Well this is what I say!!

In essence what I took from They say I say was the necessity for good explanation. It references an earlier readings that emphasized the need for using good language that everyone can understand. As well as language that is relevant. This piece expounds on that; giving illustrations on how to present information. It gives a few templets on how this can be done. I feel this is very important for a writer to build a well rounded argumentative paper. When you introduce the opposing view of the topic, you can as the reading says, you agree but with a difference. Now once done properly the context although it may be the opposition it will build on to your own topic. For example if I were arguing a music group and their popularity I might just say, Coldplay an alternative rock band is a popular band even if not everyone likes them. Now to me that is a week statement. I feel that by saying, although Coldplay may not be the most popular band around they have lead the alternative rock genre of music for many years and have gathered a huge fan base. Both statement are true and both contain the same information but by introducing the opposition and then showing the writers view makes for a much better statement. The other point to showing both sides of an argument that I find to be very valuable is to show the opposition first then your own stance. My reasoning behind this is you make a point a lot quicker then having to go “full circle.” Also the reader will remember the last things said. Now the issue this piece does give is that the techniques presented are wrote, and repetitive. Now because they are templates they should be switched up often. That is what I plan to do, use them but only to the point where they do not become repetitive. I will have to force myself to figure out my own way to present the information at hand.

They say reading response.

I love the way that this reading approaches the way we agree or disagree with other’s thoughts. It talks about how you shouldn’t just say “I agree, or disagree with…” this leaves no explanation as to why. It doesn’t give the reader any signs of you’re actually thinking for yourself. This could just be your easy way out of not thinking much. I love how the writer ties this into the quoting reading we had by Orwell. It acts just like quoting. You can’t just state your opinion and run off thinking that was good enough. You need to expand on it and tell why or how you came to this conclusion in the first place. Make exactly clear why you have the opinion you do. Then tell of what the other side of your argument is to show why you need your opinion. I guess what I’m saying is to state the problem on the topic you’re speaking of. Since my ethnography was on musical occupations and how to get them I’m going to argue that musical education should be more valued in getting a job in this field. But I have to say why I’ve come to this opinion and why the problem needs to be opposed.
We also need to have some backing behind why we’ve come up with our opinion and show that others have come to the same conclusion. If we can we should find someone else who thinks the same as we do so that, as the writer states, we don’t just make an opinion from come out of the blue. But don’t rely on other’s quotes too heavily and lose sight of what opinion you came up with before you started the paper. This is probably another important point. Sticking to your guns and keeping with the argument you stated at the beginning of the paper. Don’t lose track down the line and make your argument sound hesitant.
Then he has given us starting points for stating our agreement or disagreement or even doing both at the same time. These of course are just as I stated them, starting points for giving us help or ideas in how we approach stating our opinion.

Michael's RR to "They Say"

“They Say” is an essay that promotes educating your audience before you begin arguing. What I mean is that to many people assume that the audience they are arguing a point to already know the other side of the argument. For instance “we could only wonder why he was going on and on about X”. It seems that in order to keep an audience captivated you need to provide the other side of the argument, that way you give a reason to those listening or reading why they should bother with what you have to say.
It appears that most prefer conflict in a situation in order to maintain any type of interest and not have the label boring slapped to it. Any thing we do as a society seems to be this way. Such as sports, political speeches, the news, books you get the point. Who cares about listening to something that we all agree with all ready and that has no opposing side to the issue.
“Yes / No / Okay, But” talks about being clear with your points. In other words present your side of the argument early on, “readers get frustrated, wondering, is this guy agreeing or disagreeing?”. Another clear way of demonstrating your side clearly is by using this: “ I think X is mistaken because she overlooks ...”. This style shows how to clearly present why you disagree.
It will be critical in my paper to establish who is arguing against the conservation of plants, the “they say” part. First off most would think that no one really disagrees openly with conservation, and I agree. But when people with their actions do something to impede upon they stability of an ecosystem there is tremendous consequences. It will also be very important to show both side of the story such as why people did this or why we should stop that.

Katy Kahla - "They Say, I Say"

There are many different ways of constructing an argument paper. In the "They Say, I Say" reading, they offer a few different effective ways of construction a credible argument. They do this by encouraging writers to state what their opposition thinks on the topic and what you think about the topic and why. As the reading shows, one of the most effective ways of showing that you know what you are talking about is stating what the critics of your topic think too. This allows for your audience to know that you not only researched what you believe about it but what you opposition believes about it as well, giving more weight to your opinion. By doing this, it allows you to return to what the critics say and refute it throughout your argument with your own examples on why it isn't true. Using this idea, it allows for you to be able to persuade your readers into thinking as you wish them to think.

