- Exordium – The introduction, opening, or hook.
- Narratio – The context or background of the topic.
- Proposito and Partitio – The claim/stance and the argument.
- Confirmatio and/or Refutatio – positive proofs and negative proofs of support.
- Peroratio – The conclusion and call to action.
Friday, December 6, 2019
Argue Something
Make a good argument about something. Use all of the parts.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteA little, plump goldfish was the first pet I was ever given as a kid. My goldfish, Swimmers, had faded black speckles dotted around his face. As a six-year-old, I was quite mesmerized by Swimmer’s feathery fills, and how the gills shoved water out of them, as Swimmer breathed, taking in water by his constantly moving mouth. I loved Swimmers....for about a week. I admired him from afar, as I couldn’t be bothered to do the chores myself. One day, my mom found him floating belly-up. His death was sad, but, he was only a fish. I now understand that to be false; Swimmers was more than a novelty item. They don’t make good pets. Fish are not companion animals, but still require a lot of care. Many owners see fish as temporary pets but that isn’t true, meaning they should live far longer than a couple of months or less. Having a fish as a pet isn’t for everyone, and maintaining the tanks can be an expensive hassle (exordium).
ReplyDeleteWhen Swimmers had died, I assumed that my mom didn’t take good enough care of him. It dawned on us both that I had no idea of what a fish needed but didn’t know what it really wanted. For five hundred years, they survived in oceans by adapting and and evolving to their habitats. However, they were soon introduced as pets. During the Tenth Century, the Chinese started to breed goldfish from carp. Later they were brought to Europe at the 18th Century’s end, which would lead to the London Zoological Society opening the first public fish aquarium in 1853. Eventually, the ancestors of said fishes would land up in many fish bowls, even Swimmer’s ancestor. Presently, there are about eighty-five million U.S. families who own fish (narratio)!
The exclusion of fish as pets would be beneficial for the fish, the primary caretaker, and the young kids who would have the fish as a “starter pet”. Fish are social creatures— capable of remembering past interactions they’ve had with other fish and showing affection— who deteriorate in small bowls. Even the best-maintained aquarium can’t compare to the open seas. Although all pets cost money, the ongoing expenditure fish require can build up, and the owner will end up having a hefty electricity bill each month should they use aquarium equipment like filters and air pumps. Recent studies have revealed that children lose interest in their pet fish after two weeks of the initial interaction between fish and child. The task of caring for the little fish will thus fall to the parent (proposito and partitio).
(Continued) One of the world’s leading marine biologist Dr. Silvia Earle remarked “You know, fish are sensitive, they have personalities, they hurt when they’re wounded”. Earle is one of the biologists whom discovered fish recognize each other and gather information, thus showing they are more intelligent than they are given credit for. This intelligence wouldn’t do any good if the fish is cooped up in a tank as an ornament for someone to look at. Misconceptions regarding fish create poor conditions for them. It is true that fish are very clean and do not require any grooming, but the clean fishes are dependent on the clearness of the water the fishes live in. Many people wouldn’t want to go through cleaning tanks. Just because a fish is quiet doesn’t mean it will doesn’t need attention. The fish will require stimulus for healthy living (confirmatio and refutatio).
ReplyDeleteMillions of fish each year are purchased simply as “starter pets” for young children, as was my case, or as decorative ornaments for homes. On lonely nights, a fish is not going to console it’s owner the way a dog or cat might. They don’t make great companions and are interesting only that they are cool to observe, like a painting. Make your fish’s life easier by giving them a buddy and providing them with an environment that’s comparable to its natural habitat. Look into reputable local rescue groups who have fish in need of new homes instead of shopping at places like Walmart for a fish. As far as pets go, people COD do so much BETTA than a fish (peroratio).
When I first read the exordium I was a little taken back by the fact that fish don’t make good pets. However, as I read on and came to see the facts you provided I understand your point. Fish deserve to be in the correct environments. Great argument, I was very convinced by the information you provided. Also, nice pun at the end lol.
DeleteI really enjoyed reading your argument. People don't always think about how the fish will end up living in a bowl, but you explained it very well. Your exordium did a great job of setting the foundation of your argument.
