Based upon your observation this morning, your homework this evening is as follows...
Task the FIRST: STATE, as clearly and simply as you know how, one argument you heard given during the debate. ABSOLUTELY VITAL to remember: the structure of a philosophical argument (i.e., its parts). If you need refreshing, go back to your notes from early October and review the terms premise and conclusion. Remember, too, the argument you type is probably going to be a paraphrase of what the 8th grader said - I don't expect word-for-word transcription.
Task the SECOND: EVALUATE this argument. In order to do so, it will be necessary to use terms such as inductive, deductive, sound, unsound, valid, invalid, cogent, uncogent, true, false. Again, review your notes if you need to do so.
Task the THIRD (optional): If you're feeling munificent, and would like to show those 8th graders how it's really done... construct an excellent original argument to support either the affirmative or the negative. By "excellent," of course, I mean either deductive and sound or inductive and cogent.
Muhahahaha!!! Firsties!
ReplyDeleteexcuse me, where was I, oh yes!
1st:On the side against no toleration, no tolernation can violate a child's rights under the Bill.
2nd:inductive,sound,cogent, true(this specific topic is opinion I think)
3rd:optional? Sorry but no thanks
1st: on the side against no tolerance, no tolerance is rascist because more minority children are suspended/expeled.
ReplyDelete2nd: inductive, enthymeme, argument from ignorance, cogent, weak
1.If a child is suspended for doing something without bad intentions it is wrong.
ReplyDelete2.If a child brings in a knife, even innocently, zero tolerance will suspend him.
Therefore, zero tolerance is evil and should be stopped.
Deductive valid sound.
1. 1. On one side one girl talked about how Kids from different ethnic races were more apt to get suspended just because of there race.
ReplyDelete2. i believe that this is sound, inductive, and cogent statement.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete1. On the negative side, someone argued that students shouldn't be entrusted with full rights because they will abuse them.
ReplyDelete2. If without Zero Tolerance, there is more violence in schools, it is true that students shouldn't get all rights. This argument is also valid since it stays on topic. Thus it can be termed as a sound deductive argument.
1. An argument was made by one side stating that zero tolerance was not helping schools in a case with young children whom do not know better then to bring a potentally harmful toy to school for show and tell, and was taking consequental actions too far.
ReplyDelete2. Deductive, valid,
p.s Mccann Tech is not a zero tolerance school
1)no tolerence, when one of the girls were talking about having a paper plan and getting "exspelled" i think this was alittle unreasonable. Ii would think one of the teachers should look at where she got her infor mation. It sounded like she was actually high when she said that but, alot of the no tolerance were supported more with detail and examples from notes they had taken before.
ReplyDelete2)true valid and sound for no tolerance
sorry for the post to be late i usually do it first period but i went out to breakfast and i posted as soon as i got back home. I never forget ahhah
ReplyDeletei remember somone saying that car crashes are more threatiening that terrorist.
ReplyDeleteinductive unsound cogent mayby i think
1. That no toleration can intervene a person's rights under the bill.
ReplyDelete2.cogent, true, inductive.
In general the poor 8th Graders debates were riddled with fallacies. Often I would hear one side say that something was true, and then the rebutal would say that it wasn't true without any reason.
ReplyDeleteConclusion: X is true.
Counter Argument: No X is not true.
Whether X is true or not, without premises, the conclusion can't be made logically.