Riddle: What’s Gerrymandering?
The Rebuttal Unit
My Worthy Opponent is Wrong.
.
In your research, you run across an article by Bob Herbert in the New York Times that concerns you. Herbert sounds pretty knowledgeable, and you know he speaks compellingly for opponents of nuclear power in the US. How can you USE HIS ARTICLE in your Rebuttal Argument?
Does he make mistakes of logic? Does he apply his evidence inappropriately? Does he complain of cost overruns that don’t actually result in overly expensive power? Does he concentrate on one or two objections and ignore all the advantages of nuclear power? Does he set up a false choice between two options when there are other alternatives?
Read the article now:
If you encounter a paywall, find the full text (and more!) at:
-
-
Rebuttal Practice: A Price Too High?
-
To revies Rebuttal techniques:
Rebuttal Practice
Portfolio Task
-
- Task: Rebuttal Argument: My Worthy Opponent Is Wrong!
-
- DUE MON APR 08 (11:59PM SUN APR 07)
-
- Task: Rebuttal Argument: My Worthy Opponent Is Wrong!
Housekeeping
- All Feedback and Revisions are conducted on the Rewrite Posts.
- Please put Feedback Please requests ONLY on the Rewrite posts.
- Don’t, for example, ask for feedback on BOTH the Causal Draft AND the Causal Rewrite.
- I work on Feedback every day.
- The queue was down to 2 yesterday, briefly. It’s back at 4 this morning at 4am, which is fine by me. Keep asking as long as you keep revising.
- To move UP in the queue, post a Reply indicating what sort of feedback you prefer.
- For example, “I’m unsure if my claims are clear.”
- For example, “I don’t know if the quotations I’ve cited provide good evidence.”
- For example, “I don’t have time for another rewrite. Can you just please copy-edit me for grammar and punctuation errors.”
- Your Short Argument needs a Title.
- That name you apply (Causal—Username) is NOT a title.
- It’s just a name to facilitate finding your post.
- DON’T USE parenthetical citation notes.
- Refer to the Author, Title, or Publication in your sentence.
- Refer to this page if you don’t understand: Citation Mechanics
- Use the word References (and only the word References)
- Above your sources, at the bottom of your essay, center the word References
- That’s it. Just the word References
- Centered, not bold, not punctuated, not all caps
- For more questions and answers about Citation Mechanics, follow the links.
- Citation Mechanics (with the Daniel Flath exercise)
- APA Citation (with a sample References list)
- Citation Workshop (with good samples of in-text citation)
Invention by Naming
The Gamer 2.0
SleepyCat
Coffee Lover 03
doglover7025
Snowman10
excellentstudent27
Gymrat
hockeyfan
holistic25
ilovebeesss
ilovemydog
The Gamer
Naturechild101
BreakingBad45
ravensfan8
temporal111
thatpersonoverthere
toetio
username1132005
Calm&Patient
webbwrestler135
Counterintuitive Spring 2024 
Gerry meandering! you can find loopholes in the rules that you can use to prevail. Politicians use this method all the time. The people that have direct control on the quality of life in your area do it all the time. yayayayaya. Such as picking and choosing parts of an argument that doesn’t agree with you to work to your benefit. By either pointing out obvious fallacies or to present new information to their side of the argument and work it into your own argument. Example everyone deserves to live their life. If someone is arguing against that point I could point out that perhaps the reason they feel this way is because they believe that person has done something that deserves the loss of their life, or that they believe that person to be subhuman. One of these is easier to discount than the other, everyone deserves to be treated with respect and basic decency that allows them to be considered a person, though it’s harder to discuss the ways a person can forfeit their personhood due to perceived wrong doings.
Just break your opponent’s argument and fit it into the cracks on your own. Use their argument to fortify your own. The cracks in their argument can fix the cracks in your own.
For car seats to be unsafe you could argue that car seats could make parents feel safer driving in their car and perhaps they drive faster/ more reckless, same with the baby on board sticker, it could put the safety of the child out of the parents minds and instead puts the responsibility on random people. It’s the perception of the car seat vs what the seat can actually do.
