Discussion Question 1

Discussion Question 1: How might argumentation differ in the classroom, daily life, and your job? To demonstrate this, select a position from a current event with which you are familiar. How would you argue this position in the classroom, daily life, and on the job? Would you use different supporting evidence to make your argument? What expectations would you have of someone arguing a position to you in each of these different settings?

Some are outraged that Michael Vick has returned to the NFL and is making a good salary (though not nearly as good as before) after he was convicted of dog fighting and spent 18 months in jail. Unlike convicted doctors, lawyers and others in positions of public trust bound by professional ethical codes, there is no such constraint on Vick and the NFL. If I was going to argue this I the classroom, I would come prepared with all facts around the situation. It is very likely that in the classroom, there will be a less educated audience overall on this subject. Therefore, I would need to start at the beginning and give all data surrounding this. If I were to discuss this in my daily life or on the job, it would be a very different situation. More than likely I will be talking with people of the same interests that I have, and they are probably up to speed on the latest news. If this is the case, then we can talk in more detail around the subject and dive in deeper.

In the classroom I would talk about how Vick has really changed his life around and is trying to do the right thing. I would classify these people as Wavering. I would show examples of how he is now the spokes person for the humane society, and is their main marketing vehicle for stopping dog fighting, which is a multi-million dollar business in the US.

If was talking to some friends about it, I would change my material a bit and consider these people supportive. I would talk about how if they didn’t let him return that it is a loss for the NFL. Michael Vick still...