They Say, I Say Response

The "They Say, I Say" reading is a great example on how we as writers should write our argument papers. In the beginning of the essay it states how we should address the "they" in our writing. By "they" the author refers to the people who are skeptical, or those who disagree with your stance on a subject or matter. By pointing out who the "they" are in your paper it makes it easier for you to write your argument paper. But when you state who the "they" are you must as a writer "clearly indicate your thesis, but also what larger conversation that thesis is responding to". Because if you fail to do so it makes the audience wonder what you are talking about and makes them question all the things that you are saying. So if you want to keep your audience "engaged in your topic or conversation, a writer must explain what he or she is responding to-either before offering that response or, at least, very early in the discussion."

The next part of the essay "concentrates on the three most common and recognizable ways of responding: agreeing, disagreeing, or some combination of both". In this part of the essay the author is giving you great examples of disagreeing, agreeing, or a combination of both. He talks first about disagreeing. The author states that once you have made up your mind on what your position is on a subject such as disagreeing you must almost always "explain why". If you explain why you are disagreeing but in a dull response then that response would not get you far enough. You must either give your disagreeing a new life so that there is more meaning to it and who know might take on a new life. The author gives great templates on disagreeing which would help us writers a lot and would benefit our papers tremendously.

On the other hand if you agree with a statement then the author states that "even as you're agreeing, it is important to bring something new and fresh to the table, adding something that makes you a valuable participant in the conversation". For example bringing up something from past experience, or a situation not mentioned by the person, or any valuable information that you feel needs to be expressed that hasn't been expressed by the person.

But if your in a situation were you agree and disagree on a subject then the author states great ways how to go about writing a paper were your stance is a combination of both.

I felt that this reading was much more easier than the last reading and was a great reading to read at least for me. I felt that I gained a whole bunch of information from this reading which would help me in my argument paper. I didn't know that when writing an argument paper you have to address the "they" the "I say" I just thought from past teachers that you just have to state what your arguing and then explain as to why you either agree or disagree. I didn't know that there are many things in between that you must address in order to make your argument more credible.

They say, I say, they say, I say

They say, I say, They say, I say, is a demonstration as to how one can form an argument or agreement, first, by starting with what "others" are saying or writing. This gives you a place to begin your stance on the subject, whatever it may be. This gives the reader or listener a starting point in which to help them understand why you are making your argument for or against a subject. Giving a summary of what others say on a subject can help form your own ideas on a subject.
The reading offers many good ways of beginning your stance on a subject once you have opened the subject with someone else's stance. I took this section sort of like a questionare where you go anywhere from a -3 to a +3 on how strongly you agree or disagree. You may completely disagree with something and then explain your reasoning, or completely agree and give your own take on why you agree. There are many levels in between these two extremes, which there are reasons for any of them and explaining those reasons makes up the content of the argument paper.
This reading gives us many ways to follow in to a discussion of our subject, whatever it may be, and being up pros and cons in an interesting way. For myself, this will help me to write a much more informative paper on my subject, knowing that I do not have to just pick a side and strongly oppose the other. Great reading.

My Rant on "They Say, I Say"

They Say I Say, a reading that discusses the idea and concept of introducing ideas and arguments clearly in the beginning of their paper. Though stating your own idea is always good and recommended, but it can lead to a very subjective paper, according to They Say I Say, stating your opposing argument first to give the reader an idea what you’re against so they can mentally frame comparisons to what you’re arguing. Meaning, if I am going to talk about how much I hate green beans for half the essay, the reader will just think “why do you hate green beans, what is wrong with them”? So if I start off stating my reason why or explain the opposing argument the reader will have a better idea where I am coming from.

