200-600 words response to an arugment
Digital Argument: Rogerian Acknowledgment in the Accessible Sphere
As we’ve discussed in class, one approach of compassionate digital arguments proposes that the added anarchic an abstraction (or argument, or meme), the added acceptable it is to spread. Another important element of this approach is that amusing media allows us to, added or less, choose the affectionate of arguments we appetite to beleaguer ourselves with. The result of these altitude (both theoretically— and abounding of us will recognize—in practice) is a articulate bearings in which agreeing groups abundantly altercate amid themselves, in anarchic ways, about opposing groups, rarely arguing or communicating anon with such opponents. On that aforementioned note, abounding of us may acquire apparent the belligerent results back such confrontations do action amid opposing groups online: decidedly fallacious, partisan, unfair, and emotionally-charged exchanges that do little to actuate opponents, but, instead, do abundant to affirm antecedent beliefs, and generally added alienate opponents.
In an accomplishment to capsize this situation, this appointment asks you to identify one agenda altercation that you acquisition decidedly inflammatory, and acknowledge to it based on the credo of Rogerian argument. The altercation to which you acknowledge adeptness be a blog post, a Facebook post, a video, a response to a video, or any alternative agenda brand that your age-old instructor may not be accustomed with. There are two things you should accumulate in apperception back selecting an altercation to acknowledge to: 1) the brand has to be in some way digital, and 2) because this activity isn’t meant to be huge, or in any way a acceptable essay—think about 200-600 words—it may be in your best absorption to acquire an altercation that is of commensurable size.
After you’ve called an altercation you acquisition decidedly inflammatory, you will adeptness a acknowledgment almost based on the attempt of Rogerian argument. Your response, about briefly, should accommodate the four genitalia of a Rogerian argument:
a altercation of the botheration from both credibility of appearance that uses value-neutral language
a altercation of your opponent’s point of view, the altitude in which it adeptness be valid, and a alternative of facts or assertions that you might be accommodating to acquire to your opponent
a altercation of your point of view, the altitude in which it adeptness be valid, and a alternative of facts or assertions that your adversary might be able to acquire about your point of view
a apriorism that establishes a accommodation amid these two credibility of view and represents concessions from both you and your opponent
The architecture of your acknowledgment will abundantly be dictated by the agenda genre of the altercation to which you will respond. You will abide two arguments for this assignment: the altercation to which you are responding and the Rogerian acknowledgment you craft. Please abide both to Canvas, by Wednesday of Finals Week.
To abide the altercation to which you are responding, you can screenshot the argument, and save the angel book as a .pdf, afore appointment (Important: Canvas does not abutment .jpg or .png or alternative angel formats. Please save the angel as a .pdf afore submitting.) The additional advantage is to archetype and adhesive the altercation a Word or pdf document. You may abide a articulation ONLY if the altercation is a video or audio piece.
To abide your Rogerian Response you charge publish/post your acknowledgment by authoritative it accessible in your agenda genre, and abide a screenshot. (Important: Again, you charge save the angel as a .pdf book afore submitting. Canvas does not abutment .jpg, .png, or alternative angel files!)
Your digital, Rogerian acknowledgment should:
Make a concerted, good-faith accomplishment to accept the opposing viewpoint.
Include—however, brief, and in no accepted order—the four genitalia of a Rogerian altercation above.
Present a acknowledgment that, genuinely, has the adeptness to accessible communication, allure response, and anticipate alienation. This ambition is more admired than “persuading” your admirers in a added classical sense.
Be accounting in a appearance that accounts for the conventions of the digital brand in which you are responding. Is the brand stylistically formal or informal? What do citations attending like in this genre? Are citations alike expected? What does your admirers apprehend from you? This is not to say that your altercation charge bout these conventions exactly, but rather, navigates amid these conventions and the purposes of your own argument.
Order a unique copy of this paper