DWRL Lesson Plans - Rebuttal

Adaptable For Use Without Classroom Technology

Homework Assignment

Assignment Length:

Single Class Period

Pedagogical Goals - Rhetoric:

Rebuttal

Stasis

Style

Pedagogical Goals - Literature:

Pedagogical Goals - Writing:

Pedagogical Goals - Digital Literacy:

Social Media

Media Requirements:

Timeline for Optimal Use:

Full Assignment Description:

Students will be asked to think critically about ways to effectively make an argument in a small amount of space, the "venue" of forum comment walls, the genre of the comment post, and the importance of fair, balanced rebuttals. This exercise also helps students understand the impace that rhetorical skills can have in real-world situation. Students will find an online argument that takes a position in their controversy (YouTube videos work well here), read through the comments section, identify a disagreement, evaluate various users' use of rebuttal, and, ultimately, insert theirown opinion. This assignment works in-class for rooms with computers with internet access. It can also be assigned as homework.

Before this lesson, define refutation, concession, and rebuttal for your students. Ask students to surf the web (a simple Google search worked well for my class) for a position within their controversy. Ask them to examine the argument, then read through the comments section. Ask them to find some examples of effective and ineffective responses to the argument. Ask them to think about why particular comments are convincing and why others are not. Are some responses simply offensive? Do they give faulty evidence? Do they give a fair summary of the argument or misrepresent it?

After your students have looking through the comment walls, have them report to the class or to small groups on their findings. The ensuing discussion should solidify the importance of a fair summary, concession, and refutation.

Ultimately, ask them to write less than 100 words offering a rebuttal to either the argument or to a comment they found particularly intriguing. Instruct them to focus on fairly representing their opponent's position and finding common ground before persuasively using refutation.

Suggestions for Instructor Preparation:

This assignment requires computers with internet access. Decide beforehand whether this assignment will be performed in-class or as homework.

Instructions For Students:

Before this assignment, students should be introduced to the concepts of refutation, concession, and rebuttal. This is a great way to emphasize the importance of brief, fair summaries and of finding common ground, or points of stasis, with opposing positions.

1) Locate an argument online that participates in your controversy. Try using some key words in the Google search engine. Make sure the blog post, opinion news article, YouTube video, etc. has a comments section that you can access. Read through the argument, then read through the comments wall. What do people disagree with in the article? Where are commenters disagreeing with each other?

2) Pick two comments that you think are particularly effective in convincing the reader. Pick two that are particularly ineffective. How do these comments differ from each other? Which comments fairly represent the main argument? Which comments use concession? Which comments use refutation? How does each comment go about rebutting the main argument (or another comment)? Do any of the comments make faulty claims?

3) Write up your own comment that will contribute to the conversation on this forum. It must rebut either the main argument or another comment on the wall. Your rebuttal must be less than 100 words, offer a fair summary of your oppositon's position, and offer some point of concession.

Course Type:

Course Description:

I used this lession in an introductory rhetoric course.

Tags:

Using Debates to Teach Rhetorical Analysis

Sloan — Wed, 04 Dec 2013 16:19:55 +0000

Author:

Casey Sloan

Image Credit:

Image Credit: Short Excursions Into Allyson's Mind

Brief Assignment Overview:

This assignment asks students to watch a debate and evaluate the participants' use of ethos, pathos and logos given their goals and their audience. It then asks students to select a debate “winner,” construct an argument justifying their position, and debate the issue with other students, incorporating concession, refutation and rebuttal.

Type of Assignment:

Class Discussion

Homework Assignment

Assignment Length:

One-Two Class Periods

Pedagogical Goals - Rhetoric:

Pedagogical Goals - Literature:

Pedagogical Goals - Writing:

Media Requirements:

Media Console/Projector

Timeline for Optimal Use:

Full Assignment Description:

This assignment has students evaluate speakers' use of ethos, logos and pathos, perform a rhetorical analysis on the effectiveness of that use, and debate their own conclusions with their classmates by relying on concession, refutation and rebuttal. Ideally, this assignment will help students solidify their understanding of rhetorical appeals and allow them to practice calling upon argumentative strategies to persuade a skeptical audience. The debate chosen can be a fantastic hook to catch student interest in rhetorical analysis. Presidential debates or heated public debates could be introduced for a class that seems particularly politically conscious, but I personally used a semi-humorous debate between comedian Jon Stewart and Bill O'Reilly, television host and social commentator. The debating then required of students should help them develop their own use of persuasive strategies.

