To Good Persuasive Writers/Debaters

[Warik]

See if you can guess if the following paragraph is the introduction to....

a) A pro-gun control paper.

b) An anti-gun control paper.

In the year 2000, the United States faced over 340,000 reported incidents of firearms being used to commit violent crimes. Of those 340,000 incidents, 10,200 of them were cases in which innocent Americans lost their lives at the hands of armed criminals. In addition to innocent loss of life due to criminal activity involving handguns over the years, there have been the United States has witnessed between 900 and 1,500 cases annually of accidental deaths involving a handgun.

Why such a pointless question to which the answer is obvious, Warik? You shall see.

-Warik

 

[Superbabe]

b?

 

[spongebob]

a

 

[alphaxi]

Uh..I would guess B?

 

[GinNJuice]

B...... it was the last statement!

 

[~HOUNDOG~]

a

 

[RyanH]

the answer is A because although there were 14,000 cases where innocent people lost their lives or a couple of thousand cases attributable to accidental deaths, there were 328,000 cases where non-innocent or guilty people lost their lives.

It's a cost/benefit analysis.

 

[Frackal]

B would make sense but Warik's a tricky bastard so I shall say "A"

 

[OMEGA]

confidently a

 

[Warik]

Frackal is correct - I am a tricky bastard. I'm tricky in the sense that you are all simultaneously correct and incorrect.

To those of you who said "a) This is the intro to a paper in favor of gun control," you are correct. The writer states all of the negatives associated with handgun ownership.

340,000 incidents of firearms used to commit violent crimes per year - BAD
10,200 innocent Americans dying - BAD
900-1,500 accidental deaths - BAD

Clearly, this paragraph appears to be the introduction to a pro gun-control paper.

Now where is the trick? The trick is that all of you "a)" people are blatantly wrong as well. This paragraph is the introduction to a paper OPPOSING handgun control - my analytical research report for my technical writing class.

So why has Warik written such a blatantly liberal, pro gun-control paragraph to begin his anti gun-control paper? Because his teacher is a fucking idiot.

My original paragraph:

In the year 2000, the United States faced over 340,000 reported incidents of firearms being used to commit violent crimes. Of these 340,000 incidents, 10,200 of them were cases in which innocent Americans lost their lives at the hands of armed criminals. The freedom and safety of innocent Americans are compromised every year by this lethal threat against which they have no defense - a defense of which their own state governments have stripped them.

My teacher claims it is too biased.

Hello?

I'm writing a persuasive paper accompanied by research whose goal is to convince a senator that not letting Californians carry concealed weapons = bad. Would someone care to explain to me how I'm going to accomplish that by having the senator think that I'm actually in FAVOR of gun control in the first paragraph? By doing this, I am shooting myself in the foot (no pun intended). He fails to understand that.

I'm told that I should mention the opposing sides viewpoints and attempt to refute them. Obviously, you pea-brained dunderhead. This is a 5 page - not paragraph - paper. If I start mentioning and refuting everything in the introductory paragraph, then I might as well not write a body to the paper.

I had a kickass paper in mind. It was looking kickass. Now I'm told that my paper will not receive a good grade unless I put things in the first paragraph that I, among other people I've shown both paragraphs to, feel make my argument significantly weaker and will cause the reader to lose respect for me because my words seem timid and uncertain.

Two questions:

1) Am I mistaken? Is my teacher really NOT a stupid fucking idiot?

2) Do I do what I do in 99% of my other classes? Do I say "I know the teacher is full of shit, but I'll do the stupid shit his way in order to get a good grade," or do I say "I'm right, you're wrong - I'm not changing a thing. Grade it how you want, cocksucker."

Even you, Ryan, must agree with me. Do you start your pro-abortion arguments by saying: "Well, I know fetuses are people, but but but but....!"

Clearly not.

-Warik

 

[conosco la vostra voce]

Upon reading it, I clearly see your bias. You ARE stating other facts that would be anti-gun useful for an argument, but you work it all in together in such a way to let the reader know that you are very much in support of guns.

