Research & Review Review this week’s lesson and reading. Find an academic source to back up your opposition’s point of view.

ENGL147N-60265 Discussions Week 6 Discussion 1: Rebuttals …!

This is a graded discussion: 25 points possible

due Aug 19 at 1:59am

Week 6 Discussion 1: Rebuttals and Refutations

14 14

Search entries or author

 

# Reply

Required Resources Read/review the following resources for this activity:

Textbook: Chapter 8 Lesson: Week 5, 6 Minimum of 1 new scholarly source

Apply the following writing resources to your posts:

Link (multimedia presentation): Citing References in Text Link (website): APA Citation and Writing

Initial Post Instructions

Part 1: Research & Review Review this week’s lesson and reading. Find an academic source to back up your opposition’s point of view. This is a new source, in addition to the source you located last week.

Part 2: Application Anticipating readers’ objections is one way to determine what other sections to include and support in your paper. Practice writing a counterargument that applies the Toulmin model. Incorporate one of the new sources you have gathered to present your opposition’s point. Strive for at least 5 developed sentences. Cite your source in APA format.

1. Grounds / 1st Counterargument (your opposition’s point)

2. Backing (establish credibility of the source) 3. Warrant (evidence) 4. Possible concession / conclusion

Answer the following prompts:

How were you able to remain objective while presenting the opponent’s point of view? What challenges did you face obtaining evidence to back up the assertion? Which conciliatory approach did you apply and why? How was it effective?

Follow-Up Post Instructions Respond to at least two peers or one peer and the instructor. Here, we have an opportunity to compare research notes with our fellow peers. As peers, reply to one another explaining whether or not your classmates are presenting the opposition objectively and provide potential refutations pointers. Give one another ideas or suggestions for points that may be left out or might need to be further developed.

Note: If you see that someone has already received feedback from two peers, please choose to help a peer who has yet to obtain feedback.

Writing Requirements

Minimum of 3 posts (1 initial & 2 follow-up) Initial Post Length: minimum of 3 college-level paragraphs APA format for in-text citations and list of references

Grading This activity will be graded using the Discussion Grading Rubric. Please review the following link:

Link (webpage): Discussion Guidelines

Course Outcomes (CO): 3, 7

Due Date for Initial Post: By 11:59 p.m. MT on Wednesday Due Date for Follow-Up Posts: By 11:59 p.m. MT on Sunday

Unread

$ %

& Subscribe

THERESA GERGELA (Instructor) Jun 9, 2019

Edited by THERESA GERGELA on Jun 9 at 8:04pm

# Reply ‘

Folks, welcome to Week 6! With the completion of Week 6, we will be three-quarters through with the class . . . keep going!

Considering rebuttals and refutations, this should not be a difficult task (locating an opposing view). As an example, when I read Lor’s article (below), I saw the purpose in the Abstract was to aid librarians/libraries in “a time of post-discourse and fake news” (Lor, 2018). My immediate take on this turned out to be the opposite of the article’s stance, as I read on, which focused on Trump and his administration as the main purveyors of fake news. I scanned the references list, and if I were to write a rebuttal, I would challenge some of the sources presented as quite liberal and progressive, and/or biased, such as The New York Times, the Washington Post and Huffington Post. In planning my rebuttal, I would also include respected scientists who either debunk, disagree with or challenge the “global warming” thesis. Again, it is very important to evaluate a writer’s (list of) sources.

I think the subject of “fake news” and logical fallacies are intertwined. It’s human nature to believe those who share our views in general, but being aware of or identifying specific logical fallacies can be helpful. Be sure to review the links on logical fallacies in this module. Think about them the next time you view an advertisement, listen to a politician speaking, or read an article!

Remember to respond first by Wednesday (the discussion opens Monday, August 12), and to include an outside scholarly source in your initial post. I think we will have some very constructive posts this discussion!

Theresa

Lor, P. (2018). Democracy, information, and libraries in a time of post-truth discourse. Library Management, 39(5), 307-321. Retrieved from https://chamberlainuniversity.idm.oclc.org/login? url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx? direct=true&db=a9h&AN=121841959&site=eds- live&scope=site

 

 

 

Teresa Starner Yesterday

# Reply ‘

Although much of the available evidence supports the benefits of safe injection centers further research into the sources of this data show possible biases that may have affected the outcomes. Kennedy, Karamouzian, and Kerr (2017) of the British Columbia Centre on Substance Use claim, majority of the studies show “shortcomings, including employment of search strategies that were narrow in scope, application of broad study eligibility criteria that resulted in the inclusion of low-quality evidence, and/or lack of assessment of the quality of included evidence” (p. 162). Out of the 47 studies examined, 28 were done in Vancouver and 10 were done in Sydney (Kennedy, et. al, 2017, p. 162). This alone reduces the availability of comparative data. Additionally, all the studies were done at stand-alone facilities. No hospital-affiliated or mobile sites were included. Only observational research could be conducted since random clinical trials in this environment would be considered unethical. Even though no negative outcomes related to SICs were uncovered, in order to support the claim of their benefit, there is a need for third party, broad scope, and quality research to be completed. I was able to remain objective by acknowledging the authors’ point of view is valid and is supported by facts. “Recognizing the opposing view shows a reader that you are informed on viewpoints other than the one you believe to be the strongest” (Week 6 lesson, 2019). As I stated last week, I am struggling to find scholarly information to support the con side of this topic. What I am finding is in reference to funding, lack of public support, and lack of quality research. There are numerous non- scholarly articles. Most of these do not have supportive evidence to back their claim. This is a controversial and emotional topic, so I chose to use a possible concession to close with. I do not want to spark an emotional argument that will take away from the evidence that supports the grounds.

