars in his yard. (claim) People do not like living next door to such a mess. (claim) He never drives any of them (premise). They all look old and beat up and leak oil all over the place. (premise) It is bad for the neighborhood, and it will decrease property values. (premise)

Yes, this is an argument.
The conclusion is that all the cars in the neighbor's yard should be gotten rid of because of the reasons stated.
Subargument: "It is bad for the neighbohood..."
Good argument? I don't think it is a good argument because the reasons for getting rid of the cars are not strong. Having cars that leak oil does not decrease property values.

This excersise would be helpful if I knew the correct answers. The excersise can only truly be useful if the answers were going to be known to me.

Post #3 Epstein Chapter 3 2011.02.10

What did I find interesting in this chapter? I found that arguments in general are much more complex than I would have imagined. I never would examine and/or analyze an argument in such depth. It was news to me that an argument could be worked out as to its effectiveness like a math problem. Arguments come back down to the fundamentals as to whether it is a strong, valid, invalid, or weak argument. I think some of our politicians could learn a few lessons about argument being considered strong or not. It is sad how much of our political discourse comes down to argument. Politicians argue amongst themselves trying to score political points but in reality mostly the extremes of each party get the say. Both the extreme left and right use arguments when looked at are not valid or strong. If politicians could actually begin to use stronger valid sense worthy arguments, then our political discourse could change for the better.

Strong vs Valid Arguments 2011.02.09

Valid arguments differ vastly from strong arguments. Valid is defined as having a good base for something. An argument that is valid has truth and reasoning behind it. An example is (premise) The Green Bay Packers won the Super bowl. (Premise) Aaron Rodgers is a Green Bay Packer. (Conclusion) Aaron Rodgers is a super bowl champion. The argument is valid because both premises are true and the conclusion is true. The definition of a valid argument is one in which the premises are true, therefore the conclusion must also be true.
Strong arguments on the other hand derive from the fact that there is merit and fact in the argument. In valid while the premises can be false and still be considered right, in a strong argument, the logic must be present. The above valid argument is truthful and logical, but valid arguments can be illogical. Strong arguments need true premises and therefore a true conclusion. My example is one I have heard plenty, men is mortal. Socrates was a man, therefore Socrates was mortal.

Valid Argument or Not? 2011.02.08

President Obama is President of the United States. All Presidents of the United States are American-born citizens. Therefore, Obama is an American-born citizen.

An argument can be weak or strong. The strong arguments have three criteria to be considered a strong solid argument. Arguments lead to many of the political problems we encounter.
In this argument about President Obama, I try to dispel the notion of his non-American citizenship. The premise is plausible; Obama is without a doubt the President of the United States. He was elected President with a majority of the Electoral College without dispute. As for the premise being truer than the conclusion, this too is true. Many people do not believe President Obama was born in America but was born in Kenya. People do not however try to dispute the validity of him being the President. The argument is valid and strong because Obama would not have been able to be elected President if it was not for his birthright citizenship status. People can try to invalidate his Presidency because they do not believe his citizenship.

Assignment #3 2011.02.04

Definitions of words play an important role in our speech. Being vague in how we use speech leads to many problems. How someone defines something as being "wrong", someone else might view as being what is considered right. This is where many arguments can and do originate. If I get into an argument with my friends over what we should do because of boredom, we may all share different definitions of what constitutes entertainment. If we were to use a more clear definition or synonym of entertainment, we might not run into so many screaming matches about whether seeing a movie or watching television are good forms of entertainment. Another problem of unclear definitions is the discourse we use can be hurtful. Politics is the prime example. Some might say Obama is a socialist, when the reality is no evidence supports such language. These people who claim Obama a socialist do not know the true definition of a socialist. Stalin was a socialist not Obama!

Assignment 2 Ambigious Sentence 2011.02.03

My mother and I were talking about finances, specifically about the tuition fee hikes and how hard it is getting to pay for college. I conjured up the idea about maybe dropping out of college because of the expensive price tag of a college degree. When my Mother heard this suggestion, she questioned me about how a big decision like this one would work in terms of a career. I told her about how I could find a job, then save the money earned to pay for college later in life. My Mother then said to me an ambiguous sentence, "You are doing nothing in your life to suggest you are skilled enough to do this." An ambiguous sentence is a statement that is open to interpretation. What makes my Mother's quote ambiguous is what does she mean by not "skilled?" Does my Mother think I am not smart or can not perform certain physical skills? My Mother's statement made me decipher the true meaning. This is the definition of an ambiguous sentence.

Assignment #1, Subjective and Objective Claims

David Kennedy

Professor Perez

Communications 41

2 February 2011

Different Claims

What people believe to be true statements are callled claims. People believe in truths and theories. Subjective claims are claims that can not be proven and therefore are open to interpretation. An example of a subjective claim I have recently heard is that President Obama is a bad President. This claim is a matter of opinion and open to argument. I heard this claim while watching political satire television. Many people feel that President Obama is socializing and bankrupting America. Particualr media outlets amplify this particukar claim. And certain experts and historians help try to justify and convince people of these beliefs.

An example of an objective claim I have heard is the Green Bay Packers and Pittsburg Steelers are playing in The Superbowl. Obviously, with the big game fast approaching, all the sports news and buzz is around the superbowl. An objective claim is a declarative statement that can be proven true. When history books about the superbowl are written, it will say superbowl forty-five was played by the steelers and th packers.