NR 506 Week 3 Discussion:

ENGL 147 Week 6 Discussion 1: Rebuttals and Refutations

ENGL 147 Week 6 Discussion 1: Rebuttals and Refutations

ENGL 147 Week 6 Discussion 1: Rebuttals and Refutations

Required Resources

Read/review the following resources for this activity: 

  • Textbook: Chapter 8 
  • Lesson: Week 5, 6 
  • Minimum of 1 new scholarly source 

Apply the following writing resources to your posts: 

Initial Post Instructions 

Part 1: Research & Review

Review this week’s lesson and reading. Find an academic source to back up your opposition’s point of view. This is a new source, in addition to the source you located last week. 

Part 2: Application

Anticipating readers’ objections is one way to determine what other sections to include and support in your paper. Practice writing a counterargument that applies the Toulmin model. Incorporate one of the new sources you have gathered to present your opposition’s point. Strive for at least 5 developed sentences. Cite your source in APA format. 

  1. Grounds / 1st Counterargument (your opposition’s point) 
  1. Backing (establish credibility of the source) 
  1. Warrant (evidence) 
  1. Possible concession / conclusion 

Answer the following prompts: 

  • How were you able to remain objective while presenting the opponent’s point of view? 
  • What challenges did you face obtaining evidence to back up the assertion? 
  • Which conciliatory approach did you apply and why? 
  • How was it effective? 

Follow-Up Post Instructions

Respond to at least two peers or one peer and the instructor. Here, we have an opportunity to compare research notes with our fellow peers. As peers, reply to one another explaining whether or not your classmates are presenting the opposition objectively and provide potential refutations pointers. Give one another ideas or suggestions for points that may be left out or might need to be further developed. 

Note: If you see that someone has already received feedback from two peers, please choose to help a peer who has yet to obtain feedback. 

Writing Requirements 

  • Minimum of 3 posts (1 initial & 2 follow-up) 
  • Initial Post Length: minimum of 3 college-level paragraphs 
  • APA format for in-text citations and list of references 

Grading

This activity will be graded using the Discussion Grading Rubric. Please review the following link: 

Course Outcomes (CO): 3, 7 

Due Date for Initial Post: By 11:59 p.m. MT on Wednesday
Due Date for Follow-Up Posts: By 11:59 p.m. MT on Sunday 

Search entries or author Filter replies by unread[Control]Unread     Collapse replies Expand replies 

Hello All, 

Welcome to Week 6! This is the second week that we will have two discussion boards due. You can begin posting to this board for credit on April 6. On this board, we will be working on the counterargument. After completing the reading for the week, find an academic source to back up your opposition’s point of view. We are using the Toulmin Model to develop the counterargument. 

As we learned in the lesson this week, it’s really important to include a counterargument. First, you don’t want the audience to think that you are not aware of the opposition’s side. Also, you want the reader to know that you have considered the other side, and you are arguing your side, because the research supports what you are saying. Your counterargument also gives you a chance to address the opposition by providing a rebuttal. 

For more reading on addressing the counterargument in heated discussion, check out the following source: 

Dorothee G. (2016). Argument, Counterargument, and Integration? Patterns of Argument Reappraisal in Controversial Classroom Discussions. Journal of Social Science Education, Vol 15, Iss 2, Pp 42-56 (2016), (2), 42. https://doi-org.chamberlainuniversity.idm.oclc.org/10.4119/UNIBI/jsse-v15-i2-1482Links to an external site. 

Be sure to post by Wednesday and to include your source. As always, refer to the discussion rubric. 

a child and adolescent psychiatrist claims that some side effects children may experience when taking stimulant drugs are trouble falling asleep, lack of appetite, headaches, stomachaches, decreased appetite, tics, irritability, moodiness, or changes in behavior (Boorady, 2019). For this reason, parents are hesitant to give their children stimulant drugs. Many fear the drugs pose a health risk due to potentially serious side effects. According to Foster, “the effects of Ritalin are often compared to the effects of other stimulants, like cocaine” (Foster, 2019). Ritalin is a stimulant drug prescribed for children with ADHD.

