We’ve been learning some methods of effective argumentation over the past several weeks. We’ve discussed logos, ethos, and pathos (remember what they are?) and we’ve addressed the key elements of well-structured argument: claim + reasoning + evidence.
Of course, debate isn’t merely about making strong arguments of your own; it’s also about pointing out the weaknesses in your opposition. This is called refutation, and you’ll be learning more about it in the weeks to come.
For now, let’s try a little exercise. Below, you will find a very poor argument in favor of the war in Iraq. Your task? Point out at least two weaknesses in this argument. It shouldn’t be difficult.
Read carefully, and think critically. Have fun!
* * * * *
Some people believe that the United States should withdraw its combat troops from Iraq. They say that the war is unwinnable. I disagree. I think that U.S. troops should remain permanently in Iraq.
Specifically, I believe that we should double our troop presence in the cities and eliminate all troops in the countryside. We should provide $5 million in funding for the war effort each year; we should reevaluate our funding needs every two decades.
The Iraqi government has shown itself to be ineffective. Thus, I believe the U.S. military command should disband the government and imprison all leadership. We should institute a military-sponsored Sunni government that will cooperate fully with President Bush’s directives.
Finally, we should impose a mandatory draft on all Iraqi citizens above the age of 8, compelling them into military service to ensure their own national security.
I urge you to consider this policy.