Smoking

Argumentation: Distance Learning

  • WELCOME TO MR. ZOUBEK’S

    ARGUMENTATION CLASS 

    DISTANCE LEARNING BLACKBOARD!

     

    HOW TO USE THIS WEB PAGE: Each weekday morning, Mr. Zoubek will post a new Argumentation (Debate) lesson to this webpage. Each new lesson will build on the last. Lessons will be posted one after the other, each day, until the unit is complete. Each lesson will consist of:

    (A)  A review of old material;

    (B)  An overview of new material, such as informational readings and insightful video clips; and

    (C)  A brief assessment.

    Mr. Zoubek’s expectation is that you will log onto this website each day, read the review material Mr. Zoubek posts, engage in new material, answer any comprehension questions, and participate in any application assignments. You are responsible for reading all text, clicking all links, exploring additional readings and video clips, and completing assignments throughout. “Skimming” or skipping sections is not advised. Mr. Zoubek tries to be as detailed and in-depth as possible, which is especially important given that we are not in a traditional classroom. Read everything carefully!

     

    TO REVIEW ALL "CORE CONCEPTS" WE LEARNED PRIOR TO BREAK,

    PLEASE CLICK HERE FOR A REVIEW SHEET.

    ASSIGNMENTS ARE POSTED FROM MOST-RECENT TO OLDEST.

    IF YOU NEED TO REVISIT OLDER ASSIGNMENTS,

    SCROLL PAST THE NEWER ONES.

    FRIDAY, MAY 22, 2020:

    LOOSE ENDS

    If you have any work to complete for the course, please do so and submit it by noon on Tuesday, May 26, 2020.

    THURSDAY, MAY 21, 2020:

    REOPENING

    The State of Illinois is slowly reopening. What that means is a matter of ongoing controversy. Your assignment for today is to read all four of the following argumentative articles recently published by newspapers and political organizations. Each represents a different perspective on how we can or should be reopening our state in wake of the COVID-19 pandemic.

    Today's first reading is an editorial (opinion) article published by the Chicago Sun-Times newspaper. To read it, click here.

    The second reading is an editorial (opinion) essay posted by a lobbying group called the Illinois Policy Institutie. (You may want to look up the word "lobbyist" for a refresher.) To read it, click here.

    The third reading is an editorial (opinion) article published in the Chicago Tribune newspaper. To read it, click here.

    After reading all three, pick the one with the argument that you most agree with and, using this worksheet (click here) decontruct the argument (its strengths and weaknesses) using all of the tools you've accessed over the course of our semester together. Email your work to Mr. Zoubek (anthonyzoubek@u-46.org).

     

    WEDNESDAY, MAY 20, 2020:

    STUDY!

    The majority of Argumentation (Debate) students who have consistently turned in Distance Learning assignments have politely asked for time to prepare for AP testing this week. (Many of those students are taking multiple tests.) As a result, I am holding off from an assignment today. However, I do ask that you take a look at this YouTube video in preparation for tomorrow. (Click here.) If you have AP testing, please use your time to study. If you do not have AP testing, please go back and complete any missing Argumentation assignments. (Many of you have only turned in work "here and there," without consistency.)

    TUESDAY, MAY 19, 2020:

    APPLICATION, PART 2

    Last week, you learned the terminology associated with the structure of a formal debate. Let us again review those terms...

     “THE PROPOSITION”: A statement that is controversial, open to interpretation, and ultimately “arguable.” It is stated declaratively (“as if fact”). It is specific. It must have two sides. It must have explainable warrants (“reasons we should care”) that debaters can refer to in their arguments.

     “THE RESOLVED”: This is a “version” of the Proposition, worded such that it is a resolution to a problem. The Proposition must be stated in such a way—using the term “RESOLVED” (yes, in all caps)—that it reminds everyone, from the debaters, to the judges, to an audience, of the specific subject the debaters seek to resolve.

     Here is an example of what both terms “look like” when they are “announced” in a formal debate…

     “Proposition—RESOLVED: That the decision to wear a surgical mask in public should be left to private citizens rather than being dictated by laws or government orders.”

    Notice: If we were to remove the words “Proposition,” “RESOLVED,” and “That,” we would have a very debatable statement—a two-sided issue, worded almost like a factual declaration. (Toulmin would be proud!)

    More often than not, debates are conducted with one person (“THE NEGATIVE”) debating another person (“THE AFFIRMATIVE”).

    Here's one more vocabulary word for you: THE CONSTRUCTIVE. The Constructive is just a fancy word for “response.” What the Negative states is its Constructive; What the Affirmative states is its Constructive.

    "THE NEGATIVE": Represents one side in a debate. The Negative Team challenges the Proposition. Specifically, The Negative’s job is to argue against the Proposition. In a formal debate, the Negative would organize their statements to explain why the Proposition is not a resolution to some larger issue. Using evidence organized in a logical, effect manner, the Negative’s ultimate goal is to demonstrate exactly why the Proposition is wrong or flawed. Please note that the Negative does not initially set out to prove why other debaters are wrong.

    Here is an example, using our example Proposition…

    “NEGATIVE CONSTRUCTIVE: The notion that wearing a mask is ‘an individual’s decision’ is flawed. You may have COVID-19 but be asymptomatic and not know that you are carrying the virus. You threaten the wellbeing of others by potentially passing the virus onto them. As such, by not wearing a mask, your decision is not solely ‘for yourself.’ The ramifications of NOT wearing a mask go beyond impacting ‘just you.’”

    This is where "THE AFFIRMATIVE" steps in. The Affirmative defends, supports, or—you guessed it—affirms the Proposition. That is, the Affirmative must use evidence to demonstrate why the Proposition is the best resolution—why its flaws are minimal, and how those flaws are resolvable.

    Using the example Proposition and Negative from above, after the Negative speaks, the Affirmative might say something like this…

    "AFFIRMATIVE CONSTRUCTIVE: The government should not be allowed to compel individuals to wear anything they do not want to wear. We all dedicate ourselves to stopping the spread of COVID-19. But there are other actions we can take by choice that do not impede on our individual rights.”

