#argumentative writing

Fashion Politics

Prompt: Describe one article of clothing that interacts with your gender and one other social identity.

I picked my novelty earrings and how they signify my gender as a femme nonbinary person and my sexuality and how my whiteness determines how other people perceive me because of them (i.e. seeing me as retro, fun, and quirky instead of gaudy or "ghetto."). 1.5k words (5 pages).

Score: 100%

Viking Mythology

Prompt: Write a short assignment analyzing a piece of media that contains Medievalism (the utilization of Medieval elements or ideas in modern media) and how it abides by and differs from the original Norse myths, as seen in the Poetic and Prose Eddas and other course readings, such as Adam of Bremen and the Merseburg Charms.

I wrote about Magnus Chase and the Gods of Asgard and how it is surprisingly accurate to the original source material, with only a few creative liberties taken. The ending is a list of bullet points trying to convince my professor to read the books (he said he was interested). 887 words (about 3 pages).

Score: 100%

World Religions

Prompt: Write about how a course reading reflects a) the mythological dimension, and b) one other dimension described by Ninian Smart.

I chose Hadith 2 from Muslim scripture because I had to analyze it for a separate assignment and was already familiar with it. 914 words (3 pages).

Score: 94% (no comments describing why points were deducted, but I cranked it out in like 3 hours, so, yeah, I didn't go as deep into it as I could have.)

I also had a personal essay for this class that I will not share with anyone but my mutuals because it contains personal information.

Language In Culture

Prompt #1: Analyze a recorded interview with a friend for meta-communicative tools. The interview in question is supposed to be 10 minutes in length and the interviewer is meant to ask one of two questions.

I interviewed someone whose anonymity I will maintain by using the pseudonym "Perry." The question I chose to ask was, "What was a strong disagreement you had with a close friend?" Our conversation was about the sexism of one of Perry's friends, and I argued that she relied upon the two of us sharing the identities of being AFAB and being raised in countries colonized by Britain (the USA for me, India for her). 1.3k words (4 pages).

Score: 98%

Prompt #2: Examine non-human characters in an animated film for their voices and determine what the audience is supposed to understand about the characters through their accents, use of vernacular, vocal pitches, etc.

I looked at Zootopia and discussed the characters Mr. and Mrs. Hopps, Gideon Grey, Fru Fru, and Finnick. Specifically I examined how rhoticity (the pronunciation of the letter "r" anywhere but the beginning of the word) is used within the film in Gideon's southern accent, Fru Fru's New Jersey/New York accent, and Finnick's blaccent.

Score: 97% [deducted points for some valid reasons and also because I said "blaccent" instead of African-American (Vernacular) English (AAE or AAVE), even though a blaccent can exist outside of the context of AAE.]

Prompt #3: Essentially the same as Prompt #1, except you needed a more solid thesis (not only that the interviewee used meta-communicative devices but also why those conventions were used.)

My thesis was that "Perry made a conscious effort to make the interview conversational, with contributions both from herself and from me— in spite of the fact that interviews often have a low-involvement speech style— in order to establish camaraderie between us as individuals who were assigned female at birth (AFAB)." 1.8k words (6 pages)

Score: 96% (entirely fair point deductions; I kind of rushed this essay, by which I mean I wrote it at 3 AM the day it was due while on my prescribed ADHD meds, which I accidentally took instead of my sleep meds that night— 2/10 would not recommend. Don't do drugs, kids.)

Japanese Culture (Intro Class)

Prompt: Go crazy go stupid just write a well thought-out paper about an aspect of Japanese culture we learned about in class.

I decided to write about how religious iconography is presented in the anime Blue Exorcist because I'm lame asf. My thesis was that the use of imagery in the story is propagandist because it portrays Japan as religiously unified, which it is historically not (of course, there's a lot more nuance that I'm not going to get into and some that I frankly couldn't even discuss in the essay itself.) Including the abstract, footnotes, and bibliography, 2.5k words (7 pages of actual content).

Score: 95% (comments not provided, but I probably deserved it because there's, again, a lack of nuance.)

my guide to persuasive/argumentative writing

keep in mind, this isn't just for long pieces that you worked hard on. all writing that is meant to persuade should contain most if not all of these elements. 

level of importance in order of least to greatest is green, yellow, red.

normally I'd start with grammar and mechanics as that's typically the most important part in making sure your writing is taken seriously, but as this is social media, i think it's ok to ignore that one. I myself am anti capital(ist) :) i will say this: a lot of writers develop pet peeves within grammar and mechanics that they just can't ignore, so be mindful of your oppositions/audiences' feelings there. my personal pet peeve is misused commas.

first, we must distinguish persuasive/argumentative writing vs hate writing. p/a is meant to expose readers to the writer's point of view and convince them that it's good. hate is just rude and meant to piss people off. honestly, I have no respect for it. if you can't even tell me why you believe what you do, then maybe there's a reason people are disagreeing with you. always make sure you're using p/a and not hate. 

make sure you have a strong opening. shorter pieces don't need hooks per say, but you still want to give readers a reason to stay. 

develop your topic. whether this is establishing a thesis with supporting points or just throwing out solid one liners that can't really be argued with, your topic needs strong support.

avoid rhetorical questions. as an opening or closing statement, these are fine, but once you get into the meat of your argument, you need to answer more questions than you pose. if you feel like you need a rhetorical question, maybe ask yourself why you feel you need it there and if you can answer it with the knowledge you have. if you can figure that out, write the answer. if you can't, nix it. i know in your writing classes in school, they told you rhetorical questions make the reader think, but at this point in the argument, the writer should be doing the thinking, not the reader. there is no reason you should be asking your audience to answer questions on your own topic. 

no name calling. this is the basest form of arguments. they make you sound stupid, and they are always false. there is no supporting evidence in name calling. the act itself is a logical fallacy (see logical fallacies below). rest assured if there is any name calling at all in your argument, i am laughing at you. 

find and cite sources. (if this wasn't social media, this would be red) if all else fails, your writing will look ten times better if it is backed by professionals. if all you rely on is your own knowledge and opinions, that can be an opportunity for your opponent to topple your argument. alternatively, anecdotes can be considered sources in some cases, but be careful with anecdotes as there is no way to prove them. 

sources must be credible. no websites with no authors last updated in the 90s. authors should have relevant credentials or proven years of experience, their credentials must be relevant, source must be current (typically go for last five years, but can be expanded/shortened depending on the topic), and source must be objective.

when possible, call on original content. that's firsthand evidence of things that actually happened in the book/movie/game etc. 

do not rely on things the original author said. this is fandom; the author has no control on fandom. 

be respectful. you may think disrespect helps you win an argument by attacking your opponent's character, but it actually does the opposite. it makes it seem like you can't come up with a solid argument, so you're resorting to pettiness and dumbassery. beyond that, no social media argument is worth bullying. and remember, disrespect includes name calling, condescension, insults, etc. 

use as much figurative and descriptive language as you want. the adverb rule has no bearing on argumentative writing. whatever gets your point across in the most entertaining way is encouraged. 

don't just be inflammatory. not everyone agrees with you; that's the point of the argument. take the time to explain your position in a respectful manner that isn't just meant to piss off your opponent.

try to match your opponent's level. if you find yourself going above and beyond and sounding, i don't really wanna say smarter, but more technical ig, it comes off as condescending and pretentious. on the other hand, if you underuse the technical stuff, it makes you sound like you don't know about your topic. find a nice middle ground that matches your opponent. and remember, the object of p/a is not to inform or insult, it's to convince people that your point of view has merit. 

address the other side. this is called a rebuttal. if you are introducing the topic, that is, you are the op, you must have a rebuttal. acknowledge the opposing viewpoints and explain why you don't like them. this can go anywhere in the piece of writing, but it's usually toward the end or at the very beginning. if you are adding comments or replies, you will probably be opening with the rebuttal. 

address your own side. this may seem obvious, but you'd be surprised how many people think just attacking the opposition is good enough. don't just shit on the opposing side. your entire argument should not be a rebuttal. explain why you don't like the other side, yes, but you must also explain why your side is better. 

NO LOGICAL FALLACIES (list below) you'll notice all the fallacies are in red; that's because logical fallacies will destroy an argument faster than a nuclear bomb.

(i should preface this by saying this is not meant to convince people to be pro sex work legalization. just for some reason, that is what popped into my head while i wrote this. none of this has been researched.)

ad hominem: an attack on character rather than an opponent's argument. these can be obvious or subtle, and often include name calling. an obvious example is:

person 1: i support sex work legalization because [insert reasons]. 

person 2: yeah, well, you’re ugly, and you smell bad, you dumb fuck. 

person 1 may be ugly and smelly, but that has no bearing on their argument, and the name calling, while funny (to me in this context), is an automatic flag. another example is:

person 1: i support sex work legalization because [insert reasons].

person 2: your blog is filled with nothing but gruesome images of animal abuse. stfu. 

person 2’s argument may be true and does expose person 1 as immoral, but it has nothing to do with sex work legalization, in which case person 1 should be blocked (and probably reported), but first listen to their argument. it could still be good. a more subtle example is:

person 1: i support sex work legalization because [insert reasons].

person 2: you run an arts and crafts blog. why should i listen to your opinion on prostitution?

it may not seem like person 1 has any reason to care or know about sex work legalization, but they can still form a good argument, especially if they have good sources or personal experience. always at least try to hear someone’s argument before you cast it off as bad. 

hasty generalization: a claim based on little to no evidence. an example is claiming all prostitutes are somehow criminals outside of prostitution charges (ex. drug abuse, theft, trespassing, pedophilia, etc.), so sex work should remain illegal because the writer knows of a couple sex workers that were also shoplifters. this kind of thing drives stereotypes and prejudice, and it also makes the writer seem rude and arrogant as well as brands them as someone who jumps to conclusions, completely upending their argument. 

false cause (post hoc ergo propter hoc) - event 1 happened just before event 2, so event 1 caused event 2. unless the writer provides evidence of event 1 causing event 2, there is no reason to spread the belief that event 1 caused event 2. an example is someone saying that a recent legalization of prostitution in some area caused a random uptick in car accidents without providing any citations or evidence. there may be a connection, or there may not be a connection, but until we have more information, we must assume there is no relation. 

either/or: there are only two sides, and the only options are the extremes. basically, the writer offers an ultimatum that typically contains other logical fallacies. an example is someone saying we can either keep prostitution illegal which would minimize crime, decrease stds, and keep people from having sex outside marriage, or we could legalize all forms of prostitution which would make everyone want to be a prostitute, increasing stds, pregnancy out of wedlock, crime, rape, and immorality. beyond this argument containing multiple fallacies i have already discussed, it assumes there are only two options: absolute illegality or absolute legality. this is not how the law works, and it is not how most things work. the majority of topics have levels; the part that should be debated is which level works best. 

strawman: writer misrepresents opposing viewpoint on purpose and uses this skewed perspective to attack opposing viewpoint as a whole. an example is anti-prostitution legalization people saying pro-prostitution legalization people want everyone to become a prostitute. the antis took the pros argument and twisted it to better fit their argument which is that all prostitutes and those in support of them are evil. 

red herring: distraction. irrelevant info is presented alongside the often bad relevant info to distract from a poor argument. an example is someone trying to establish that prostitution legalization would be bad for the community and backs up their claim with a source about std rates. while distantly related, std rates in this context don’t actually have anything to do with prostitutes being bad for the community because the writer has not established that prostitution causes an increase in stds. 

ad verecundiam: appeal to authority. often paired with the bandwagon fallacy, this is when the writer cites a public figure even if they have no relevance to the topic. an example is an anti-prostitution legalizer citing trump as an authority on prostitution. while he probably has experience on the topic (don’t cite me, this is a joke), trump is not an authority on the topic. no matter how much he wants people to blindly follow his views, he is not and never will be an authority. in fact, a leader making themself seem like an authority on everything to the point that their followers want to cite them for everything is a quality of a dictatorship. 

bandwagon: everybody’s doing it, so it must be correct. popular in advertising, an example is if a bunch of people suddenly started shaming prostitution (more than normal i mean), so the writer says that many people can’t be wrong, so more people should do it. this fallacy also involves stuff like peer pressure, citing celebrities as authorities, dubious social movements, etc. 

circular argument: using a previously unevidenced point to prove another point. an example is if someone said something like, “prostitution shouldn’t be legalized because prostitution is illegal.” this is true, but it also doesn’t prove anything. 

slippery slope: performing an action will lead to a chain reaction. an example is saying legalizing sex work will lead to more sex which will lead to increased pregnancies which will lead to increased abortions which will lead to increased illegal abortions which will lead to…etc. if the right measures are taken, none of this will happen, yet people still employ this fallacy because it’s easy to ignore the obvious solutions to the chain reaction in favor of a faulty topic. 

appeal to pity: basically using a sob story to garner support. an example is someone attacking a sex worker and using the defense that their parents got divorced because their father hired prostitutes and it destroyed their marriage which in turn destroyed the attacker's childhood. alternately, if the case goes to court, the attacker may fake needing a cane or other medical equipment to sway the audience with sympathy. 

appeal to ignorance: the argument hasn’t been proven wrong, so it must be right and vice versa. an example is someone accusing their husband of being a pimp because there’s no evidence to contradict them. alternatively, someone could say there’s no way their husband is a pimp because there’s no evidence to contradict them. 

end of logical fallacies.

use logos, pathos, and ethos. logos: logic. basic argument. using solid evidence to back up a claim. pathos: emotion. evoke strong emotion, negative or positive, in the reader to draw them to your side. ethos: character. make yourself an example of competence, credibility, and knowledge on your topic. 

I see a lot of hateful rhetoric on the internet. We are anonymous here and we trick ourselves in to thinking that means we can say and do anything without repercussions. There are a lot of conversations that happen on here that I do not believe would happen in real life if both parties were face to face.

This blog exists for when I see this hateful or harmful rhetoric and I want to call it out. This blog exists 𝘵𝘰 𝘤𝘩𝘢𝘯𝘨𝘦 𝘺𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘮𝘪𝘯𝘥. Here i will write posts where I disagree with people and what they say, professionally. My hope Is that the people I disagree with will read what I have to say and at the very least start to have more compassion for the other party I feel like they hurt, and at the very best change their mind.

I know that's a tall ask, and I know it's unrealistic. But I want to attempt to change the way we talk on the internet, and to be honest I need a healthy outlet for my anger that's actually constructive and I feel like benefits the world. I feel like when we have arguments on the internet it turns into a screaming match, where are both parties are hurt and angry and and has no constructive results. This often leads to waves of harassment that can become seriously dangerous. People threatening harm on others because they disagree with something on the internet. I think that's stupid. I'm here to put my energy into changing that.

If you disagree with me that is fine, but I will not respond to any harassment. I'm here to conduct an argument and if you disagree with it after I put a lot of work into writing it I don't think there's anything more I could say to convince you, so I probably won't speak much outside of my original argument.

I will be passionate in these arguments. I will be honest about what I feel and that does not mean I will always be nice. I will not attack people based on something irrelevant to the argument or impossible to change, like their looks for example. But may attack them based off whats relevant in the argument, like their actions.

Read these posts and these blogs with caution. I will try to tag everything correctly so all trigger warnings can be filtered.

If you ever want to recommend me drama, you can in the ask box. However the ask box will not always be open if I have essay I have planned already, or if im not in a good state of mind to deal with drama, or if i just posted an essay, because i dont want to deal with harrassment which anon is mostly used for. So anon will not be on very often. This is a hobby, and i have a busy life. Im not gonna be on here going back an forth of "im right! You're wrong" that is not a constructive argument and is a waste of time, health, and peace for both parties.

If you hate my guts, feel free to block me. I will do my best to not write about drama of the same person multiple times unless a reasonable amount of time has passed and i feel they really need to be talked about again. This blog is not a harrassment blog nor directed at one person.

I see mean shit online, i say "thats fucked up and here is why" and then i dissappear from that persons life.

I do not condone harrassment. I do not want you sending death or dox threats to either party. EVER. If you do, you are an immature child directly causing the harm im activity attempting to eliminate. And i dont want you on my blog. I will block you if i find out who is doing it.

The goal here is 𝘵𝘰 𝘤𝘩𝘢𝘯𝘨𝘦 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦𝘴 𝘮𝘪𝘯𝘥𝘴, harrassment and bigotry and hate LITERALLY goes against that goal. So do not fucking do that. Even if you hate them, even if you think they are a bad person, harrassment is legitimately useless and helps no one. There is a difference between calling someone out and saying "hey this was fucked up" and you spamming death threats on anon. Grow the fuck up.

Im hear to have an adult conversation, to a human being. One i believe is flawed, but not irredeemable. If we tried to eradicate everyone we hated, no one on this planet would be left. What you say on here MATTERS. What you say on here can cause direct harm or threat to life.