87 Comments
12/16/2022 04:53:24 pm
1) The subject argument was “No one should ever tell a lie.” I sided on Team Honesty, where in life, you should be honest with yourself and other people. My purpose was to decimate Rithik’s argument that you should lie sometimes and convince him to join my side.
Reply
Laksha
12/24/2022 12:26:18 pm
comment on someone else's argument rationale and explain how you might have approached their argument differently:
Reply
Ethan Noel
12/29/2022 09:11:21 am
I agree with everything you've said on morality but something I would have taken into consideration and added would be how media can be found lying and creating false stereotypes of people that are basically ruining someones reputation and if people were to tell the truth these things would not happen.
Reply
Hanna Laabid
1/2/2023 10:15:45 pm
I think coming up with counterarguments before the actual argument was a great idea because you were able to quickly shut down Rithik's argument with ease. Though I am not sure of the literature you used, I would have used "The Boy Who Cried Wolf" as a prime example as it is not only a notable children's story but it also teaches that lying over and over again causes others to lose trust in you even if you tell the truth in the end. Therefore, honesty is important.
Reply
Bella Norton
1/3/2023 05:14:47 am
I like how you used your "three dimensional chess" to try and trap Rithik into falling for your side of the argument.
Reply
Bella Norton
1/3/2023 05:16:23 am
I don't think I would have changed anything. You did your argument really well and had really good tactics.
Rithik Ramkumar
12/17/2022 07:53:09 am
1. Chris and I argued about if no one should ever tell a lie. I chose the "lying is sometimes acceptable" side. My purpose was not convince Chris that although telling the truth should be utilized in most scenarios, there are a lot of scenarios where lying is better than telling the truth.
Reply
12/17/2022 08:32:12 am
"Then, comment on someone else's argument rationale and explain how you might have approached their argument differently."
Reply
Samuel Koul Biar
12/29/2022 08:47:45 am
Although when it comes to the argument of whether or not people should lie, I would side with Chris and I think it comes down to whether or not you would be unhappy and know the truth compared to being happy and unaware of what is actually happening. In your case I would try and point out how lies are used in politics to keep the general public happy and civil and how lies being revealed have led to riots, wars, and revolutions.
Reply
Will McKean
1/2/2023 02:21:03 pm
I think I would have mentioned telling kids about Santa/Easter Bunny/Tooth Fairy because that is a more relatable example than Gravity Falls or espionage. Parents lie to their children about Santa all the time to follow traditions or make the holidays more fun for them, this is a harmless lie.
Reply
Ella Case
1/4/2023 04:27:46 am
I would have related to the more common forms of lying demonstrated by parents. Such as Santa, Tooth Fairy, Easter Bunny, Jack Frost, Sandman. All of these common lies that parents tell their kids is to help benefit them in a positive way. For instance by telling these lies to their children help promotes creativity, imagination and wonder.
Reply
Laksha
12/24/2022 10:58:29 am
1. describe the argument's purpose;
Reply
Vanessa Muniz
12/24/2022 07:05:18 pm
comment on someone else's argument rationale and explain how you might have approached their argument differently.
Reply
Vanessa Muniz
12/24/2022 06:54:59 pm
1. describe the argument's purpose; The argument’s purpose for my topic; a hot dog is a sandwich, is to change my audiences point of view on what a hot dog truly is. To focus on what sandwich is, and how a item such as a hot dog fits into the category of a sandwich.
Reply
Samuel Koul Biar
12/29/2022 08:27:38 am
1. Me and Ethan's topic was the chicken vs. egg debate and the purpose of my argument was to persuade Ethan that the chicken came before the egg.
Reply
Jeremy Liu
12/31/2022 01:07:45 pm
I agree with you that chickens came before the egg, and to help prove my point, I might have also brought up religion because according to Christianity the largest religion, God pretty much just created all the animals and had Adam and Eve name and take care of them. However, your argument was really good.
Reply
Nicole Vastis
1/8/2023 12:17:45 pm
I agree that he could've argued about Christian beliefs, but they would have been weaker because not everyone believes in it, or in creationism as a whole.
Ethan Noel
12/29/2022 09:04:46 am
1.The subject of the argument was whether the egg came before the chicken. I agreed with the idea that the egg came first and my overall purpose was to prove to Samuel that the chicken didn't come before the egg and to convince him that the egg ultimately had to come first.
