DWRL Lesson Plans - Refutation and Rebuttal

Concession, Refutation and Rebuttal Through Amazon Reviews

Grewe — Sat, 15 Nov 2014 21:22:27 +0000

Author:

Image Credit:

Image credit to Pets Adviser, www.petsadviser.com.

Brief Assignment Overview:

In this activity, students will use Amazon reviews of the Women's Sexy PhD Halloween costume to identify places where the authors concede, refute and rebut the idea behind the costume. They will then come up with their own Amazon reviews for a product, real or imagined, of their choice.

Type of Assignment:

In-class Exercise

Assignment Length:

Partial Class Period

Pedagogical Goals - Rhetoric:

Rhetorical Fallacies

Pedagogical Goals - Writing:

Invention

Pedagogical Goals - Digital Literacy:

Remix

Media Requirements:

Adaptable For Use Without Classroom Technology

Required Materials:

Preferably, each student or at least each student group would have their own computer on which to read the Amazon reviews. Alternatively, a few students could bring in laptops or tablets to share with their groups.

Timeline for Optimal Use:

Late in the Semester

Full Assignment Description:

Go over the Rhetoric 306 chapter that discusses concession, refutation and rebuttal. Then, introduce the students to the "sexy" women's PhD costume on Amazon. Have them get into groups and read the customer reviews for the costume. They should identify which reviews use concession, refutation or rebuttal. In the case of refutation, they should identify the flawed rhetorical argument. After they complete this task, discuss their results as a class. Then, have them work individually to write their own reviews of whatever product they want, using either concession, refutation, or rebuttal in their counter arguments.

Suggestions for Instructor Preparation:

Prepare a powerpoint of the chapter discussing concession, refutation and rebuttal.

Instructions For Students:

Have the students get on their computers and look up the "sexy" women's PhD Halloween costume on Amazon. Then, get into groups and identify concession, refutation and rebuttal in the reviews of this product. After you've done that you will discuss your findings as a class. Next, you will be writing your own Amazon reviews of whatever product you'd like, using elements of concession, refutation, and rebuttal.

Evaluation Suggestions:

No evaluation necessary.

Notes on Reception, Execution, etc.:

My students really enjoyed reading the witty Amazon reviews of the costume. Some were inspired by the sarcastic concessions and rebuttals and modeled their own reviews after those they had read.

Additional Resources:

See this article on women PhDs' responses to the costume.

Course Type:

Introductory Writing Course

Course Description:

This is for use in the Rhetoric 306 class.

Tags:

Halloween

Concession

Refutation and Rebuttal

Agonistic Debate on a Course Blog

coulson — Mon, 12 Nov 2012 18:01:44 +0000

Author:

Doug Coulson

Image Credit:

Wikipedia Commons

Brief Assignment Overview:

Students break up into two groups to engage in agonistic debate regarding an issue in an assigned reading in the course. One group offers a critique of the ideas in the text in a brief written critique posted on a course blog, then the second group formulates a response also posted on the blog, followed by a reply by the first group and an oral debate to finish the assignment and debrief.

Type of Assignment:

Class Discussion

In-class Exercise

Assignment Length:

Single Class Period

Pedagogical Goals - Rhetoric:

Pedagogical Goals - Writing:

Pedagogical Goals - Digital Literacy:

Additional Pedagogical Goals:

The goals of the assignment are to practice written agonistic debate for purposes of discussing forensic debate, particularly the form most commonly found in legal disputes. The assignment is also designed to teach principles of online writing in dispute resolution contexts.

Media Requirements:

Technology-Based Classroom (computers for each student)

Required Materials:

In-class computers with internet access and a course blog.

Timeline for Optimal Use:

Useful Anytime

Full Assignment Description:

The assignment requires students to engage in agonistic debate regarding an issue in an assigned reading in the course through both written and oral forms of debate. This facilitates discussion of rhetorical strategies for each for of discourse as well as how they often intersect, while also furthering critical discussion of an assigned text. The assignment is particularly useful for helping students understand the time management and emotional considerations involved in agonistic dispute resolution, particularly the form most commonly found in legal disputes.

Suggestions for Instructor Preparation:

This assignment is best used after the text in question has already been discussed in at least one class period or at least after the students have been given a general introduction to the text in class. To begin the assignment, discuss the purposes of the assignment and the instructions with students. Have students log in to the classroom computers and to the course blog. After the students discuss and submit their blog posts, moderate the discussion in the order of the posts and discuss the challenges and tactics involved in written forensic debate as well as how the students experienced the debate, including a discussion of the emotional component typically involved in taking sides in a dispute. The assignment should ideally be completed in a single class period.