References Kennedy, M. C., Karamouzian, M., & Kerr, T. (2017). Public Health and Public Order

Outcomes Associated with Supervised Drug Consumption Facilities: A Systematic

Review. Current HIV/AIDS Reports, 14(5), 161-183. doi:10.1007/s11904-017-0363-y

Week 6 lesson: logical fallacies (2019) retrieved from

https://chamberlain.instructure.com/courses/468 38/pages/week-6-lesson-logical-

fallacies?module_item_id=5905697

Cindy Pemberton Yesterday

# Reply ‘

Hello Professor & classmates,

 

It has been noted that while a vegan diet may have many health benefits, it can also pose risks to our heart health. It has been proven that vegan diets lack Omega-3 fatty acids, like DHA, ALA and EPA, which are essential for a healthy heart (Nordqvist, 2017), and other body functions. Omega-3 fatty acids are found in grass fed beef, dairy, mackerel and wild salmon, which are not eaten by a true vegan (Nordqvist, 2017). In essence vegan diets do not love our hearts and great consideration should be made prior to switching to this type of diet.

 

I was able to remain objective while presenting the opposition by setting aside my own feelings regarding veganism and just looking at the facts presented and the evidence to back them up. I did not face any challenges in obtaining evidence to back up the assertion, as all the information is readily available to the public. The conciliatory approach I applied was in the tone of my words, because it shows respect and appreciation for the opposition data. This was effective in that it kept the approach calm and collective in the manner in which it was relayed.

 

References

Nordqvist, C. (2017). “What to know about eating vegan.” Medical News Today. Retrieved

from https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/149636. php.

 

Teresa Starner Yesterday

# Reply ‘

Hi Cindy,

Your point and evidence are clearly understood. I believe your tone was neutral and respectful as you noted. I would of liked to the see credentials of the source in your paragraph. In the concession statement it may be more impactful if you add some of the benefits of the vegan diet. This article has a lot of good information and will be useful for your paper. Good job!

Cindy Pemberton Yesterday

# Reply ‘

Thanks for your critique Teresa. I will be sure to make note and incorporate into my writing for next time.

Kimberly Delancy Yesterday

# Reply ‘

Cindy,

Thank you for your post. I agree with your conciliatory approach. It shows respect for the opposer. You note that vegan diets lack Omega- 3 fatty acids, which is essential in our diet. I am interested in knowing whether there are any studies that show that the lack of Omega-3 fatty acids has had any negative affects on vegans from a health standpoint. Overall good article and loads of helpful information.

Best,

Kim

Kimberly Delancy Yesterday

# Reply ‘

Professor Theresa & Classmates,

Many medical professionals believe marijuana is beneficial for medical purposes, but opposers believe it is just a gimmick. Several states have begun to allow the citizens to vote for the right to legalize marijuana for medicinal and in some cases recreational use. “Approving medical treatments by ballot initiatives sets a dangerous precedent for public health”, according to Hagan (2018). The state of Missouri believes this is an experiment. If a state is considering using marijuana for medicinal purposes then medical authorities should be the deciding voters.

I was able to remain objective by understanding that the point of view presented by this author does had some validity. I did not have any challenges obtaining evidence, as this author used credible and medical sources which were available to the public. The tone in which I used is one of appreciation. It is okay to disagree with one’s opinion while still showing respect. This approach is effective as it shows, by tone, how information can be discussed without arguing. It provides a platform for both sides to present their data and be heard.

Best,

Kimberly Delancy, RN

References

Hagan, J. C., 3rd (2018). Don’t let medicine in Missouri go to pot: Oppose Sham Medical Marijuana Referenda

on November 2018 Ballot. Missouri medicine, 115(5), 392-393. Retrieved from

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6205 287/

THERESA GERGELA (Instructor) Yesterday

# Reply ‘

Kim,

Thanks for your post!

Rebuttal paragraph is clear and objective. One way to head off any potential issues is to use signal phrases as you have done (Several states have, According to, The state of Missouri believes….) this shows you are clearly representing others’ ideas without specifically attacking or rejecting (for now).

Your explanation of remaining objective is reasonable, respectful, and effective.

APA: Review punctuation for article and journal titles. For suffixes, see examples:

Lucas, G., I. (2001). Tinkering with details (Vol. 1). Hollywood, CA: A.G.F.F.A. Publishing.

Lucas, G., II. (2012). You can always change it later. Hollywood, CA: A.G.F.F.A. Publishing.