Reply
Arnav Srivastava
1/2/2023 09:38:08 am
Good afternoon Ethan,
Reply
Jeremy Liu
12/31/2022 01:04:02 pm
1.) The argument's purpose is to argue whether being instagram famous or tik tok famous is better. I thought that tik tok famous was better, and Gregory thought that instagram was better.
Reply
Dyuman Das
1/2/2023 07:56:33 am
I would've approached your argument differently by using current events such as Messi's world cup post being the most liked in all social media passing Bella Poach' s TikTok video. I feel if you were to approach it this way you would've won against Gregory.
Reply
Gregory Park
12/31/2022 01:37:06 pm
1. Jeremy and I argued about whether it is better to be famous on TikTok or Instagram. I sided with team Instagram while Jeremy sided with TikTok. My purpose was to influence Jeremy’s argument that Instagram is a better connection platform.
Reply
Addison Carnow
1/2/2023 07:56:14 am
I like your argument, and it was strong, but I would have added that Instagram has the option to post videos like tik-tok, or just pictures, and therefore you can get famous multiple ways, with photos or videos and especially stories being different. Overall, Instagram has many more platforms and ways to reach out.
Reply
Dyuman Das
1/2/2023 07:47:27 am
The subject of the argument was whether Darth Vader was ultimately a hero, not a villain. I agreed that he was a villain not a hero, and my purpose was to convince Addison that he was ultimately a villain and not a hero.
Reply
Dyuman Das
1/2/2023 07:50:13 am
With my already large advantage with Vader clearly being a villain through out the movies, i convinced Addison that Vader was ultimately a villain and it outweighed the heroism of Vader.
Reply
Dhruv Dudhat
1/2/2023 10:36:07 pm
In my rationale for this argument, I would have referenced specific number of casualties he caused and then I would have begun to bank on the tragic and sad emotional aspect that comes with the deaths of many people caused by one person and begin to paint Vader as murderer with no remorse which would effectively frame him as a villain.
Addison Carnow
1/2/2023 07:50:08 am
1. describe the argument's purpose
Reply
Amy Zeledon.
1/2/2023 07:56:38 pm
Though I am not as experience with Star Wars I would have added that instead of a villain Darth Vader was a tragic hero. I would have added the for instance before he became disciple of the dark side which is consider his downfall he was known as Anakin Skywalker who was a jedi who was considered a hero.
Reply
Silas Leonard
1/4/2023 05:27:59 am
I would've used a more utilitarian argument that he was able to save more lives by turning back to the light than he had killed beforehand
Reply
Arnav Srivastava
1/2/2023 09:35:22 am
1. My argument's purpose was to convince Grayson that the egg came before the chicken as the subject was whether the chicken came first or the egg. To me, it was clear that the egg came first.
Reply
Will McKean
1/2/2023 02:15:59 pm
The arguments purpose was to convince Kailin that all states need to have the death penalty legalized.
Reply
Nivedha Prathap Chandran
1/2/2023 07:34:04 pm
Hi Will! I was thoroughly interested in yours and Kailin's blog posts on your topic. I'm finding it very difficult to pick a side on this one but I'm leaning more towards how the death penalty should be legalized. If Kailin's primary tactic was to rely on morality, then I would have approached it that way too. For example, I would have mentioned how being moral is also thinking about how the Earth's rapidly growing population is because of humans' bad decisions, and the legalization of the death penalty would cause the population to become gradually reasonable again. Overall, great job you two!
Reply
Grayson Kerr
1/2/2023 04:16:46 pm
1. My argument's purpose was to convince Arnav that the chicken came before the egg as the subject was whether the chicken came first or the egg. To me, it was clear that the chicken came first.
Reply
Kailin Marciniak
1/2/2023 05:07:08 pm
1) Will and I had a debate about if the death penalty should be enforced or taken away. I thought that the death penalty should be taken away while Will thought the contrary. The purpose of this argument was to determine whether those who have committed crimes should be put to rest for good or if they should suffer through the rest of their lives isolated with guilt.
Reply
Emma Collard
1/2/2023 06:45:30 pm
Hi Kailin!
