Xi Peng John Metz

Peng 4

Xi Peng

John Metz

Argumentative Prose Writing


Class Discussion Report

Number of Postings

I made a total of 19 postings in the entire semester and of thepostings 10 were original and the remaining posts nine posts werereplies to the postings of other discussion members. Further, Imanaged to take part in all discussions, without missing even asingle one. In most cases, my posts were done early and couple oftimes in a week. The only exception of the above case was the firsttwo weeks when the postings were done late as I took time to getaccustomed to the discussion schedules. I never posted only the daythat a discussion was about to close. As earlier mentioned thepostings were made early enough to provide room for making changes tothe posting should it be deemed necessary.

Quality of Postings

My entire postings were relevant and related to the task with anexception of the first three weeks. During the initial three weeks, Iwas still confused about the tasks, and I was still figuring out howto single out the specific requirements of the tasks. However, theissue was resolved as I undertook the tasks in week four. In essence,the tasks were not so insightful and interesting in the first threeweeks, but they helped me grasp the primary concepts of the tasks. Iam not quite sure whether the postings were useful to other students,but I hope they were. The quality of my postings in first three weekssuffered from proofreading errors, which resulted from my lack ofproofreading. The mistake was avoided in the later postings after Irealized the essence of proofreading any writing that I took part in.

This is the evidence of why I think my posting is insightful:

This is the Rogerian argument by Emily Niewiadomski- Should Huntingbe banned?

She make a claim that contemporary society have encountered increasedawareness for the rights of animals and the need to protect animalsfrom cruelty and pain has been the heart of discussions among people.The level of pain and cruelty and pain subjected to animals should bestopped, especially when the killing of such animals is done forleisure or sport. Therefore, hunting of animals should be banned in abid to protect the rights of animals. Similarly, hunting should bebanned due to indiscriminate killing of animals with little or noregard to endangered species. There is a high likelihood that someanimals would be wiped out of existence in the near future shouldindiscriminate hunting goes unchecked. I make a concession to thatargument, and then use that concession as a springboard into animportant counterargument. I discuss about the issues pertaining toanimals have always elicited controversy or mixed reactions in thecontemporary society and support by the following argument: huntingis usually indiscriminate, with individuals targeting any animal thatcomes their way. I also discussed the cases where hunting animalswould be a necessity.

Following this line of argument, however, seems to demonize the actof hunting, especially considering that wild game provide highquality meat to humans. Further, hunting for sports facilitates theregulation of animal population. Overpopulation of animals as whitetail deer can be disastrous, especially when such animals clearvegetation in their habitats and turn to crops meant for human food.Therefore, hunting should not be banned because of the role it playsin controlling animal population. However, hunting activities shouldbe regulated and restricted to animals that are not endangered. Ithink my response concede and counterargue as a way to get deeperinto the complexity of the issue. I think my response help Emily toget a deeper insight and understanding of her claim.

Argument about Engaging Others’ Ideas

Besides meeting the basic requirements for the posts, I did engageideas from other discussion members. The engagement allowed for achance to contribute to issues raised by other people and air onesviews with regard to the topic in question. This can be evidenced inmy week 8 post, which required us to post a response to a questionposted by one of the classmates. My response was to a question postedby Christina Montez about structure of “warranting Assumption”and “Ground” section. My response to the question mentioned inthe section was that, “In my understanding, I think it depends onwhat content your secondary warranting covers. It will be better toinclude in the main warranting assumptions section if the content isrelevant to your first warranting”. I read the book and searchonline source before I reply to her. The answer I gave helpedChristina to improve her structure of main assumption. If not, Ithink she could at least think about it.

Impression of the Overall Quality of the Online Class Discussions

In my opinion, most of my postings were valuable. The conclusion isarrived with consideration of the fact that most of my postings thatI made were, besides being well researched and though out, open todiscussion and critique. I engaged in thorough inquiries into thetasks and cases of posting for the sake of it were outgrown withtime. For instance, my participation on other student’s posts werenot only insightful, but involved critical thinking, as well aslogical assessment of the posted arguments.

One of my fruitful participations was captured in my participation inweek 4. The task required me to read a claim from a classmate andclassifying the claims with whether they were facts, value, or policywith reasons to back the claim. I discussed the Max Fradkin’sclaims with him, and he agreed with my opinions. To the first claimconcerning Martin Luther King Jr. and his mission, my response wasthat the claim was factual because it talks of something that hasalready been actualized. It is a fact because the ambitions Dr. Kingwere indeed realized even after his death. To the second claim aboutJonny Manziel going to rehab, I opined that the move would bevaluable considering that it would result in the elimination of badhabits that are detrimental to his life. Of course, the utilizationof the term “may help with” underlines the fact that there couldbe a chance that this will not be the case, in which case thestatement will be qualified by certain events that take place in thefuture.