Some tips:

*Remember to use the Word Bank–using the language of argument is crucial to this assignment! The logical fallacies are not in the word bank; you can use the ones I gave you on your handout.

*No sucking up.    It’s easy in these papers to say something along the lines of “and this is why everyone should take argument class.”  I’m not interested in that.  It might well be the case that you talk about the inadequacy of argument to change people’s minds (perhaps you could propose a more successful alternative?)  So avoid that kind of throw-away line.  It’s ok to critique argumentation and elements of argument.

*No shenanigans.  1 inch margins, Times New Roman, 12 point font.  6-8 pages (I think this is reasonable) NOT including the text of the actual intervention.

*Review the assignment sheet in the syllabus.  I suspect that you will have 3-4 pages of Part 2–Critique (where you explain the context of the argument and your critique of the argument).  Remember, I want depth here!  Don’t just say “they didn’t have any evidence.”  Explain what evidence could have been compelling, what evidence other commenters were pointing to, what bad evidence would look like.  Use terms like bias, representativeness, and the like in order to describe quality of evidence.  I think you can see how the longer your intervention is, the more raw material you will have to draw from in your critique.

*Part 3 can be kind of tricky: it is supposed to be your assessment of the entire argument.  Think about this in a couple of ways.  First, are the theories of argument that we talked about throughout the semester adequate?  Is there something missing?  For example, if you wanted to focus on the adequacy of Brockriede’s “Arguers as Lovers” model, you could develop a fourth category that you think your online co-arguer falls into.  Alternatively, we talked about eight common standards by which to evaluate evidence.  Are there others?  Is there another standard you use to evaluate evidence that is distinct from the other eight?  Explain what it is and why it is useful.  Second, are there key differences between online argumentation and offline?  Was there a difference in  the face-to-face interaction with your classmates and the anonymous interactions with online co-arguers?  What differences were there, and what differences did they make?  Finally,  you might think about the reflection section as giving advice to a future online arguer.  What did you learn that you think is valuable for other people to learn?

*In the text of your own intervention, bold your own contributions.  That will make it easier for me.

*Remember, the papers are to be emailed to me by December 7th.  Talk to me if you need an extension.  I’ll evaluate them and send them back via email during finals week.

Have a good week off–and get cracking on them final papers!

First, C-Span’s page of blog resources is a great place to start.   There’s a wide variety of different blogs there.

Second, use search engines like Technorati or Google to find blogs that are of interest to you.  If you ‘re interested in the implications of the “2006 midterms,” type that in and see if there are some blogs talking about it.  The more commenters on a blog, the better.

Third, here are some other good ones:

Panda’s Thumb–anti-intelligent design

Center for American Progress–left/progressive politics

RedState–conservative / right politics

Michelle Malkin–conservative pundit

Political Animal–left politics

TPM Cafe–wide variety of issue-specific blogs

Townhall–clearinghous for politics-talk

Finally, remember that a lot of “mainstream” media now enable comments on their articles–that is fair game, too.

According to Ph.D. candidate Damien Pfister, Colbert’s popularity is tied in many ways to the Internet, because the clips on his show are the perfect size for eventual upload. Popular segments such as “The Word” and “Threat Down” usually last for 3 to 5 minutes.
Pfister, who has researched the Internet as a form of mass communication, said in an e-mail that Colbert’s on-air persona has attracted a lot of attention and subsequent action – especially from young people.
“First, I think a lot of this is just correlation – college students are the core demographics for “The Colbert Report” and just happen to have unmonitored Internet access for long stretches of time.”
The fact that students are using Facebook as a means for organization is not a novel idea to Pfister. He said that recently Internet-based campaigns such as the Million Mom March and MoveOn.org – as well as Howard Dean’s bid for the presidential nomination – have demonstrated the effective and cheap way the Internet can organize people.
“Unsurprisingly, college students have picked up on the benefits of this type of political action,” Pfister said in an e-mail.

Here’s most of my extended response to Andy (the staff writer). There’s some gems in there that didn’t make the final cut:

1] I’m not sure exactly why Colbert (and Stewart, too, of course) are so popular online. Three speculations: First, I think a lot of this is just correlation–college students are the core demographic for The Colbert Report and just happen to have unmonitored internet access for long stretches of time. Naturally, these students might gravitate to Colbert-themed material. Second, the format of The Colbert Report is very conducive to creating “viral” video clips that can circulate quickly. The little segments (“The Word,” “Threat Down”) are usually 3-5 minutes long, which is just about the right length for internet video (and for iPod video, which is how a lot of people are or will soon be watching these clips.) Finally, I think that Colbert‘s whole “truthiness” schtick has attracted a lot of sympathy. Colbert‘s regular performances demonstrate the superiority, in many ways, of “fake news” to “real news.” From Colbert‘s speech at the White House Correspondents Association Dinner to his nightly show, he’s able to use parody and satire to score some very salient points that “real news” ignores.