Reply
Nelly Lopez-Ruiz
1/2/2023 08:02:09 pm
I disagree, I side with Will and believe that the death penalty should still be enforced. I think I also would have chosen to talk about the morality side of things like you did. I would have talked about Hammurabi's code and how the law basically says an eye for an eye and also use the punishment that shooters get and how the families of the victims would feel more at peace knowing that the person that killed their family member isn't still alive and well while they're suffering.
Reply
Emma Collard
1/2/2023 06:41:17 pm
1. Our argument was whether Robin Hood is a thief or a hero. My purpose was to convince Lauren that Robin Hood was a thief.
Reply
Lauren Cheedle
1/2/2023 06:57:34 pm
1. Emma and I had a debate over whether Robin Hood was a hero or not. My claim was that Robin Hood was a hero and my goal was to persuade Emma. Looking at the tale, though Robin Hood may have stolen, he ultimately stood for justice and equality.
Reply
Bella Norton
1/2/2023 07:06:24 pm
1. Amy and I discussed the subject of if you would like to live forever. I chose the side of living forever, also known as an immortal life. The purpose of the argument was trying to convince Amy to be on my side on how living an immortal life is the better option.
Reply
Nivedha Prathap Chandran
1/2/2023 07:26:13 pm
The topic Nelly and I “argued” about was whether “It is better to be Tik Tok famous or Instagram famous…” My purpose in this argument was to persuade Nelly that being Instagram famous is not only better, but also a much safer option when compared to being Tik Tok famous.
Reply
Amy Zeledon
1/2/2023 07:38:17 pm
Subject:
Reply
Amy Zeledon( correct space)
1/2/2023 07:41:04 pm
Bella and I argued about if one should live forever. I chose that living a mortal life is better. The purpose of my argument is in cases where a human/mortal life is better than that of living forever. Bella chose the side of living forever with the purpose of convincing me to be on her side of immortal life is a better option.
Reply
Nelly
1/2/2023 07:45:04 pm
1. describe the argument's purpose;
Reply
Hanna Laabid
1/2/2023 10:05:46 pm
The topic of Laksha and I’s argument was “Mondays are the worst day.” I was on the opposite side of this argument, claiming that Sundays are, in fact, the worst day. From my point of view, the purpose of this argument was to convince Laksha that Sundays are worse than Mondays, contrary to popular belief.
Reply
Dhruv Dudhat
1/2/2023 10:31:20 pm
1. The topic of the argument was "Is cereal a soup?" My position was, cereal is a soup by definition. The purpose of my argument was to persuade the opposition, my partner Ethan, to believe that cereal is a soup.
Reply
Elshaday Ftsum Tekeste
1/3/2023 03:19:51 am
I like how one of your arguments was based on Spaghettios. That is a good argument in my opinion.
Reply
Elshaday Ftsum Tekeste
1/3/2023 03:16:27 am
1) The argument was about “Which makes a better pet? Cats or Dogs?”, in which I was on team Dogs, while Jack was on team cats. Truthfully, knowing Jack’s argumentative prowess, my purpose was not to be destroyed by Jack.
Reply
Emerson Humphrey
1/3/2023 07:52:17 pm
Hey! I liked your argument about how dogs make better pets than cats, however I feel like if you had included a counter claim that some people enjoy having a low maintenance animal, but active pets cause emotional benefits and encourage owners to get outside, It could have made your argument more effective.
Reply
Elshaday Ftsum Tekeste
1/4/2023 05:25:05 am
Right. Now that you mention it, I could have at-least avoided an absolute defeat.
Lilah Childers
1/4/2023 07:12:29 pm
Nicole and I had this same argument, but definitely had fewer statistics. I was a fellow dog arguer, and I made the same points about trainability and forced healthy activities. They're most excellent points, but it may have been easier to win if you elaborated on why trainability and forced activity are beneficial to dog owners specifically. It seems you held your own against Jack at least a bit, so good job!! I also really like how you answered question three, it was an excellent analysis!
Reply
Taylor Martin
1/3/2023 05:19:38 am
1. The purpose of the argument was to debate whether being really big or really small is better.
Reply
Taylor Martin
1/3/2023 05:24:25 am
In the end, we agreed that being bigger is ultimately better as there are more advantages then there are to being small.
Reply
corrie mcarthur
1/3/2023 05:39:30 pm
I like how you used your personal experience to bolster your argument!