I would think that it would be most useful to give the info and then say, "Although research has shown x and y.." and then go on with how you believe you can debunk that in the paper.

I think that must be what your teacher was getting at.

 

[Warik]

Upon reading it, I clearly see your bias. You ARE stating other facts that would be anti-gun useful for an argument, but you work it all in together in such a way to let the reader know that you are very much in support of guns.

That's the point. I looked at it from the point of view of me reading someone else's paper. If someone sent me a paper in favor of X, but he started talking about Y, I would question his competency to make a decision as to what is right or wrong.

If someone sent me a paper that was supposed to be in opposition to the death penalty, but he started telling me about how X,000 prisoners are executed each year and are never able to commit crimes again, I would immediately think: "No shit, they are dead. Isn't that good?"

The reader shouldn't have to ask himself those questions. They should be evident in the paper. If the reader can't tell on what side you are arguing, how is he to make a decision? Worse yet, if the reader sees that you can't decide whether you are for or against, how is he going to respect you?

The only reason I bother to read my arch-enemy RyanH's posts is because I know what I'm reading. I'm reading the anti-(insert Warik's view here) comments by someone who knows what he supports and is making it clear.

In a persuasive paper, I don't see how we can consider something like that to be "bias."

If you argue in favor of something and you support it, you are immediately "biased."

If you argue in favor of something and you DON'T support it, you are immediately "stupid."

I'd rather be biased.

I would think that it would be most useful to give the info and then say, "Although research has shown x and y.." and then go on with how you believe you can debunk that in the paper.

I did something similar to that originally. I started with what you read above, then I went on to mention the increase in violent crime last year in California except for in Orange County (crime dropped 29%) where concealed weapons are legal. Then I talked briefly about what happened in Florida when concealed weapons were legalized (good things of course), and finally I informed the reader that I was going to prove that more guns = less crime by using facts that support my claim AND by accepting popular anti-gun arguments as fact and showing why they support my view as opposed to their views WITHOUT rambling on about the 2nd amendment or quoting shit from the NRA

That was pretty much my intro. I felt that it set the stage for the reader making him think: "OK, this guy supports the legalization of concealed weapons in California... he's got some statistics showing that crime has been increasing even though they are banned, but crime drops where they aren't banned. Interesting... and he's not going to bore me with the 2nd amendment... and he's going to also prove his argument by accepting opposing arguments as fact? Interesting. Let's read on"

Now it's a little more like: "Uhhh... this guy is in favor of legalizing concealed weapons? Why the fuck is he telling me all the bad things associated with them, then? Good job booger... where's my shredder?"

Oh well.

I think that must be what your teacher was getting at.

I thought so too originally, but then when I whipped out my laptop and typed the BS paragraph in my first post and modified the rest of the intro (thus making it 3 pages long and over 2000 words), he said it was "OK" now. A 3 page introduction to a 5 page paper? UHHHH???

He is clearly not competent to teach the class. Perhaps my report should be a 5 page paper to the dean as to why he needs to be introduced to unemployment.

-Warik

 

[gymtime]

the answer is A because although there were 14,000 cases where innocent people lost their lives or a couple of thousand cases attributable to accidental deaths, there were 328,000 cases where non-innocent or guilty people lost their lives.

It's a cost/benefit analysis.

I beg to differ. All that means is that of 340,000 total incidents, 10,200 innocent people were killed. It does not mean that the remaining incidents resulted in death, or that the the remaining individuals were innocent or not.

Now, to the tricky bastard. First of all, this is a tech writing class? Where's the tech?

Second, it seems to me that in a persuasive essay, as I harken way the hell back to college, you begin your paper by stating your position. You deal with counter-arguements in the body of the essay. So in that sense, how can your opener possibly be "too biased?"

As for what to do, that's a tough one. Depends on how strongly you feel about it. I'd first go to another writing prof and get another opinion. See how that goes. You may end up having to spoon feed him what he wants to hear for the grade. Otherwise, you take the lower grade on principle. Up to you.

 

[conosco la vostra voce]

I cannot disagree with you there Warik.

