Youtube Conversation
In this video, Joe Rogan takes a stand in support of Marijuana legalization and reform. He is working from within the controlling value that Marijuana is unlike other substances categorized as "drugs," is not as destructive or detrimental, and, thus, should be legalized. In his argument, he is addressing the counter-arguments and opposing controlling value that claims that Marijuana has negative effects on the user, such as lack of motivation, and should stay illegal. Rogan complicates his argument by employing another controlling value to discredit the above assertion, stating that the negative effects Marijuana users supposedly endure are actually a result of their natural personality as opposed to the effect of the drug. In other words, Rogan claims that a lazy person would have been/continued to be lazy whether or not they engaged in smoking Marijuana. While this seems to be true, Rogan neglects to address the controlling value that opposes his statement: it is not beneficial for a drug to emphasize or further enforce negative behaviors.
Advocate: Chelsea Shiloh and Jen Dulo
Antagonist: Brittany Coughlin
Interrogator: Jamison Miller
Antagonist: Brittany Coughlin
Interrogator: Jamison Miller
Let's Talk It Out Now:
Argumentative Strategies
Jamison:
In the role of interrogator, it is not surprising that Jamison used both agreeing and disagreeing argumentative techniques in his response. He provides evidence and support for both sides of the argument. Also, Jamison used evaluative argument techniques as he discusses the quality of marijuana and if it is harmful to the people who smoke it. Furthermore, Jamison includes a brief comparison/contrast argument in his discussion of alcohol as compared to marijuana. Jennifer: As an advocate, Jennifer begins her rebuttal argument, against Jamison's comment, with the simultaneous inclusion of comparison/contrast argument techniques in her discussion of alcohol versus marijuana, claiming that alcohol is actually far more dangerous and detrimental to a person's health and lifestyle. She continues her argument by using casual argument strategies, as she suggests that the legalization of marijuana could result in more tax revenue for the government and, eventually, the depletion of American debt. Chelsea (Myself): I was given the advocate role as well as Jennifer. In my own comments, I employ causal argument strategies in my discussion of how the "war on drugs" has resulted in an organized, underground drug culture. I also evaluative argument techniques when I comment on the toxicity of marijuana, or lack thereof. I late us comparison/contrast techniques when weighing the effects of marijuana aside those of alcohol Brittany: Brittany was assigned the antagonist role. She began her comment by using definition argument strategies, providing specific information about the medical benefits and difficulties that are reported to be the result of marijuana use. She uses causal argument strategies to connect marijuana usage to such differing results as "treating chronic non-cancerous pain" to causing "diseases of the liver..." However, the large portion of her rebuttal employs evaluation argument strategies. |