Social Media does more harm than good.
Discussions are focused on building and analyzing arguments. Here are the guidelines
for discussion posts. Discussions rely on using the Toolkit, so you should have that in
front of you as you read this and as you do your posts.
This is an exercise in building arguments so your posts do not have to reflect your own
beliefs. It is an important practice to try to articulate views you do not necessarily agree
with so that you can evaluate the best arguments against what you believe more fairly.
As always, be specific and clarify any terms that are open to interpretation.
Everything you post must be entirely in your own words. Any work that is taken
from another source (online, another student, etc.) will automatically receive a zero,
without a possibility of making it up. (I definitely check for plagiarism beyond what
Turnitin flags, so I strongly encourage you to do all of your own work in this class.)
Avoid emotive language and fallacies (we’ll be learning about these throughout the
semester).
Each week I will post a general proposition (claim). To get full credit for each week’s
discussion you need to do the following:
1) Give a specific Pro conclusion related to that general proposition that focuses on a
particular aspect of the proposition. And, 2) give a specific Con conclusion related to
that general proposition that focuses on a particular aspect of the proposition.
Then for each specific conclusion (1 Pro & 1 Con) you need to also give a well-thought
out Reason in the form of full statements. Each of these Reasons needs to be backed up
by some Example/Evidence you can think of off the top of your head (no internet
sources allowed – this is all your own thinking and writing). Finally, assess the extent to
which the claim is True (T) (Always, Sometimes, Never) and explain why.
For example, if the general proposition was: “The Wire is the best TV show ever made,”
a more specific pro conclusion would be: “The Wire is the best TV show because it is so
true to the real world circumstances it portrays.” A reason that would support that would
be: “The Wire is so accurate because it was written by people who worked in journalism,
public education, and law enforcement in the Baltimore area where it was set.” The
evidence would be citing the credentials of the shows creators, David Simon, who was a
reporter for The Baltimore Sun, and Ed Burns, who was a homicide detective for many
years before becoming a public school teacher, both in Baltimore. I would assess this
claim is likely True for all people who share my criteria for evaluating TV Shows (one
of which is authenticity and relevance to the world as it is).
The first half of your discussion contributions should then look as follows:
Specific Pro conclusion (W): …..
Reason (R): …..
Example/Evidence (E) ….
Truth evaluation (T) ….
Specific Con conclusion (W): …..
Reason (R): …..
Example/Evidence (E) ….
Truth evaluation (T) ….
