Pick one of the two sides from the Social Media is Good for Democracy debate and write an essay that shows how the argument is weak by identifying various fallacies committed by the debaters. Use MLA format Title is interesting and descriptive Grabber Introduction adequately provides context to explain what the issue is and why it matters? Introduction conveys main idea/thesis clearly and strongly. Second paragraph objectively summarizes the opposing viewpoint fairly and accurately without slanted language. Three body paragraphs that identify fallacies or misleading language and provide a reasonable rebuttal. Proper use of quotes and/or paraphrases with introduction clauses for quotes, accurate quotation marks, citation, and explanation sentence. There should be at least two instances where you paraphrase. Conclusion clearly reviews main idea and support points. Grammar is accurate. Should be double spaced, 12 point font and at least 3 full pages. If you introduce the debate and debaters in text you don’t need a Works Cited page unless you cite other sources. However, the emphasis should be on finding fallacies and demonstrating them rather than introducing new facts. https://www.intelligencesquaredus.org/debates/social-media-good-democracy-0 Arguments in Favor of Motion: SM offers a forum where many people can voice their opinions. Offers a way around traditional gatekeepers of information. SM makes exchange of ideas easier because it can happen at any time. Voter turnout is encouraged, leading to more voter participation. Celebrities on SM may raise awareness of issues Makes voters more aware of what political leaders are saying and doing. SM gives a platform for people to organize around issues such as BLM, Trans rights, womens rights, Parkland students and gun control. Arguments Against the Motion: One drawback to SM movements is they may be more subject to Bandwagon and Emotional fallacies. SM is addictive; the medium is full of meaningless and false information that can distract us from useful and valid information. Thoughtful debate takes time and yet Sm doesnt promote this kind of conversation as shocking ideas are the kind that go viral. Bias argument: Franklin Foehr argues that SM gives confirmation to peoples own biases. So this makes us less effective voters because we are only hearing what we want to hear and not the other side of the argument. SM accelerates bad social movements as much as good movements; SM gives more exposure to radical and extreme ideas. SM may promote psychological distress and that could suppress participation. Social Credit system in China Rebuttals: Anti: Slippery slope Democracy and Freedom are declining: but is this an example of correlation does not prove causation? Pro: Red Herring argumentwe are focused on some negativesaddiction or social creditand ignoring so many positives. Giving voice to celebrities or even regular people isnt necessarily good for democracy if those voices are ignorant or self-serving. More people are participating and thats good for Democracy: but that could also be correlation does not prove causation. I. Introduction, including a. Grabber b. Introduce the issue (what and why?) c. Introduce the Intelligence Squared Debate and the debaters. d. Your thesis, which should oppose one side of the debate II. Summary of Opposing Argument Objectively describe the thesis and arguments of the opposing side of the argument (the side you think is weak or invalid) III. Fallacy #1: show how the opposing debaters commit a fallacy. What did they say and what is wrong with it? IV. Fallacy #2: show how they commit a second fallacy. V. Fallacy #3: show how they commit a third fallacy. VI. Conclusion: review the debate overall and then review your points showing how the opposing side’s argument was weak or unconvincing. You may offer some other thoughts here on the issue including what we might want to do about the issue or areas where we need more information to make a good judgement.
Hide
