Thursday, October 8, 2009

For Today --

Be sure that at the very least you have read and are prepared to discuss two of the shorter pieces assigned for today, one of which talks about an Environmental Racism study asserting complex causation for discrimination and the other of which talks about the racism playing out in some National Park and wildlife preservation work. All told, these pieces demand something like four pages of reading. Have copies on hand, marked up, and ready to roll. We're going to have some true rhet-style fun today.


  1. One thing I noticed about the excercise is that what might seem to be the weaker cause can become the stronger if that side can pick apart the stronger cause on rebuttal or if the stronger cause gives a poor arguement. Pathos is usually what the stronger case will use for they already agree with the argument and assume that the majority of the audience does too. But this is not a guarantee win, for if the weaker side can damage the stronger side enough, the jury will forget what the argument is about and pick the side whose words or members they like best. If I had it to do again I would try and use more ethos in my rebuttal. Thats my take
    Chris Wood

  2. I think it's really interesting that you say pathos is what the stronger case sill use when they already agree with the argument. I never thought of that connection, but I definitely was taken aback during our debate when certain people became extremely passionate when trying to prove their case with examples.

    I also saw how a sortof "fake" ethos can also damage a case. When there isn't a disguise of authority or legitimacy for the claims, the argument can become comical and to me, removes the argument from the real world and makes it seem just like a comedy/ comedic routine.