As the reading points out though, you can't just state what the opposition thinks. You must also stat your opinion clearly and concisely. You can't leave your audience guessing about how you feel. As the reading says, you can do this by agreeing with a stance, disagreeing, or agreeing but disagreeing as well. By stating your own opinions, you are allowing for your audience to understand how you feel about a topic. For argument papers this is very important because if you don't take a stance that is clear and upfront, you aren't really arguing anything. Instead you are just giving facts about an issues which can lead to the question for the audience "why should we even care about this?"

This reading offers some insights as how I might structure my own paper. I believe that it will be most effective to, as the reading suggests, state my opinion in the opening paragraph and then immediately afterwards, state how my opposition feels about this topic. This allows for me to argue throughout my paper about why the opposition is wrong and what should be done about it. I also think that this will lead to a stronger argument because I will be able to prove my points by disproving what some in my audience may already believe.

Dustin Elison "Well I Say" (Foghorn Leghorn)

This piece was another great eye opener to some of the tactics that will be helpful in writing our own argument. I think we should all agree to disagree and everybody would get along great. Actually, the idea to give props to the opposing side is something I'll have to do on my topic because I'm very much guilty of supporting the enemy. I'm ousting big corporations in favor of small businesses and their owners, but I've been known to frequent some of the rather large department stores in the valley. I will not use their names to protect their identity, whateva, who doesn't streak Wal*Mart in the middle of the night for the random necessities? Usually there are pros and cons to every side of the story and by comparing them side to side it will show which one is stronger in the end. Even if there is nothing positive about the other side, statistics and truths about it will ultimately give support to why your point of view should be accepted as the correct stance. The author tells us that we should most definitely state our position on the issue in the text and preferably before we get too far into the writing so we don't leave the readers wondering where the heck we're going with the whole thing. Opening up a larger conversation rather than just the thesis is also great advice. It gives you somewhere to go with all your thoughts throughout your writing, arguing back and forth between the views, but all the while proving your point. The template examples are going to be a great resource later, I plan on borrowing a few of those for sure. I found it interesting when the author talked about people's reluctance to disagree, it's rather true for most except those few unique individuals. It goes on to say that suppressing disagreements doesn't make them go away but only fester. Everybody has probably learned that lesson the hard way but many of us continue to make the same blunder time and time again.

Kristen Kuchay's Response to "They Say"

In this reading, they explain how to intertwine the opinions of researchers on your topic, along with your opinion. They are not necessarily saying that you need to give an example of each researcher's opinion on your topic that has ever written on your topic and argument, but just some facts to show the reader you know what you are talking about. Showing a well-known researcher's opinion along with your own shows that you have researched the argument on which you are stating and draws the reader in a little more because you may have a more knowledgeable approach on a topic of one of their interests. The writer needs to be clear on the stance they are taking with this argument; if they are against it, agreeing with it or both. The reader needs to understand, through the writing, what the writer's stance is and why they are taking this stance. You cannot start an argument paper off by talking about the topic and about some people's views on it and then half way through the paper begin taking a totally different approach. The writer gets thrown off and is confused on your stance compared to the other people mentioned in the paper. They explain that the best type of writing is somewhat complex writing because the reader sits there and tries to comprehend it more and becomes more interested. The writer needs to take a strong stance so they seem passionate about the topic they are either against, for or both. Regardless if you are against, for or both, you need to explain why you are choosing this stance. For example, you cannot say you are for the war in Iraq and not explain why. The reader wants to see why you take this stance and what brought you to this conclusion. The writer needs to be clear on whatever it is they are trying to stress to the reader. They need to take a clear stance, explain why and show their knowledge on the topic.