I have written several long papers (try 15-20 pages) in my time and I'll be the first to say that that's how to do it.

You must acknowledge the arguments from both sides but point out why you support the one side with facts. Essentially, that part of the argument goes in the body of the paper anyway. The intro states what you intend to prove and how you are going to do it.

I think that's exactly what we're talking about here. Do it the proper way and if you get a bad grade then take it to your dean and challenge your grade and ask for a re-read.

It makes no sense to do it improperly.

 

[spongebob]

warik your response should have been "only frackel is right"

that way we would have asked ourselfs, "wait a minute i picked the same answer as frackel, but why is he the only one that is right?"

if that is your intent to write a paper that starts out as a sneaky attempt to confuse the reader on whether you believe in gun control or you dont believe in it. and then to continue the paper in support of the opposite view, only to change your mind again.

then im confused.

i thought the point of writing papers was to convey a message of some sort with persuasive arguements and some facts.

people here are arguing your writing style, shouldn't we be debating the substance instead of the style.

i like to keep it simple. state a view, discuss reasons why you believe that view, offer some oposite views, which you feel are faulty and thereby support you views.

BTW, just my .02, i havnt been in classes in a long time.

 

[Warik]

Now, to the tricky bastard. First of all, this is a tech writing class? Where's the tech?

It's in the name of the class. That's about it.

Second, it seems to me that in a persuasive essay, as I harken way the hell back to college, you begin your paper by stating your position.

So they taught you that too, eh? Let me just add your name to the petition list of "people who agree that persuasive papers begin with me stating my position." It is now (world's population) minus 1 names long.

You deal with counter-arguements in the body of the essay. So in that sense, how can your opener possibly be "too biased?"

Aside from the teacher saying so? You've got me. That sounds like a good topic for a paper. =)

As for what to do, that's a tough one. Depends on how strongly you feel about it. I'd first go to another writing prof and get another opinion. See how that goes.

I e-mailed my old Lit. Analysis teacher about it. He is slightly less liberal than most teachers (he agrees that public education sucks and so he sends his kids to private school... kudos), so I respect his opinion. I'm sure he'll agree with me too because I told him how this teacher operates his class and he told me, and I quote, "Sorry about the English class you're suffering through. I imagine you will have to deal often with incompetencies such as this."

You may end up having to spoon feed him what he wants to hear for the grade. Otherwise, you take the lower grade on principle. Up to you.

I think what I'll do is I'll figure out what my current grade is and see how much I need to get myself a B. If I don't need a high grade on the paper for my B, I'll write it as I wish. If he gives me a viciously unfair grade I'll take that shit straight to whatever office I have to take it. Even if it won't resolve anything, at least it will amuse me.

That's what life is all about, isn't it? Being amused. =)

-Warik

 

[gymtime]

That's what life is all about, isn't it? Being amused. =)

-Warik

Absolutely. Sounds like you have the situation in hand. Interesting thread btw.

 

[Warik]

Interesting thread btw.

Thanks. Please continue to respond to it. It's amusing. =)

-Warik

 

[conosco la vostra voce]

I still suggest doing it the proper way. It'll help having the support of your other professors if and when you ask for a re-read.

 

[gymtime]

....hat is your intent to write a paper that starts out as a sneaky attempt to confuse the reader on whether you believe in gun control or you dont believe in it. and then to continue the paper in support of the opposite view, only to change your mind again.

then im confused.

i thought the point of writing papers was to convey a message of some sort with persuasive arguements and some facts.

people here are arguing your writing style, shouldn't we be debating the substance instead of the style.

i like to keep it simple. state a view, discuss reasons why you believe that view, offer some oposite views, which you feel are faulty and thereby support you views.

BTW, just my .02, i havnt been in classes in a long time.

I'm a little off as to where he was "sneaky." Plus, it sounds like you're talking about an essay in it's entirety, not the intro paragraph which I believe is the subject at hand. Intros are supposed to state your position, period. Arguements come later. Summaries restate your initial position. That's basic writing.