Theresa

Cindy Pemberton 8:04am

# Reply ‘

Hi Kimberly

I was able to clearly identify your point and the evidence stated. I think the tone used implys respect to the opposer. I’m not sure if i sense the appreciation in your post, also it would be helpful if you note the credentials of the source/author in your writing. However, the content information is good and I think you have the making of a good paper.

Thanks,

Kimberly Evans Yesterday

# Reply ‘

Legalization of recreational marijuana would boost the economy. This has already been proven in states where legalization has already occurred. According to Todd (2018, p.115), between 2014 and 2017, in Colorado alone, the tax revenue brought in after marijuana was legalized was over 600 million dollars. Tax dollars benefit education, healthcare, transportation, and government assisted programs just to name a few. Legalization would also decrease unemployment by creating jobs. (Todd, 2018 p. 117) The economic position proves to be beneficial in many areas.

When I started this paper, I decided to take the con position. Being a nurse on an acute mental health unit, I frequently work with substance abuse. I see the negative effects firsthand. Being such a controversial topic, I thought it would be interesting to learn more about it. Prior to this paper I had not really put much thought into this debate. Remaining objective is easy because I do not have any personal interest, or immediate gains or losses based on legalization.

I have not faced any challenges finding the positive side of legalizing marijuana. I am finding a substantial amount of information refuting my claim. Using a conciliatory approach requires nonthreatening language and a fair expressing of the oppositions point. (Seyler & Brizee, 2019, p. 212) I feel I have accomplished both. This will be a difficult point to dispute.

References

Seyler, D. U., & Brizee, A. (2019). Read, reason, write: An argument text and reader (12 ed.). New York. NY: McGraw-Hill Education.

Todd, T. (2018). The benefits of marijuana legalization and regulation. Berkeley Journal of Criminal Law, 23(1), 100-119. https://doi.org/10.15779/Z38NK3652D

Cindy Pemberton 8:18am

# Reply ‘

Hello Kimberly,

I enjoyed reading your post and learned somethings not previously known, the point and evidence were clearly stated. I believe the tone used was calm and shows respect for the opposer. I think it would be beneficial if you note the credentials of the source and stats in your writing. I also think your use of the conciliatory approach is right on point. The information provided is great and I believe your paper will all be great.

Thanks

Teresa Starner 12:13pm

# Reply ‘

Kim,

The conciliatory approach is perfect for potential emotional subjects. It creates a nonthreatening tone and shows respect for opposition. This article is informative and serves well to support legalization. The grounds for the argument are clear. The evidence is supportive. Being published in the Berkeley journal I am sure Todd adequately is credentialed to speak on this subject. Thanks. Good job.

THERESA GERGELA (Instructor) 3:25pm

# Reply ‘

Hi Kim,

I agree with Cindy and Teresa regarding calmness, clarity, and non-aggressive tone; it’s appropriate for discussing a counter view. Thanks for your discussion as well on your current stance on the topic. Perhaps you might counter the positives of economic boons to a con (whether gateway drug, impaired driving, adverse health affects, etc.), so that the cost of healthcare would mitigate any potential economic growth.

APA: Remember the period after year for in- text; I think you just forgot one. Due to the profound liberal nature of most higher ed. classes, philosophy, professors, and students, I am not surprised that there are more pro than con articles on the subject. I’m sure there are some out there — but where are they?! It’s becoming more and more difficult to be able to access opposing points of view, at least in my opinion, and to what I’ve observed over the past few years, especially.

I look forward to reading your pro-con draft!

Theresa

Jaime Leavitt 6:56pm

Good afternoon class and professor,

Immunizations are beneficial to children and has maternal benefits for pregnant women. They help prevent a lot of diseases that have a high morbidity or mortality rate (Swamy & Beigi, 2015). Talking with your primary physician or Obstetrician is important prior to receiving these immunizations to education one self and having informed decision prior to vaccination due to the possibility of side effects. Some of these side effects were high fever, seizures, and consistent crying in children receiving the pertussis vaccine. The old pertussis vaccine was also linked to SIDS ( sudden infant death) , coma, and brain damage (Offit & Bell, 2003). The source is from The American Pediatrics Society, the year is past 5 years, but makes a good argument to be aware of the possible side effects vaccines can cause. Evidence was shown in trials and tracked by the CDC (Centers of Disease). I didn’t find it hard to link a opposition because most medications have side effects and most of the research for vaccines show the side effects of each vaccine. Being aware of the vaccine prior to receiving is important because it is your body or your child’s body that you are protecting.

July 2019

Home

Syllabus

Announcements

Resources

Modules

Files

Grades

People

VoiceThread

Bookstore

Library Guides

Media Gallery

My Media

New Webex

Academic Sup- port

Surveys

Account

Dashboard

Courses

Groups

Calendar

Inbox

Help

8/13/19, 7)13 PM Page 1 of 1

Is this part of your assignment? Get trusted writers to serve you on on your task
Our experts will take care of your task no matter the deadline!
Use the following coupon
"SAVE15"

Order Now