This
course will teach you how to analyze persuasive sources and how to plan,
organize, and write valid, effective empirical arguments. We’ll spend much of our time
accurately defining the term “valid empirical argument” (hard to write one
if you don’t know what one is) and learning to distinguish between arguments
that appear valid and those that
actually are valid, as well as
differentiating between valid
arguments and effective arguments.
Specifically,
we will work on understanding, practicing and developing the following skills
and goals:
1) to learn methods of analyzing various published authors’ and public
figures’ attempts to persuade audiences;
2) to examine the linguistic and non-linguistic means writers use to
persuade audiences;
3) to evaluate how readers respond to such means and the ethical concerns
surrounding persuasive acts;
4) to consider issues such
as the following: the differences between propaganda and persuasion;
the differences
between dishonest manipulation and ethical advocacy.
(From the Course Catalogue)
Our goal is to help each of you become skeptical, critical readers and thinkers; ethical, intelligent arguers; and clear, objective writers.
Our
goal is to teach you all how to think like a lawyer, write like a scientist, and
come off sounding like a judge.
And our goal is to help you understand why these are valuable skills worthy of your attention and effort.
More: Course Overview
Argument and
Atmosphere
This class revolves around critical thinking, and critical thinking requires that we challenge and test one another’s theories and ideas against our own theories and ideas; therefore, you are expected to bring your opinions to class to offer up and examine. In return, I, and the other students in this class, may respectfully challenge those opinions by offering counter opinions, and I expect you to challenge my and your fellow classmates' opinions by respectfully arguing with us and so on.
As should be increasingly evident as the semester progresses, as long as
we all remain more committed to the learning process and the dialectic than to
our own egos we will all learn something without hurting each other’s
feelings. In other words, part of
becoming a persuasive arguer involves learning how to separate yourself and your
“opponents” from the arguments and learning how to get along well with those
you hope to persuade, regardless of your differences.
This is not an easy skill, but it is a necessary one.
So, if I disagree with you it is to challenge you to develop your ideas and not necessarily because I think you are wrong (or I know what is right). My job is to help you develop strong arguments and well-founded ideas. I will often do so by testing the validity of your existing arguments and ideas; I will often play the role of The Devils Advocate. Don't take it personally. Don't assume I am the Devil. Understand and accept that this is part of my method of helping you clarify your opinion, test it, and work with it in an effective manner, and that's what this class is all about.
And, in all honesty, in
my experience as a teacher I’ve often found that the students I disagree with
most wind up developing the strongest essays and receiving the highest grades.
Further,
the more you share your opinions with the class the more interesting our 150
minutes a week will be and the easier the assignments will be to write;
the less you share your opinions with the class the more you will have to
listen to me, and although I can talk at great length, I am not very
interesting.
So, whether you are an atheist, a Christian, a Buddhist, a Muslim or a Hindu, or are a radical hippie environmentalist or a red-meat red-neck; or you are from Baltimore or Buhl; whether you think Rush is a band or Rush is right or Rush is a fat hypocritical junky or you've never even heard of Rush, band, right, junkie or otherwise; whether you voted for Bush twice or aimed twice and missed both times, WHATEVER you think, I expect and hope you will all respect each other's opinions AND share your own.
Apathetic
students should learn to fake interest.