I am now amused also.

 

[conosco la vostra voce]

Yes. That's exactly it gymtime.

 

[spongebob]

I'm a little off as to where he was "sneaky." Plus, it sounds like you're talking about an essay in it's entirety, not the intro paragraph which I believe is the subject at hand. Intros are supposed to state your position, period. Arguements come later. Summaries restate your initial position. That's basic writing.

I am now amused also.

warik said:"Frackal is correct - I am a tricky bastard. I'm tricky in the sense that you are all simultaneously correct and incorrect."

"sneeky???" it was just a comment.


warik also said, "This paragraph is the introduction to a paper OPPOSING handgun control."

then warik said, "So why has Warik written such a blatantly liberal, pro gun-control paragraph to begin his anti gun-control paper? Because his teacher is a fucking idiot."

you said, "Intros are supposed to state your position, period.

wariks position is anti-gun.
he states the intro is pro-gun control.
he then states that the paper is anti-gun.

spongebob said, "i like to keep it simple. state a view, discuss reasons why you believe that view, offer some oposite views, which you feel are faulty and thereby support you views."

like i said its been awhile, but i do remember that teachers dont like papers to begin with a staement that purports to be his opinion, but then is in actuallity supporting another opinion.

i know exactly what he was doing, i have done this too. but i never recieved a high grade for it.


BTW, i too am bored and was originally adding to wariks ammusement, and now yours. LOL

 

[Warik]

wariks position is anti-gun.
he states the intro is pro-gun control.
he then states that the paper is anti-gun.

Uh, actually my paper is anti gun-CONTROL... not anti-gun. =)

My paper = "concealed weapons are good. let us have them"
The intro paragraph resulting from my "teacher's" idiocy = "guns are bad. take them away!!!!"

=)

-Warik

 

[spongebob]

Uh, actually my paper is anti gun-CONTROL... not anti-gun. =)

My paper = "concealed weapons are good. let us have them"
The intro paragraph resulting from my "teacher's" idiocy = "guns are bad. take them away!!!!"

=)

-Warik

my bad. i should have said what i meant. anti-gun control.

BTW, i agree with the title.

 

[Warik]

I still suggest doing it the proper way. It'll help having the support of your other professors if and when you ask for a re-read.

Oh, I'm certainly going to do it the proper way. Like Picard said in Episode 1 of TNG: "If we're going to be damned, let us be damned for what we are."

What exactly is this "re-read" you are talking about? Can I actually request that my paper be read by other professors to evaluate the fairness of the grade I received? How does that work? I've never had to do that... then again, I've never had a jackass who had the audacity to give me less than an "A" on anything I've written as my teacher.

-Warik

 

[conosco la vostra voce]

Oh, I'm certainly going to do it the proper way. Like Picard said in Episode 1 of TNG: "If we're going to be damned, let us be damned for what we are."

What exactly is this "re-read" you are talking about? Can I actually request that my paper be read by other professors to evaluate the fairness of the grade I received? How does that work? I've never had to do that... then again, I've never had a jackass who had the audacity to give me less than an "A" on anything I've written as my teacher.

-Warik

At most schools that I am aware of, you put in a formal request with the dean for a re-read if you want to dispute your grade. The dean will re-evaluate the grade based on his or her assessment of the paper.

 

[RyanH]

Your teacher is INDEED an IDIOT!!

A persuasive paper should build up your side to the fullest extent possible while refuting your opponent's claims in the process.

However, you should never hide unfavorable facts to your argument, but you should refute them through all sorts of tactics.... Lay out your oppenents facts, and then shoot them down like missles falling in Aghanistan!!! Hiding facts will only make you look stupid.

Your introduction, however, should suck your reader in and automatically put the reader on your side. If you don't suck the reader in with the opening, you most likely will not throughout the rest of the paper.

Just suck it up and do what your professor says. But when you have to evaluate the idiot remind him anonymously that he sucks and always will.

Ryan.