DeleteWith the decade ending, I can imagine almost every lunch table has sparked a conversation about the childhood movies that went with them as they became teenagers. This conversation came up at my lunch table just recently and seemed to bring a sense of nostalgia of sitting in front of a television on Sunday mornings and watching our favorite characters save the day. It personally brought me a vivid flashback of seeing vibrant and always happy characters going on unimaginable adventures. Adventures where characters fly, where a princess is saved, and where there is always a happy ending. Movies with adventures like that have brought me and many other Americans fond childhood memories of feeling innocent and encapsulated by the interesting events occurring in a screen right in front of us. For me, these movies made me feel like I could do anything, and taught me communication skills and a view of other cultures around the world. (Exordium). However, these movies also had a continuous theme of the good and pretty people versus the evil and wicked looking people. Now however, today’s movies teach children about how to be inclusive and how to help others. While these movies may not bring me the sense of nostalgia that Cinderella would, it brings me joy that the children of today will grow up with movies that teach them how to be good people and excepting of all. Some people may argue that the movies in the 90’s and early 2000’s are better than today’s.(Narratio). While that it certainly true for some aspects of the movies, todays movies are light years ahead in their sense of bringing attention to real would issues in a child friendly way.( Partitio)
ReplyDeleteDisney movies in the past five years have been focusing on more mature and important themes. They are mostly about showing how to work together to support a common goal, refuting the idea that all places have the same culture, and showing young girls they can be independent and help themselves without someone saving them. For example, the movie Coco shows Spanish cultures and how they celebrate holidays such as Day of the Dead. Disney showing varying cultures helps show the new generation of kids that they can’t expect all of their peers to believe and have the same customs as they do. Another movie of today that is important to Disney’s new themes is Inside Out. This movie was able to show children the effects of mental health and how different it can be for everyone. All of these more mature movie themes are all still enjoyable to children while still teaching them important life ideas.( Confirmatio)
The main argument for the case that older movies are better than newer movies is the exact reason many think the newer ones are better. The idea that the older movies had no expectations other than to bring children an enjoyable experience. However, the newer movies bring nothing short of that. Whether or not the new movies deal with hard hitting topics, they still bring children an enjoyable experience through fun music soundtracks and dynamic characters. Another reason people claim to think the older movies are better is the simple fact of the plot. Older movies used to include everything from emotional moments to scary scenes. While it is true newer movies do not include as bunch of a balance of different feelings, the simpler plots make it easier for children to be inspired by the movies. ( Refutatio)
It is clear a generation will always appreciate the movies they grew up with. The movies that make them feel nostalgic and remind them of being young. Even I can appreciate watching an older movie and thinking of the times when I was only worried that my favorite character wouldn’t get the ending I wanted. However, our generation should accept the newer movies as more impactful as they will show our children the necessary skills to be accepting and kind to all likes of people and cultures. ( Peroratio)
This resonated with me because I had the same kind of conversation of nostalgia with my sister a couple of days ago. We actually bantered about movies like Remember the Titians that teach about empathy as well as inclusion. I knew what to expect in the partitio section, and your stance on the issue was really well represented. Nice job!
DeleteYou have an interesting argument, but I think it is a sensitive spot because we must be careful to keep out certain cultural arguments out of kids movies. Kids should learn about, like you said, the Day of the Dead, and such, but many kids movies are going so far as to trying to teach about the LGBTQ+ community like in Beauty and the Beast. I believe that is no place for children to learn about, because it needs to be a mature setting with mature people. The question becomes where is the line, however, I do agree some parts of culture should be taught about, and I did get to see CoCo myself, and I thought it was really good!