Michael McCormick's RR of "Politics and the English Language"

At first it seemed that the writer himself was falling into the same vice as he was describing, the misuse of words. But as you read on you begin to understand his point. When you read the examples he provides it becomes quite clear how people were not only misusing words but were doing it to a point that all description of what they are talking about is lost.
This became most evident in his translation of the Ecclesiastes verse. The first translation was understandable and had a definite structure to the sentence. Including a conclusion to the sentence: “but time and chance happeneth to them all” (Orwell). If you read the then modern english version you just get lost in all the big words that end up disintegrating the meaning. For instance the conclusion of the sentence shows how big words, in my opinion, expressionism for the sake of being impressive, just muddies the water. Does this concluding remark hit home as well as the first translation: “but that a considerable element of the unpredictable must invariably be taken into account” (Orwell). To me it seems that being simple and to the point, with each word, rather than being long and big strikes a little deeper to the point.
I feel like the authors main point is to show how we in the use of the english language are lazy; as well as followers of the misuse of english words, because at the time it is a popular word to misuse. The quote “attraction of this way of writing is that it is easy” shows how people will use words that have gained popularity in use but the true meaning has an entirely different definition (Orwell).
Today though it seems that the same sort of misuse of words is still a problem. However I would say that using many of the words that we use today, which were not originally english words, have been so blended in that they cannot now be separated from every day use. For example the foreign word “cul de sac” will probably not stop being used (Orwell).
For the use of this argument in our paper I think that we should refrain from using such words as “gay” or “that was totally sick” as the true meaning would denote the exact opposite of what we are arguing. Unless of course the use of these words are in a direct quote from an interview or something.

Katy Kahla - Politics and the English Language

People using the English language are lazy. This is what George Orwell is telling us in Politics and the English Language. Orwell feels that people no longer want to express exactly how they feel about a topic so everyone understands and instead have fallen into the norm of saying everything but saying nothing at all. People are over using metaphors, similes, complex wordings, foreign phrases, scientific words, jargon, long words, and other in order to make themselves seem more credible. To make themselves seem like they are saying so much with their writing but in reality they are just confusing everyone who is reading their work. All of this leads to writers and orators becoming lazy within such a powerful language. Words have the power to start wars and build nations and instead of using it to its full extent to create new ways to write and speak, society has fallen into using broad terms and irrelevant material because it is easy. All of these ideas that Orwell says, I have seen.

Everyday I have seen someone use one of Orwell fallacies. This was especially true during the last presidential election. My government class was asked to watch debates from state representatives to national representatives, and one thing every person noticed was that the farther up a politician aspired, the more obscure their answers to questions. Instead of just answering the question flat out with no round abouts, the national representative candidates would answer everything in circles. They did this so they would gain the most vote base because if they never really answered the question, who could disagree with them? But this idea of everyone agreeing because they don't know what to disagree with, just left the audience confused and unwilling to support the ideas of the person persuading them.

The ideas Orwell presents will be very helpful to our argument or really any paper that we write. Instead of trying to fill our paper with fluff so we can meet a page requirement, we should be concise about what we wish to say. This may seem like it will take up less room in the paper, but if we know what we want to say in a precise manner, it allows for better discussion and analysis of our ideas. It also encourages us to talk with meaning and not use premade ideas that have become the “norm” of society. We should return to just say “I think” instead of “In my opinion it is not an unjustifiable…” even though it is not as poetic and sophisticated because no matter what, everyone will know exactly what you think with no guess work.

Blowing Smoke by Dustin Elison

This is the best and worst piece of literature I have ever read. Mr. Orwell totally rips on the nerdy people who have a lot to say, but in the end have nothing to say. I think that is why he relates the topic to politics even in the title. When it comes to "Blowing Smoke," nobody does it like a "Suit." Using big words within your writing does not set you apart as an intellectual. Most often it is a clear display of concealment or lack of knowledge. Mr. Orwell seems to be skilled in writing both simple terms and what he refers to as "modern english" (orwell 1). He dislikes the path that english tends to be taking lately, but he does think that it can be reversed if enough people decide to change it. Clearer communication will bring about clearer thoughts (orwell 1). When too much jargon is used the point is totally missed. The author totally hits it on the head when he compares the number of words to the number of syllables (orwell 4). They say that a picture is worth a thousand words, right? Even with an extra amount of syllables if your using less words your probably getting less of the picture. Just using simple words to try and get the point across is also universal, more people will be able to understand what it is your trying to say. Some of the phrases that the author picks on I actually kinda like and others I've never heard of such as "Bloodstained Tyranny," which is not something I hear or see very often. Maybe it is more popular than I know. The likeness of the public speaker who turns into a machine was accurate (orwell 5). How many times have we all witnessed that one, the brainless scarecrow. Though it was confusing the article made a very good point in a very convincing way by incorporating the issue at hand into the writing. Mr. Orwell gives some really good tips about questions to ask yourself when writing to help avoid being a mindless writer. I'm totally glad this reading was an assignment or I never would have gotten past the first page. In the end that was the learning lesson, keep it simple keep my attention.