Cocaine is also a stimulant drug. Foster goes on to say that Ritalin may be more potent than cocaine. (Foster, 2019) Most research though points out that Ritalin is safe for children. In fact, they state that the dosages used in children are too low to create a high effect as in cocaine use. Dr. Boorady explains that most of the side effects experienced can be managed with decreasing or increasing dosages, giving the medications at different times, or trying other medications. (Boorady, 2019) Monitoring the side effects and how your child is doing on the medication closely is imperative to a positive outcome. Side effects are not life-threatening and can be managed with the help of the prescriber.  

Click here to ORDER an A++ paper from our Verified MASTERS and DOCTORATE WRITERS:ENGL 147 Week 6 Discussion 1: Rebuttals and Refutations 

  • How were you able to remain objective while presenting the opponent’s point of view? 
  • I remained objective by stating a direct quote from the opponent’s point of view.  
  • What challenges did you face obtaining evidence to back up the assertion? 
  • I was not able to find evidence that backed up the idea that Ritalin is more potent than cocaine because the sources that back that up are outdated. Also, most research shows that the dosages of Ritalin used in children are low and don’t compare to the use of cocaine. 
  • Which conciliatory approach did you apply and why? 
  • The conciliatory approach I applied was I rebutted the claim that the effects of Ritalin are the same as those in cocaine use. I used another source written by a clinical doctor so as to not instill any emotion or personal feelings regarding the opponent’s point of view.   
  • How was it effective? 
  • I think it was effective in showing how side effects experienced by children are not as severe as those in cocaine use.  

Reference  

Boorady, R. (2019, April 16). The side effects of ADHD medications. https://childmind.org/article/side-effects-of-adhd-medication/Links to an external site. 

Foster, M. (2019, September 30). Counterpoint: Just Say “No” to Behavior Drugs for Kids. https://web-a-ebscohost-com.chamberlainuniversity.idm.oclc.org/pov/command/detail?vid=2&sid=44a461a2-309a-4ef1-a2a0-f21742eac36a%40sessionmgr4006 ENGL 147 Week 6 Discussion 1: Rebuttals and Refutations

Wow. Cocaine use? That seems like an extreme comparison. I like your rebuttal, where you address dosage – that the doses for children are so low that these severe side effects are unlikely. 

Remember, you will want to include your end punctuation after the parenthetical citation, rather than before.  

Hi professor,  

Thank you for the reminder regarding the punctuation after the parenthetical citation. Also, in regards to the comparison of cocaine and stimulants such as Adderall, it is due to both being stimulant drugs. They are within the same classification so people tend to compare the two as equals. As mentioned, when taking Adderall as prescribed, the dosage is very low and does not pose the same risks as cocaine use.  

Very well written argument.  Thankfully, it is not a subject that I have had to deal with personally but I always felt that I would be very leary to put a child on medication but your argument was compelling. 

In the text, the participants are aware of the misleading manipulation techniques. It could be seen from the rebuttal that they are immune to this effect. In fact, the participant does a good job to offer another point of view on the topic. 

After reading the text, it could be concluded that the reference used is exaggerating. The participants then have the chance to offer rebuttal points. Moreover, there are few comparisons presented in the data. Once the comparison in numbers or effects are presented, the fear-inducing tactic significantly weakens. I would consider the counter-argument statement after reading the rebuttal side. 

First, the way participants react to the statement by providing a comparison of Ritalin and Cocaine use. Second, it is also good to add an expert’s opinion to convince the reader. 

I commonly found these fear tactics in the health campaign and social media. Sometimes, they pour their attention to the fear factors and pushing aside the real message of the ads. In most cases, these other mediums are effective. A number of them are not. The effective ones are using real-life cases which becomes the talk of the town. The less effective fear tactic products are set in an unrealistic base, so they get ignored. The message delivered makes people think twice to change their current behavior. 

Some physicians may argue that physician assisted suicide takes away from the goal of returning the patient to “wholeness” and takes away from the values the doctor is supposed to uphold by doing all they can to heal the patient. According to Anderson, “Doctors take an oath saying they will give no deadly medicine to anyone and their responsibility is to heal and not to help people die”.