    ASSESSMENT: Today, let’s practice constructing a debate in this fashion. Using Google News (click here). Find a balanced news article—one that fairly and accurately discusses two sides of a controversial issue—about something happening in the world right now. (Consider ethos. Is this article from a credible source?) The subject does not have to be COVID-related.

    Read and type up a summary of the article—what is the issue, what are the two sides, and what is it about the issue that warrants all of our attention at this specific moment in time. After reading the article, structure a debate around the subject. Based on what you read, create a Proposition statement. That is, write, "Proposition Resolved: That..." (Recall that a resolved statement is a resolution to the problem at hand. After reading the article, consider what is the problem and what is the best resolution to it. Your resolved statement is a declaration of the resolution.)

    The Affirmative Constructive: Based on what you read, write a sentence that explains why your resolution is the absolute best resolution to the problem you just cited.

    The Negative Constructive: Based on what you read, write a sentence that explains why the proposed resolution is weak, flawed, or wrong.

    Email (anthonyzoubek@u-46.org) all of the following... 

    * A link to the Google News article you read;

    * A summary of the article (see instructions above);

    * A thorough, specific, objective (“unbiased”) debate outline structured such that it follows this format and uses this language—

     “Proposition—RESOLVED: That [blank]…”

     NEGATIVE CONSTRUCTIVE: "The notion or idea that [blank] is [weak, flawed, wrong, inappropriate, pick one or something similar] because [blank]…”

     AFFIRMATIVE CONSTRUCTIVE: "While there may be other resolutions to the problems associated with [the specific proposition statement] is the [best, most appropriate, most effective, most impactful, pick one or something similar] approach because [blank]..."

    If you are doing this assignment appropriately, then you should be forced to examine both sides of this issue fairly and accurately. If, while you are outlining, you find that you are “leaning toward” one side or another, then carefully check your work to make sure that your bias (“opinion”) is not affecting what you are outlining.

    Pretend as if your outline is being read by a complete stranger who has no knowledge of the article you read, the issues it raises, or what we have learned in our debate class. Does your outline make sense to “the average person”? If not, then you need to revise! Again, email your work to Mr. Zoubek (anthonyzoubek@u-46.org). Follow the appropriate language of the examples!

    MONDAY, MAY 18, 2020:

    STUDY!

    The majority of Argumentation (Debate) students who have consistently turned in Distance Learning assignments have politely asked for time to prepare for AP testing this week. (Many of those students are taking multiple tests.) As a result, I am holding off from an assignment today. If you have AP testing, please use your time to study. If you do not have AP testing, please go back and complete any missing Argumentation assignments. (Many of you have only turned in work "here and there," without consistency.)

    THURSDAY, MARCH 14, 2020:

    APPLYING NEW TERMINOLOGY

    Yesterday, you were provided with the terminology associated with the structure of a formal debate. Let's review those terms...

    THE PROPOSITION”: A statement that is controversial, open to interpretation, and ultimately “arguable.” Stated declaratively (“as if fact”), a Proposition is the equivalent to a claim statement (thesis). The Proposition must be specific; it must have two sides with near-equivalent “backing” in terms of arguing one side or another. Propositions must have explainable warrants, or identifiable context referred to by debaters within their arguments. (After all, if we don’t address the immediate or urgent need to debate The Proposition, then why debate it in the first place?)

    THE RESOLVED”: This is a Proposition that is worded such that it is a resolution to a problem. Calling this this The RESOLVEDsounds awkward, and this is where the process of debating starts to get really complicated. Patience is a must. The Proposition must be stated in such a way—using the term “RESOLVED” (yes, in all caps)—that it reminds everyone, from the debaters, to the judges, to an audience, of the specific subject the debaters seek to resolve. Here is an example...

    Proposition—

    RESOLVED: That appropriate dress for school should be left up to individual students rather than being dictated by a specific code.

    Notice: If we were to remove the word “RESOLVED,” we would have a very debatable statement—a two-sided issue, worded almost like a factual declaration. (Toulmin would be proud!)

    Proposition—RESOLVED: That [A]ppropriate dress for school should be left up to individual students rather than being dictated by a specific code.

    in a formal debate, no side “wins” by having the “right or wrong” answers. Judges must evaluate debaters’ organization of information as it pertains to the stated resolution.

    More often than not, debates are conducted with one person (THE NEGATIVE) debating another person (THE AFFIRMATIVE). 

    "THE NEGATIVE": Represents one side in a debate. The Negative Team challenges the Proposition. Specifically, The Negative's job is to argue against the Proposition. In a formal debate, the Negative would organize their statements to explain why the Proposition is not a resolution to some larger issue. Using evidence organized in a logical, effect manner, the Negative’s ultimate goal is to demonstrate exactly why the Proposition is wrong or flawed. The Negative does not initially set out to prove why other debaters are wrong.

    Using the example Proposition from above, the Negative might start their portion of the debate by saying something along the lines of, "The idea that appropriate school dress codes should be left up to individual students is a flawed resolution to the larger problem of dress codes in general," or "The notion that appropriate school dress codes should be left up to individual students is an inapprporiate proposition because..."

    "THE AFFIRMATIVE": Defends, supports, or—you guessed it—affirms the Proposition. That is, the Affirmative must use evidence to demonstrate why the Proposition is the best resolution, why its flaws are minimal, and how those flaws are resolvable. That said, the Affirmative cannot get hung up on "defending" the Proposition. Rather, when The Negative makes its case against the Proposition, The Affirmative must quietly argue in favor of the Proposition, but not in such a way that arguing in favor dominates the debate.

    Using the example Proposition from above, after the Negative speaks, the Affirmative might say something like this: "The idea that appropriate school dress codes should be left up to individual students is the best way to resolve the larger problem with dress codes," or "While there may be other resolutions to the problems associated with dress codes, leaving it up to the individual student is the best pproach because..."

    Think back to Toulmin. The Negative presents a counterargument to the Proposition. The Negative is tasked with the job of refuting (or rebutting) The Negative's counter-argumentative statements.

    It all sounds pretty complex. But consider this: The Proposition is already worded as assertive, declarative, and “factual” The Negative must do all that it can to “poke holes” in the validity of The Proposition. The Affirmative operates on the idea that The Proposition is already resolved—that The Proposition is the only answer—and that the Negative Team is wasting its time. Therefore, it is the job of The Negative to (i) refute or rebut The Affirmative’s statements, and not obsess on (ii) defending the Proposition.