DeleteUntil recently, the topic of a free college education has never been discussed. People knew that to receive a higher education, it needed to cost money. If the higher level of education was given to people for free, it might not be taken seriously by everyone. Students who never had a strong work ethic would attend the free colleges and put in little effort, which would harm the value of education for other people who actually want to learn. If young adults are required to pay for their college then they will care about how they perform in the classes. (exordium)
ReplyDeleteThe idea that college could be free for everyone is an unrealistic dream. Colleges need to produce a profit to pay the people that they are employing. The teachers and staff work very hard to teach the students so they are prepared for the workforce. If the enrolled students did not have to pay the tuition bill then the college would not make a profit and the teachers and staffs’ salary would need to come from another place. That other source of money would most likely be taxes from working class citizens. The hard earned money would be given to students who are taking their college education seriously and those who are not. This need source of money would cause many problems for the citizens and America. (narratio)
I do not think that college should be free. Young adults need to see what life will be like providing for themselves and I think that a good way to learn is paying for your own college education. Attending a college, no matter what school, is a privilege that should be earned. If something as important as this is just handed out to everyone, people will start to expect that life will give them more free handouts. Also many presidential candidates claim that the government could pay for every person's college tuition. Their plans will cause the nation’s debt to increase at a much faster rate and hurt our nation. (Proposito and Partitio)
Many people are for the idea of free college. They think that everyone has the right to education and that it is not fair that some cannot afford the tuition. People would graduate high school and get a job that they are qualified to do. If more people were given that higher level of education it could positively impact the country’s economy. They think more people would have the ability to be successful at jobs with higher salaries. Also students would have the chance to follow their passions without worrying about the debt. These changes would be very beneficial to low income families, but they would help out more wealthy families who can afford the tuition. This would be giving them an unfair break that they do not need. (Confirmatio and/or Refutatio)
Instead of giving students free college, we should start to teach them how to balance money so they will be able to pay for it. Paying for tuition is not easy but there are many aids and scholarships that could greatly help a person. If the young adults learn to find the different outlets that could help them, it would be more beneficial than just handing them the college tuition. (Peroratio)
I agree with your argument completely. Your overall structure was to the point, and I enjoyed that because it kept me engaged the entire read. You also did a good job at hammering home your point the entire way through. You kept hitting hard with facts, which i think is beneficial because it guides the reader to your side of the argument very effectively. Good work!
DeleteYour argument was very insightful, Sophie. There was a lot there that I never considered, for example, I’ve never disagreed with the idea that the government should give colleges more money to make it more affordable. However, like you said, it will only come out of taxes, so either way, we’re paying for it.
DeleteThis is a great blog, Sophie. I definitely agree that paying for something makes you care about it more. Your argument was very thorough, by the end you covered any objection I might have had. We should start learning how to take advantage of our resources instead of just demanding that the obstacle, money in this case, be taken away.
DeleteEveryone wants to live young, wild, and free. Today’s youth have a great deal of freedom, but perhaps not in the most important places. While it may seem counterproductive, moving the driving curfew back one hour for kids under eighteen years old would help kids be more responsible, help each other, and stay safer.
ReplyDeleteCurrently in Pennsylvania, it is illegal for a licensed driver under eighteen to drive between the hours of eleven at night to five in the morning. This has been in place for over ten years. That is plenty of time for a great deal of change to take place. State government has the power to change these rule relatively easily, but first the truth about how the change would be a positive for almost everyone needs to be presented to them.
The best way to make something better is practice. If kids aren’t given the opportunity to be responsible, how can they develop this important value? Not that young people aren’t given any responsibility, but putting a little more into practice could positively affect the rest of their lives. It can teach them to be good because they can, not because anyone is forcing them to. When a child is surrounded by strict rules while they are growing up, it becomes very appealing to go off the deep end as soon as they can. If everything is kept in moderation, well rounded, responsible young adults will shine through their childhood, learn from their mistakes, and enter the real world ready to contribute successfully.
The later curfew would also be conducive to the typically hectic life of a teenager. Between school, practices, clubs, and homework, very little free time is left. Even though it is only an hour, that extra chunk of time would be enough to maybe hang out with friends, collaborate on a group project, pick something up from the store, or make it home from a late event without the stress of punishment if they get stopped. Kids are very busy, and a curfew that is placed with respect to that makes a lot of sense.
