Determining the issues of a proposition is important and challenging. It is quite difficult to assume what others, especially those in opposition to your person beliefs, will think upon the utterance of your proposition. However, risks and alternatives of your porpisition are crucial to address if you want your argument to successfully proliferate into action and/ or lead to consequential results. For the infamous Kavanaugh hearing, there were many issues that were being brought up; some of which remained behind partisan lines. For instance, many republicans (and some democrats as well) were uncomfortable with the unearthing of high school fallacies 36 years after the fact. Though the issue was intended to be whether or not Kavanaugh sexually assaulted Dr. Ford, other sub-issues arose such as the relevance of the act on Kavanaugh's present character. For some, Kavanaugh's behavior during the hearing, his lying in regards to drinking, and his partisanship, were enough to cast him off completely whether or not he assaulted Dr. Ford. Personally I think the democrats should've honed in on his blatant lies and poor etiquette more than the actual assault once the Republicans had clearly brushed the assault off as either false or irrelevant to the present nomination. So rather than being steadfast in keeping the initial proposition at the forefront; I believe the democrats could've altered their claim to include more accusations which would be relevant and less easily construed or discounted because they happened on television and have "collaborating evidence." One side, the democrats, continued to pronounce the veracity of Dr. Ford's claim while the Republicans had come into the hearing believing Ford was lying or that high school is a time for misdemeanors. The democrats, by continuing to uncover a truth that was discounted by the Republicans to begin with, were not appealing to the opposing side.
Determining the issues of a proposition is important and challenging. It is quite difficult to assume what others, especially those in opposition to your person beliefs, will think upon the utterance of your proposition. However, risks and alternatives of your porpisition are crucial to address if you want your argument to successfully proliferate into action and/ or lead to consequential results. For the infamous Kavanaugh hearing, there were many issues that were being brought up; some of which remained behind partisan lines. For instance, many republicans (and some democrats as well) were uncomfortable with the unearthing of high school fallacies 36 years after the fact. Though the issue was intended to be whether or not Kavanaugh sexually assaulted Dr. Ford, other sub-issues arose such as the relevance of the act on Kavanaugh's present character. For some, Kavanaugh's behavior during the hearing, his lying in regards to drinking, and his partisanship, were enough to cast him off completely whether or not he assaulted Dr. Ford. Personally I think the democrats should've honed in on his blatant lies and poor etiquette more than the actual assault once the Republicans had clearly brushed the assault off as either false or irrelevant to the present nomination. So rather than being steadfast in keeping the initial proposition at the forefront; I believe the democrats could've altered their claim to include more accusations which would be relevant and less easily construed or discounted because they happened on television and have "collaborating evidence." One side, the democrats, continued to pronounce the veracity of Dr. Ford's claim while the Republicans had come into the hearing believing Ford was lying or that high school is a time for misdemeanors. The democrats, by continuing to uncover a truth that was discounted by the Republicans to begin with, were not appealing to the opposing side.
Hi Emma, I really enjoyed reading your post this week! You brought up some great points including how pinpointing the issues of a proposition can be challenging. You mention how stating the risks and alternatives of your proposition are crucial to address in order for arguments to "successfully proliferate into action and lead to consequential results". I think you bring up a great point when you discuss the Kavanaugh hearing and how may felt uncomfortable with brought up issues relating to high school fallacies that occurred 36 years ago. In my opinion, the claim made by Ford did lose some credibility since it is something that happened so many years ago and it isn’t a clear representation of who Mr. Kavanaugh is now. However, I would agree that the Democrats should have focused on the relevant claims that you mention like poor etiquette and his lies. Furthermore, I am unsure if focusing on these claims would have altered the hearings results.
ReplyDeleteEmma, I absolutely agree with what you have to say and the relation it has to the Kavanaugh case. Throughout this case we saw the original claim of the argument get twisted and other sub-issues as you said arised. I do beleive the critical values are important to look at and figure out why this might have happened. The biggest issue that rose during the trial was that Ford came forward 36 years after the assault, which some people found to be a lack of credibility. Following this first issue people had, when Kavanaugh was put on the stand, like you explained, he was shown to lie and be obnoxious. I do agree with you that there should have been more focus put onto Kavanaugh and how he poorly responded to being put on the stand, although I do think no matter what he would have unfortunately been elected.
ReplyDelete