    Let's practice constructing a debate in this fasion. You are going to read an article that we would have read in class. Here's what it's about: Several years ago, a local community decided that it would try to pass a law that would make English "the official language" of the town. That is, all documents would be written only in English. All political meetings would be held only in English. The problem: The community in question is predominently Hispanic. Some people looked at this law as an act of racism.

    There are two sides to the issue. After reading the article, structure a debate around the subject.

    The Negative: Based on what you read, create a Proposition statement. That is, write, "Proposition Resolved: That..." Recall that a resolved statement is a resolution to the problem at hand. After reading the article, think about (a) what the problem is for this community, and (b) would is the best resolution to the probem. Your resolved statement is a declaration of the resolution.

    The Affirmative: Based on what you read, write a sentence that explains why your resolution is the absolute best resolution to the problem you just cited.

    The Negative: Based on what you read, write a sentence that explains why the proposed resolution is weak, flawed, or wrong.

    Here's one more vocabular word for you: THE CONSTRUCTIVE. The Constructive is just a fancy word for "response." What the Negative states is its Constructive; What the Affirmative states is its Constructive.

    Let's reexamine the example from this lesson... Pretend we are debating dress codes.

    Proposition—RESOLVED: That appropriate dress for school should be left up to individual students rather than being dictated by a specific code.

    (Review: The Negative challenges the Proposition.)

    NEGATIVE CONSTRUCTIVE "The notion that appropriate school dress codes should be left up to individual students is an inapprporiate proposition because..."

    (Review: The Affirmative "afirms,"defends, supports, the original Proposition. That is, the Affirmative must use evidence to demonstrate why the Proposition is actually the best resolution to the problem.)

    AFFIRMATIVE CONSTRUCTIVE: "While there may be other resolutions to the problems associated with dress codes, leaving it up to the individual student is the best pproach because..."

    Your assignment for the weekend: (there is no "virtual class" tomorrow, Friday, because of teacher meetings) is to read the article (click here), and compose a structured "outline" for a possible debate. Based on the issues raised in the article...

    What is the resolution ("PROPOSITION: Resolved, that...") to the issues raised in the article? What would The Negative say that challenges (raises questions about) that proposed resolution? How would The Affirmative go about defening the proposed resolution?

    Email your work to Mr. Zoubek (anthonyzoubek@u-46.org). Follow the appropriate language examples!

    WEDNESDAY, MAY 13, 2020:

    NEW TERMINOLOGY

    Today's lesson is simple: Familiarize yourself with some "Debate Lingo." If we were back in class, we would have already taken notes on the structure of a formal debate. (That is, whom speaks, when they speak, how long, what do the two "sides" look like, how a debate question is phrased, et cetera.) A formal debate looks much different than playing the game "Master Debaters." Mr. Zoubek would have presented a PowerPoint whily you filled in the blanks on a worksheet. All I am asking is that you familiarize yourself with those terms. This document (click here) is what your notes would have looked like. Read it over and email Mr. Zoubek if you "don't get" what it means.

    TUESDAY, MAY 12, 2020:

    DEBATING HISTORY

    Let’s go back to our original debate discussions regarding the Columbine memorial.

    * The Columbine tragedy took place on April 20, 1999.

    * A series of crosses—15 in all—were erected at Clement Park “on-the-fly,” without permission, by an Illinois man that May. Thirteen of those crosses honored the victims of the shooters. Two of those crosses represented the teenage shooters themselves.

    * The carpenter who made the crosses and drove them to Clement Park from Illinois said the display wasn’t part of any “political agenda.” He was motivated to install 15 crosses instead of 13 because crosses to symbolize (in his opinion) victimization and forgiveness. The carpenter told the media, “I’m not a gun-issue guy. I’m not a church guy. There’s not interest here other than helping people remember.”

    * When asked why he felt it was appropriate to place two crosses to memorialize the shooters, the carpenter replied, “Love your bother, love your neighbor. Don’t judge them. Life isn’t that complicated. Hate and revenge is.”

    * The two crosses that represented the perpetrators were decorated with the words “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.”

    * In 1999 and throughout the early 2000s, the media portrayed the perpetrators as unpopular, friendless “outsiders,” victims of bullying, and members of “out-groups.” We now know that both perpetrators were good students with friends. They were not bullied. Both, however, suffered from significant, untreated mental illnesses.

    * The Illinois carpenter said his makeshift memorial was intended “to heal all parties involved in the event, particularly a community in mourning.”

    * A subsequent, official, permanent Columbine memorial was established.

    * The City of Littleton has a webpage dedicated to the memorial, which states: “The shootings at Columbine High School in Littleton, Colorado touched us all.  As a community and nation, we were in shock or disbelief that such a senseless act could take place in our community.  At first, there was an outpouring of flowers, notes, poems, ribbons, stuffed animals, pictures and other objects that were brought to Clement Park to pay tribute to those that died, were injured or traumatized.  From that initial outpouring of emotions and disbelief came the concept of establishing a permanent public memorial near the high school, a memorial that would serve to honor those innocent victims but also to provide a historic record of this tragedy and to deliver a message of hope for many generations to come.”

    * A section of the memorial which provides a moment-by-moment timeline of the events of the tragedy (the actual “historic record”) is referred to as “The Wall of Healing.” The information on that wall hasn't been updated in 13 years.

    Your question for debate: Now that we know the role that mental illness played in the tragedy, should there be some component of the memorial added or altered to reflect these discoveries? What addition or alteration would be most appropriate? (The permanent memorial opened in 2007. If the memorial is intended to be “a historic record,” should that “record” be updated, knowing what we now know in 2020?) Would such alterations stir emotions within the community that might “open old wounds”? (Recall that the purpose of the memorial was “to help the community heal” and “bring the community closure.”)

    ASSESSMENT: Since we cannot have a formal back-and-forth, moderated debate, compose your own answer to those questions demonstrating your mastery of Toulmin’s model and Aristotle’s rhetoric.