The young people of today are seem to be typically given a false label of irresponsibility. However, based on the progress seen in the world today coming from the youth, like environmental movements and nonprofits, it seems fair to say these are actually quite good, responsible kids. Kids who can benefit from a later curfew, and not abuse it. It can also be argued that a later curfew is just a pathway to bad decisions, but consider this example. A football game ends at nine thirty, and the football players, cheerleaders, and fans want to celebrate the win afterward. By the time everyone is showered and at the party, it is a quarter after ten, and the people who live far away can only hang out for fifteen minutes before they have to leave to make it home before curfew. The alternative is they all stay over. There is so much more potential for bad things to happen in the span of an entire night than there would be if everyone could just stay for an extra hour, and make it home before midnight. It would keep everyone, and their morals, safer.
Making the curfew later is far outweighed with positive consequences over negative. The way that it could increase responsibility in youth and keep people safer are just part of the good it would bring. Raising awareness of the issue is the only way to get it noticed higher up. If everyone works together, all can come to an understanding of the benefits, and steps beneficial to the youth of today, and everyone surrounding them, can be taken and profited upon.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteYour argument was very strong, Kara. When I read you opening paragraph, I had a lot of doubt as to how you were going to argue something like this, but you actually swayed me completely, especially when I read your last example about the football party, which is definitely an extremely common situation for a teenager.
DeleteThis is very well organized. I could read and understand your points easily, and each paragraph gave valuable information that was nicely strewn together. You used a lot of good logic in the confimatio and refutatio portions of your argument to overall prove it. I can tell that logic was the primary rhetorical appeal used here, and it worked really well with your argument.
DeleteDecember, the coldest and last month of the year. The pearly white snow begins to fall softly on the damp, cool ground. The weather begins cooling, and the air begins freezing anything it touches. Within the cold winter days of December lies the jolliest time of the year, Christmas.With the nostalgic music and movies, the memories made with, and seeing of, family and friends, and the Catholic significance, Christmas is necessary for an overall positive mental health. (Exordium)
ReplyDeleteChristmas began in a Catholic background, with the birth of Jesus Christ, many years ago. Jesus was the only Son of God who was incarnated into man to teach the world of the kingdom of God. Today, Catholics, and many Christians, celebrate this day as the nativity of Jesus, however and unfortunately, it has began to lose its Christian background, and is celebrated more as a secular holiday, rather than as a spiritual one. The word Christmas comes from the saying, “The mass of Christ,” which symbolizes the Catholic mass to which Catholics remember the mighty love of Christ who died for the sins of the world. Moreover, Christmas is actually, “Christ-Mass,” but shortened. (Narratio)
Christmas is necessary for a peaceful mind. Nothing beats watching “Elf” with a cup of hot chocolate, wrapped up in a blanket, just after turning down Mariah Carrey’s legendary single, “All I Want for Christmas is You.” In fact, these types of Christmas days are indeed good for your mental health. It is not exactly the Christmas music that is beneficial, but instead the memories it brings with it, which is also true of the movies. Admit it, every person loves to feel warm and fuzzy like a child when they hear “Frosty the Snowman,” and they feel the urge to build a snowman themselves. It is also quite apparent every person gets the giggles like a kid when Buddy the Elf begins hum-chucking snowballs at other children at the speed of light, and reminisce on their childhood days of playing in the snow. This nostalgia helps calm a person’s mental health from their rough times in life, and it can help lift their morale. Seeing family is also quite essential for keeping a calm mind, as long as the family is important to the individual. Seeing family allows the mind to relax, as it is familiar with the love and support of all friends and family. Also, keeping Christmas to a Catholic significance helps us to see the true meaning of Christmas, and keeps our minds aligned with the right goals, allowing us to feel comforted by Jesus’ love for us, and His promise of eternal life. (Proposito and Partitio)
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete(Continued) Some people argue that Christmas actually brings out the troubles in people with addictions, like alcohol, because society says to “be jolly and merry.” Christmas is also a time to be around those who love you and support you, like family and friends, and will understand these people’s addictions, and make sure they are safe. Without their family watching over them on the holidays, they could hurt themselves easier any other time of the year than on Christmas. Once more, psychologists clearly state that Christmas is a great antidote to mental health because the nostalgia helps cope with their troubles in life, like losing a loved one, and brings them to a happier place. Krystine Batcho, Ph.D., a professor at Le Moyne College in Syracuse, NY, and an expert on nostalgia, commented, “Nostalgic memories can help someone who is away from home or someone who is mourning the death of a family member by reminding us that the bonds we share with those we love survive physical separation...” Also, Christmas may be a great time for people to dive into an attempt of growing in their faith, so they can really dig deeper into the meaning of Christmas. Faith, family, and a whole lot of memories make Christmas important for stabilizing mental health. (Confirmatio and Refutatio)