Instructions For Students:

After breaking into groups, Group 1 will have 15 minutes to prepare 3-4 points of criticism of the ideas advanced in the text and post a brief description of the criticisms on the course blog. These may include rebuttals of the arguments advanced or important issues neglected or unanswered by the text. During this time, Group 2 should begin discussing potential points of criticism in an effort to anticipate Group 1's arguments and prepare possible responses. Once Group 1 submits its criticisms on the blog, the roles of the groups will be reversed as Group 2 prepares written responses to Group 1's cricitisms and Group 1 discusses potential points of rebuttal in an effort to anticipate them and prepare a reply. Group 2 will have 15 minutes to prepare its response and post it to the blog. After Group 2 submits its response, the roles will again switch and Group 1 will have 10 minutes to submit any desired reply. At the conclusion of this initial 40 minutes, the groups will orally debate the arguments posted to the blog and discuss how they experienced the debate.

Evaluation Suggestions:

I've never graded this assignment. It's primarily designed to engage students in questions considered during the course and facilitate class discussion.

Notes on Reception, Execution, etc.:

Students have enjoyed the assignment and it has led to critical and engaged discussion regarding key readings in the course.

Course Type:

Advanced Writing Course

Course Description:

In his book On the Contrary, rhetoric scholar Thomas Sloane writes, ”Rhetorical thought is—let us admit it—highly perverse and lawyerly in nature.” In this statement, Sloane not only alludes to the closely intertwined history of rhetoric and law from the earliest days of Western thought to the modern era, but highlights the shared promotion by both of these fields of an agonistic “art of controversy” which seeks to facilitate controversy through the practice of arguing both sides of a case, a practice classical rhetoricians called in utramque partem (“on either side”). The principal theorists of classical Greek and Roman rhetoric promoted agonistic contests in which speakers argued opposite sides of disputed issues, often with specifically judicial contexts in mind, and the American legal system’s adversarial system of justice is founded on a contest of accusation and defense between parties in which each seeks to persuade a judge or jury of disputed issues on opposite sides of a case.

Despite the close relationship between rhetoric and law, however, and the fact that the lawyer remains, in the words of legal scholar James Boyd White, “the modern rhetorician in its purest form,” the modern professionalization of law has frequently attempted to deny or repress the rhetorical aspects of legal discourse and the agonistic conflict on which the adversarial system of justice is founded. Instead, modern law has promoted a view of legal discourse as a value-neutral “science” based on logical deduction and immune to social and political influence. This paradoxical relationship between law and rhetoric in modern legal discourse has produced a recent revival of questions about modern law’s denial of rhetoric, including important questions about the role of character and emotion in legal argument, the role of narrative in the analysis of legal evidence, the effect of the adversarial system of justice on social cohesion and division, and the relationship of legal rhetoric to democracy, coercion, and violence.

We’ll study these questions by first examining the forms of argument used in the legal profession today, focusing on arguments regarding the interpretation of circumstantial evidence in legal cases and the analogical, or case-based, form of legal argument known as “legal reasoning” which is used to argue for or against the application of judicial precedent to new cases. Specifically, we’ll study arguments regarding the evidence in controversial trials such as the 1935 Richard Hauptmann (“Lindbergh Kidnapping”) trial, the 1982 Lindy Chamberlain (“Dingo”) trial, and the 1992 Randy Weaver (“Ruby Ridge”) trial, as well as arguments and judicial opinions in U.S. Supreme Court cases regarding the Fourth Amendment’s search and seizure clause and the minimum standards of effective legal advocacy found in the Sixth Amendment’s right to assistance of counsel. After examining the forms and purposes of legal rhetoric as it is actually employed in the legal profession, we’ll then consider contemporary critiques of the adversary system and the agonistic rhetoric on which it depends, including critiques implicit in public perceptions of the legal system and cultural representations of lawyers.

Tags:

Refutation and Rebuttal

Rebuttal Sparring

Bohmann — Mon, 08 Oct 2012 01:05:20 +0000

Author:

Axel Bohmann

Image Credit:

GodWiki

Brief Assignment Overview:

Students pair up to practice rebuttal. Partners present their position on their chosen controversy and have to fend off arguments for other positions that their partner comes up with. Partners change frequently and in quick succession.

Type of Assignment:

In-class Exercise

Assignment Length:

Partial Class Period

Single Class Period

Pedagogical Goals - Rhetoric:

Pedagogical Goals - Writing:

Invention

Peer Review

Pre-Writing

Pedagogical Goals - Digital Literacy:

Collaboration

Presentations

Additional Pedagogical Goals:

refine students' position in their chosen controversy
become aware of and address potential arguments opposed students' own positions
increase awareness of different audiences
develop effective rebuttal strategies

Media Requirements:

No Classroom Technology Required

Required Materials:

Space (good for a session outdoors)

Writing equipment (digital or oldschool) for reflection.

