Final Essay Is Worth 200 Points and Is Due December 14th.
Final Essay Requires 3 sources, one from the El Camino College library database.
Writing Option #1 for Final:
In the "Trump Vs. Hitler" essay by Nathan Stoltzfus, we are presented with the question if there is a legitimate moral comparison between Trump and Hitler. Argue for or against such a comparison.
Writing Option #2 for Final
Read Thomas Frank's "Donald Trump is moving to the White House, and liberals put him there" and Sarah Smarsh's "Dangerous idiots: how the liberal media elite failed working-class Americans," and then develop a thesis that defends, refutes, or complicates the argument that Trump's rise to power was largely the liberal establishment's fault as a result of their smug, rotten, delusional self-aggrandizement that blinded them from the reality of white people who feel as if their country is becoming too globalized and too diverse for their comfort levels and that this discomfort has created a backlash against the liberal establishment.
Writing Option #3 for Final
Read Masha Gessen's "Autocracy: Rules for Survival" and support, refute, or complicate Gessen's contention that Hillary Clinton and Barrack Obama's "nice" response to President Elect Trump was misguided and dangerous for America. You can use this Christoph Waltz video. The Waltz video is discussed here.
Writing Option #4 for Final
Read Mark Joseph Stern's "The Electoral College is an Instrument of White Supremacy--and Sexism" and Akhil Reed Amar's "Troubling Reason the Electoral College Exists" and defend, refute, or complicate the argument that we should replace the electoral college with the popular vote.
Another helpful source for Option #4:
Julia Azari's "Most People Hate the Electoral College, But's It's Not Going Away Soon."
Writing Option #5 for Final:
Support or refute the argument that there is no valid defense of the Anti-Vaxxer position. You can consult the following:
"Why Vaccination Refusal Is a White Privilege Problem"
"Anti-Vaxxers: Enjoying the Privilege of Putting Everyone at Risk"
"What Everyone Gets Wrong About Anti-Vaccine Parents"
"We Seem to be More Frightened Than We've Ever Been"
"How to Change an Anti-Vaxxer's Mind"
Writing Option #6 for Final:
Defend, refute, or complicate Bloom's assertion in "Against Empathy" that empathy, contrary to popular opinion, is not a virtue in the face of evidence that empathy is a form of "irrational compassion" that can be destructive and inimical to human affairs.
Sources:
Writing Option #7 for Final
Support, refute, or complicate Steve Almond's contention that we are morally compelled to boycott football, especially the NFL.
Writing Option #8 for Final:
Support, refute, or complicate Ta-Nahisi Coates' argument in "The Case for Reparations" that America is morally compelled to devise an effective reparations program for eligible African-Americans.
Writing Option #9 for Final:
Support, refute, or complicate the argument that "the right to a living wage" compels us to increase the minimum wage to a universal level of about $15 per hour (you can set the wage).
Writing Option #10 for Final:
Support, refute, or complicate the argument that student loans should under certain circumstances be forgiven.
Writing Option #11 for Final:
Support, refute, or complicate the assertion that college tuition should be free.
Writing Option #12 for Final:
Support, refute, or complicate the argument that colleges are morally compelled to replace gourmet food with plain food so those money savings can bring in more low-income students.
Course Objectives:
- Evaluate arguments in terms of bias, credibility, and relevance.
- Assess an argument's claims by examining assumptions, by differentiating between facts and inferences, by recognizing errors in logic, by analyzing support, and by identifying both explicit and implied conclusions.
- Recognize and assess argumentative claims embedded in literary works, advertisements, political tracts, and presentations in other media.
- Express critical viewpoints and develop original arguments in response to social, political, and philosophical issues and/or to works of literature and literary theory.
- Demonstrate the ability to evaluate electronic sources and databases, to incorporate research from on-line and print media, and to compose unified, coherent, fully supported argumentative essays that advance their claims by integrating primary and secondary sources, and by employing the tools of critical interpretation, evaluation, and analysis.
Student Learning Outcomes:
Upon completion of this course, students will:
- Compose an argumentative essay that shows an ability to support a claim using analysis, elements of argumentation, and integration of primary and secondary sources.
- Identify and assess bias, credibility, and relevance in their own arguments and in the arguments of others, including primary and secondary outside sources.
- Write an essay that is correct in MLA format, paragraph composition, sentence structure, grammar, spelling, and usage.
Course Catalog Description:
This course focuses on the development of critical thinking skills. Students will apply these skills to the analysis of written arguments in various forms and genres, both classic and contemporary, and to the writing of effective persuasive essays. Students will learn to evaluate and interpret data, to recognize assumptions, to distinguish facts from opinions, to identify and avoid logical fallacies, to employ deductive and inductive reasoning, and to effectively assert and support argumentative claims.
