This assignment will be graded more rigorously than some of the other small assignments.
Submit the following three things. The total response should be at least 200 words.
1) Your thesis statement (one or two sentences expressing the main point you want to make in the paper). See Purdue OWL for more on thesis statementsLinks to an external site..
2) One qualifier for your argument. A qualifier is a limitation that you place on the scope of your own argument. (More on this below.)
3) One counter-argument that you will respond to in your argument, meaning a point that someone might raise against your argument.
4) Your response to the counter-argument.
If you feel good about these elements of argumentation, then you can enter them and move on with your day. If you’re struggling with these concepts, read the text immediately below.
What’s the difference between a qualifier and counter-argument?
Short answer: A qualifier is a point you need to concede (give up) in order to keep yourself honest. A counter-argument is a point you’re willing to fight for.
Long answer: Qualifiers are limitations that you place on the scope of your own argument. For instance, someone arguing for stricter gun laws in the US would qualify his or her argument by acknowledging that most gun owners are law-abiding citizens who own their guns for perfectly legitimate recreational or self-dense purposes. This qualifier might be followed by various arguments about how even if a gun is owned by a law-abiding citizen, gun ownership still makes tragedies more likely, but the key point here is that by stating the qualifier (most gun owners are safe and law-abiding), the person making the argument has avoided stereotyping gun owners and unhinged maniacs on the verge of a rampage. To spin it the other way, a person arguing for protections on gun ownership rights ought to include a qualifier that in the wrong hands or circumstances, guns can generate horrific tragedies. That person could then go on to argue about the importance of self-defense and the rights of individuals, but the point here is that the qualifier helps keep the argument both reasonable and civil.
But there is a more important reason to include qualifiers: they allow you to set the boundaries of your own argument so others don’t misrepresent your argument as being more extreme than it is. Another example of a qualifier comes from Elizabeth Carll; while she is arguing that sometimes, violent video games can lead to violence, she is also quick to point out that “not all people who play video games will commit violent crimes.” By doing this, she is keeping herself honest. But perhaps more importantly, she is preventing others from misrepresenting her argument. That’s one of the benefits of a good qualifier: it keeps others from misrepresenting your argument as being more extreme than it actually is.
In contrast, a counter-argument is an objection to your argument that you are not willing to agree with or concede. It’s something you’re willing to fight against. It involves stating directly a point that someone has made or could make against you, and then showing why that point is either wrong or misguided. To be clear, a counter-argument is not simply “the opposite” of whatever you’re saying. Instead, it’s a targetted objection, which you then proceed to either refute (discredit/show that it’s wrong or that it doesn’t apply) or appropriate (say that it’s partly right but that it misses the bigger picture). For more on this, read the primer on rhetoric.
https://owl.purdue.edu/owl/general_writing/the_writing_process/thesis_statement_tips.html