Students will first watch a debate in class. A classroom equipped with a computer and screen is necessary for this assignment. While viewing the debate, students should take notes on both (or one, if you want to divide your students neatly into two camps) speakers' use of ethos, logos and pathos. Ask them also to think about the audience for this debate and whether or not the rhetorical moves made by the speakers would be received well by that audience. This should take up one class period.

For homework, have your students write up a brief report arguing why one speaker “won” the debate. They should use the notes taken during the debate and focus on the use and effectiveness of rhetorical appeals.

During the next class period, ask students to share their arguments. Go back and forth between the two camps, asking students to use various combinations of concession, refutation and rebuttal to answer one another.

Suggestions for Instructor Preparation:

Be sure to pick a debate video that will fit neatly in with your available class time. Decide whether you want to assign students to a single debater or offer them the option of picking their own side. If you assign students to a single speaker, you can ask them to focus solely on her while watching the debate video.

Instructions For Students:

Ideally, before performing this exercise students should already be familiar with rhetorical analysis and refutation, concession and rebuttal. I used this assignment as an end-of-semester wrap-up to synthesize various ideas and skills.

1) For the first class period, students should closely watch this debate video. They should focus on both speakers' (or a single speaker's) use of ethos, pathos and logos. Instruct them to take detailed notes, citing specific examples. Ask them to pay special attention to these questions: what kind of ethos do the speakers establish? How? When do they use pathos and why? When do they use logos and why? Also, define the audience for this debate.

2) For homework, students should write up a 1-2 page argument about why one debater "won" the argument by more effectively using rhetorical appeals to convince her audience.

3) For the next class period, ask a volunteer on each side summarize why her debater won. Then, ask opposing sides to use various combinatinos of refutation, rebuttal and concession to argue against one another.

Course Type:

Course Description:

I used this assignment for Rhetoric 306, an introductory course.

Tags:

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

Technology-Based Classroom (computers for each student)

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:

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:

No Classroom Technology Required

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:

Required Materials:

Space (good for a session outdoors)

Writing equipment (digital or oldschool) for reflection.

Timeline for Optimal Use:

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:

Technology-Based Classroom (computers for each student)

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

Introductory Rhetoric Course - Final Multimedia Presentation

RMazique — Sat, 31 Mar 2012 02:06:31 +0000

Author:

Rachel Mazique

Image Credit:

Cartoon by Ben Sargent, published in The Alcade (2011)

Brief Assignment Overview:

A five-minute multimedia presentation showcasing skills developed over the entire semester: summary, analysis, and refutation/rebuttal of a position in a student's chosen controversy.

Type of Assignment:

Major Course Project

Assignment Length:

Multiple Class Periods

Pedagogical Goals - Rhetoric:

Pedagogical Goals - Writing:

Pedagogical Goals - Digital Literacy:

Additional Pedagogical Goals:

Students will engage with multimedia texts as they showcase their synthesis skills and create a coherent and concise five minute presentation, which includes a brief introduction to the controversy, a showing of the multimedia (viewpoint) text that they created or found in their research, determination of the point of stasis, and refutation of the position within the multimedia text.

This final assignment thus brings together the major goals of each unit:

1. Summarizing and mapping the controversy,

2. Analyzing a position within the controversy, and

3. Refuting a position within the controversy.

The oral presentation should also help students refine their refutations and rebuttals in their final written argument.

Media Requirements:

Media Console/Projector

Required Materials:

Computer with internet connection and projector with volume control for videos/songs and "Final Multimedia Presentation Rubric" so students understand how they will be evaluated (or, if using the Learning Record, how they should evaluate themselves)

Timeline for Optimal Use:

Full Assignment Description:

A five-minute multimedia presentation showcasing skills developed over the entire semester: summary, analysis, and refutation/rebuttal of a position in their controversy.