Reply
Kailin M.
1/4/2023 05:17:38 am
Hey! I thought it was nice how you mentioned Andre the Giant to support your point of how being big is better. I also thought that your personal experience with being short helped bring perspective as well.
Reply
Ella Case
1/3/2023 05:18:24 pm
Corrie and I argued about Which makes a better pet? Cats or dogs? I said that dogs make a better pet, while Corrie said that cats make a better pet. My purpose was to persuade Corrie that ultimately dogs make better pets than cats.
Reply
Jack Vuong
1/3/2023 07:49:23 pm
"69 million U.S. households have a pet dog, compared to 45.3 million with a cat."
Reply
corrie mcarthur
1/3/2023 05:37:53 pm
Ella and I argued about which makes a better pet? Cats or Dogs? In my opinion cats are the better pets while Ella argued that dogs are better as household pets. My argument is that cats make a better pet than dogs and to persuade Ella to see my point of view.
Reply
Jackson Konzelmann
1/4/2023 07:34:32 am
I liked that even becasue you two were arguing, you guys still dicided on one thing that it is about the people, not the pet.
Reply
Jack Vuong
1/3/2023 07:24:07 pm
1) My argument with Elshaday was on the following topic: "Which makes a better pet? Cats or dogs?" While I didn't actually believe that cats were better pets, I decided that it was necessary for me to play Devil’s advocate due to the compelling argument on the defense of cats. My purpose was to set aside my emotional biases, and use logical arguments to convince Elshaday that cats are indeed a better pet than dogs.
Reply
Emerson Humphrey
1/3/2023 07:45:10 pm
I argued with my sister Sam about whether men or women make better teachers. The purpose of my argument was to persuade her that women make better teachers. Sam's perspective wasn’t that men make better teachers, but that it varies from teacher to teacher.
Reply
Ava Williams
1/3/2023 08:33:47 pm
I like the use of counterargument but I would try counterarguing with things that are more concrete instead of strictly based on personal experience or opinions.
Reply
Jackson Konzelmann
1/4/2023 07:33:20 am
Ylou used alot of examples that I didnt think about and I really think they helped improve your claim.
Reply
Ethan Blackmon
1/11/2023 05:11:14 am
A way to strengthen your argument may have been to utilize evidence that didn't strictly rely on personal experience in your counterargument because, as your sister pointed outm your personal bias and/or the bias of others can skew your opinion in a way that is hard to reasonably defend.
Reply
Ava Williams
1/3/2023 08:21:42 pm
I chose the topic “The egg came before the chicken,” and I chose the side of the chicken coming first. I picked this argument with my older brother who argued that the egg came first. The purpose of this argument for me was mostly to argue with and annoy my brother while he was home from college, but it was also partly to convince him that I was right and he was wrong.
Reply
Finna Young
1/4/2023 05:28:13 am
I would have approached your argument more directly. A lot of your evidence seems like looking over or past the actual argument- utilizing somewhat irrelevant facts to distract and discombobulate your partner. Saying- "well in that case everyone came from prokaryotes" when your brother attempted to argue that chickens came from eggs because their ancestors laid eggs is an evasive tactic that takes away from the integrity of your argument. Were I you, I would've argued more relevant ideas such as that the chicken must've came first due to the concept of zygote production between two chickens- a process required to create the egg, therefore demonstrating why the chicken must've come first.
Reply
Lauren R.
1/4/2023 07:25:35 am
The way I would've approached the argument was first stating the logical facts based on beforehand research then counter fitting his argument and basing more researched facts with continuation of annoyance if the argument was gearing towards the significance of the evolution of an egg and chicken. The process of which you argued was well thought out, I would've done the argument similarly.
Reply
Morgan Furr
1/5/2023 04:15:13 am
Some of your evidence is moving around/avoiding the actual topic of the argument.
Reply
Finna Young
1/4/2023 05:22:50 am
The purpose of the argument held between my sister and me was to determine whether the chicken or the egg came first. I insisted that the egg came first, and my sister countered, claiming that the chicken preceded. My purpose was to logically reason to my sister as to why the egg came first and to disprove any of her opposing arguments ultimately in order to convince her to agree with my thinking.
Reply
Jackson Konzelmann
1/4/2023 07:31:57 am
I like how you argued with your sister and I really like the idea of darwinism that was intropduced in your argument, I belivev it supports your agrument.