Chapter 4 discusses 3 main ways to respond to someone else’s writing. You can disagree, “have a qualified agreement and also agreeing and disagreeing simultaneously”. This essay also explains to the reader the proper form of agreeing with a position or disagreeing with one and that you should have views that match with whatever your position might be. What I got out of this excerpt was that you can’t just start talking about what you’re arguing since simply you are not fully explaining why you’re arguing what you’re arguing. When I start writing my argument paper, I will probably do a very brief background of what I am talking about and what brought it up to give the reader an idea where I am coming from. Then I will bring up the side of my discussion that opposes my personal side to give an objective comparison to the paper.

"Politics and the English Language" Response

“Politics and the English Language” is an essay written by George Orwell, and very well known political activist and novelist, in 1946. Within the essay he address the English language and the many flaws writers have when writing persuasive arguments about politics But he says that these flaws are not the fault of writers but that of the language itself. “Modern English … is full of bad habits which spread by imitation and which can be avoided if one is willing to take the necessary trouble,” says Orwell which he earlier likes unto a man that drinks because he’s a failure but then fails all the more completely because he drinks. So instead of just accepting the problem and not trying to fix it (making it ultimately worse than it was before), we can do what is necessary now to better our written language for generations to come.

Through out the essay Orwell addresses a variety of passages as examples of “bad writing,” one from the Communist pamphlet another from the Bible, and then shows what we as writers should not do within our own writing. “Pretentious diction” stuck out to me, using words such as “phenomenon, categorical, exploit,” and so on are used to address simple statement but in turn “give an air of scientific impartiality to biased judgments,” meaning that by using these words writers are trying to make their own opinions on a subject seem factual.

At the end of the essay Orwell actually lists six rules that we as writers should follow when writing an argumentative piece. Two rules that I thought were very applicable to my own writing were: (ii)”Never use a long word where a short one will do” and (iv)”Never use the passive where you can use the active.” My argument essay is completely political because I am rallying behind and arguing for gay rights, a very heated topic in today’s society. To make my argument valid and to persuade readers to see my reasoning I feel it’s very important that I follow the rules George Orwell has outlined in his essay. Many times in my writing I unknowingly use “pretentious diction” or “meaningless words” which only distraction from the actual point I am trying to make and in some cases discredit my argument all together because it seems like I might not understand my topic fully because of the extra “fluff” that I’ve added. Though the reading was difficult, I thoroughly enjoyed it and the lessons it has taught me and I will definitely be using Orwell’s rules in my argument paper.

George Orwell Exerpt Responded my ME!

What do words really mean when we use words in so many different ways? When we write we tend to use a select few of words that we repeatedly use during our writing process but each time we use the word it can contain a different meaning. So why is this, I yet have to discover this meaning, but George Orwell seems to have a grasp on why or at least identifies the fact that the English language misused. He mentions several times that most words that are commonly used don’t have the value they used to have or are not as “concrete” as they used to be.

Though his language in his own writing was much older than what we are used to, it still made sense to me. He explains many times that when writing a paper that you are trying to prove a point or you’re trying to persuade someone to join your side on, using few words with many meanings will not help you. Since words can mean something else to different people, depending on their background. Orwell states himself, "Phrases consists less and less of words chosen for the sake of their meaning, and more and more of phrases that are tacked together like sections of a prefabricated henhouse." Point given, even like society, the value in what we do is not there like it used to be. The way we build houses and the community support, but that’s beside the point, they point is that they value we apply to words is not what it used to be were each meaning or phrase had its own unique separate set of words.

So like my own writing, I need to prepare my paper to draw my audience with different and unique words, not words that will confuse the reader, but words that will attract them. Plus I want to allow them to easily understand the reading so they can relate or see what my point is to the best of my ability and to comprehend to the best of their ability. As Orwell was stating in his writing, don’t be vague, even though it has become a way of the modern way of life in essays, trying and stray from it. Which is one thing I will be trying to do in my paper.

George Orwell Reading.....

George Orwell makes some very interesting statements on how the use of the English language is being used in the wrong way. He gave many examples as to why he say that the "English language is in a bad way". He states that the reason why English is bad is because people don't get there points across thus making the reader confused. He gave many examples of how the English language is "bad". Some examples include "dying metaphors, operators or verbal false limbs, pretentious diction, and meaningless words". Within these examples he gave reason as to how writers use these and giving us words that people use that are wrong or in his mind not correct English. And how "language as well can corrupt thought".

