Chat with us, powered by LiveChat Get a Knife Get a Dog But Get Rid of Guns Argumentative Essay | Abc Paper
+1(978)310-4246 credencewriters@gmail.com
  

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Please refer to the attached documents for essay instructions as well as the two reading documents you need to answer the essay prompt.!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Roughly 5 descriptive paragraphs will suffice. 1-2 pages. closer to 2 pages.Argumentative Essay: Rogerian vs. ToulminThe Rogerian form of argument was created by Carl Rogers, a psychologist, and is one of several models or philosophies. Rogers’s theory of argument was that the arguer who wishes to convince another person should minimize any possibility of hostility to the argument. His goal was that the two sides should solve the problem together. Both arguers should qualify their arguments and understand the validity of the other side.Those who are in favor of this kind of argument usually contrast it with the Toulmin, based on the Aristotelian, which is more confrontational and refutes the other side as unacceptable. The Rogerian model respects and accepts other truths and is particularly useful when the topic has the possibility of becoming emotional and/or hostile. The ultimate goal is to reach a compromise based on common ground between the sides.Questions to consider:Do you consider Molly Ivins essay “Get a Knife, Get a Dog, But Get Rid of Guns” a Rogerian argument or a Toulmin argument? Is Ivins using neutral language in her argument?How does Ivins’ essay relate to Public Safety?What type of Public Safety concerns is Ivins’ raising? And what is her solution?What types of solutions can you think of when considering gun safety?Essay Outline: Using the essay structure sheet that is attached, please break down Molly Ivins’ – Major and Minor points. What is the thesis of the article? Do you believe the conclusion to be effective?
essay_instructions.doc

rogerian_argument.pdf

ivins___get_a_knife.doc

Unformatted Attachment Preview

Assignment: 1
Essay Selection: 3
Meta-Major discipline: Public Safety
Argumentative Essay:
Rogerian vs. Toulmin
The Rogerian form of argument was created by Carl Rogers, a psychologist, and is one of
several models or philosophies. Rogers’s theory of argument was that the arguer who wishes to
convince another person should minimize any possibility of hostility to the argument. His goal
was that the two sides should solve the problem together. Both arguers should qualify their
arguments and understand the validity of the other side.
Those who are in favor of this kind of argument usually contrast it with the Toulmin,
based on the Aristotelian, which is more confrontational and refutes the other side as
unacceptable. The Rogerian model respects and accepts other truths and is particularly useful
when the topic has the possibility of becoming emotional and/or hostile. The ultimate goal is to
reach a compromise based on common ground between the sides.
Questions to consider:
Do you consider Molly Ivins essay “Get a Knife, Get a Dog, But Get Rid of Guns” a
Rogerian argument or a Toulmin argument?
Is Ivins using neutral language in her argument?
How does Ivins’ essay relate to Public Safety?
What type of Public Safety concerns is Ivins’ raising? And what is her solution?
What types of solutions can you think of when considering gun safety?
Essay Outline:
Using the essay structure sheet that is attached, please break down Molly Ivins’ – Major
and Minor points. What is the thesis of the article? Do you believe the conclusion to be
effective?
The Rogerian Argument
What is a Rogerian Argument?
The Rogerian form of argument was created by Carl Rogers, a psychologist, and is one of
several models or philosophies. Rogers’s theory of argument was that the arguer who wishes to
convince another person should minimize any possibility of hostility to the argument. His goal
was that the two sides should solve the problem together. Both arguers should qualify their
arguments and understand the validity of the other side.
Those who are in favor of this kind of argument usually contrast it with the Toulmin,
based on the Aristotelian, which is more confrontational and refutes the other side as
unacceptable. The Rogerian model respects and accepts other truths and is particularly useful
when the topic has the possibility of becoming emotional and/or hostile. The ultimate goal is to
reach a compromise based on common ground between the sides.
How Do I Write a Rogerian Argument?
Most Rogerian arguments for college writing are organized in the following way:
1. The introduction should begin by catching the reader’s interest. Then the writer
immediately states the issue or problem and how it impacts both sides, using totally
neutral language. The introductory paragraph/s should be comprehensive and long
enough to cover the topic and both sides thoroughly.
2. In the next part, the writer describes the opposing side, still using neutral language in
order not to misrepresent the opposition. The primary purpose of this section is to
acknowledge the validity of the opposing side’s support and evidence.
3. In this part, the writer finally has a chance to present his or her argument. However, he
or she must again maintain a fair and balanced tone, dispassionately presenting his or her
evidence and support. This section of the Rogerian is crucial to the acceptance of the
writer’s point of view as valid.
4. The final step in the Rogerian process is to find common ground between the opposing
sides. The writer should consider alternative solutions on both sides of the problem in
order to find a way to compromise. The writer’s primary purpose in this part is to
combine the positive ideas for solutions from each side and creatively convince the
reader that each side will move toward the middle and meet in a beneficial compromise.
What does a Rogerian Argument Look Like?
A brief outline of a Rogerian argument might look like this:
1. Catch the reader’s interest. Introduce the issue or problem. Mention the two sides, but
do so without bias or influence on the writer’s side.
2. Give the point of view of the opposing side, always in nonjudgmental language.
3. Address the writer’s point of view and reasons for supporting this side.
4. Find common ground between the two sides and then reach a compromise.
Internet Resources
This YouTube video is a good and concise explanation of a Rogerian argument:

If you are having trouble choosing a topic for your Rogerian argument, try the Essay Tips
website for a list of topics:
http://tipsforresearchpapersandessays.blogspot.com/2008/11/rogerian-argument-topics.html
Get a Knife, Get a Dog, But Get Rid of Guns
By Molly Ivins
Guns. Everywhere guns.
Consider the merits of the knife.
In the first place, you have catch up with someone in order to stab him. A general substitution of
knives for guns would promote physical fitness. We’d turn into a whole nation of great runners. Plus,
knives don’t ricochet. And people are seldom killed while cleaning their knives.
As a civil libertarian, I of course support the Second Amendment. And I believe it means exactly
what it says: “A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the
people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” Fourteen-year-old boys are not part of a wellregulated militia. Members of wacky religious cults are not part of a well-regulated militia. Permitting
unregulated citizens to have guns is destroying the security of this free state.
I am intrigued by the arguments of those who claim to follow the judicial doctrine of original intent.
How do they know it was the dearest wish of Thomas Jefferson’s heart that teen-age drug dealers
should cruise the cities of this nation perforating their fellow citizens with assault rifles? Channeling?
There is more hooey spread about the Second Amendment. It says quite clearly that guns are for
those who form part of a well-regulated militia, i.e., the armed forces including the National Guard. The
reasons for keeping them away from everyone else get clearer by the day.
The comparison most often used is that of the automobile, another lethal object that is regularly
used to wreak great carnage. Obviously, this society is full of people who haven’t got enough common
sense to use an automobile properly. But we haven’t outlawed cars yet.
We do, however, license them and their owners, restrict their use to presumably sane and sober
adults and keep track of who sells them to whom. At a minimum, we should do the same with guns.
In truth, there is no rational argument for guns in this society. This is no longer a frontier nation in
which people hunt their own food. It is a crowded, overwhelmingly urban country in which letting
people have access to guns is a continuing disaster. Those who want guns — whether for target shooting,
hunting or potting rattlesnakes (get a hoe) — should be subject to the same restrictions placed on gun
owners in England – a nation in which liberty has survived nicely without an armed populace.
The argument that “guns don’t kill people” is patent nonsense. Anyone who has ever worked in a
cop shop knows how many family arguments end in murder because there was a gun in the house. Did
the gun kill someone? No. But if there had been no gun, no one would have died. At least not without a
good footrace first. Guns do kill. Unlike cars, that is all they do.
“A well-regulated militia” surely implies both long training and long discipline. That is the least, the
very least, that should be required of those who are permitted to have guns, because a gun is literally
the power to kill. For years, I used to enjoy taunting my gun-nut friends about their psycho-sexual hangups — always in a spirit of good cheer, you understand. But letting the noisy minority in the National
Rifle Association force us to allow this carnage to continue is just plain insane.
I do think gun nuts have a power hang-up. I don’t know what is missing in their psyches that they
need to feel they have to power to kill. But no sane society would allow this to continue.
Ban the damn things. Ban them all.
You want protection? Get a dog.

Purchase answer to see full
attachment

error: Content is protected !!