    Compose a claim that responds to all of the questions above. (Remember from class: Your claim should be stated in such a way that it can be read and understood by anyone, including people who know nothing about our class and do not know the original questions you are answering.) Within your responses, you must address the notion that the purpose of a memorial is to serve a community, but also provide a historic record. When does the importance of one supersede the other? Can we “heal” and “find closure” even if what we now know causes emotional hurt?

    There are no right or wrong answers… just a better argued ones. Recall that all arguments require that a claim (your answer to a question) be addressed, then broken down into several subclaims (smaller parts). Use evidence to “prove” the “smaller parts.” (In doing so, you are addressing your larger point.) Remember that your evidence needs to be credible—you can cite any information posted in this lesson, or in previous lessons on this subject. Separate emotions (pathos) from logic. (Use your head as opposed to your heart, unless the feelings in your heart have a logical connection to your point.) Address the counterargument—show that you see merit in “the other side.” Then rebut that counterargument; you don’t need to “prove the other side wrong,” but rather explain why “the other side” is flawed or problematic.

    This is a very informal effort. Email your response to Mr. Zoubek (anthonyzoubek@u-46.org). USE PREVIOUS LESSONS, ARTICLES, AND VIDEO CLIPS AS POINTS OF REFERENCE. When you email your answer, include a note that explains the connection you made between Mr. Zoubek’s story of visiting the Columbine memorial and the television interview with the mother of one of the perpetrators.

    MONDAY, MAY 11, 2020:

    A MOTHER'S RECKONING

    The Columbine tragedy took place in 1999. It was perpetrated by two males. Despite countless attempts by the media, the parents of neither boy would say yes to an interview. Just over 10 years later, unannounced, the mother of one of the boys wrote an essay about her experiences. It was published in Oprah Winfrey's magazine. That parent granted no further interviews. Then, in 2016, it was announced that the mother had expanded her essay into a book. (All proceeds from the sale of the book would go toward mental health research.) To promote the book, the mother agreed to be interviewed on ABC-TV's news magazine show 20/20.

    As you read last week in an article by David Cullen, the tragedy at Columbine was more about the mental illness of the perpatrators than it was "an act of revenge." The mother of one of the perpatrators verifies these conclusions. This calls into question some of what we watched in Bowling For Columbine.

    If we were in a classroom, we would have watched and discussed excerpts from the parent's interview, which you can watch by clicking here. We would have also read excerpts from the mother's essay, which you can find by clicking here.

    Please watch as much of the video clip as you see fit. (You're only requirement is that you watch from the 38:30 minute-marker through the end of the clip; that required viewing lasts about five minutes. That said, much of that segment won't make sense without watching other parts of the video. Again, you are not required to watch all of it. However, once you have watched the required five-minute segment, go back and reread Mr. Zoubek's Thursday, May 7 lesson, and his story about visiting the Columbine memorial.)

    Read as much of the Oprah magazine article as you see fit.

    Tomorrow, you will be asked to take information provided in the video and the article to a swer a debate question related to the Columbine memorial controversy. 

    FRIDAY, MAY 8, 2020:

    TRUTH

    Over the last two decades, much of what people think they know about the tragedy at Columbine High School has turned out to be false. In preparation for next week, please read this magazine article written by David Cullen (click here). This was, in fact, the article that Cullen later expanded-upon and turned into his book Columbine. (You read an excerpt from that book this week.)

    As you read, note how Cullen compares and contrasts the myths and the truths of what really happened in Littleton, Colorado, and, more importantly, what really motivated the two perpatrators.

    There is no formal assignment today. Simply read the article before next Monday.

    THURSDAY, MAY 7, 2020:

    THE MEMORIAL CONTROVERSY (PART THREE)

    NEW MATERIAL: Let's start with "storytime."

    Mr. Zoubek and his wife visited the Columbine memorial several years ago. It was a strange experience. There are no signs on any roads “directing you” to the memorial. To find it, you just “need to know that it’s there.”

    Why don't you join them on their visit?

    You park in the high school’s lot and have to “discover” the path to the memorial. It ropes around the back of the school and toward Clemente Park. The walk seems longer than it is. Moving forward, the high school itself fades off in the distance behind you—like the sun going down. Suddenly, it’s just you, the path, and a rising hill covered in grass.

    Behind you, in front of you, and to your left, is a green field. But to your right? Some hundred or so yards away, there’s a playground, surrounded by thick trees. They seem so out of place. That playground is connected to a community baseball field. There is a rustling sound—the grass waiving and the swaying leaves of the trees—frequently carried by a breeze, along with the faint sounds of kids playing on a slide and swing-set. (The day Mr. Zoubek and his wife visited, the chatter of those children mixed with the bells of an ice cream truck, making its way down a faraway street.)

    The pictures Mr. Zoubek took (click here to view his photocollage) merely scratch the surface of the experience. Entering, you walk along a long cobblestone wall. It holds quotes chiseled into slate, which provide you with a timeline of the events as they took place on the day of the tragedy. A “columbine,” if you didn’t already know, is a type of flower; as such, columbine flowers are planted throughout the memorial. Then, in the center, “the ring” you read about yesterday in the excerpt from David Cullen’s book. It is comprised of 13 large plaques, each dedicated to one of the victims of the tragedy. The ring includes the panel with one parent’s extremely controversial inscription. (Mr. Zoubek took a photo of it. It is included in his collage.)

    Mr. Zoubek and his wife thought they were at the memorial alone. But there was one other visitor—an older woman.

    You see her, too. Thin. Grey hair. “Motherly.” She sat at the very end of the memorial, contemplating something. Perhaps she was meditating. Certainly, the was thinking; clearly, she was a local and not “a tourist there to visit.” Her presence indicated that this memorial was a sacred ground—like a church. (Mr. Zoubek respectfully did not take any pictures of the woman, nor the area in which she sat; nor did he or his wife try to speak with her.)

    Now, for purposes of review, let’s backtrack.

    * When the Columbine High School tragedy happened in 1999, Clement Park was a “public-owned” but privately managed piece of property, located on this serene hill just behind Columbine High School and next to recreational sports fields. Clement Park was under consideration for use as the site of a permanent memorial to the Columbine tragedy.