Kristen Kuchay's Response to Politics and the English Language

George Orwell writes somewhat in a confusing manor, but I think that shows his point for the entire reading. Orwell speaks about society as a whole effecting the English language and how one person can start a "trend" and then others follow and so on and so on. Writing intelligently has become scarce in today's world. Many people write words such as "omg" and "ttyl" instead of writing out each word correctly like one is supposed to do. They call this the "texting generation," where everyone not only talks like this in texting but also on papers and assignments to the point where teachers even have to tell their students to write correctly and do not use texting language. For example, my psychology teacher always puts in her assignments to write in the proper English manor and not like we are texting our friends. Because writing in anything besides the correct English form is going on, society's intelligence as a whole is decreasing. If someone were to read an old passage from the 18th century, many people would not understand what is being said or why they wrote so "proper" and if it was even necessary. This is Orwell's point. Over time, people's writing starting changing for the worse and it started to catch on to everyone to the point where there are only rare cases where you see a person write properly. It's even odd when you see a student taking an English class write properly with good intellect, but then see how they talk and write outside of the classroom and they refer back to the "new" way of talking and writing. Clearly society can still write this way but choose not to because shortening words and sentences without proper English does not take as much time as writing in correct form. Even in some cases where people do not know how to write properly, they try throwing words in there that have to relevance to the topic or are simply meaningless. As a whole, we need to encourage the use of proper English writing in every classroom, not just English or writing class. I believe if we can start this "old trend" back up, within time people will start writing and speaking with proper English again. If we can get to this point of improper use of the English Language, then I believe we can get back to where we were before this happened.

Kristen Kuchay

politics and the English Language.

I had a hard time understanding what I was reading. But I guess that was Orwell’s point. He talked about how the English Language was becoming more and more depleted in intelligence. I can understand why he said this. People are not very good at speaking properly these days and we keep making more and more combined words like aren’t, and didn’t. We have created our own new type of English. Consider the language of texting or Instant Messaging. I can definitely see what he means about that part but I have to disagree with him a little bit. I do believe that our language should change with how we change. This is how English has evolved throughout the years in the first place. No body in today’s day and age would understand say the King James version of the bible written in old English. This is why they keep revising it to make it more understandable to a larger audience. There’s a difference between talking and writing the English Language intelligently and demining it. He talks about how we sometimes use metaphors we might not be completely familiar with. We might not know the real reason behind why it is used the way it is and we may use it in a sentence that won’t make sense to someone who knows what is actually meant by it. This is helpful to remind us how to make our writing more complex yet better explained. Using more words is not always the best way of getting across what we mean. You may be able to find a word that says everything you want it to in a cleaner more concise way. So as we get ready to write our papers we should take the time to make sure we get our ideas perfectly clear to our audience we’re targeting.

Katy's Reading Response

Every day we participate in arguments. They may not always be world altering arguments but nonetheless we are participating in a debate with someone about something. There are many types of arguments as Bruce Ballenger points out in the Curious Writer and all types need effective evidence to be convincing. Some arguments are used to persuade others to join their sides and some are used in exploration of a subject in order to gain a strong opinion about something. All of these arguments need to be well supported to be able to hold any weight and have any chance of swaying people. How many times have we watched or been the person who failed to persuade someone to our way of thinking? Ballenger points out that if we are unable to support our ideas effectively, that no one will tend to believe them. I think that is what Ballenger is trying to teach us. No matter how much we believe our point of view is correct, unless we can back it up with convincing facts, no one will be persuaded to listen to us leaving our argument ineffective. We also need to pay homage to the other side.

A debater is seen as more credible if they can prove they know both sides to an argument. They have shown that they have taken the time to not only research how they feel about an issue but how the opposition feels about an issue. This is one of the reasons that politicians not only research their side of the argument but their opponents as well. It allows them to influence the opposing side’s supporters because they know how they feel about an issue and can influence it to change to what they want them to feel about it.

All of these tips are very helpful when it comes to writing our own argument papers. We need to be well educated in our topic, both pros and cons, so that we can not only use our evidence purposefully but so we can express our opinions in a knowledgeable way. If we are able to prove that we not only know our side of an argument but the oppositions as well, we will have more credit to our opinions and hopefully, we shall be able to convince people to join our side. I also learned that everything I use needs to not only be well sourced, but very credible. Who is going to believe what I think if I only use Wikipedia or my dad as a source? Instead, credible sources that many people have edited or commented on are better. All of this will allow me to better craft my argument on how the media has influenced us to believe an unrealistic idea of how our bodies should look.

