argumentation - University of Waterloo | University of ...

a r g u m e n t a t i o n

Would you? Could you? In a car? Eat them! Eat them! Here they are.

... You may like them. You will see.

You may like them in a tree! …

A train! A train! A train! A train!

Could you, would you, on a train?

—Sam I Am

e n g l i s h 4 0 9 A

1:00-2:20 MW, EV1 132 Randy Harris, HH247, x35362, [email protected] Office Hours: Mon, 9:30-10:30, Thurs, 10:00-11:00

c o u r s e e p i t o m e

There is a tension in arguing, an inevitable and productive one, but one which frequently leads to imbalance—of discourses, of people, of relationships, of entire cultures. This tension is between arguing to pursue knowledge, find agreement, and think through issues collectively, on the one hand; and arguing to win, exert dominance, and score points, on the other. We will study these practices with the help of folks like Aristotle of Leontini, Theodore S. Geissel, Hermogenes of Tarsus, Stephen Toulmin, Chaim Perelman, Lucie Olbrecht-Tyteca, Mikhail Bakhtin, Kenneth Burke, Jeanne Fahnestock, John Cleese and Michael Palin. Our main job this term will be to find points of balance in arguments—not compromise, necessarily, because one side can certainly be right, or mostly right, but points on which the argument pivots one way or the other, to probe its workings and explore the recalcitrant commitments. We will aim big: to better develop our ways of understanding and shaping ourselves, others, and our world. We aim to be better rhetors, better friends, better citizens, better people.

e n g l i s h 4 0 9 a p a g e 2

r a n d y h a r r i s , h h 2 4 7 , x 3 5 3 6 2 , r a h a @ u w a t e r l o o . c a

Cooperation may not always beget cooperation, but antagonism always begets antagonism.

— Michael Gilbert

c o u r s e d e f i n i t i o n

argumentation, noun; the principles governing acts of cooperative competition, and competitive cooperation, over standpoints.

c o u r s e o b j e c t i v e s

The objectives of 409A are the objectives of liberal arts (the arts of liberty) as a way of life: the enhancement of critical thinking in both the private sphere (exercising judgement) and the public sphere (engaging others).

Our specific knowledge outcomes include: what rhetorical argumentation is as a field, and what it allows us to say about ourselves and our politico-cultural habitat; how we are shaped by our habitat, for good and for ill; what tools and strategies argumentation offers for resisting some of that shaping and for enhancing some of that shaping, for knowing what to resist and what to enhance.

r e q u i r e d t e x t s

Christopher Tindale. 2004. Rhetorical Argumentation: Principles of Theory and Practice. Sage Publications Inc. There is also an e-version of this book. I prefer hardcopies myself, and I prefer people not to use digital appliances in the class, so my drothers are for you to get the hardcopy. But there are substantial savings with an e-version. There is even a rental option (of 180 days), for more savings yet. Up to you.

Fahnestock, Jeanne. 1999. Rhetorical Figures in Science. New York: Oxford University Press. (I have not ordered this book, however. It is unfortunately overpriced, and we will not be using the whole volume. So, please note, it is not in the bookstore. The library has an online copy, which is on reserve. If you wish a hard copy, which I recommend—it is a classic—I suggest you look to online used-book sites like Alibris and AbeBooks. )

Newspapers, videos, online fora. Read/view them frequently, on the lookout for arguments. In the newspapers, for instance, read the editorial pages, op-ed pages, columnists, and letters especially; with videos, look for opinion pieces and rants. But when you start looking for standpoints and their support systems, you'll see them in movie reviews, advertisements, even news reports and sports articles and How I Met Your Mother episodes. Your weekly analyses will be drawn from this body of discourse.

r e c o m m e d e d t e x t

Michael Gilbert. 2014. Arguing with People. Peterborough: Broadview Press.

e n g l i s h 4 0 9 a p a g e 3


The question is not "Who am I?" but "Who are we?"

— Wayne Booth

f o r m a l r e q u i r e m e n t s

take home midterm (19 June – 26 June) 20%

proposal (5 July) 10% essay (24 July) 25%

final (TBA) 20%

course participation 25% 15% for analyses 10% for being argumentative

e x a m s 1 9 j u n e - 2 6 j u n e ; t b a

The take-home midterm will be an analysis and a counter-argument, to a text I will provide; you will be expected to use the terminology of the course knowledgeably, to analyze, to evaluate, and to counter the text, as well as to use proper citation style and properly reference any research you do (which is not required, and should be limited to facts pertaining to the argument; no additional research into theories or methods).

The final exam will also involve analysis, but will include lots of fact-based questions (short answer, true-false).

e s s a y 2 9 n o v .