ReplyDeleteChristmas is all about bringing out the best in one another, not by endorsing our troubles. If society tells people that the holidays are tough, and that if brings out more troubles to one another, then society cannot function properly. All holidays are essential for happiness, especially Christmas. Seeing the good in anything is a virtue that the world needs to practice, especially during Christmas time. This can easily be achieved through faith, hope, and love this Christmas. The holiday music and movies, the family, and the Catholic meaning are only three reasons of many that Christmas is important for happiness. In the wise words of Buddy the Elf, do not be a cotton-headed ninny-muggin this Christmas, nor a South Pole Elf, spread some Christmas cheer, and yell it loud for all to hear! (Peroratio)
Defending the true values of a holiday is difficult, but this was very well done. You did a great job of creating the sense of nostalgia that you are trying to emphasize. The Buddy the Elf quote at the end really topped it off in my opinion.
DeleteWe’ve all seen it. Every person who ran the race gets a trophy, not just the winners. The entire elementary school co-ed soccer team gets a medal that honors their participation, even if they didn’t try or work hard to do well. Everyone is an MVP. But is that really the way it should be? Rewarding people when they don’t necessarily deserve it, especially children, is a dangerous game. (Exordium)
ReplyDeleteHanding out medals and trophies, ribbons and certificates of excellence to anyone and everyone has become a very common practice. Participation awards are typically the name given to these “honors.” It is seen most frequently in activities and sports in which younger kids participate in. This, willy-nilly style of rewarding has been an topic of controversy for the past two decades or so. Rightfully so, as it has the ability to teach kids all the wrong messages. (Narratio)
I believe these types of awards should not continue to be given. It is simple really, to see why. Think of it in these terms; you are a fifth grade student playing on your school basketball team. You often sat the bench, you had a poor attitude when given direction, you were at times disrespectful, and you usually didn’t even show up to/ participate during practice because you simply “didn’t feel like it.” Yet, at your teams banquet, you and everyone of your team mates were called up on stage. A shiny 8 inch trophy was placed in each of your hands, names engraved and all. Along with your name, placed in capital letters just below were the words “if you had fun, you won.” If you had fun, you won? So by not doing your part, or giving your all you are rewarded with a lovely little golden basketball player on a shiny stand?
Continued...
ReplyDeleteThis just does not make sense. The message this sends to this child is “it’s ok, at least you showed up sometimes.” Consciously or subconsciously this child will take this and be built up, thinking that their behavior and lack of effort was acceptable because, “hey I got an award.” It means nothing. To make matters worse, this equal playing field type mentality doesn’t just build up the wrong attitudes, it can knock down the children who did put in the work. However, this does not stop coaches and teachers from giving these kinds of awards. (Propositio/ partitio)
Many people feel as though handing out a blue ribbon to every child who participated, causes less drama or jealousy. Although this may not be the case at all. If a child is among lots of other children who have received identical awards, they tend to have less meaning. So why give the awards out anyways, if they are not going to even be looked at as a true honor. People also tend to believe that giving participation awards makes everyone feel good. While this may be true, because who doesn’t enjoy getting a prize, it is hurting children’s preparedness for the real world. As previously mentioned, these kinds of rewards give kids a false sense of reality. The things children are supposed to do are then looked at as strenuous tasks that, when completed, should be met with praise. However, showing up for school is nothing to celebrate. It should be a given. But that idea gets swept under the carpet when children seem to be given a pat on the back for everything they do. It also sets kids up for harder failure. In real life, when you fall down, you don’t always get help standing back up. But when kids are constantly congratulated for unworthy reasons, they often expect extreme reassurance and aid. So when the time comes and they face hardships, children nowadays are often helpless and lost. To put it simply, kids in this day and age don’t know how to fail and fail gracefully. (Conformatio and/or Refutatio)
So to conclude, I feel as though participation awards should not be given out. It creates toxic mindsets in children that can carry over to their teen and adult years. The negatives far outweigh the positives and it’s no secret. So why does it continue to happen? There is nothing fair about it. There are winners and losers in every game. There are wins and losses in life as well. In stopping this equal praise, children may become more well equipped to face difficulties in life. (Peroratio)
I agree completely! I never understood participation medals, and you really convey how they do more harm then good. Awesome work Liv!