He also talks a little about politics and writing and that his view of "political writing is bad," but gave a detail of where political writings is not bad which is nice because not only does he gives us facts he backs it up with supporting evidence, same goes with his view he backs his views up with supporting evidence. Then he also gave 4 questions that writers think about:"1. What am I trying to say? What words will express it? What image or idiom will make it clearer? Is this image fresh enough to have an effect?" these questions are very good questions that I will consider when writing my paper.

All in all he states that "language can be curable" if you follow the step he states. If you follow his steps then definitely your paper will become a good argument paper thus making the reader know what your point and what your trying to get across.

I felt confused reading the reading because he gave many word examples that threw me off. But overall, I felt that the point he was trying to get across is that good language is been gone for a long time and that we should get back to that old writing were we don't use so much big words and metaphors to try to get our points across. Soft subtle words I think would do the trick but you should do it in a way that you are clear on your point and don't go off subject because your mind says so. I also felt that I have a good knowledge as to how to go about writing my paper and what not to do and what to do in writing. I also now know that I should carefully choose my words and I should also think about those questions when writing this paper.

my response to Orwell's Politics and the english language

Orwell makes quite a statement with his examples of how the english language is used badly in the modern day. The meaning of words have become less "concrete" and more vague often due to a speaker or writer being unable to get his or her point across without using a metaphore or buzz word that is used so often that it can be taken many different ways. As Orwell says,"Prose consists less and less of words chosen for the sake of their meaning, and more and more of phrases tacked together like sections of a prefabricated henhouse." Like the use of the word "Phacism", many including myself, do not know the real meaning of the word, but as it is used in many political speeches, it is not seen as something good.
Many of the passages in the reading use so many metaphores of old that you are lost as to what the point of it was in the first place. This is one of the main points of learning about writing, trying not to distract someone from the main purpose of a writing or speech. We write something to get a point across. If we are using so many words or phrases that have more than one meaning to someone, how are we to get our point across without making it more confusing?
I believe Orwell is saying that being vague in writing and speaking has become a way of life in today's civilization. Sometimes this is used purposely, so that someone would not be offended by what is called Politically incorrect. Simplify your words to get a point across.

Curious Writer response

This chapter in the Curious Writer on “Writing an Argument” I found was both extremely helpful and insightful. Bruce Ballenger was able to make several great points on how to construct an argument, the process you go through, and common misunderstandings about arguments. He is quick to point out that many people think of arguments and op-ed pieces to be “stiff and formal”, but it’s all in how you approach the topic, the language you use that can bring your argument and op-ed to life. A common misconception about arguments is that inquiry is not involved in the process of developing an argument. A lot of people already have formed well-built opinions on certain topics and therefore when arguing them only look for sources to help support their opinion. But the pre-existing opinion that one has on his or her argument topic is just the beginning step of the process. It then goes to gathering evidence and support (this is where inquiry comes into the equation), and then writing your argument with sources that support and uphold your pre-existing belief. Another point that Ballenger addressed that has much confusion surrounding it is that there are two sides to every argument. He states “To argue well is an act of the imagination, not a picking of sides.” I strongly agree with this statement, because there is never just two polar opposite sides to an argument, it isn’t just black and white, where one person can either believe one side or the exact opposite. There will always be areas of grey, and what makes a great argument is the realization of this truth and examining your topic from all of the various angles in order to prove your point and to better understand the bigger picture of what you are arguing.