The essay should analyze an argumentative exchange (that is, it will involve at least two sides), delivering a verdict on which side is the strongest, and extending that side as necessary. It should be a research essay, of roughly 3,000 words, with a minimum of eight documented sources, including evidentiary sources and theory/method sources, on each side of the argument.

A proposal is required for the essay on or by 5 July: a one-page plan, which you will then discuss with me. The proposal should identify the exchange, note its defining characteristics, and state the standpoint you will be arguing. The proposal should include preliminary research on the argument, and on the methods you will be deploying.

In the end, the essay should say something meaningful both about argumentation and about the specific arguments under analysis.

e n g l i s h 4 0 9 a p a g e 4


I move more freely toward an object in proportion to the number of reasons which compel me.

—René Descartes

m y e v a l u a t i o n o f t h e e s s a y will depend on the soundness, analytical sophistication, research depth, and the cogency of your argument, along the following metrics:

essay proposal

Articulation of your standpoint 2%

10%

Structure of your argument 3%

Research synopsis (methods, evidence) 3%

Style and grammar (sentence and paragraph structure, citation conventions, diction, spelling, punctuation, agreement, citations, ...)

2%

final essay

Articulation and framing of your standpoint 10%

90%

Research (quality of sources; description of concepts) 15%

Evidence (for claims, about methods) 25%

Argumentation (relevance, coherence, structure) 35%

Style and grammar (as above) 15%

a n a l y s e s w e e k l y 8 m a y - 1 4 j u l y

These are eight submissions, of 300-500 words, due each week (with a few exceptions; see the schedule), on Friday by 6:00 PM. Post them to the relevant discussion forum on Learn They are worth 15% in total, but they will not be graded. If you complete them all, on time and to spec, you get a full 15% of your final grade. If you miss one, you will get 10%. If you miss two or more, you will get 0% (yep, zero). You must post one every Friday, with a few exceptions. There is no submission due on 16 or 22 June (during the midterm period); there are two due in the week of 10 July, and you must submit at least one of those two; and you may take any two weeks off as floaters—your choice.

Each analysis will be a response to an argument—an appraisal of that argument and a counter-argument to it (when there are multiple arguments, just pick one to counter). Please note that you must offer a counter argument whether you agree or disagree with the argument. Always choose the lead argument closest to the Thursday date of the week (e.g., for 5 May, choose the most recent Ezra Levant video rant posted on ezralavant.com to 4 May; for 12 May, the lead editorial of The Guardian

e n g l i s h 4 0 9 a p a g e 5


In business he who hinders the common task is a bad partner, and the same is true in argument; for here, too, there is a common purpose, unless the parties are merely competing

with each other.

— Aristotle of Leontini

(independent.co.uk) on 11 May, and so on.) I anticipate a few glitches here, especially with the more intricate assignments—such as the Reddit and twitter assignments the week of 10 July. But calibrate the best you can. Check to see if anyone has already posted before you write up your own response, for instance, and follow their lead.

I expect you to read each other’s weekly posts, to comment on them if you choose, and to refer to them, as relevant, in your own posts.

b e i n g a r g u m e n t a t i v e

Come to class prepared, contribute to discussions, participate in the building and the development of the course. In particular, think reflectively about all the texts and readings, and think publicly. Make sure, for starters, to read all of the other analyses each week.

Ways to get a good grade: ask relevant questions, make salient observations, look for and point out connections in the material, complain about the unbelievable pressure of having to be argumentative on demand, ...

Ways to get a mediocre grade: come to class, sit in your seat, say nothing, avoid eye contact with the professor.

Ways to get a poor grade: stay away from class, make long irrelevant commentaries, treat your fellow students with extravagant disrespect, ...

By the way, I am almost impervious to arguments that third- and fourth-year university students, in a rhetoric programme, destined for careers involving the professional use of language, should not 'be required to talk in class'.

d i g i t a l b a s e s o f o p e r a t i o n s

There is an English 409A LEARN page, where your weekly posts go, where your work will be submitted (the midterm, proposal, and essay must be submitted as PDF files: all files should named with your last name and the assignment category—e.g., Harris-midterm.pdf), and where you will find assorted materials or administrivia related to the course.

I also have a Facebook page and a twitter handle (both Prof Raha) where I often post summaries and overviews of class topics or links to pages relevant to whatever I’m teaching or researching . You are welcome to contribute, comment, share, and so on.

Nothing is at last sacred but the integrity of your own mind.

e n g l i s h 4 0 9 a p a g e 6


—Ralph Waldo Emerson

a c a d e m i c I n t e g r i t y

Members of the University of Waterloo community are expected to both follow and promote principles of honesty, trust, fairness, respect and responsibility. That includes me as much as you, which is why I spell things out in this much detail in the syllabus. If you think any aspect of my conduct, including teaching, marking, and counseling, is unfairly detrimental to you or the class in general, you have not only the right but the obligation to let me, the English Department Chair, and/or the Dean of Arts, know about it, whomever you are most comfortable speaking with or you feel most appropriate for hearing your views and the reasons for those views.