One. Express critical viewpoints and develop original thesis-driven arguments in response to social, political, and philosophical issues and/or to works of literature and literary theory. This argumentative essay will be well organized, demonstrate an ability to support a claim using analysis and elements of argumentation, and integrate primary and secondary sources.
Two. Use at least three sources and not over-rely on one secondary source for most of the information. The students should use multiple sources and synthesize the information found in them.
Three. Address issues of bias, credibility, and relevance in primary and secondary sources.
Four. Demonstrate understanding of analytical methods and structural concepts such as inductive and deductive reasoning, cause and effect, logos, ethos, and pathos, and the recognition of formal and informal fallacies in language and thought.
Five. Use MLA format for the document, in-text citations, and Works Cited page.
Six. Integrate quotations and paraphrases using signal phrases and analysis or commentary.
Seven. Sustain the argument, use transitions effectively, and use correct grammar, spelling, and punctuation.
Writing Option #1 for Final:
In the "Trump Vs. Hitler" essay by Nathan Stoltzfus, we are presented with the question if there is a legitimate moral comparison between Trump and Hitler. Argue for or against such a comparison.
Alleged Parallels
One. Both leaders exploited national crisis: Both Germany and United States in a crisis of self-esteem and economic malaise compelling people to long for the "good old days" and make Country X "great again."
Two. Both leaders used racist demagoguery and scapegoated The Other while promising privilege to whites. This racist language leads to increased racial incidents and violence against minorities. Here's a CNN update.
Three. Both showed a lack of transparency, which leads to corruption.
Four. Both showed a hostility toward a free press and in fact recently Trump attacked New York Times on Twitter.
Five. Both favored cult of personality to real political ideas to achieve effective change.
Six. Both praised for "telling it like it is," and for not being some mealy-mouthed bureaucrat.
Seven. Both embraced by operatives who believed they could control the leader, "reign him in," but found that the leader cannot be controlled.
Eight. Both are incurable egotistical narcissists who can only love themselves.
Nine. Both are pathological liars who re-shape and whitewash their lies through a shrewd propaganda machine.
Ten. Both are fiery rally speakers who feed off their audience's manic energy.
Eleven. Both see themselves as messiah figures who are the only solution to the crisis at hand.
Twelve. Both were "mouthpieces for cultural pessimism" that catered to the pain of their frustrated audience.
Alleged Arguments Against the Comparison
One. Hitler is pure evil and committed the Holocaust, a tragedy that is on a much larger scale than anything Trump has done.
Two. When we call someone Hitler, we end the conversation, commit a cliche, and drag the debate into an "ideological mud bath" for which there is no beneficial result.
Three. Trump is too early in his acquisition of power to properly compare him to Hitler.
Sources:
"Are Trump-Hitler Comparisons Fair?"
"What Germans really think about those Hitler-Trump comparisons"
Suggested Outline
Paragraph 1: Discuss the argument by explaining both sides.
Paragraph 2: Develop your thesis.
Paragraphs 3-6 are your supporting body paragraphs.
Paragraph 7 is your counterargument-rebuttal.
Paragraph 8 is your conclusion, a restatement of your thesis.
Writing Option #2 for Final
Read Thomas Frank's "Donald Trump is moving to the White House, and liberals put him there" and Sarah Smarsh's "Dangerous idiots: how the liberal media elite failed working-class Americans," and then develop a thesis that defends, refutes, or complicates the argument that Trump's rise to power was largely the liberal media's fault as a result of their smug, rotten, delusional self-aggrandizement that blinded them from the reality of white people who feel as if their country is becoming too globalized and too diverse for their comfort levels and that this discomfort has created a backlash against the liberal establishment.
Summary of Frank's arguments:
One. The liberal establishment chose a terrible terrible candidate with no clear message, lots of negative baggage, an image of an elite technocrat, horrible personal charisma, and an over reliance on being negative against her opponent. Her politically correct act did nothing but inflame rage in the country's areas of populist frustration.
Two. The liberal establishment is morally bankrupt to be aware that their opponent was a threat to democracy on one hand and offer up such a weak candidate in the face of this tragedy on the other.
Three. The liberal establishment is delusional in their thinking that America will think our candidate is great if we just tell them so over and over.
Four. The liberal media chose to insult Trump and his supporters rather than try to understand their motivations. Their vitriolic criticism of Trump and his followers became a form of "moral boasting."
Five. The liberal establishment is guilty of complacency, of offering stale products and seeing no need to do anything new but rely on the "least of two evils" argument. Pathetic.
Summary of Smarsh's Arguments
One. Liberal elites portray Trump's supports as money-poor, morally bankrupt troglodytes, creating an inaccurate stereotype.
Two. In fact, Trump's supporters are more educated and wealthier than Hillary's supporters. Trump's supporters have a median household income of $72,000, higher than Hillary's voters, and 44% have college degrees, also higher than Hillary's supporters.
Three. Liberal elites don't want to look in the mirror and see that Trump supporters flourish in their socio-economic class because this contradicts the easy narrative that comforts liberal elites: "We're better than everyone else."
Four. Liberal elites believe that racism and nationalism are limited to white working-class Republicans when in fact white of all stripes embrace these two isms.
Five. Liberal elites like Bill Maher and his ilk engage in "smug classism" that alienates working-class whites.
Six. Liberal elites scapegoat poor whites for everything, including racism, but poor whites didn't make marijuana illegal or create "the war on drugs" that results in racist incarceration policies.
Consider these counterarguments:
One. The media went on an all-out attack on Trump. What more was the media to do?
Two. Trump did and said whatever he wanted and still won the electorate (though not popular vote), so he can do anything he wants as President. In other words, there were forces in place that would not be stopped. Media may have ignored the story, but did this ignoring these unstoppable forces lead to Trump's victory? What could have the media done?
Three. White America, especially the working class and the underclass, feels threatened and embattled. They wanted a spokesperson for their pain and fear. They were willing to let this leader have any kind of emotional baggage and do or say anything, but this group hates the media establishment. What is the media supposed to do to appease this class? The media has one view about diversity, for example, and the white Trump supporters have another view. How are these divergent views bridged? How can white tribalism be reconciled to diversity?
Four. If we accept the proposition that the media is repulsed by what they see as white tribalism that supports a childish despot psychotic named Trump, then how is the country supposed to have a kumbaya moment of unity and reconciliation? What can be done? This is a civil war and the hatred runs deep. How do we overcome a sense of learned helplessness, apathy, and retreat into our tribe? Or let's put it this way:
If we accept the proposition that one American group believes, as does the media, that white tribalism is enabling a childish despot and another group believes they are supporting a powerful, messianic force that is counteracting liberal elitism that has abandoned and mocked traditional American values, then where is the unity this country needs? Where is the great Kumbaya Moment of healing and reconciliation? There is no such moment. Nor is there a path to get there. There’s only a winning side, and that side tastes blood of victory, and they love the taste. No platitudes or wishful thinking can change this.
Five. White people made up their mind. America wasn't as white as it used to be and Hillary and the liberals represented the continued movement away from whiteness and white privilege. So while Thomas Frank and Sarah Smarsh make some good points, ultimately their points fail to address the potency of white fear and the desire of white people to re-establish dominance in America. In fact, Frank's and Smarsh's points would deflect and minimize white racism and make the specious, false argument that good white people were misunderstood and offended by liberal elites.
There was no misunderstanding. Whites made up their mind. Nothing Hillary or the liberal establishment could have done would have changed that.
Moreover, whites make 69% of the Electorate and of that 69%, 58% of white voters voted for Trump.
Suggested Outline:
Paragraph 1 summarizes the major points of Frank and Smarsh.
Paragraph 2 develops your thesis.
Paragraphs 3-6 are your supporting points of evidence.
Paragraph 7 is your counterargument-rebuttal.
Paragraph 8 is your conclusion, a restatement of your thesis.
Samantha Bee Calls Out White People
"The Five Baskets of Trump Supporters"
Writing Assignment Option:
Support or refute the argument that there is no valid defense of the Anti-Vaxxer position.
"How to Change an Anti-Vaxxer's Mind"
"Why Vaccination Refusal Is a White Privilege Problem"
"What Everyone Gets Wrong About Anti-Vaccine Parents"
"We Seem to be More Frightened Than We've Ever Been"
"Anti-Vaxxers: Enjoying the Privilege of Putting Everyone at Risk"
Sample Thesis
While many parents are well intentioned and fearful of vaccines as they are mired in a sea of overwhelming alarmist information, their decision to deny their children vaccines is misguided, at best, and morally repugnant, more likely, when we consider their refusal to acknowledge real science and empirical evidence, their reliance on logical fallacies and quack pseudo-science, their narcissistic conspiracy mentality, and, most of all, their decision to exact a potentially fatal pestilence upon our children.
"Against Empathy" by Paul Bloom
Writing Option #2 for Final:
Defend, refute, or complicate Bloom's assertion in "Against Empathy" that empathy, contrary to popular opinion, is not a virtue in the face of evidence that empathy is a form of "irrational compassion" that can be destructive and inimical to human affairs.
Sources:
Comments