top of page

10 Key Terms Midterm Exam Oral

Trey Nicholas

Dr. Gill

ENG 2105 

5 November 2020

​

Trey Nicholas

“The best writing is rewriting:” Best Rewrite 5 Draft(s); 3 Tutorial(s) Peer Mentor Robert, WC Maria Acero; 1 Teacher conference(s)

​

PART 1: Tertium Non Datur Answers to 10 Key Terms

​

(Provocative Title) Tertium Non Datur

​

       Good morning, most honorable members of the ENG 2105 tribunal. Yours truly, Trey Nicholas, stands before you today, much like rhetors did in 5th century Greece, to argue their cases both logically and plausibly before an open-minded audience. The case before you today, for your judgement of its rhetorical merit as outstanding, satisfactory, or needs improvement, is yours truly’s articulation of the mid-semester exam orals, Tertium Non Datur. Yours truly’s Latin phrase represents the exam orals as it translates, “it’s not possible a third.” When constructing an argument in ENG 2105, there must be an excluded middle. That is, one must get the facts first to solidify their stance for or against a specific argumentative topic in ENG 2105; a third stance or middle ground is excluded. This phrase is important in yours truly’s life as constructing a firm stance pertaining to anything has shaped yours truly’s identity. 

 

       In the semester course of ENG 2105, Written Reasoning, students are required to read the text, Everything’s an Argument. However, is the title more than just a snappy phrase? Arguments serve as a formality to invite contrasting minds to interpret and persuade their stance with reason and logic. Specifically, an invitational argument requires a mutual exploration of ideas to understand all perspectives of an argument. Additionally, persuasive arguments appeal to fear, envy, and pride to move the audience to act rather than simply agree. Clearly, arguments are the pursuit of truth. Language shapes human beings into who they are as language is the most basic factor that connects our minds together. Language is inherently persuasive; that is, whether written or spoken, visual or textual, language expresses a point of view. Therefore, the title, Everything’s an Argument, is, indeed, literal and not just a snappy phrase. 

​

      Language is motivated because humans possess goals and purpose. According to Kenneth Burke, an American theorist, and Pierre Bourdieu, a French sociologist, language is a form of symbolic action as it gratuitously maintains society’s motion by constantly acting on and moving people. The vast concept of language mirrors the weak and strong claims of symbolic action. Simply, the weak claim asserts language accomplishes day-to-day tasks such as saying “hello” or “how are you?”. Contrastively, the strong claim, as held by Burke and Bourdieu, offers deliberate means to utilize reason, sensory details, history, and experience to construct human identity in the form of interpretation. 

​

       Language’s vast capabilities offer various forms of argumentative models. The first model, the Aristotelian Classical Argumentative Rhetoric, was led by Greek philosopher, Aristotle, to persuade audiences by appealing to ethos, appeal to credibility, logos, appeal to logic, and pathos, appeal to emotion. The Aristotelian Classical Argumentative Rhetoric includes six constituent elements to effectively persuade the audience: introduction, narration, confirmation, concession, refutation, and summation. Additionally, the stasis theory is applied in the prewriting steps of Aristotelian Classical Argumentative Rhetoric’s divided stasis/thesis sentence by establishing the audience, premise, and facts of the argumentative topic. The second model, the Rogerian Argument, was created by psychologist Carl Rogers to construct a non-confrontational argument where a mutual common ground can be established to achieve a solution where all sides benefit. The Rogerian Argument is also related to Aristotle’s model because Aristotle establishes a common ground via the opponent’s main claim and the rhetor’s main claim to finally achieve a solution best for both sides of the argument. The third model, the Toulmin Statement, was created by British Philosopher, Stephen Toulmin, to argue controversial cases prompting unclear definitives. Toulmin’s model includes a warrant to offer a logical and persuasive connection between a claim and the reasons and data supporting it. Additionally, Toulmin’s inclusion of claim, evidence, warrant, backing, data, qualifiers, and rebuttal rectifies Aristotle’s approach in developing an argument. (Conclusion) Ultimately, the aforementioned argumentative models constructs one’s identity in the form of formal interpretation.

 

PART 2: Analytic Writing

​

       (Smooth Transition) Most honorable members of the tribunal, to evidence yours truly’s mastery of Rogerian Argumentative approach, the following analytic writing on Black Lives Matter illustrates the common ground established between both sides of the argument and yours truly follows the Aristotelian Classical Argumentative Rhetoric to ultimately express why his stance is the best solution solution for US society.

​

(Provocative Title) Ending the Post-Racial Myth in America

​

       The first constituent element of Aristotelian Classical Argumentative Rhetoric is the introduction. The rhetor must complete three jobs within the introduction: intellectually capture the audience’s interests in the hook, establish the audience’s perception of the rhetor via linguistic facility, and set forth the rhetor’s stance in the bridge. 

​

       (Hook) Alarmed by violent racial protests in United States (US) society, Justin Nix, associate of University Nebraska Omaha and author of “On the Challenges Associated with the Study of Police Use of Deadly Force in the United States: A Response to Schwartz & Jahn,” argues, “...evidence regarding framing effects… of the term ‘police violence’ has the potential to mislead readers who believe that police use of deadly force is rampant and usually unjustified…” (3). (Bridge) Nix eschews mayhem and anarchy in US society apparently due to unjustified murders of Black lives deeming it aggrandized and impulsive. (Divided Stasis/Thesis Sentence) (Opponent’s Claim Informed by Three Scholarly Sources) Although proponents claim Black Lives Matter (BLM) combats against the racial inequality and injustice in US Society, (Rhetor’s Main Claim Informed by Nine Scholarly Sources) the BLM campaign is an unnecessary response to US society’s apparent racism because (Reason/Support 1) the majority of police interactions disavow racial motives, (Reason/Support 2) the majority of US citizens and corporations empathize with Black lives lost, and (Reason/Support 3) the majority of BLM protests—co-opted by domestic terrorist groups—advocate violence, not peace, in US society.

​

       The second constituent element of Aristotelian Classical Argumentative Rhetoric is the narration. The rhetor must offer context to their selected topic by exploring the historical, social, economical, and political aspects surrounding the rhetor’s topic within the narration. Additionally, the rhetor will explain what is at stake for both sides of the argument to allow the audience to gauge the rhetor’s stance more fairly.

​

       (Narration) On May 25, 2020, George Floyd, a Black American father, was killed in police custody in Minneapolis, Minnesota, sparking the great chain of protest urging justice and reformation of the police system in US society. Douglas Belkin, associate of Wall Street Journal, is alarmed by the violent protests, claiming, “the protests are [overreaching]... [a]t some events, protestors carried guns” (1). BLM protests exponentially descended into savagery with “Seattle protesters [hurling] rocks and explosives at police officers” and Portland, Oregon protesters “[gathering] outside the U.S. Courthouse… [throwing] rocks and fireworks before breaking through a section of reinforced fence surrounding the building” (Belkin 1). To this date, US society continues displaying violence when advocating for racial justice and equality. Opponents of the BLM protests believe the unending public mayhem in response to racial justice is ineffective, and rather damaging, in achieving racial equality in US society. Opponents also believe the police officers’ exertion of force during the widespread protests in US society are justified. As Nix contends, “we must consider the framing of police violence before assuming their acts are unjust” (2). Contrastively, Proponents of the BLM protests believe voicing their concerns through anarchy is necessary in converting the case of George Floyd and other fallen Black victims from a moment in time to a next-generation civil rights movement. What critical proponents do not understand is the violent protests are inadvertently harming US citizens, including many US citizens and corporations who are genuinely expressing empathy for the fallen Black victims. 

​

        The third constituent element of Aristotelian Classical Argumentative Rhetoric is the confirmation. The rhetor must explain why he believes in his thesis sentence within the confirmation. Including experts and quotes to tie back to the rhetor’s thesis constructs a chain of reasoning to support the rhetor’s argument. 

​

       (Confirmation) With many US citizens violently protesting in response to racial inequality, protesters contradict the intention of law-abiding officers and diminish the support of law-abiding advocates for racial equality in US society. In the George Floyd protest’s infancy, Doyle Greene, an independent scholar and author of “Welcome to Minneapolis (or, Then Came the Last Days of May),” claims, “...it was glaringly apparent that the problem was law enforcement and the solution was protest. By May 30 the situation was categorically reversed: protest was the problem and law enforcement was the solution” (1). We need to end the violent protests to eliminate the unwavering disparity among US citizens and, with empathy, listen to all US citizens affected by the damaging racial injustice. Just as Nix understood “police violence” being continuously misconceived, the path to a stable US society requires US citizens to trust the intuition of police officers protecting them and accept the help granted by non-minority US citizens.  

​

       The fourth constituent element of Aristotelian Classical Argumentative Rhetoric is the concession. The rhetor must express the rhetorical merit of his opposition and analyze their supporting sources. However, the rhetor will refute the opposition’s claims to further demonstrate why the rhetor’s claim is a greater alternative to what is at stake. 

​

       The fifth constituent element of Aristotelian Classical Argumentative Rhetoric is the refutation. The rhetor must apply evidence and examples to fully develop the rhetor’s position and persuade the audience that he is correct. Additionally, the Toulmin Warrant is applied to grant a philosophical bridge between each claim and its reasoning.

​

       (Concession/Refutation) It is, indeed, true that many US citizens claim BLM’s current presence rebalances order for unjust Black lives lost in US society. (Scholarly Source 1) A proponent of the BLM protests, Ibram X. Kendi, leading anti-racist scholar, argues that the flawed racial perception in US Society “[maintains] laws that form a racist criminal justice system that produces and defends racist cops who disproportionately kill innocent black people” (1). Dr. Kendi asserts US society’s static mentality prevents US citizens from epiphanizing the systemic racism surrounding them to promote equality for all demographics in US society. (Scholarly Source 2) Additionally, a proponent of the BLM protests, Cory Booker, US Senator, claims that the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act “...calls for change that will protect lives and address the practices that have killed Americans, create accountability and transparency in departments, and make sure that no one in our country is above the law” (20). Booker commends the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act because previous US laws targeting racial injustice resulted in marginal improvements, whereas this act would end the unaccountable violence and murder by police officers in US society. (Scholarly Source 3) Another proponent of the BLM protests, Wilfred C. Reilly, a political science professor at Kentucky State University, argues, “[t]o a remarkable degree, mainstream media and even America’s corporate brands have played a significant role in promoting the conventional police brutality narrative” (20). Reilly articulates when US citizens are systemically beaten and pitted against society, intense rebellion is required to reform the unjust system. (Conclusion) In sum, proponents of BLM suggest intense forms of protests are necessary in achieving racial equality in US society. (Refutation 1: Rhetor’s Main Claim) But, the BLM protests are essentially futile when advocating against police brutality in US society because the majority of police interactions are void of racial motives. (Toulmin Warrant) Denying police officers from performing their jobs will subsequently endanger US society as criminals will prosper and victims will perish. (Scholarly Source 1: Reason/Support 1) As aforementioned, staunch opponent of the BLM protests, Justin Nix, associate of University Nebraska Omaha, claims that opponents do not understand “labelling every police-involved death ‘fatal police violence’ assigns all responsibility to officers, as if none of the citizens involved contributed in any way to the violence” (2). Nix asserts many violent police interactions are deliberate because either the perpetrator was resisting, or the perpetrator was perceived as an imminent deadly threat. (Scholarly Source 2: Reason/Support 1) As aforementioned, another opponent of the BLM protests, Doyle Greene, an independent scholar, argues, “protesters must engage in a process of ‘discipline and education’” when protesting to avoid subjugation to police violence in US society (1). Doyle articulates when a specific ruling is set to pacify protesters such as a curfew, protesters must make the educated decision to follow said rule or the police will be justified in exerting force against US protesters. (Scholarly Source 3: Reason Support 1) Another opponent of the BLM protests, Jim Jordan, representative of Ohio’s 4th Congressional District, responds to the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act, claiming the act will, “keep cops in the car and… [make] our communities less safe by preventing good law enforcement officers from being able to do their job” (19). Given the recalcitrant rioting, looting, and destruction of small businesses in US society from the protests, Jordan asserts most law enforcement officers are morally restrained and constantly put themselves in harm’s way to keep US society safe. (Conclusion) Clearly, police officers in US society have reasonable means when exerting force, and restricting police presence will only exponentiate US society’s vulnerability from perpetrators. 

​

       (Refutation 2: Rhetor’s Main Claim) The violence deriving from the BLM protests is unnecessary because many US citizens and corporations have peacefully expressed their empathy for the Black Lives lost. (Toulmin Warrant) With people of all ages, races, and backgrounds uniting to listen to Black voices prove US citizens have achieved a mutual respect for each other. (Scholarly Source 1: Reason/Support 2) An opponent of the violent BLM protests, Eric Solomon, founder of The Human OS, claims, “[i]n response to the senseless police murder of George Floyd, along with many more, other companies are following similar templates to talk about how they ‘stand in solidarity,’ ‘stand up against racism,’ and ‘show support for the Black community’” (61). Solomon articulates capitalistic corporations in US society are empathizing with the Black community by reading their emotional cues and listening to their stories. Furthermore, Solomon asserts Walmart pledged to contribute $100 million to create a new center for racial equity. (Scholarly Source 2: Reason/Support 2) Another opponent of the violent BLM protests, Nicole Maurantonio, associate professor of rhetoric and communication studies at the University of Richmond, analyzes White Mayor of North Charleston, South Carolina, Keith Summey and White Police Chief, Eddie Driggers, exchanges with their Black community, claiming, “Driggers has made efforts to reach out to minorities with cookouts and community discussions. According to Ed Bryant, chapter president of the North Charleston NAACP, improved relations between the Black community and police since Driggers took his post could be observed (Otis et al., 2015)” (1). Maurantonio asserts rather than dismissing the Black community and fostering apathy, Mayor Summey and Chief Driggers cultivated caring, empathetic relationships with the Black community in North Charleston to promote equality and unity. (Scholarly Source 3: Reason/Support 2) Another opponent of the violent BLM Protests, Rebecca Zissou, associate of Junior Scholastic, claims, “[p]rotesters have demonstrated in every U.S. state—in big cities and small towns—and in dozens of countries worldwide. One estimate put the number of participants in the U.S. at up to 26 million, making the recent Black Lives Matter rallies the largest protest movement ever in American history” (9). Zissou explains US society has expressed more empathy than ever before in US history to support the Black community through their struggles. (Conclusion) Ultimately, the violence from the BLM protests are unnecessary because US citizens are already willing to help and stand up for the Black community. 

​

       (Refutation 3: Rhetor’s Main Claim) The majority of BLM protests—co-opted by domestic terrorist groups—are an unnecessary response to US society’s apparent racism because they advocate violence, not peace, in US society. (Toulmin Warrant) While many US citizens are protesting peacefully in support of the Black community, some US citizens are exploiting the BLM movement to fulfill their own agenda and degrade US society rather than promote its well-being. (Scholarly Source 1: Reason/Support 3) As aforementioned, an opponent of the violent BLM protests, Douglas Belkin, associate of Wall Street Journal, claims, “many marches grew in size and intensity… [hurling] rocks and explosives at police officers during violent confrontations” (1). With protests designed to be peaceful, US protesters who are attacking police officers and destroying properties are inadvertently stimulating regression in US society rather than stimulating growth. (Scholarly Source 2: Reason/Support 3) Another opponent of the violent BLM protests, Brent Renauld, associate of Nieman Reports, contends, “Black Lives Matter has the stigma of being a catalyst of violence… and it’s justified through the media’s representation of criminal activities that have occurred around these protests” (17). Renauld asserts that the media is violently ostracized from public protests with reporters like Tony Holt, Arkansas Democrat-Gazette reporter, being attacked while documenting destruction of property by US protesters. US reporters are simply trying to hold everyone accountable for their violent acts to gauge an accurate response of the outcomes resulting from the BLM movement, yet reporters are cancelled from articulating their full story according to Renauld. (Scholarly Source 3: Reason/Support 3) In response to the defacing of Robert E. Lee Memorial in Charlottesville, Virginia, another opponent of the violent BLM protests, R. Cort Kirkwood, longtime contributor to The New American, claims, “[t]hough [Lee] [was] flawed as we all are, BLM lies in claiming that [he] [was] unworthy of admiration. On balance, the history shows [Lee] [was] not just good, but great... flaws notwithstanding, and it is that for which we honor [him]” (18). Kirkwood asserts US society displays controversial historical figures to understand morals from previous zeitgeists and to reflect how much US society has evolved from racial discrimination in the past. Additionally, Kirkwood articulates defacing Robert E. Lee Memorial is incongruous because Lee believed enslaving African Americans was a “moral and political evil” in US society (24). (Conclusion) Clearly, the violent protests deriving from the BLM movement is destabilizing US society rather than reinforcing it.

​

       The sixth constituent element of Aristotelian Classical Argumentative Rhetoric is the summation. The rhetor must offer closure for the audience by explaining why his thesis is the best solution for the argumentative topic. Furthermore, the rhetor will reiterate what is at stake and prompt his audience to act on the situation. 

​

       (Summation: Argue that your stance on the issue is best for US society) Ending the unnecessarily violent BLM protests is best for US Society because law enforcement officers are justified in their interactions with perpetrators, US citizens are empathetic for the Black community, and violent protests are dismantling US society rather than rebuilding it. Continuing the series of violent protests will disrupt the chain of empathy US citizens possess for each other, and will result in US society repeating history with racial issues. We now see the violence deriving from BLM protests is unjustified because US society has surpassed the milestone of viewing all equally. Progress is still yet to be made, but US society has reached the point where racial issues merely need to be fine-tuned. The demand for change will not be earned by advocating a meaningless hostile tantrum. US citizens must be patient and remain vigilant against the apparent racism and understand other US citizens are standing in solidarity with the Black community. 

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn

©2020 by Trey Nicholas. Proudly created with Wix.com

bottom of page