I have a research paper for my argumentative comm class and needed your help again. The professor wants us to write daily argument 3-4 times a week from early September – early December. Please review the assignment guidelines down below.
With all the argument from September- Dec. make it 5 pages Please make up the arguments that we encounter daily, as an international student in university.
Save your time - order a paper!
Get your paper written from scratch within the tight deadline. Our service is a reliable solution to all your troubles. Place an order on any task and we will take care of it. You won’t have to worry about the quality and deadlinesOrder Paper Now
General Description and Goals. The objectives of this assignment are to give students an opportunity (1) to discuss and reflect upon the argumentative interactions in their daily lives, (2) to see in these interactions the principles and concepts of argumentation in practice, (3) to evaluate these interactions and practices (both their own and others’), that is, to think about how things might have gone better, and (4) over time, to improve student’s skills at participating in these interactions effectively and managing disagreement productively. To accomplish this, you will act as participant-observers in a group. You will maintain a record of your argumentative interactions with the other members of the group over the remainder of the term. This record should be both descriptive and prescriptive, both past- and future-oriented. That is, you should describe what transpired in each interaction, analyze the interaction by applying concepts and principles from the course in order to understand it, and evaluate the interaction, suggesting ways to improve future interactions as appropriate.1 Ultimately, your goal is to improve the quality of argumentative interaction, particularly your own. Therefore, you will want to put your insights into practice in subsequent interactions so that, over time, you can discover what works and what doesn’t.
Defining a group. Select several (roughly half a dozen) friends, family, acquaintances (such as an employer), and even strangers (such as other participants in a blog, or other commenters on a news article or facebook post) with whom you tend to interact regularly. Strive for individuals with whom you have diverse relationships (close, professional, ad hoc, etc.) because interactions tend to differ depending on the kind of relationship involved. These can include others in this class but should not consist predominately of others in this class. In general, people with whom your interactions are face-to-face rather than electronic are preferred because your interactions with them will be richer (they’ll include nonverbal and vocal elements, for example). Think of this group as a working collection of interlocutors, not as complete or set in stone. That is, if a significant interaction takes place with a nonmember sometime during the semester, by all means include it; and it’s OK to add or delete someone to the group over time. The point of defining an initial group is simply to identify a working collection of people with whom you tend to interact over time and whose interactions, therefore, can be analyzed diachronically.
Suggestions. Because your daily experiences will vary and because one person’s daily experiences will vary from another’s, I cannot lay down iron-clad rules. But I have several suggestions.
(1) Think of the project as maintaining an unusually sophisticated journal or diary. A good practice would be to compose an entry 3-4 times a week. Some may be short while others undoubtedly will be lengthy. If you are engaged in an extended argument with someone, your discussion might run across several entries.
(2) You will need to make choices about what to include (and exclude). Obviously, you cannot and should not recount every communicative interaction; only those involving argumentation are of interest. Nonetheless, think of argument broadly, as your textbook does, as the management of disagreement through reason-giving. If you think of argument only in the pejorative sense of heated, emotional exchanges (people yelling at one another, etc.), you will overlook not only many of your own experiences of argumentation but probably the most productive ones. On the other hand, if you employ both senses of the term argument, course material will provide you with a rich storehouse of tools and concepts with which to analyze both reason-giving (e.g., the Toulmin model, principles of narrative rationality, fallacies, etc.) and relationship management (the elements of a conflict situation, different conflict styles, the attributes of productive conflict, high-risk responses, etc.). Focus on genuine conflict situations, not trivial differences of opinion of little or no consequence. Remember that genuine conflicts need not be emotional or traumatic and sometimes are resolved productively; analyzing interactions that went well, in order to understand why they went well, can be just as valuable as analyzing those that went badly. Finally, be mindful of conflict situations in which you wished that you had been more vocal but didn’t! Why did you avoid them? How might you have responded differently?
(3) In its broadest sense, each of us engages in multiple arguments every day. Although I suggest that you compose an entry frequently, each entry does not need to discuss every argument in which you participated during that period. Some will stand out more than others as illustrating (in)effective argumentation. You will need to judge their relative importance.
(4) Occasionally, you may hesitate to discuss sensitive, personal matters. On the other hand, these issues often provide the richest material for the assignment and the greatest personal benefit and growth can come from incorporating them. You will need to use your own good judgment here, but please rest assured that I treat these projects strictly confidentially.
Written Assignment. The graded assignment is a written report of your experiences. In its final form, this should include (a) an “Introduction,” consisting primarily of your description of your working group of interlocuters; (b) each entry, containing your analysis and reflections, in chronological order, identified by date; and (c) a “Conclusions” section that reflects on your experience as a whole. What have you discovered about how others argue? about how you argue? about which practices seem more and less productive? Do you feel that you have grown and improved as an arguer? Why or why not? Note: Although you are keeping a “journal,” your writing should not be casual, as if you were merely jotting down thoughts in a diary. Rather, it should conform to the standards for college-level research papers (see syllabus).
Evaluation. Your project will be judged according to the following criteria: 1. Your thoroughness and diligence in keeping the journal; 2. Your understanding and application of theories and principles of effective argumentation; 3. Your insight in diagnosing argumentative interactions; 4. The sophistication and appropriateness of your self-reported efforts to improve; and 5. The quality and correctness of your writing. The project is worth 20% of your grade in the course. It is due on the final day of class, December 13, 2021.