This document is protected by copyright. It may be used and reproduced only for non-profit educational use.

Argument Directions

This paper is due March 14.

Re-write your pro-con paper as an argument.

Your opening paragraph must establish the controversy and identify (name) your opponent.
Your thesis must assert a superiority of, or preference for, one side over the other.
After the opening, begin with refutation only if you expect readers will be upset with your proposition; otherwise, begin with confirmation.
You must build a refutation (a section that gives the reasons and facts favoring the other side and then immediately answers or shoots down each objection to your thesis).
Name a specific opponent. It can be a group or one public figure who represents a group, or a personal opponent set up in your opening paragraph, like your mommy.
Give each opposing argument (making clear that each point is your opponent’s opinion, not yours, and signaling that the opposing argument is wrong).
Answer each opposing argument with reasons and facts not used in your other paragraphs of support or in your introduction.
In refutation, always begin with the opponent’s argument and then give your response. You don’t win arguments by giving the other side the last word.
Rather than listing all the objections and then answering them, answer each opposing argument point by point.
Be sure to have clear transitions:
In the following example, the attributions to the opponent are green underline, the opponent’s objections are red italic, the transition signal is in purple small caps, and the writer’s answer to the objection is in blue bold.

Consider this example of a refutation paragraph for a paper with the thesis: The city should enforce laws to keep the homeless from making our parks unpleasant and unsafe.

Although the homeless claim that they have the same right to use city parks as taxpayers, they simply do not understand their predicament. They say that they have as much right as anyone to use public land, but the public has no right to urinate and defecate in the bushes or to roast hot dogs over a trash can fire or to sponge bathe at bathroom sinks and drinking fountains. The homeless claim that they are not harming anyone and that they present no threat to public safety; however, the homeless are more likely than the rest of us to be unclean, foul-smelling, diseased, or lice-infested. They are more likely to be in a stupor caused by alcohol, drugs, or malnourishment. They are more likely to have been released from a mental ward and/or not taking prescribed medication. In short, they are more likely to spoil the recreational environment that parks were built to provide.

Turn in your original Pro-con paper with the argument paper.
Here is the Pro-Con Sample revised as an argument.

In this example, the attributions to the opponent are green underline, the opponent’s objections are red italic, the transition signal is in purple small caps, and the writer’s answer to the objection is in blue bold.

Home

In 1993 I had two free tickets to the Lipton Tennis Tournament. I gave them away because I didn’t want to drive an hour to pay twenty dollars for parking to sit ninety rows up in the sun and wind to watch Michael Chang get upset by an unseeded player. Instead, I stayed home and saw it on ESPN. Seeing a sports event live is silly if one can watch it on television.

Fanatics blindly insist that being in the stadium makes a sports event special. But their idea of special seems weird to me. They seem to satisfy some barbaric impulse by wearing team shirts and caps, or painting their faces blue and red, or wearing hog masks or feathers or lumps of cheese on their heads. Fanatics point out that there is much more to enjoy in the stadium than just the game. But although there is more to see, there is not more to enjoy. The cheerleaders offer a blatant display of sexism; buffons dance in halloween costumes; morons sit shirtless in the snow; and the halftime show is like listening to music on a CB radio. Fanatics say they love to hear the bat meeting the ball, shoulder pads crashing into hip pads, the skates ripping into the ice. However, I mostly hear police whistles and air horns and cow bells, and curses from oafs sitting near me. Fanatics claim they help the home team by making noise, shouting “air ball” or yelling to drown out the visiting quarterback’s check-offs. Unfortunately, they also help by throwing ice and beer at basketball players and flashlight batteries at outfielders. Most of all, the fanatics insist that nothing beats seeing LeBron James or Peyton Manning perform live. They fail to point out, however, that this thrill diminishes as the seats climb up to nosebleed level.

The fanatics’ objections to watching a game on TV are irrational. They say that the TV commercials are annoying, but at home I can take a bathroom break, while the mob in the stadium must sit through the delay. And what about the high cost of avoiding TV ads? The average cost of an NFL game in 2004 for a family of four was $300 including tickets, parking, and hotdogs and drinks. And what about the long drive through slow traffic, the three to four hours sitting on hard bleachers, and the forty-five minute lines at refreshment counters and rest rooms? Fanatics claim that kids, the wife, telephone calls, and walking the dog can easily disrupt attention from the drama of a crucial play or series. but so can buying a hotdog or being hit on the head by a bouncing beach ball. Fanatics also claim that the TV commentators are inane and repetitious. True, but the loudmouth idiots sitting near you in the stadium jump up and down shouting the same inanities with curse words added. Fanatics say there is nothing like being there in person. I agree, but in a different sense. There is nothing like sitting for four hours in a rainstorm, snow, fog, bitingly cold wind, or blistering sun.

Watching the game on TV requires only as much effort as I want to give. I can sit alone or with friends, munching pretzels and sipping drinks from the fridge. If the game is a bust, we are not stuck; we can switch to another sports channel or turn off the tube and give full attention to partying. I can tape the game, which allows me to control replays and to fast forward through time outs and commercials.

In March, 1993, the Miami Heat beat the then World Champion Chicago Bulls for the first time in twenty tries. For the Heat fans in that sold out Miami Arena, it was a peak experience, a memory for a lifetime. I envy those fans that experience, but I do not envy their drive through Miami traffic, their ticket and parking costs, or their walk through some blocks in downtown MIami from and to their cars. I do not envy sports fanatics all the time and money they wasted watching mediocre games from lousy seats until they finally had an experience worth the effort. I am satisfied with the thrill from watching that historic Heat win on television. The couch beats the bleachers almost every time.

Last updated 02/06/2007