Notes

1. Yes, this does seem correct in a sense. Certainly defending your position in a debate between two opposing sides is integral to forming argumentative writing. Insisting that it must be a controversial topic is essential in order to fall under the argumentative category. Claiming something as egregious as murder should be legal, doesn't strike me as a topic that would struggle to be controversial among the common public. The last statement being, "The goal of such writing MUST be to prove the correctness of one point of view over another", absolutely rings true in terms of argumentative writing. The material you're writing in an argumentative sense, must be working towards proving your claim is the correct one, while simultaneously disproving the opposing claim.

2. According to the provided text, All Writing is Argumentative, Non-argumentative writing often includes: Narratives, descriptions, technical reports, instructions, and news stories (pg. 1 paragraph 4).
After during further research, I found another form of text that helped further my ability to determine whether certain text is argumentative, or not. According to Cardiff at the University of Galway, "Non-arguments: assertions that appear to support or undermine the overarching argument, but which, on closer inspection, cannot be considered true arguments (universityofgalway.ie https://www.universityofgalway.ie/academic-skills/criticalthinking/downloads/Arguments,-non-arguments-and-evidence.pdf). Our provided text emphasizes the importance of identifying key pieces of content within a piece of writing such as: Finding familiar argumentative traits and whether or not factual evidence was provided (pg. 1 paragraph 4). The most common form of non-argumentative writing that I'm likely most experienced in is Research writing. I understand that the provided text highlights that not all Research writing should be non-argumentative, and would like to work on altering my process and results in the future, to subsequently create a more fulfilling argumentative piece of written content. I too agree with the statements made in this text that "Most of us do that through the traditional research report, the kind which focuses too much on information-gathering and notes cards and not enough on constructing engaging and interesting points of view for real audiences (pg. 1 paragraph 5)." I've recognized through my personal experience in school, more often than not, research writing has been duly focused in gathering the most information you can, and including all of it in your writing. Clearly over the years and through reading this text, I've come to the realization that this is not the most engaging way to write. To quote our provided text, "not enough on constructing engaging and interesting points of view for REAL audiences." This statement hit home for me. I genuinely resonate with the verbiage "for real audiences" because that's how I would've worded it myself. If Research Writing was strictly based in getting the most information you could on the page, without forming any personal reflections or arguments, that piece of text isn't nearly as likely to strike a chord in real audiences. Essentially causing the readers to want to continue reading your content and interacting with it, as well as causing them to form their own opinions, whether contrary to the writer's, or not. Non-argumentative writing is certainly a thing, despite it's lack of engagement and opinion forming interaction.

3. To make the claim that all logical fallacies take place unknowingly would be incorrect, according to my research. Fallacies are often used to deceive others, or dismantle their argument if the opposition lacks the experience in recognizing these fallacies being used against them, or the ability to verbalize their recognition of said fallacies. Of course logical fallacies can arise in one's argument unknowingly, therefore uprooting their argument as a whole. Fallacies can be done on purpose, as well as the opposite. They can be glaring to some, or inconspicuous to those whom are less experienced, both resulting in interruptions of achieving the end goal of proving your point in it's entirety, through argumentative writing or speech.

4. We often see poorly constructed inductive arguments in personal political beliefs. Having time in the Southern United States, it's not uncommon to hear ridiculous claims often rooted in contradicting fallacies, through my personal experience. For example, claiming that allowing students to go by their preferred pronouns, will result in 'turning our children gay', is a poorly constructed inductive argument. In this case, I've identified an appeal to tradition in the previous statement. Claiming that allowing a student to be referred to how they'd prefer will in-turn, influence your child's gender identity, could be seen as appealing to tradition. We didn't have that back in my day, and this is how it always was, therefore this is wrong. One could also identify a logical fallacy in that statement. No evidence exists that allowing students to be called by what they prefer, will result in the sexual preferences or orientation of your child changing. According to Learn.Saylor.org, "The most egregious of Logical Fallacies is called the slippery slope (pg. 1 paragraph 5).", in which a situation is described that is generally unaccepted, will in-turn result in an inevitable outcome.

5. In most instances of personal political beliefs being obscured by poorly constructed inductive arguments, it is seen as ignorant. In this case, I believe willful ignorance plays a roll, causing it to fall under the deliberate category. Being willfully ignorant can create a safe space for those who hold obscure outlandish beliefs that lack logic and validation. Purposefully neglecting high quality information and research can result in forming beliefs rooted in poorly constructed inductive arguments. To assume that all obscure personal political beliefs are deliberate, would be wrong. Being able to recognize that these beliefs can be formed deliberately or ignorantly is important, as they certainly can manifest in both ways, deliberately or ignorantly.


6. Logical fallacies also result in poor communication. The flaws in reasoning show negative results for the other party listening. This can lead to unfortunate conclusions. In the context of 'bad citizenship', it is referring to society members not fulfilling their responsibilities as citizens. The disconnect to a more thorough understanding leaves the phrase much to be desired, in my opinion.

7. Throughout the video both parties engaged in varying levels of logical fallacies. From his ad hominins judgement of telling her to shut up using the assumption that she’s speaking too much, when he was guilty of the exact same crime of attempting to speak over her. As well as her hasty generalization of the situation stating “now someone is dead” without validating each scenario leading up to that conclusion. Neither group came out looking better than going in, in my opinion.