Don’t try to talk to a wall, trust me the wall will not hear you. In fact the wall will call you a liar and that you have brain damage. The wall just wants to talk, leaving them to talk to itself or other walls.
LikeLike
Brilliant Notes, TPOT.
Don’t talk to the wall. It will not hear you.
5/3
LikeLike
-Riddle: Gerrymandering is a way of mapping the districts that result in representative government. This map is one I haven’t seen before, and it is connecting people who live far from each other. These maps are in regards to politics and are showing the red and blue sides, and the winning districts. The party that gets to draw the maps is going to win.
-The rebuttal unit’s point is to not be fair to the other point of view. Getting your opponent off of the all together yes/ no is possible. It does not mean that we need to double down on our side of the argument, we have to see the other side and respect it. The other point of view has to be respected so they can see that their side is heard. We need to acknowledge the validity of the point of view, not the arguments made. We need to find the fault by the arguments made with peoples points that disagree with our own.
-Identify and demolish our strongest argument we have for our argument- for the rebuttal argument. The goal of this argument is to refute, not to necessarily advance what we have already said.
-The Nuclear Power article is teaching us to see a point and try and look on the other side of that. Sufficient evidence is needed to refute a side of an argument. To win the rebuttal argument, you have to show that you have a better understanding of the argument. The best evidence against insufficient evidence is just a little bit of strong evidence.
LikeLike
The point of the gerrymandering exercise was to show that an underrepresented (in terms of proportion of a population) can still win when divided into districts.
The point of the rebuttal argument is not to be fair to the opposing view.
There are so many ways to answer questions. Rather, than a binary representation, answers to questions are perhaps more of a never ending circle.
Everything can be nuanced based on ‘yes’ or ‘no.’
Those who stand in the middle ground are the most liable to be persuaded.
Find ways to cast doubts on the arguments of your opponent. That doesn’t mean doubling down on ‘yes.’
The point of view can be valid, but that doesn’t mean the argument is valid.
Refute, not advance the rebuttal of your thesis.
If you’re so set in your stance, no amount of evidence would ever persuade you. Thus, it’s not a valid rebuttal to say there wasn’t enough evidence presented.
You can’t claim the pot without showing the pair.
The best evidence against insufficient evidence is a little good evidence.
Ponting out that the evidence supports a different conclusion is an effective rebuttal.
You don’t have to be right about it, just point out the inconsistency of the argument.
LikeLike
LikeLike
Gerrymandering: a way of mapping the districts that result in representative government.
Rebuttal unit: the point of the rebuttal is not to be fair to the other point of view. There is not only 2 sides to an argument. Find ways in which you can cast double on the arguments of your opponent and you will have accomplished your job. You need to respect the side of no. We need to acknowledge of the validity of the argument. The purpose of a rebuttal argument is to refute. You do not have to accept the majority. Question the validity, take apart their statistics to see where they are wrong. All you need to counter bad evidence is good evidence. You cannot claim the win until you show you have a better card.
Don’t ask for feedback on your first draft, ask for it on your rewrite
LikeLike
-What is Gerrymandering? Way of mapping the districts that represents the government
-Rebuttal Unit: the point is not to be fair to the other side. It is not fair to the other side. Find ways you can cast doubt on your opponent. We need to acknowledge the purpose of the point of view. Do not attack your opponent though. The best rebuttal argument takes on a real opponent. Take directly from your opponents arguments on why their point is correct. Then say why your point makes even more sense than theirs. Question your opponents stats and facts and see why they used them and how accurate they are. You can not just claim the pot without showing your hand. It is not a great thing to request more evidence from the author. One good piece of evidence is easily good to refute it. You can not be distracted by what the opponents data is showing even if it looks important.
Housekeeping: use the feedback. Only but feedback on the rewrites
LikeLike
-Riddle: What is Gerrymandering? Gerrymandering is the manipulation of boundaries on a map to favor a party in elections. It is a way of mapping the districts in a way that represents the overall states. There are multiple ways to represent the districts. There is a way in which if blue faced red and red had four in each category, and blue had six, blue would win every time in what is called compact but unfair.It now becomes impossible for red to win because of this. There is another way where is manipulated correctly, red could win and if it happens red will never lose ever again. That would be neither compact nor fair.