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete“I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery.” This was the mindset of Thomas Jefferson and so many of our other founding fathers during the formation of our nation, and though technology has changed, this core concept must not (exordium). The Second Amendment right to bear arms is something that the US has always protected, and in turn, it has allowed us to protect ourselves and those we love. However, today’s fully automatic weapons are very different from the antique guns of the 1700’s, which could take a well-trained soldier 15 to 20 seconds to reload after just one shot (narratio). With that and the constant gun violence throughout the country, it’s understandable why many would begin to question this amendment; however, taking away guns would take away who we are as Americans, our ability to defend ourselves, our sports and pastimes, and we’d be no more safer as a result (proposito and partitio).
ReplyDeleteWhen the founding fathers decided on the freedoms Americans should have, they had to take a look at their old lives to see what was missing. They saw firsthand how important it was to be able to protect themselves, and they knew that it was absolutely necessary to a successful nation. With these advances in guns, it’s important now more than ever to be able to defend our selves against these weapons. If Americans felt threatened by the guns of the 1700’s, where does that leave us. In addition, this right goes beyond just the ability to protect ourselves; it is a symbol of our freedom. To take away this right would be the beginning of the end to America’s freedom (confirmatio).
One reason many want to take away the right is because they do not see the full picture. They see gun violence and school shootings on the news, and that’s all they associate guns with. But for many Americans, guns are for sport, such as hunting, target shooting, or even collectors items. Even if the Second Amendment was repealed, it wouldn’t accomplish the peace that some think it would. Instead of taking weapons away from criminals or the mentally ill, guns would be taken from good, law abiding citizens. If there’s a market for guns, someone will be selling them, and if illegal, off-the-books guns are in circulation even now, what would stop it then. Take prohibition for example. The law never stoped the manufacturer, sale, or consumption of alcohol; it only made a bigger market for these things to be done illegally, and many criminal businesses made lots of money from it. Things would be no different with guns. In fact, making guns illegal only limits the government’s ability to monitor the manufacture and sale of guns (refutatio).
Just as with any decision, it’s all about the pros and cons: is what we are giving up worth what we are gaining? There’s no doubt that the list of cons is long, yet because of guns being illegally sold, the pros list is nonexistent. Guns would remain in the hands of criminals, while law abiding citizens would be rendered defenseless, so in conclusion, the only pro is just another con. Even if losing our guns did mean gaining the peace and security that many dream of, I still would not even consider it because like Jefferson, we believe that even dangerous freedoms, such as the right to own guns, outweigh the peaceful slavery that banning them only hopes to bring (peroratio).
Joey, this is a very interesting argument. I find this topic quite controversial and I’m still not quite sure where I stand on it, but you did a very good job arguing your stance. Nothing boisterous, just simple and effective. You gracefully discussed a heavy topic that tends to split people down the middle. Well done!
DeleteGood work Joe! That’s a really heavy topic but you argued it very well. I liked your point about the big picture regarding freedom, very interesting.