Skyler Harris Reading Response 6

Argumentative papers seem to be the most challenging for me to write. The main reason for that is I sometimes have a difficult time keeping my biased view out of the picture. Yes it is important to take a stance, as well as very necessary. Because unless a stance is taken then an argumentative paper will look more like a week attempt to make a point. In the reading it discuses the point of arguing in academia, which is to challenge knowledge as we have it. I would purpose that arguing not only will challenge knowledge but also the status quo. Unless we use our minds and come up with our own conclusions on how life is then nothing would ever change for the better. Thus argumentative writing is an essential part of academia.

Now I mentioned how I have a difficult time keeping my bias out of my work. The way that I feel that this can be overcome is by simply showing all sides of the subject. Now i’m not implying that I should argue all the sides, because if I did then it would be weak to say the least. However showing both sides is a good thing for the author. The reason behind this is a person can use the info that could support a different view and use it to support their own view. This can be difficult if the writer is not careful. If the view is positioned in a way that the author ends up mocking the view or out right calling it stupid, I feel it will discredit the rest of their paper. Basically it will make the author look foolish and like a bad writer. This is why I hope to polish my techniques when I look at other points to my argument.

Moving on to the op-ed portion of the assignment, this is the most exciting for me. I have never argued the opposed position in one of my own papers before. I feel that with my subject I really could argue ether side because of this the op-ed gives me an opportunity to give my input on both fronts. I have to say sometimes I enjoy playing the Devils advocate, so it will be exciting to see how it plays out. What is very interesting to me is the lack of sources. I know if I were to send in on op-ed to the local news paper I would include at least one source even if it was the name of the article or person I was quoting. So that aspect of the paper if very different to me. As I have began my argumentative paper I have also started to think about what I will formulate in my op-ed, It will be a nice way to end the writing process for the class.

Dustin's P.O.V. (point of view)

This was a great selection to read just before writing our own argument papers. It definitely pointed out a few things to keep in mind that will be helpful in sustaining good focus. Without it your readers will either get bored with your piece or realize that it is written close mindedly and lacks real knowledge of your topic. The difference between argument and inquiry is quite substantial when choosing an angle to take in our writing, it can have huge influence on your audiences perception. Argument is a closed process (Ballenger 203). Inquiry on the other hand is open to many possibilities, you may even find yourself debating over your initial stance on an issue. When we question things and use the method of trial and error eventually we come up with better conclusions or solutions to our problems.
It was interesting to see how Ballenger compared Eastern and Western cultures showing the differences in how we argue and conduct ourselves in heated or tense situations. There are quite noticebly, even within the cultures themselves, different levels and types of people who enjoy conflict. Let's face it, who doesn't like to play devil's advocate every once in a while? I don't mind partaking in a casual public debate in the classroom or at work, but I undoubtedly hate friction when it comes to intimate relationships. Sometimes it is necessary though to get to the root of a problem, the only place a problem can really be dealt with!
If the argument is public and especially if it's personal, make sure that you have enough evidence and ammunition to back yo a$$ up. There is nothing more convincing than: stats, polls, studies, surveys, majorities, expert opinions, and best of all stories from the horse's mouth! Good avid research and sound facts are what will help us all to find a solid stance for the foundation of our paper. Each side of a coin is still worth the same amount, with enough conviction your side of the story may gain an escalated value.

Michael's RR

Argument is not to be something we are suppose to be afraid of in America. Understandably some cultures do not argue and that is okay. But in America people sometimes make it more than it really is. For instance when a person disagrees with somebody they are afraid to stand up for themselves, these people are sometimes referred to as pushovers. So the cycle continues until some brave soul stands up and defeats the bully. Metaphorically, this would be considered a close-ended argument, and is not what our argument paper should look like.

This is not what Bruce Ballenger is portraying in his essay at all. In fact I would go so far as to say that Bruce is referring to everyday things, an argument with an open-ended ending. I am talking about things like: when a person might come to BSU wearing a Vandals logo. He would be arguing that in some way the Vandals are better than the Broncos. I am not just referencing scores at a sports game, but that the Broncos are not good enough for his money or advertising space. Ultimately the Vandals just mean more to that person.