Reply
Silas Leonard
1/4/2023 05:25:17 am
1. Me and Megan argued over whether cereal was a soup or not.
Reply
Mallory Karrenstein
1/4/2023 06:59:42 am
I think your argument would've been more successful if you would have used more direct facts/definitions.
Reply
Bella
1/4/2023 05:27:37 am
I picked the argument of is a hot dog a sandwich. The person I was arguing with was Koome. I was on the side of a hot dog is not a sandwich and Koome believed it was a sandwich.
Reply
Eva Qasim
1/4/2023 05:28:31 am
9. Which makes a better pet? A cat or a dog?
Reply
Reyna Lee
1/4/2023 05:33:35 am
1.
Reply
Mallory Karrenstein
1/4/2023 06:48:10 am
1. The purpose of my argument was to persuade Reyna that lying can sometimes be a good thing.
Reply
Lauren Ramos
1/4/2023 07:21:07 am
The argument's purpose was for me to defend if a dog is a better pet than a cat against Eva. Tactics employed would be the experience of being trained as service dogs, police dogs, and trained more efficiently to be able to live with its owner happily, and with its training the owner is more happy. So I based with other peoples experience and professional trained dogs. With that I expressed that cats are more independent towards their owner within experiences of people who had their own cats. With that, dogs are also known to be more interactive and attached to their owners, so it can be shown how dogs are better comfort and pets to people than cats which I can provide with personal experience of having both owned pets before.
Reply
Jackson Konzelmann
1/4/2023 07:30:24 am
Max and I argued about whether a hot dog was a sandwich or not. I took the side that a hot dog was not a sandwich and Max took the side that a hot dog was a sandwich. The purpose of the argument is kind of dumb, it doesn't really change the world or anything so it doesn't really matter.
Reply
Morgan Furr
1/4/2023 07:39:23 am
1. describe the argument's purpose; Me and my partner, Kali, chose the argument,are cats or dogs better? The purpose of the argument was to determine what animal is better, in a general sense, a dog or a cat.
Reply
andreea
1/4/2023 12:57:11 pm
1. describe the argument's purpose;
Reply
Lilah Childers
1/4/2023 07:13:15 pm
1. The purpose of my argument was to convince Nicole and that dogs are in fact the superior pet. This is a pretty long standing argument between Nicole and I, so this was an excellent chance to settle the matter. I believe dogs are better pets because they do more good for their owners and are considerably more affectionate; Nicole argues that cats win because they are more independent and therefore less work to own.
Reply
Nicole Vastis
1/9/2023 07:47:07 am
i will never surrender
Reply
Max Allen
1/5/2023 10:53:58 am
The topic of Jackson and I’s argument was “is a hotdog a sandwich”. I took the side that a hotdog was a sandwich while Jackson said that it wasn’t. The purpose of this argument was to stop Jackson from discriminating against Hotdogs. Where do we draw a line? First, it’s hotdogs not being allowed to be sandwiches, next it’s segregating schools. If we don’t stop this here, this kind of attitude will spread. Is that the future we want? Inequality and separation? That’s the future Jackson wants, but not me. I want a future of equality, and if you do too, you should join me in my fight against inequality; my fight for hotdog inclusion.
Reply
1/5/2023 05:51:11 pm
1. Me and Will (and by extension Jackson and Max) debated on if a hotdog is a sandwich. I took the side of a hotdog not being a sandwich, with it in fact being toast.
Reply
Kali Daniels
1/5/2023 07:25:59 pm
The argument I had with Morgan was: Are cats or dogs better? The purpose of our argument was to convince the other person why your position was better.
Reply
nicole vastis
1/8/2023 12:13:51 pm
1. Lilah and I argued about dogs vs. cats. My goal was to convince her that cats are better pets than dogs.
Reply
Ethan Blackmon
1/11/2023 05:07:04 am
1. My argument was against Dhruv. The topic of the argument was whether or not cereal (in milk) could be reasonably classified as a soup. My position was that cereal, definitionally, could not be constituted as a soup due to the requirement that soups, bisques, etc. all must primarily include a meat or vegetable in their key ingredients. The purpose of the argument was to change the perspective of the opposition and change their point of view.
Reply
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. Archives
January 2023
Categories |