    * The Columbine shootings took place on April 20, 1999. A series of crosses—15 in all—were erected at Clement Park “on-the-fly,” without permission, by an Illinois man that May. Thirteen of those crosses honored the victims of the shooters. Two of those crosses represented the teen-shooters themselves.

    * The carpenter who made the crosses and drove them to Clement Park from Illinois said the display wasn’t part of any “political agenda.” He was motivated to install 15 crosses instead of 13 because crosses to symbolize (in his opinion) victimization and forgiveness. The carpenter told the media, “I’m not a gun-issue guy. I’m not a church guy. There’s not interest here other than helping people remember.”

    * When asked why he felt it was appropriate to place two crosses to memorialize the shooters, the carpenter replied, “Love your bother, love your neighbor. Don’t judge them. Life isn’t that complicated. Hate and revenge is.” The two crosses that represented the perpetrators were decorated with the words “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.” (In 1999 and throughout the early 2000s, the media portrayed the perpetrators as unpopular, friendless “outsiders,” victims of bullying, and members of “out-groups.” Much of this turned out to be not true… but we will discuss that in a later lesson…)

    * The inclusion of the two “extra” crosses outraged some in the Littleton community. Shortly thereafter, two of the crosses were removed by a shooting victim’s parent. Later, the monument’s creator drove back to Colorado and removed all of the crosses, telling the media that he only intended for his memorial “to heal all parties involved in the event, particularly a community in mourning.”

    * Other issues raised by the monument as a whole: The use of religious symbols on public-owned grounds.

    * Before it was disassembled, thousands of people visit the makeshift memorial.

    Now, if we were back in our classroom, this would have been the start of several debates.

    The first, unofficial memorial raised controversy: 

    1. It acknowledged the two shooters and their 13 victims, implying that the shooters themselves were victims; and
    2. Crosses are religious symbols that should not be used on property that is owned by the general public.

    For those reasons, the unofficial memorial was “problematic.” Even though thousands of people came to see it, the crosses were removed. The decision was made to create a permanent memorial—one that would not stir any emotions beyond mourning and healing.

    Now reconsider Mr. Zoubek’s photocollage. Examine its last photo—the controversial plaque dedicated to one of the victims. (Recall from our reading that the text on the plaque was written by the parents of that victim. In fact, each victim’s family was asked to contribute whatever text or imagery they wanted or thought would be appropriate to memorialize their loved one.) This, however, raises some questions. Should that plaque—with its image of a cross its controversial, religious statements—be permitted in a public memorial? Moreover, since the purpose of the memorial was “to help the community heal” and “bring the community closure,” what purposes are served by a plaque that, arguably “opens old wounds” and continues to cause controversy?

    ASSESSMENT: Since we cannot have a formal back-and-forth, moderated debate, compose your own answer to those questions demonstrating your mastery of Toulmin’s model and Aristotle’s rhetoric.

    Compose a claim that responds to the following questions. (Remember from class: Your claim should be stated in such a way that it can be read and understood by anyone, including people who know nothing about our class and do not know the original questions you are answering.)

    Pick one…

    Is the purpose of a memorial to help a community heal and find closure?

    OR

    Is the purpose of a memorial to help heal the people involved in the events and bring them closure?

    In other words: If the purpose of a memorial is to serve a community, does the controversial plaque help or hurt that community as it seeks to heal and find closure? If the purpose is to help heal the people involved in the events being memorialized, then shouldn’t those people be allowed to express their feelings in any way they see fit?

    There are no right or wrong answers… just a better argued ones. Recall that all arguments require that a claim (your answer to a question) be addressed, then broken down into several subclaims (smaller parts). Used evidence to “prove” the “smaller parts.” (In doing so, you are addressing your larger point.) Remember that your evidence needs to be credible—you can cite any information posted in this lesson, or in previous lessons on this subject. Separate emotions (pathos) from logic. (Use your head as opposed to your heart, unless the feelings in your heart have a logical connection to your point.) Address the counterargument—show that you see merit in “the other side.” Then rebut that counterargument; you don’t need to “prove the other side wrong,” but rather explain why “the other side” is flawed or problematic.

    This is a very informal effort. Email your response to Mr. Zoubek (anthonyzoubek@u-46.org). For your reference, articles from several previous lessons can be found below...

    For the excerpt from the book Columbine, in which reporter David Cullen discusses the final, permanent memorial, click here.

    For the Denver Post newspaper's coverage of the first memorial, click here.

    For the Chicago Tribune newspaper's coverage of the first memorial, click here.

    WEDNESDAY, MAY 6, 2020:

    THE MEMORIAL CONTROVERSY (PART TW0)

    NEW MATERIAL: Yesterday, we discussed the late Greg Zanis, a carpenter from Illinois. Shortly after the tragedy at Columbine High School, Zanis traveled across the country and set up a "makeshift" memorial. Regall that a memorial is defined as "a structure established or designed to preserve the memory or remind people of a person, people, or an event." The work "makeshift" means " serving as a temporary substitute that is sufficient for the time being." The temporary memorial caused significant controversy in the community of Littleton, Colorado. Upon its removal, plans were put in place for a durable, long-lasting, uncontroversial structure; something peaceful... agreeable... 

    Of course, that turned out to be wishful thinking.

    Please read an excerpt ("short portion of") the book Columbine by David Cullen by clicking here. In it, Cullen, a prize-winning reporter, discusses what took place (and futher stalled) the creation of a permanent memorial behind Columbine High School. Next, answer a series of read-and-recall questions by clicking here. Submit your work through email (anthonyzoubek@u-46.org).

    TUESDAY, MAY 5, 2020:

    THE MEMORIAL CONTROVERSY (PART ONE)

    NEW MATERIAL: Littleton, Colorado, a suburb of Denver, is home to Columbine High School. If you were to visit the school and follow a winding gravel path from the parking lot to a field a quarter-mile or so from the campus, you would stumble upon a controversial memorial to victims of Columbine tragedy. 

    The word "memorial" can be used to describe "a structure established or designed to preserve the memory or remind people of a person, people, or an event." It can also be used to describe the act of "preserving or commemorating a person, thing, or memory." The shooting massacre at Columbine took place in 1999. Yet an official memorial to the event, its victims, its survivors, and the community it impacted would not be christened until almost nine years later. The reasons for the holdup hinged on what people thought they knew about the tragedy and what really happened. Over the course of the next week or so, we will explore (and "debate") the facts and the fiction.