The oath is a promise to act for the benefit of patients and not for the harm. The doctor and patient’s relationship are based off of trust and if the patient knows the doctor could suggest death instead of doing all they can to help the patient. Currently too few physicians are trained in palliative care therefore may take the easy way out with physician assisted suicide (Anderson, 2002). Being a Doctor is a powerful role and making assisted suicide legal in all places may put a strain on what being a doctor stands for. 

  • How were you able to remain objective while presenting the opponent’s point of view?
    I remained objective my being specific, not using any opinions and didn’t use first person.
    • What challenges did you face obtaining evidence to back up the assertion?
    The challenges I faced when finding evidence was a lot of the “evidence” used in this article was religious based which may be different for different religions or is hard to prove to someone who may not believe in God.
    • Which conciliatory approach did you apply and why?
    The approach I used was only using facts instead of any opinions and expressing the authors view without being too argumentative. I went into detail what it meant being a doctor now and how legalizing assisted suicide would change that.
    • How was it effective?
    It was effective by showing what assisted suicide could do to the way we see doctors in healthcare. 

Refrence

Anderson, R. (2002, October 10). Counterpoint: Holistic Healers and Physician- Assisted Suicide. https://eds-a-ebscohostcom.chamberlainuniversity.idm.oclc.org/eds/detail/detail?vid=1&sid=f10ad3e9-ccc34b2f76cc0c726897%40sdsessmgr02&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWRzLWxpdmUmc2NvcGU9c2l0ZQ%3d%3d#AN=6163656&db=ccm 

I agree that religious-based research is often less credible. I say this as someone who is a believer; however, I realize that not everyone is, and for those who are, there are many religions out there! So, using a religious or doctrine-based argument is going to be less effective. 

 ”Currently too few physicians are trained in palliative care therefore may take the easy way out with physician assisted suicide (Anderson, 2002). “ 

I’m not sure if this is your own sentence or the point of view of the author Anderson but I am curious, Do they really believe that?  While it is true that not enough physicians are trained in palliative care , I dont think it logically follows that they may take the easy way out with assisted suicide.   Most of the doctors that I have worked with, either embraced palliative care and made the appropriate referrals or they go  extreme measures, ie. ordering  the placement of an ng tube in a 98yr old.    

The text shows that the participants are aware of the manipulation, but are not fully immune to the effects. The participants are not providing enough evidence for the readers to reconsider the counterargument statement.There are two limitations to this fear-inducing tactic. First, most of the journals on this topic are related to religion, thus it is difficult to provide general answers.

Second, the tactics used are new condition, with not enough support on either side. It will be difficult for the participants to provide a strong rebuttal point. Since there are only a few experts’ opinions that could be used as references, I would be relying on personal opinion a lot. So far, I don’t see any points that could be applied to my own topics. The rebuttal is not strong enough even though it is related to the topic. The discussion of doctor and physician-assisted suicide is new and sensitive topic.

Therefore, it is not commonly found in ads, articles, or social media. The only available sources are personal experiences. In terms of spreading the issues to the public, yes, they are effective. After hearing about the case of physician-assisted suicide, people will be more likely to asks deeper questions about the patients’ condition when they are hospitalized. 

  

This is a very hard topic to write on. As a healthcare professor I feel that you should do or cause no harm to your patient. I’m not a hospice nurse so I couldn’t imaging how hard it must be to watch patient dying and suffering from illnesses daily. Personally I would not want to be a physician that aids in assisting suicide, But on the other hand we kinda already do. If a patient comes into the ER and is told that require a blood transfusion in order to live but they are a Jehovah witness if they die is that the same this? Its for religion purpose not comfort?  What are you thoughts? 

  I feel like you did an amazing job being objective with the oppositions point of view. I know how tough it can be to go up against your own views. When I was trying to find the opposition for my topic I kept on getting side tracked because I simply could not agree with it. I had to do exactly what you did was and only present facts and no opinions so it would not be biased. You did an amazing job!