 

[spongebob]

Your introduction, however, should suck your reader in and automatically put the reader on your side. If you don't suck the reader in with the opening, you most likely will not throughout the rest of the paper.

ryan, we already discussed this.

his intro is pro-gun control, and his paper is anti-gun control.

so how can he suck the reader into being on his side.

his side his not what the intro states.

i think you've sucked one too many readers in before.




BTW, j/k

 

[RyanH]

ryan, we already discussed this.

his intro is pro-gun control, and his paper is anti-gun control.

so how can he suck the reader into being on his side.

his side his not what the intro states.

i think you've sucked one too many readers in before.
BTW, j/k

No Spongebob......I would not write anti gun-control paper with an introduction supporting gun control....stupid technique.

 

[spongebob]

No Spongebob......I would not write anti gun-control paper with an introduction supporting gun control....stupid technique.

exactly, thats why his teacher disagrees.

 

[conosco la vostra voce]

Ugh, had I read more carefully instead of skimming I'd have noticed that.

Why didn't you get the choice to write from one side or the other?

You'll have to rewrite your intro to be anti-gun rather than have subtext. It's too confusing.

 

[gymtime]

Eh, I think it was only confusing because we thought Warik was up to something. If you just read the paragraph without the opening choices of a or b, it's a lot more clear.

 

[spongebob]

Eh, I think it was only confusing because we thought Warik was up to something. If you just read the paragraph without the opening choices of a or b, it's a lot more clear.

thats an excellent point. but, warik is up to something.

you see he used his opening post to suck the reader in to be on his side(even though his side is not that of the intro).
if you dont suck the reader in with the opening, you most likely will not throughout the rest of the paper. i know a little ryan-esk.

do you think i would still be typing here if he had wriiten the paper in a traditional manner. therefore he has accomplished what he set out to do.

and it wasn't just to get opinions on his paper. now i am going to cease my contribution to his sick twisted ammusement.

LOL

 

[Lao Tzu]

my second grade teacher thought there were 363 days in a year. i sometimes corrected my history teacher in high school when he was wrong about something. sometimes teachers are wrong.

 

[spongebob]

i had a teacher tell me to stop making jokes all the time.

i never did understand her point.

 

[Warik]

Why didn't you get the choice to write from one side or the other?

You'll have to rewrite your intro to be anti-gun rather than have subtext. It's too confusing.

I did get the choice.

Here's the deal, basically. The topic and the side for which we are arguing is our choice.

My topic: Concealed weapons (handguns) ban in California.
My Stance: Concealed weapons bans = bad. Californians should be able to carry concealed weapons.

My original opening paragraph, the one concluding with: "The freedom and safety of innocent Americans are compromised every year by this lethal threat against which they have no defense - a defense of which their own state governments have stripped them," was not to my professor's liking. In fact, he stated that it was "very biased" and "would not help my argument." He made some suggestions as to how I could "fix" it.

Agonizing after every word was typed, I "fixed" my intro paragraph and turned it into a disgusting piece of filth that I would never write, even if intoxicated beyond precedent. He liked it and said it was better. He tore apart the rest of my introduction and I "fixed" that too. What was originally a page and a quarter of solid, straightforward "look, concealed weapon bans are bad and I'm going to prove it" turned into "well... I don't like concealed weapon bans, but without concealed weapon bans some people get hurt... ummm... I guess I'm not really decided... but I'm going to prove that they are bad... umm... err... I'm very unsure of myself and any normal person would have stopped reading by now.. umm. err.. uhhh."

If the rest of my paper has to look like that in order for me to get an "A," then I simply do not want an "A."

I'd rather get an "F" on a paper I wrote than get an "A" on a paper I'd never write.

-Warik

 

[Warik]

my second grade teacher thought there were 363 days in a year. i sometimes corrected my history teacher in high school when he was wrong about something. sometimes teachers are wrong.

Please refrain from using the word "sometimes" in regard to teacher error. I believe the word "often" is much more suitable.

-Warik

 

[HappyScrappy]

I haven't read any of these posts, but in the first one - if you are stating facts, and they are correct - then you should in fact be able to debate it either way.

