I saw this quote on the bulletin of that place near Wegman's, you know, the yellow one that always has different funny quotes? Well, I was just wondering, what if that happened? What if everyone all of a sudden decided that they didn't care anymore? What would the advertisers do then? I was actually thinking of the Toulmin Sentence at this point. I don't think that the claim would change, but would they add more grounds and backings? Or would they try to find more common ground with the everyday person? Would they try to reduce the number of rebuttals? Or increase them? I'm actually not quite sure of this myself and wondering what you all think of this.
(Mary Quien)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
12 comments:
Mary, I understand the quote and your chain of thinking up until the inclusion of the Toulmin Sentence train of thought.
Could you possible clarify? Thank you!
P.S. I know I have already asked, but are any of you aware of what the assignment is tonight? I thought it would be posted on the blog. Thanks, everyone!
(Sam Maliha)
Basically, all these advertisers have one basic claim: "Vote for this person." In all these advertisements, you can kinda see all the parts of the Toulmin Sentence. Therefore, I was wondering what the advertisers would do, what part of the structure would they alter, in order to change people's minds.
And I actually can't find the homework for tonight, either. -___-
So I guess we dont have a homework then...
I think the candidates will put more grounds and backing to their statements. However, the most important part will be adding the qualifier, even explicitly. If no one realizes the potential chaos of 0% voting (since that's how the government is sturctured and without anyone elected, the government can't function), the country will possibly fall apart. Therefore, someone should step up and -claim- that people should vote because -it's the right thing to do-qualifier- and subtantiate the claim with reasonable backing, counterargument, etc-and all the other parts of the Toulmin sentence.
(Jennifer Park)
They say that "democracy is not a spectator sport" and that the worst voter is one that does not vote at all (hence your quote). Apathy would not change the claim, it would negate the need for a claim and an argument in general. By not voting, we show that we don't care.
If no one cares how our society works, our society would cease functioning. While Hayakawa says that cooperation is necessary, the existence of the Toulmin method shows that questions/arguments are also beneficial to achieving progress.
I don't really know if that was the question you were asking. Feel free to correct me if I wandered too far off the path,
Grace Yuan
If people stopped voting it would not be good for the country, but I think it would give the advertisers a good chance to shape up. During this presidential election it has really struck me how much "muckraking" and "mudslinging" goes on in politics. If people stopped voting, the advertisers would most likely support their claims with more substantial evidence to vote for one candidate or another. That would be quite refreshing, would it not?
And, just a side note, I had a thought that I would like to hear responses to regarding the Toulmin Method of writing/argumentation. If two people are arguing and neither arguer has good support or backing, would that end up being a similar situation as two people arguing, both of which have excellent support and backing?
(Emily Thompson)
Emily! Your question is so intriguing; it has me thinking in circles.
I feel that in an argument with weak support, one of the arguing parties would fade out soon enough. The discussion between the well-prepared debaters, however, could proceed for a lengthy amount of time, but obviously not perpetually given the time limits on human life.
(Sam Maliha)
(Kevin Trainer)
I'm not sure I totally understand what you are talking about in this blog, however in response to emily's question, it would end in a pointless argument. It's just like Mr. L's example of "It's your turn to drive" "No it isn't" The argument is pointless and neither side will ultimately have any reason to change their views.
As for hw? I got nothing guys... guess he forgot?
About the voting, I agree that if no one voted the result would change the very basis of the country but I don't think we have anything to worry about. I just don't believe that it would ever, at least in the forseeable future, happen that not one person in the United States would go out to vote. People want to control their surroundings and their future to the highest extent that they can. This is part what causes us to make so many commands and persuasive statements. Therefore it would be extremely unlikely, unless our country had some sort of catostrophic breakdown at least some people would vote for the president. This would change probably only if voting endangered their safety.
Emily, an arguement between two people without sufficient support would simply go in circles as kevin mentioned. There would simply be rebuttals without backing and grounds etc. All of the claims could be easily disputed on both sides or they would just agree because no one knows anything about what their opponent is arguing.
People will always come out to vote, given almost any circumstance. However a sharp decrease in voters would result in the advertisers as well as the candidates trying to be more interesting. I think it would actually lead to more "muckraking" because they would simply be trying to get the headline. To be rid of the muckraking it would have to be the advertiser and campaign manager's choice to risk losing their voters. That is their choice: Do we focus on the issues and try to get the voters who are people who know politics? or do we keep digging up dirt on our opponent to please the average intellectual level person?
(Kelley Volosin)
I'm not sure exactly what question you're asking, Mary, but I agree with Grace that voter apathy would solve nothing. In several African countries, the percentage of people who vote is minuscule. Why? The people know that the "elections" are a sham and that their votes do not actually make a difference. Hence, the resulting apathy.
But in America, when we vote, we show that we do care about our nation and that we want to have a say in where it will go.
Not voting only exacerbates the flaws of a democracy and negates its benefits. I am doubtful that mud-slinging would stop if almost nobody voted, considering that even in African countries with tiny percentages of voting, vicious campaign warfare occurs daily.
Here's a Toulmin sentence I came up with regarding voting:
Because voting indicates support in the American political system, we should almost always vote, as showing support for your country is a civic virtue. If we didn't show support for our country and vote, national unity would be broken apart and we would be weakened as a nation, unless a person were unable to reach a voting booth due to extreme extenuating circumstances.
Some may say that not voting is the only way to end polarized politics, but if one truly wishes to improve politics, he should use his vote wisely to effect a change.
Can you guys identify each part of the Toulmin sentence in what I wrote?
Thoughts?
(Eric Wei)
Post a Comment