-Rebuttal Argument: The point of the rebuttal argument is not to be fair to the other point of view. It is not fair to the other side. Find a way to mitigate the effectiveness of the no answer. The goal is to beat the opponent. The validity of the point of view should be acknowledged. The arguments validity does not have to be acknowledged. The point is to refute the strongest rebuttal to the thesis. The argument should destroy the opponent’s argument that is strongest against the thesis. The best rebuttal argument takes on a real opponent. A win can not be achieved until a little bit of evidence is shown. A little Good evidence can beat the opponent’s argument very easily.
-Portfolio task: Rebuttal argument due Sun April 7 or before class Mon April 8.
-Housekeeping:All feedback and revisions are done on the rewrite posts only. The short argument needs a title. Don’t use parenthetical citation notes, refer to the author, title, or publication in the sentences. Use the word references, above sources, at the bottom of the essay, center the word references.
LikeLike
Gerrymandering – is a way of mapping the districts that results in representative government. Rebuttal – Get your opponent out of the “all yes” and “all no” mentality. We want to respect the opinion of our counterpart. In order to do that, we need to know the validity of their point of view, but we do not need to know the validity of their arguments. Our Rebuttal argument will be able to identify and knock down the strongest argument against our thesis.
Insufficient evidence – You can’t claim a win until you present evidence that you will win. But we have to be aware that we cannot use the “the author did not provide sufficient evidence” as an excuse. Just because the opposing party has not provided sufficient evidence does not mean that you do not need to show evidence to support your argument. On the contrary, even when you present little evidence, it is still necessary to win the argument.
Irrelevant evidence – pointing out that the evidence supports a different conclusion
False analogy – prediction based on close comparison. You can’t be distracted by a lot of data and information if that data doesn’t apply to the information being presented. You need to prove the inconsistency.
Feedback – ask for feedback only on the rewrite posts.
LikeLike
Riddle: What’s Gerrymandering
The Rebuttal Unit: My Worthy Opponent is Wrong
LikeLike
So true. Very likely, the argument we’re refuting is already a refutation of an earlier argument, and so on . . . .
5/3
LikeLike
gerry + salamander = gerrymandering
its when you rearrange a map to misrepresent the population
there are yes or no questions, but rarely are there yes or no answers.
the rebuttal argument is not supposed to be fair to the other side.
theres no opposites to a position because its nuianced
if the other person has no evidence you just need a little bit of evidence.
LikeLike
LikeLike
Rebuttal unit- point of RA is not to be fair to other point of view
Theres yes or no questions, no yes or no answers, just depends ex.) Panhandelers
We need to acknowledge validity of point of view, not arguments made
The RA will identify the argument you feel is the strongest rebuttal for your thesis
“The purpose of your rebuttal argument is to refute, not advance your own thesis”
It’s not an effective rebuttal to request more evidence from author
Providing good evidences is an effective rebuttal
You cant claim the win until you show you have the better card(Card=piece of evidence?)
Its not a good rebuttal to complain that you really dont see what the evidence provided has to to do with the arguement
LikeLike
LikeLike
-Gerrymandering is simply the understanding of how votes are divided for them to be equal and fair to each other. Each diagram shows a different representation of a presentation that is shown if a district will come to surpass the other.
-The whole point of the rebuttal argument is not fair for the other side. For example if you were asked a question do you….? There’s never always a yes and never always a no there’s a maybe there’s a sometimes yes sometimes no so it has the possibility to go any way. You can most of the time never change someone’s mind when they are at a full no or fully yes unless you are very persuasive. A real rebuttal argument takes a very detailed statement that can argue your opponents arguments. It’s a very good idea to break down the person’s stats to really portray your claim in the right way. Sometimes the evidence is not enough to provide a good persuasive statement that can give someone a right direction or right idea but sometimes it needs you pov or something from you side. If the data and stat don’t really apply to your statement or argument then you don’t really need to use it, it can help address your point a little but at the end of the day you don’t have to use it.
LikeLike
4/3/24
LikeLike
LikeLike