    But first, you need to know about a man named Greg Zanis, a carpenter from Illinois, who passed away yesterday (Monday). His death made national headlines, in newspapers and magazines, and was covered by television networks on a global scale. Please click here to watch a clip abou Zanis's death as featured on Monday evening's nationally-televised CBS Evening News, and then click here watch this clip from WGN News and the local coverage of Zanis, his influence, and his passing. 

    Last August, Reader's Digest magazine wrote an article praising Zanis. Consider this excerpt from that article:

    Twenty years ago, 15 wooden crosses appeared on a hill overlooking Columbine High School, in Littleton, Colorado. It was April 28, 1999, eight days after a pair of students had shot and killed 12 of their classmates and a teacher before killing themselves. At first, the crosses seemed to be part miracle, part mystery. Before long, their creator stepped forward: Greg Zanis, a carpenter from Sugar Grove, Illinois, who had driven them nearly 1,000 miles to Colorado.

    Since Columbine, Zanis has built and delivered more than 26,000 crosses—Stars of David and crescent moons, too—to communities across America grieving in the wake of violence, natural disasters, and other catastrophes. He brought them to Paradise, California, after wildfires wiped out most of the town; Pittsburgh, where 11 worshippers were killed in a synagogue; Sandy Hook, Connecticut, when 26 children and staff were gunned down in their school; and Las Vegas, where 58 people died while enjoying a music festival...

    “My message is simple,” he told CNN. “Love your brother, love your neighbor. Don’t judge them. Life isn’t that complicated. Hate and revenge is.”

    Zanis understands more than most how the families feel. He began building crosses to honor his father-in-law, who was murdered in 1996. Tragedy struck him again in 2018, when he buried his 37-year-old daughter, who died of a drug overdose...

    Despite having seen and experienced so much grief, Zanis insists he has no agenda. He isn’t advocating for one thing or another. “I’m not a gun issue guy. I’m not a church guy,” he told the New York Times. “There’s no interest here other than helping people remember.”

    ASSESSMENT: Let's flashback to 1999. The tragedy at Columbine High School took place that April. Please click here to read media coverage of how Zanis drove over 1,000 miles to created his spur-of-the-moment, unsanctioned ("unapproved") memorial one month later. (The media remembers Zanis fondly in 2020. That wasn't exactly the case two decades ago.) Please click here to read about what happened to that memorial several months later. After reading both articles, click here to open and complete a worksheet. Answer the questions and submit them (anthonyzoubek@u-46.org) to demonstrate the extent to which you followed each of today's readings.

    THURSDAY, APRIL 30, 2020:

    WRAP-UP

    Today marks our last with Bowling For Columbine. There is no "virtual school" on Friday. Next week, we will examine the actual Columbine tragedy itself, and related argumentative (rhetorical) situations that happened within the Littleton community that lasted the following 10 years.

    For now, please review and consider the following scenes from the movie.

    * Charleton Heston's speech. Click here. Recall that the point of this scene is to show that, shortly after the Columbine tragedy, the National Rifle Association decided to host a "pro-gun rally" in neighboring Denver. The point Moore wants to make is that Heston and company wanted to "rub the communities nose" in pro-gun rhetoric. However, watch Charlton Heston's tie. It changes colors. Moore took two different speeches and "melded them" together. You will also notice that, at some points, Moore cuts away from Heston himself and shows us pictures and protestors. Then Moore cuts back to Heston. This is to cover the fact that Moore cut out large portions of Heston's speech. Explore this on the internet. You can find Heston's entire speech and read the parts Moore cut out. Ask yourself: Is Moore trying to make Heston sound heartless with these edits? Or... does Moore still have a point? By virtue of the fact that the National Rifle Association did go to Denver, and it did offend people, does it matter that Moore cut out chunks of Heston's speech?

    * The scene where Moore chases down famous television personality Dick Clark. Recall the story of the woman from Michigan who was forced to work two jobs to make ends meet. She left her son with an uncle. The uncle had a gun. The son brought the gun to school and shot a classmate. The mother was working when her son took the gun to school. The mother was working for a restaurant that has Dick Clark's name on it. Moore hunts down Dick Clark... But why? Is he implying that Dick Clark is to blame? If so, is this an example of Moore using a fallacy to (falsey) demonstrate a point? Click here.

    * The Heston interview itself. At the end of the movie, Moore finally talks with Heston. Should Heston appologize (as Moore suggests) for hosting his pro-gun rallies? Revisit the part that Moore staged. (Remember our class demonstration, where the camera "flips" when Moore is holding up the girl's picture.) One other thing... How does Moore "book" the interview? We see him walk up Heston's driveway, ring a bell, and talk to Heston through an intercom... Why would Heston say, "Hold the PHONE." If you were answering a doorbell, would you say that? (I'll give you a hint. This moment is staged. So how did Moore really touch base with Heston?) Click here.

    There are no assignments today. I trust that you will do these activies above. Touch base with me (anthonyzoubek@u-46.org) to discuss what you see. Enjoy your weekend!

    WEDNESDAY, APRIL 29, 2020:

    ASSESSMENT: Today's lesson requires a reading excerpt that cannot be posted to this page for copyright reasons. Please email (anthonyzoubek@u-46.org) to request a copy of the reading. Mr. Zoubek will reply with the article and your instructions. 

    TUESDAY, APRIL 28, 2020:

    "MOORE" FUN AND REVIEW

    REVIEW: Yesterday, you watched a short clip from Moore's interview with Matt Stone, a cartoonist and co-creator of the television show South Park. In the documentary, after showing an animated South Park scene, Moore interviews Stone about his upbringing in Littleton, Colorado. Sometime later in the movie, Moore incorporates a "cartoon history of America," linking fear and guns. As mentioned in class and in previous digital learning lessons, Moore's cartoon makes an interesting argument. But the "cartoon history" sequence presents that argument on the basis of numerous logical fallacies (such as scare tactics and hasty generalizations, among others).

    Here's the catch.