The multimedia source should be a viewpoint source relevant to the student's chosen controversy. Students have the option of creating a multimedia argument themselves, or finding a multimedia argument that has already been published.Since the assignment's requirement for a multimedia source is open-ended, students may choose from a variety of possibilities—from already published cartoons like the Ben Sargent example above—to original songs of their own creation.

The assignment is intentionally open-ended so students will most likely choose to create a multimedia argument with the technology that they are most familiar with—whether PowerPoint, iMovie, Prezi, GarageBand, etc. Since I teach using the Learning Record, students have the opportunity to demonstrate going above and beyond the requirements in the course strand of Digital Literacy—if they create their own multimedia argument (as this is only an option, but not a requirement). Most students will likely find and refute an argument that has already been published online.

In their presentation, students must spend the first thirty to sixty seconds introducing their controversy to the class. Then, they will introduce and show the multimedia viewpoint source that they created or found. After showing the source, students will refute the argument within the multimedia source.

Suggestions for Instructor Preparation:

Introduce the assignment and its instructions at the introduction of the final unit of the semester so students have time to create a multimedia source if they choose to go the creative route with an original multimedia argument. Provide for class time so students may ask questions about the assignment. I'm also planning a day into Unit Three so students can work on their presentations during class and ask any questions as issues come up.

Students will need an understanding of refutations and rebuttals and practice applying these skills (during whole class instruction and activities) before creating their individual presentations.

Instructions For Students:

Create or find a multimedia viewpoint source that makes an argument; it can be a photoessay, TV clip, documentary clip, movie clip, slideshow, image, cartoon, podcast, song, etc. The only requirement is that this form of multimedia relate to your controversy. During the last week of class, you will give a brief talk (thirty seconds to one-minute) on the context of your controversy, introduce and show us your multimedia source or creation, and then refute/rebut the viewpoint/argument that you've shown us. In total, the entire presentation (including the viewing of multimedia) should be NO longer than 5 minutes.

This presentation will require you to synthesize the skills you've developed throughout the entire semester: summary, analysis, and refutation/rebuttal. Your one-minute talk on the background of the argument requires that you summarize the context of your controversy and all of your research from the entire semester into one minute. The refuting argument that you build requires that you determine the stasis point—ensuring that the multimedia argument speaks to, or opposes your position, which is a skill that requires analysis.

Evaluation Suggestions:

Before I used the Learning Record, I used a rubric for traditional assessment. However, with the Learning Record, I still provide rubrics, so students have a concrete form to check their work from.

Although I will not assign a specific grade to this assignment, I will still provide comments following the rubric below. Students will then be able to use the rubric as evidence of their learning processes in their final analyses. Because their final analysis relies upon a selective Learning Record portfolio, the rubric is only one possible piece of evidence that students may use to assess their progress throughout the semester.

Name: ________________________

Final Multimedia Presentation

Baseline Requirements for a “C” (Bold categories have most weight in the overall grade)
	Excellent (A/B)	Satisfactory (C)	Unsatisfactory (D/F)
One minute talk on context of your controversy (must be comprehensively synthesized and summarized)
Refute/rebut viewpoint in your multimedia source (with analysis/explanation of how the multimedia argument relates to your position on the controversy)
Source is a multimedia viewpoint source that relates to your controversy
Total presentation only five minutes long (including viewing of multimedia source)
Effective and coherent
Arrived to class on time and prepared for in-class presentation:

Overall Grade:

Notes on Reception, Execution, etc.:

This assignment was a great way to wrap up our class and to give everyone an understanding of the research their classmates had been conducting throughout the entire semester. I really enjoyed seeing the students display their summary, analysis, and refutation skills. The multimedia arguments that they chose to refute were striking and engaging so the class did not become bored. The five minute time constraint (including the viewing of the multimedia source) also eases the anxiety of those who do not relish public speaking, and it requires that students prepare, time themselves, and remain as concise as possible. Seeing the students take their presentations seriously and come to class dressed to the nines was also fun to see.

Course Type: