Discussion Topic: Has America become more liberal?
Web Address for the discussion: http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/06/29/red-white-and-bluer
First Debater: Kay S. Hymowitz Second Debater: Akhil Reed Amar
Argument Title: Don’t count on a leftward push from millennials Argument Title: America has been moving leftward since its founding
What is the purpose of the argument? To prove that you can’t predict political views of upcoming generations What is the purpose of the argument? To convince the reader that America is moving left, always has, and will continue to “prosper”.
What is the point of view of the argument? Who is the intended audience? Concerned people of the public. Americans as a whole. What is the point of view of the argument? …show more content…
Use details from the reading to support your opinion. For me it wasn’t convincing until the last couple of paragraphs. The beginning seemed to be more of opinions as to which generation was more liberal, but the ending statement came together with evidence such as how millennials are responding to current events. How convincing is the argument presented by this debater? Use details from the reading to support your opinion. The argument is not convincing. It has a strong bias for the liberal side of things. He antagonizes the conservatives and makes Obama into a saint. He compares Obama to one of the greatest presidents.
Overall, which debater has a more successful or convincing argument? Use details from the readings to support your opinion.
I believe Ms. Hymowitz had a stronger argument. She provided numerous evidence, all varying in the delivery of information. She starts with a strong realization of how much the world has changed in the past few generations. She then gives the results of a relevant survey then proves the credibility of the survey. On the other hand Mr. Amar was completely biased with his favoring of the liberal side of view. Not only that, but his argument, in a way, it was empty. It had no meaning to me without having a clear
Web Address for the discussion: http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/06/29/red-white-and-bluer
First Debater: Kay S. Hymowitz Second Debater: Akhil Reed Amar
Argument Title: Don’t count on a leftward push from millennials Argument Title: America has been moving leftward since its founding
What is the purpose of the argument? To prove that you can’t predict political views of upcoming generations What is the purpose of the argument? To convince the reader that America is moving left, always has, and will continue to “prosper”.
What is the point of view of the argument? Who is the intended audience? Concerned people of the public. Americans as a whole. What is the point of view of the argument? …show more content…
Use details from the reading to support your opinion. For me it wasn’t convincing until the last couple of paragraphs. The beginning seemed to be more of opinions as to which generation was more liberal, but the ending statement came together with evidence such as how millennials are responding to current events. How convincing is the argument presented by this debater? Use details from the reading to support your opinion. The argument is not convincing. It has a strong bias for the liberal side of things. He antagonizes the conservatives and makes Obama into a saint. He compares Obama to one of the greatest presidents.
Overall, which debater has a more successful or convincing argument? Use details from the readings to support your opinion.
I believe Ms. Hymowitz had a stronger argument. She provided numerous evidence, all varying in the delivery of information. She starts with a strong realization of how much the world has changed in the past few generations. She then gives the results of a relevant survey then proves the credibility of the survey. On the other hand Mr. Amar was completely biased with his favoring of the liberal side of view. Not only that, but his argument, in a way, it was empty. It had no meaning to me without having a clear