 

[Warik]

thats an excellent point. but, warik is up to something.

you see he used his opening post to suck the reader in to be on his side(even though his side is not that of the intro).
if you dont suck the reader in with the opening, you most likely will not throughout the rest of the paper. i know a little ryan-esk.

do you think i would still be typing here if he had wriiten the paper in a traditional manner. therefore he has accomplished what he set out to do.

and it wasn't just to get opinions on his paper. now i am going to cease my contribution to his sick twisted ammusement.

LOL

Actually, I wasn't trying to suck anybody here into anything. I felt that I would get a more objective response if I posted the paragraph and gave 2 choices instead of posting: "MY TEACHER SAYS THIS IS BETTER THAN THIS... WHAT DO YOU THINK?" Those who hate me would tend to side with the teacher, and those who are all over my cock would tend to side with me. Those who are neutral would be the only ones who were objective.

By posting this in the way that I did, I accomplished what I set out to... I proved to myself that most people, even my arch-nemesis (the dastardly RyanH), agree with my belief that there exists an empty void within my teachers head where one would expect to find a brain.

You have all encouraged me to tell my teacher to "fuck off" in the best way I know how - by writing a kickass paper MY way and forcing him to grade it accordingly - kickass.

-Warik

 

[Warik]

I haven't read any of these posts, but in the first one - if you are stating facts, and they are correct - then you should in fact be able to debate it either way.

Oh, of course. I believe that with sufficient facts, I can debate nearly everything. The fact is, the first paragraph I posted gives the impression (at least I believe so) to the reader that the writer is in favor of gun control.

If I saw a paper with that opening paragraph, and I was under the impression that the writer was in favor of gun control only to see the writer suddenly surprise me with "gun bans are bad!!!!!!!", I would question his competency to argue based on his incompetency to write and thus toss his paper aside.

I'm going to have so much fun writing my paper in the evil Warik way. I think I'll even attach a personal note from myself to the professor informing him that I am well aware of the fact that I am blatantly going against everything he has ever "taught."

-Warik

 

[spongebob]

By posting this in the way that I did, I accomplished what I set out to... I proved to myself that most people, even my arch-nemesis (the dastardly RyanH), agree with my belief that there exists an empty void within my teachers head where one would expect to find a brain.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by RyanH


No Spongebob......I would not write anti gun-control paper with an introduction supporting gun control....stupid technique.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

[Warik]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by RyanH


No Spongebob......I would not write anti gun-control paper with an introduction supporting gun control....stupid technique.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes, he agreed with me. The pro gun-control intro was NOT my intro - it was the stupid shit my teacher suggested. Ryan agrees that it is a stupid technique, and thus, he agrees with me.

-Warik

 

[spongebob]

i'll be honest. i am confused now. but i'll be back, i've gotta go re-read the whole thread now.

 

[Warik]

i'll be honest. i am confused now. but i'll be back, i've gotta go re-read the whole thread now.

How amusing. ;-)

-Warik

 

[spongebob]

warik, so far this is all i've found. a bit off the topic but...,


you said:
Two questions:

1) Am I mistaken? Is my teacher really NOT a stupid fucking idiot?

2) Do I do what I do in 99% of my other classes? Do I say "I know the teacher is full of shit, but I'll do the stupid shit his way in order to get a good grade," or do I say "I'm right, you're wrong - I'm not changing a thing. Grade it how you want, cocksucker."


thats three questions. i might be back.

 

[Warik]

warik, so far this is all i've found. a bit off the topic but...,

thats three questions. i might be back.

*wipes blood from hands*

Don't worry, guys... he won't be back.

-Warik

 

[spongebob]

*wipes blood from hands*

Don't worry, guys... he won't be back.

-Warik

correct, i just came back to tell you i wont be back, to tell you the truth i tink it gave me the aching head i have right now.

im barely able to type and im trying to fix my new avatar.

<he wimpers off for now .>

 

[Warik]

to tell you the truth i tink it gave me the aching head i have right now.

Awwww... too complicated for you??? ez kid!

-Warik