I began to realize that anything and everything we do is an argument. This Vandals vs. BSU could be more of an open-ended argument if based on Ballenger’s open model process. However, we would have to start the argument without any initial opinion or belief.

I learned that we must dig deeper into our argument and show both sides rather than just being set in our opinions. I really liked Ballenger’s example of Huckleberry Finn. I believe this example will help me to create evidence based reasons for either traditional medicine or modern medicine for that portion of my paper.

“To argue well is an act of imagination, not a picking of sides.” - Ballenger. Indeed I must look at my arguments through a variety of angles, but without losing my claims. I think I might tell a story to demonstrate the effectiveness of traditional medicine while still using evidence from a scientific article to back this treatment.

Callie Watson reading response - Argument reading.

This reading segment starts out by talking about the way different cultures view argument. It was so interesting to think about it for just a minute. How do I view argument? I can say that every movie I’ve ever seen cannot have a story without conflict or an argument. I remember one time I was playing Barbie’s with a friend and just wanted it to be a happy time but she wanted us to fight because being nice was not interesting. There is just something about having an argument that makes you intrigued about what is going to happen in the end. Argument is just something that keeps life interesting. I do also agree with the fact that he says argument is a big part of relationships whether it be family, friends, or intimate relationships all of them come with conflict.

The author also talks about there are different ways of starting an argument. You can start out with an opinion and then find the evidence to back it up. Or you can do research and gain an opinion by coming to conclusions on your search. Either way is a great start to writing a paper. But don’t just think that you can write a whole paper on the opinion you’ve come up with. You also need to show the evidence and what the other side of the argument might be. This may also help you to claim your opinion and in the end make a great conclusion about why you believe what you do on that subject.

All of this is a very helpful way to give you ideas about how you want to approach your paper in this class. Do you want to go the route of discovering your opinion as you go along in the paper or do you want to have an opinion and stick to it throughout the paper? Either way it’ll be a great paper. But these are just a few ways to get your paper started and to give you a view on what your paper will be trying to say.

Kristen Kuchay's Reading Response - Curious Researcher

For the reading from the Curious Researcher, Bruce Ballenger talks about the many sides and work put into an argument paper. An argument paper is not just the writer’s opinion on the topic or the supporting facts for his opinion, it is both sides to the topic. The writer can include his or her opinion, but needs to support it with facts and research; along with the other side of the argument and facts on why that particular argument is introduced. The writer needs to introduce the topic and the argument in an interesting yet educational way to grab the reader’s attention. Anyone can simply write their opinion and their topic and begin right off the bat with it. Ballenger explains how this is crucial to a paper because if the introduction is not interesting enough for the reader, then what was the point of the argument paper?
He next goes on to say that you should do a closed model of the argument by starting off with your pre-existing opinion, being followed by gathered evidence that supports this opinion and then finally your argument with your pre-existing belief and the research behind it (Ballenger). This is an effective method because it helps the writer see where he stands on his topic and put all of his evidence and research in an organized fashion, which will later help in the writing of the argument paper. The next type of model Ballenger suggests is the inquiry-based argumentation model, where you begin your argument paper opinion free, begin exploring, explaining, evaluating and reflecting, followed by your opinion or hypothesis which you can test against evidence. This helps because the writer can then see all of the evidence in front of his and decide whether or not to change is created opinion/hypothesis (Ballenger). This normally works for the writer when they are interested in a topic but do not have an opinion either way. Normally people write their argument papers on topics they are interested or passionate about and already have a formed opinion.
This is very helpful for writing our argument paper for the classes because it gives you methods to help in your research and even change your opinion on evidence. Not only do you research the topic with your opinion in mind, but you get to research the other side and other opinions from people on the topic. You get all the information on your topic without really knowing it. I always felt argument papers were a strong point for me because the question or opinion I base my argument paper on is normally something I am very passionate about and want to educate people on with my views. At the same time, I get to see why other people feel the way they feel and eliminate any biases I may have. It helps you to create an introduction where even you as a writer would be interested in reading this paper if you came across it. You want to make it interesting enough where it can grab most, if not all of the people’s attention.

The fish are getting fat!

Finally

hello dude ranch :)

i like the fishes :P

Hi 8:40.

this is thrilling

What now?

Flyin to the moon for a field trip!

yo!

This is fun :)

sample post

OH joy!!!! college is using blogging....what a day.

Welcome to OUR Blog!!