    That cartoon was written and produced by Moore. But because the style of animation is so strikingly similar to a South Park episode, people who saw Bowling For Columbine in theaters assumed that the cartoon must have been produced by Stone and his South Park co-creator Trey Parker. 

    This frustrated Stone and Parker. As much as Stone was willing to speak to Moore in the documentary, Stone does not believe in Moore's politics, and later spoke out against the movie and its arguments. (Both Stone and Parker have their own views on gun violence and American culture.)

    Humorously, out of "revenge," Stone and Parker decided to insert Moore into their puppet movie "Team America" some years later. Their caricature of Moore (overweight, carrying and eating hot dogs nonstop, mustard stains on his shirt) is less-than-flattering. Click here to watch the clip from "Team America." 

    ASSESSMENT: If you didn't complete the lesson for Monday, April 27, please do so today. If you submitted work that Mr. Zoubek told you was "incomplete," please use today to finish it. If you submitted work and Mr. Zoubek asked you to revise it, please revise your work today. Most students did not follow instructions (notably Question #5). Email your work upon completion (anthonyzoubek@u-46.org).

     

    MONDAY, APRIL 27, 2020:

    MANSON AND STONE

    REVIEW: Michael Moore interviews Marilyn Manson, a “shock-rock” musician from the late 1990s and early 2000s. Manson's music was (wrongfully) blamed as a motivator in the Columbine High School tragedy. Littleton is a suburb of Denver. Some time after the Columbine tragedy, Manson returned to Denver. His concert became the subject of protests, which received national attention. Moore interviewed Manson before the show. Moore intercuts Manson's interview with statements made by protestors outside of the concert venue.

    ASSESSMENT: Review the scene by clicking here. Then, in an email (anthonyzoubek@u-46.org), answer each of the following questions. (Your answers must be complete sentences. Your answers should also be clear and concise. Write in such a way that someone who has not watched the movie would understand your point.)

    1. What is Manson claiming? That is, what is his specific argument about society?

    2. What evidence does he cite? What are the strengths and the flaws in Manson’s argument?

    3. Manson’s music is intentionally shocking, and his music videos were intentionally disturbing. If your only exposure to Manson is his music and videos, then it would be hard to take him seriously in this interview. What, then, gives him credibility? Why does he have the right to make this argument, and why should we take him seriously? (Consider not only the content of his argument but also the way he presents it and himself.)

    4. Outside of the concert venue, a protestor take to a podium and microphone. What is his overarching claim? (Please note: His argument is not “Manson shouldn’t perform tonight.” These protesters are using this event as an excuse to make a larger point.)

    5. Review the following handouts regarding logical fallacies. You can find them below...

    Lesson One: Click here.

    Lesson Two: Click here.

    Lesson Three: Click here.

    Lesson Four: Click here.

    Each handout contains the specific names of specific fallacies, which you are required to know and identify.

    Now consider the protestor’s argument, which is deeply flawed. What specific logical fallacies does the protester evoke and when? Please be as clear as possible; cite exactly what the protestor says, which fallacy this statement demonstrates, and what the protestor is trying to do by evoking this fallacy. Try to find at least three specific fallacies.

    6. Finally, revisit a separate clip from Bowling For Columbine by clicking here. In it, Moore conducts another interview, this time with Matt Stone, co-creator of the cartoon South Park. Not long after this moment in the documentary, Moore shows us a “cartoon history” of the United States.

    The cartoon makes an argument about American culture, fear, and violence. While that claim has merit, many moments in the cartoon hinge on logical fallacies. Point to three moments in the cartoon that are illogical; explain which specific fallacy is being evoked in each of those three moments; explain what Moore is trying to do in those three moments; explain why Moore is unsuccessful.

    7. Finally, answer this question: Who produced the "cartoon history" Moore uses? Don’t look it up. By interviewing Stone, showing us a South Park clip, and then showing this cartoon, what does Moore infer about this cartoon and where it came from?

    FRIDAY, APRIL 24, 2020:

    BOWLING FOR TRUTH

    NEW MATERIAL: The title Bowling For Columbine is a play on words. In the 1970s, there was a popular game show called Bowling For Dollars. Comedian Steve Martin used it as an inspiration for a stand-up routine called Bowling For S---. There was a band in the 1990s called Bowling For Soup. Moore took the "Bowling For" phrasing and attached it to "Columbine" based on what he called "a little known fact" about the high school tragedy.

    REVIEW: Please review scenes from the movie wherein Moore explains his "little known fact" about Columbine and bowling (click here). After watching the clip in its entirety, click here and read Mr. Zoubek's behind-the-scenes interview with one of the people you briefly saw in those scenes. (Please read the document in full. Do not just "skim.")

    ASSESSMENT: Using dictionary.com, look up the following words: "literal," "accuracy," "core," and "truth." Find their actual definitions, then copy-and-paste them into a Google Doc. Next, consider what you now know about the title Bowling For Columbine. As a concept, the movie's name supports one of Moore's biggest claims: When it comes to gun violence, our excuses are often ridiculous; we tend to "point the finger" at everything in society but gun culture. However, Moore's "the little known fact" (upon which the title is based) is, itself, extremely questionable.

    Now review this statement made by one of the interviewees in today's reading:

    "There is literal accuracy, as in the documentarian [having] all his facts straight. And then there is ‘core truth,’ that which is found in the significance of the situation being represented, through which errors in detail may not undermine the point of the documentary as a whole. That is one of the things I am inclined to think about Bowling for Columbine. Moore may be significantly warping some of his details, but the question about whether his basic take on the culture of violence in American society remains valid.”

    Using your Google Doc, take all of this into account and respond thoroughly: Do you agree with that interviewee's statement? (Consider that one of Moore's misquoted sources agrees with it.) Your response should be, at minimum, eight sentences. Structure your response as an argument. State your claim (the answer to my question). Provide a warrant; why should we care? Point to evidence (from the clips and reading). Address the counterargument and rebut it.

    You should cite specific information from both the clip and the reading. Do not generalize. Email your response to anthonyzoubek@u-46.org

    THURSDAY, APRIL 23, 2020:

    WMD IN LITTLETON, CO

    REVIEW FOR TODAY'S ASSIGNMENT: Throughout Bowling For Columbine, Moore makes connections between violence and culture. He visits Littleton, Colorado, home to Columbine High School.