The late policy is simple: don't be. The dropbox for your midterm is disabled as of midnight 25 June; for your essay, 24 July. If personal concerns, including health issues, prevent you from meeting a deadline, contact me ahead of time to make arrangements; if unforeseen circumstances prevent you from meeting a deadline, contact me when you are able and we can work something out. Please note that bad planning, conflict with assignments in other courses, and video-game addictions (to list a few attested reasons offered by students in the past) are not interpretable as personal concerns.

Discipline: You are expected to know what constitutes academic integrity [check the UW Office of Academic Integrity site] to avoid committing an academic offence, and to take responsibility for your actions. Ignorance is not a defence. For information on categories of offences and types of penalties, refer to Policy 71, Student Discipline.

Appeals: A decision made or penalty imposed under Policy 70 (Student Petitions and Grievances) (other than a petition) or Policy 71 (Student Discipline) may be appealed if there is a ground. A student who believes he/she has a ground for an appeal should refer to Policy 72 (Student Appeals).

Grievances: A student who believes that a decision affecting some aspect of his/her university life has been unfair or unreasonable may have grounds for initiating a grievance. Read Policy 70 (Student Petitions and Grievances), Section 4. When in doubt please be certain to contact the department’s administrative assistant who will provide further assistance.

Note for Students with Disabilities: The Office for Persons with Disabilities (OPD), located in Needles Hall, Room 1132, collaborates with all academic departments to arrange appropriate accommodations for students with disabilities without compromising the academic integrity of the curriculum. If you require academic accommodations to lessen the impact of your disability, please register with the OPD at the beginning of each academic term.

e n g l i s h 4 0 9 a p a g e 7


As it is the duty of the master to teach, so it is the duty of the pupil to show himself [herself] teachable. The two obligations are mutually indispensable.

—Quintilian

Digital screening: The University of Waterloo utilizes the plagiarism detection application, Turnitin.com. There is a Tunitin dropbox on the LEARN site for English 409A. Please submit your essay to that dropbox. Here is UW’s boilerplate text about Turnitin:

PLAGIARISM DETECTION SOFTWARE (TURNITIN) WILL BE USED TO SCREEN ASSIGNMENTS IN THIS COURSE. THIS IS BEING DONE TO VERIFY THAT USE OF ALL MATERIALS AND SOURCES IN ASSIGNMENTS IS DOCUMENTED. STUDENTS WILL BE GIVEN AN OPTION IF THEY DO NOT WANT TO HAVE THEIR ASSIGNMENT SCREENED BY TURNITIN. IN THE FIRST WEEK OF THE TERM, DETAILS WILL BE PROVIDED ABOUT ARRANGEMENTS AND ALTERNATIVES FOR THE USE OF TURNITIN IN THIS COURSE.

The option this text mentions is for you to submit your paper (PDF only) as an email attachment to my mailbox ([email protected]), so that I can personally screen it for originality/plagiarism.

e n g l i s h 4 0 9 a p a g e 8


Trying to liberate students by increasing their powers to articulate is a militant activity, carried on in the teeth of inertia, confusion and ignorance.

—Northrop Frye

d a t e t o p i c s a n a l y s e s r e a d i n g s

1 May Rhetoric and Argument Tindale, I

3 May

8 May Argumentation studies ezralevant.com

(due 5 May) Tindale, 2 Fahnestock 1 10 May

15 May Figural logic The Guardian

(due 12 May) Tindale, 3 Fahnestock 3 17 May

22 May Victoria Day (no class) The National Post (due 19 May)

24 May Argumentation and values

29 May Dialogism feministfrequency

(due 26 May) Tindale, 4 31 May

5 June Argumentation ideals 1 The Times of India

(due 2 June) Tindale, 5 7 June

12 June Argumentation ideals 2 Your choice!

(due 9 June) Tindale, 6 14 June

19 June Midterm distributed on 19 June; optional discussion session on 21 June

21 June

26 June Midterm submitted 25 June Truth and all that jazz

Tindale, 7 28 June

3 July Canada Day (no class) The Borowitz Report (due 30 June)

5 July Essay proposal due

10 July Arguing on social media

Reddit.com (due 6pm 9 July; link will be posted by 6 July)

12 July @sarahkendzior, most recent tweet with over 10 comments (due 6pm 11 July)

17 July Rhetoric, Argument, Life, the Universe, & Everything

The Toronto Sun (due 14 July) Tindale, 8

19 July

24 July Essay due; course wrap-up, exam review

argumentation - University of Waterloo | University of ...

Documents