Timeline for Optimal Use:

Late in the Semester

Full Assignment Description:

Use this lesson plan fairly early in Unit 3 of your RHE 306. Ideally students will have read about and discussed the basics of rebuttal (refutation, counterargument, possibly concession) in a previous session and have started to think about their own position in their chosen controversy. This exercise should both get them to think more carefully about their position and potentially qualify it, as well as raise their awareness for opposing positions, their arguments, and how to rebut them. I have my student continuously do little free writing exercises in which they reflect on their position and this exercise culminates in one of those, too.

This is an exercise that needs a bit of space, so if you are in a computer classroom it might be a good chance for you and your students to see some sunlight for a change. Mine definitely appreciate that. Divide the class up into two groups of equal size. The first forms a circle, facing outwards, and the second an additional circle around that one, so two students always face each other. If there is an uneven number of students I get into one of the circles as well to even it out. Tell them that this is their chance to do 'intellectual sparring,' to practice their punches, jabs, and defense with actual partners to strengthen their essay 3 and presentation performance. There, other positions are implicit and it can be a difficult task to consider all of them and their potential arguments. But the more fully they can be addressed, the better essay 3 is going to be.

Tell students they will have three minutes to do the following:

partners in the outer circle present their controversy and their position with regards to it
partners in the inner circle give an argument for a different position
partners in the outer circle must find a way to rebut/refute/discredit said argument, thus strenghtening their own position

After three minutes, the outer circle moves on clockwise (or counter-clockwise if you wanna be a gangster :) ) and the same routine starts again. Half-way through you should switch roles, having the students in the inner circle present and defend their positions. Alternatively, you can leave a little more time between moving circles and have partners switch roles in that interval. Emphasize to your students that this is an exercise where they should really push each other. Of course, you want them to treat each other with respect but it will not do any good if they give in to each other's points too easily. In general, etiquette has not been a problem in my class so far, so I try to get them to really get at each other's arguments.

How long you keep this exercise going depends a bit on your time constraints and the way the students react to it. My experience has been that they enjoy the dynamic dimension of rapidly moving from partner to partner and also feel more comfortable talking when everybody else is too and they know the instructor is not listening. So I don't seem to have any trouble letting it go on for about 30 minutes. You want to give them a chance to listen and respond to a range of opposing viewpoints, so I would not go much shorter than that. Longer potentially, but there is a danger of repetition and information overload as this is quite an intense exercise for the students.

When you feel everybody has had enough chances to listen and respond to different arguments, bring your students back together and let them take 10-15 minutes to compose a written reflection on the exercise, including the following questions: What were the different positions opposed to your own? Were they associated with any particular stakeholders? Give at least two arguments you heard that run counter to your position. Can you find ways to construct refutations or counterarguments to those arguments? You can assign a written homework to your students where they come up with a mire elaborated version of this reflection, including fully developed rebuttals.

Suggestions for Instructor Preparation:

Before Class:

Very little preparation needed
Make sure students have a good idea of rebuttal in general and a sense of their own position in their chosen controversy prior to doing this exercise
Make sure there is enough space for students to move around comfortably

In Class:

Keep an eye on the time, while also getting a sense for how long it takes students to go through the cycle
Be prepared to 'stand in' as a sparring partner if there is an uneven number of students
total class time taken: 45 - 50 minutes (30-35 circle exercise; 10-15 written reflection)

Instructions For Students:

Circle Exercise:

Students divvy up into 2 groups of equal size
Stand in two circles, facing each other
Students in the outer circle present their controversy and their position with regards to it
Students in the inner circle give an argument for a different position
Students in the outer circle must find a way to rebut/refute/discredit said argument, thus strenghtening their own position
You have three minutes for this; when I give the signal, the outer circle moves on clockwise

Reflection:

Write a brief reflection answering the following questions:

What were the different positions opposed to your own? Were they associated with any particular stakeholders? Give at least two arguments you heard that run counter to your position. Can you find ways to construct refutations or counterarguments to those arguments?

Evaluation Suggestions:

I would not evaluate students on the exercise itself. The written reflection (especially if you assign an elaboration for homework) can certainly be used for feedback, but I would not attach a grade to it. The exercise is designed to allow students to play around and get comfortable with their own position.

Course Type:

Introductory Writing Course

Course Description:

I am teaching RHE 306 with Eli Pariser's The Filter Bubble. The content does not matter for this exercise, though.

Tags:

Refutation and Rebuttal