2] Why would students use Facebook to organize this movement? Well, I think that the impulse to organize is very powerful when there is a felt need by citizens to do so–whether we’re talking about organizing around naming the new University Dining Facility or drawing attention to genocide in Darfur. Social networking sites, like Facebook and MySpace, as well as other new information technologies including blogs and podcasts, enable novel ways of organizing like-minded people and expressing public opinion to decision-makers. That is apparently what is happening in this campaign: the organizers are hoping that there will be so much support that the people in charge will have no choice but to name the Dining Facility after Stephen Colbert. Facebook radically reduces the cost of a campaign like this; imagine if a similar campaign were to take place using, say, door-to-door petitioning! Online organizing is a very attractive alternative that can build up a groundswell of public support quickly and cheaply. American politics has witnessed a number of these internet-organized campaigns, from the Million Mom March to MoveOn.org to the Dean bid for the Democratic nomination. Unsurprisingly, college students have picked up on the benefits of this type of political action. Citizens have a remarkable amount of power when they bond together–if these students are successful in their efforts to name the Dining Facilities after Stephen Colbert, they might feel emboldened to channel their activist energies towards other serious issues.

Two reminders:

First, each person in the group gets a designated “speaker position.”  If you are the 1st Affirmative speaker, then you do the 1st Affirmative constructive, 1st Affirmative rebuttal, and you ask questions when it says “1st Affirmative cross-examines…”  So, there’s no switching around (i.e. one person does the 1st Affirmative constructive and the 2nd Affirmative rebuttal.)

Second,  remember the form for the briefs.  I’m a bit of a stickler for this, so follow the format closely.  Here’s an electronic copy.

Groups & Dates:

November 2

The Supreme Court should rule that medical marijuana is a legitimate narcotic use.

Erin & Ali vs. Jason & Ryan

The United States should ban the production and sales of genetically-modified food.
Alice & Adrian vs. Jaci &Eric

November 9 

The United States should re-open negotiations with North Korea.

Brad & Chris Keller vs. Aaron & Chris Kenny
The United States should accelerate efforts to reduce global warming.

Sam R. & Jen vs. Mike & Andrew

November 30

The United States should pass “net neutrality” legislation currently in Congress.

James, Leah, & Greg

The United States should pass “net neutrality” legislation currently in Congress.

North Korea: Brad, Chris Kenny, Chris Keller
Medical Marijuana: Erin, Ali, Jason, Ryan
Global Warming: Sam R., Mike, Jen, Andrew
GMO’s: Eric, Alice, Jaci

Well, turns out that is most of four groups. Anyone want to jump on one of these groups, or suggest another from the earlier post?

Start reading around–the more you research the better prepared you’ll be.

You should do two things: first, suggest any other topics that tickle your fancy. You can email me these privately if you would like. Second, go through the list and identify 2-3 topics you are interested in–you can rank order them if you would like. Groups can self-form without my assistance, if there are 4 people that immediately glom on to a topic; otherwise, I’ll step in and make some suggestions. Let’s try to get this settled by Monday or Tuesday. That way you can start doing some research.

I’ve included some links to Wikipedia to give interested people some background on the issue. Remember what I said, though: Wikipedia is a good starting point for research, but not a good ending point.

Possible topics (wordings subject to change):

The United States should pass “net neutrality” legislation currently in Congress.
The United States should label genetically modified food.

United States’ culture has hit a dead-end.

Neoconservatives have gotten Middle East policy wrong.

Moral condemnation of cloning is misguided.

The United States should pass the Employment Non-Discrimination Act to prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation.

California’s stem cell legislation should become federal policy.

The Supreme Court should rule that medical marijuana is a legitimate narcotic use.

The United States should accelerate efforts to reduce global warming.

The United States should accelerate efforts to reduce fossil fuel use.

The United States should rollback NAFTA legislation.

Intelligent design should be taught as an alternative to evolution in high schools.

It’s time for another amnesty.

The United States should re-open negotiations with North Korea.