DeleteWhen I was 14, I got my first job. My birthday is in October, and that spring I started working. I was an assistant at my orthodontist. I helped the ladies at the front desk complete numerous tasks, such as filing, pulling charts, and scheduling appointments. That summer I started working in the ticket booth at the community pool. I continued my other job as well, so I worked every day of that summer. I continued my work at the orthodontist through my eighth grade school year, walking over after school in my uniform until about 4 or 5 o’clock, three days a week. These various jobs continue to date, as well as lifeguarding, babysitting, cleaning, and being a store clerk at my local pharmacy (exordium). The legal working age in our area is 14. Many teenagers have jobs, whether in the summer or all year round, and continue to keep up with their education and activities. I think all teenagers or high schoolers should have jobs. (proposito). It promotes independence, trust, and improves life skills. More importantly, it provides a paycheck. Most employers, especially locally, at able to work around school and school activity schedules. Teenagers who begin working at a younger age are typically better at working with groups, doing things for other people, and more efficient with problem solving. It also helps to prepare them for bigger jobs as they will get older. Starting to work at a younger age can help spark interest in new topics and careers that could help with deciding on a future as well. Knowing how to find and apply for jobs at a young age takes away the stress of learning how to in adult life. Although it is beneficial in many ways, it may be overwhelming for some people. It could potentially get in the way of academics and add on stress to an already stressful young adult life (confirmatio/refutio). All teenagers should begin working in high school. Sometimes it may not work out, but trying new things with so many potential benefits never hurts. Working should be just as normal as doing a sport or playing an instrument. It is important kids know this is an option to help them begin to provide for themselves (peroratio).
ReplyDeleteGreat job, Mary! You made a solid argument. That’s a really important topic to talk about.
DeleteNothing can kill a little bit of fun quicker than a school dress code can. Any student, especially one at Elk County Catholic, can attest to this. Only silver and gold jewelry, one bracelet per wrist, specified lengths for necklaces, and strict hair guidelines are only some of the rules and regulations students must follow. While there is great value in a dress code and a good school uniform, there is little room left for individuality. Students must get creative to make their appearance personal, rather than completely identical to everyone else. One easy place to express individuality, though prohibited at ECC, is with the socks. Students should be able to wear fun and creative socks with their uniforms, even for just one day a week.
ReplyDeleteDespite being such a minor component of the school uniform, socks are regulated with rigidity at Elk County Catholic. Both socks must be the same solid color with maroon, gray, white, and black to choose from. The socks cannot have any patterns or designs. They must meet a certain length and cannot show brand symbols. Students can be dress coded and given detention for a violation of any of these regulations. While rules should be followed, receiving detention because of socks would be rather unfortunate.Students should be able to wear fun and creative socks at least one day of the week, allowing a sense of individuality while changing the appearance of the uniform minimally.
When the topic of dress code is discussed, individuality is almost always a concern.Socks are a very small detail that would hardly distract from the purpose and appearance of the school uniform while still giving students a platform to be unique. Being able to express oneself is important to forming strong personality traits which prove to be invaluable for the future. Growing up being told exactly how to dress, down to the smallest details, creates a mindset that struggles to think creatively and be self sufficient. Going out into the world after high school, presented with many new freedoms, can be difficult. Not knowing how to dress or make simple decisions without being told exactly what to do is crippling. Some people may say that allowing students to wear fun socks will get out of hand and be taken too far. However, giving students this small space for creativity would teach responsibility and help students to learn boundaries. Both of these characteristics are essential for a bright future. Socks are a very small detail that would hardly distract from the purpose and appearance of the school uniform
Allowing students to express individuality by means of wearing fun socks just once a week would assist in the development of necessary skills for the future. Many would agree that such strict control over something as minute as socks is unnecessary. Being disciplined over socks is frustrating, and could be avoided with just a little bit more freedom. If students are to have the best learning environment possible, a small change in the dress code to allow for fun socks is necessary.
The idea of arguing against school uniforms in not an unfamiliar concept. However, I really liked how you set yours up. It relied heavily on Ecc’s actual school dress code with made your argument very reliable. Nice job!
DeleteViv, your argument was such an interesting read! It was well written and very entertaining. If I hadn’t agreed with you before reading this, I definitely would now! You’re exordium caught my eye just as it should. You drew me in! And not only did you do that, but you kept me there as well. This was so fun! Loved it. :)
DeleteGreat argument! I really liked the exordium, and your full knowledge of the dress code really helped to establish your ethos. Awesome job!
Delete