I found this reading to be incredibly helpful as I have begun my argument paper. Writing the ethnography has allowed me to see more than one side of the topic I am pursuing and in turn helped me better under the gay community in the Treasure Valley. I feel that this reading has not only expanded my knowledge of argument papers, but given me many ideas to use in developing my own paper and allowing it to be more than just “stiff and formal”, but a creative and insightful piece of writing.

reading response to Ballenger's "Writing a Argument"

An argument paper has the power to make people change their minds about a topic, or allows them to really understand and accept your position as a valid one.  In order to have a good argument you must have a good basic knowledge on your topic of argument and then support it with researched facts and info as Ballenger explained.  "Argument is really about trying to get to the truth" as stated by Bruce Ballenger. 

In Ballenger's essay he helps you get a better knowledge of how to go about writing a argumentative paper by giving you great examples and info as to how to write a argument or persuasive paper.  He also goes into depth about arguing.  Giving specific examples like "arguing can be a similar process of discovery.." or "arguments make claims".  All these facts that are related to arguing gives you a more better understanding of the arguing process.

Ballenger describes many different ways of how to go about approaching an argument paper.  All of which deals with what you already know and supporting it with hardcore evidence.  If you do the research and get more information on your subject the more prepared you are persuading your audience.  The more prepared you are about arguing both sides.  The chances of you getting people to be on your side are greater.

Overall what Ballenger is trying to say is that an argumentative essay is taking a side of an issue and being able to give evidence as to which side is right according to the person's opinion.  That an argument paper is a heated discussion and that you should know both sides of the subject.  He also is trying to say that a argumentative essay should be well structured, well reasoned, and well supported.

In the end I learned a lot from this reading.  I feel that I have a good understanding of how to write a argumentative paper and what to work on to better persuade my audience to see my way.

Reading response to Curious Writer--arguments

There are many different methods to get an argument across, all of which require a good knowledge base on the subject. As Ballenger says, “Argument is really about trying to get to the truth”. Forming an opinion on a subject takes a considerable amount of study on that subject. Exploring a subject thoroughly may change your initial opinion or it may strengthen that opinion. Either way, knowing a subject well gives you a good basis for forming that opinion. All subjects have more than just two sides if you study them. They are more complex than that and the more you study a subject, the more you will see this.
The more you know on a subject that you have formed an opinion on, gives you a better chance at persuading your audience. Expressing why a subject matters to you, helps to get a reaction from the reader. “To argue well is an act of imagination, not a picking of sides”.
Ballenger describes many different ways of approaching an argument paper. All of them deal with taking what we already know, then going further by trying to find an answer to stated questions that are raised by that said knowledge. Finally, the revision. Revising a paper is as he says, “Literally re-seeing, and every time you recreate the conditions that allow you to discover something new about how you see or what you think about your subject, you are, in fact, engaged in the act of revision”. This reading gives many good ideas to work toward on my own argument paper. There are not just two sides to arguments. If you study a subject enough to get a good knowledge base, you will begin to ask questions of your own and form your own opinion on it.


Work cited
Ballenger, Bruce "Writing an argument, The Curious Writer"
2009 (concise edition)

My Rendition of "Writing an Argument"

Bruce Ballenger’s “Writing and Argument” explains the different ways someone can get an argument across to someone or a group of people. Ballenger explains that the best way to do this is to understand your subject that you are arguing and supporting to the best of your knowledge. In the reading Ballenger states, “Argument is really about trying to get to the truth” which is totally true, you are not trying to make someone feel bad about what they think; it’s trying to get someone to admit the truth. So again knowing what you are talking about or a strong knowledge base will help any arguer in their ability to “get the truth out”.
Information will always help anyone strengthen their side of an argument, so again the more you know the easier it will be to persuade the person or people you are talking with. Additionally, making your audience know your drive for your side of the topic helps add the effect and draw everyone to your side or as Ballenger states, “To argue well is an act of imagination, not a picking of sides”. Attacking your side of the argument from difference angles and emphasize your points. Giving yourself and the audience something to think about other than the obvious makes your points much stronger than stating the obvious.
I would say this reading will help me understand how to starting writing an argument paper and not to just state the obvious but to answer more of my own questions to bring up more and to blow the minds the audience.

Ballenger, Bruce "Writing an argument, The Curious Writer" 2009