    NEW MATERIAL: Review Moore's visit to Littleton, by clicking here and then here. Once you have finished watching both clips, click here to read about what was happening "behind the scenes" while these sequences were being filmed.

    ASSESSMENT: After (and only after) watching both clips and reading (NOT "skimming") the "behind the scenes" information, answer these questions (click here). Submit your responses to Mr. Zoubek (anthonyzoubek@u-46.org).

    TUESDAY, APRIL 21, 2020:

    MORE MOORE FROM MICHIGAN

    REVIEW FOR TODAY’S ASSIGNMENT: Foremost, if you have not completed the lesson from Friday, April 17, 2020, and Monday, April 20, 20202, please do so. (Without that lesson completed, today's work will make little-to-no sense.)

    NEW MATERIAL: Moore's interviews with several "Michiganders" serves to provide his argument with counterarguments. If we are to believe Moore's insinuation that his "home state" is a "gun-lover's paradise," then Moore must get the perspective of people who own and appreciate guns in order to address the counterargument to his own argument. Please start by revisiting this clip from the movie (click here) and this clip (click here).

    ASSESSMENT: After (and only after) watching both clips, answer these questions (click here). Submit your responses to Mr. Zoubek (anthonyzoubek@u-46.org).

    MONDAY, APRIL 202020:

    HE CALLS IT HOME

    REVIEW FOR TODAY’S ASSIGNMENT: Foremost, if you have not completed the lesson from Friday, April 17, 2020, please do so. (Without that lesson completed, today's work will make little-to-no sense.)

    In The Greatest Movie Ever Sold, documentarian Morgan Spurlock makes the argument that we should avoid confusing fame (“celebrity”) and credibility (“ethos”). In Bowling For Columbine, documentarian Michael Moore makes several arguments about fear, consumption, violence, and gun control. But first, Moore spends time establishing his integrity.

    NEW MATERIAL: To be “believable,” Moore must convince us that he has personal commitments—not just to the arguments he makes, but also the people within his movie (whose comments he points to as “evidence” in support of his various claims). In other words, Moore needs us to know that he is an “authority” on the issues he raises, while also remaining “relatable.” He cannot look like a celebrity. He needs to look and sound like “one of us.” (Recall “The Bank Scene,” which you reviewed last Friday, and how Moore looks and dresses. Why does Moore make himself look this way? Why does he purposefully dress this way? How does he want us to feel? What does he want us to think?)

    As you watch today's clip, based on what we see and hear, why is Moore, more than most, personally connected to the subject of the movie and the people with whom he speaks? Click here to watch today's clip.

    ASSESSMENT: Please follow each of the steps very carefully...

    (1.) Open today's worksheet by clicking here. It will require you to go back and revisit specific parts from the clip.

    (2.) Only after your worksheet is complete, click here and read a one-page excerpt from Mr. Zoubek's book.

    (3.) A year after Mr. Zoubek’s book was published, two documentary films where made about Moore’s life. Click here to watch a brief clip from the first one, and click here to watch a brief clip from the second one.

    (4.) When you submit your completed worksheet for this lesson (anthonyzoubek@u-46.org), in the body of your email, please also respond to the following…

    Among many logical fallacies, we discussed the appeal to false authority. This takes place when a rhetor offers himself and his experiences as “an authority” as evidence that is sufficient enough to prove a point. (“I am the evidence.”) We also discussed hasty generalizations, which are the basis for stereotypes about people or institutions. (Because a few people in a large group are observed to act or behave in a certain way, the rhetor infers that all members of that group inevitably, unmistakably, undeniably behave similarly.) Using all of the information you were provided throughout this lesson—the clip from Bowling for Columbine, your answers to the worksheet questions, the excerpt from Mr. Zoubek’s book, and the clips from the documentaries about Moore’s life—explain how more appeals to false authority or hasty generalizations as he establishes his ethos in the clip you watched today.

    FRIDAYAPRIL 172020:

    LET'S GO BOWLING!

    REVIEW FOR TODAY’S ASSIGNMENT: As discussed over several recent distance learning lessons, documentarian Morgan Spurlock is a rhetor not unlike Michael Moore; both directors make movies that are less about “informing you” and more about making rhetorical arguments. One of the most interesting observations Spurlock makes in The Greatest Movie Ever Sold is that we cannot help but make a connection between fame (“celebrity”) and credibility (“ethos”). With all of that in mind….

    NEW MATERIAL: Pretend like we are back in the classroom. The bell rings. Class begins. Mr. Zoubek turns on his projector and speaks.

    I’d like to take you back in time, to when I was in high school, and an experience I had watching an argumentative (rhetorical) documentary in an English class. For the first time, I realized that I was making a connection between fame and credibility.

    As a teenager, I wanted to be a journalist and a movie critic. And it started after a teacher screened the documentary film Roger and Me. It was made by someone you might recognize. Before going any further, please click here and watch the original movie trailer (“preview”) from back when Roger and Me was shown in theaters.

    I was 14-going-on-15-years-old when I first saw Roger and Me. If you couldn’t tell from the Roger and Me preview, Michael Moore establishes his ethos as “a rebel.” He's "just a guy with a movie camera and a microphone" living life in his hometown, Flint, Michigan. When I was a teenager, Moore was unlike any “journalist” I’d ever seen. He wears jeans and a baseball cap. He’s overweight. He’s unshaven. And in many ways, Flint looked an awful lot like where I lived.

    I trusted Moore. How could I not? “He’s just like me!” I thought.

    And moreover… he’s one of us…

    He’s just like you…

    Relatability. Is there any better way to establish your credibility other than that?

    I followed (and admired) Moore’s career from that point on. I saw all of his movies. I watched all of his television shows. I went to college and earned a degree in journalism. I actually met Moore, when he did a personal appearance on a college campus. And I was first in line when his movie, Bowling for Columbine, came out in theaters when I was in my twenties.

    It was funny… and thought-provoking… and heartbreaking…

    But… something about it seemed a little... “off”… I had that feeling about five minutes into the film, following “The Bank Scene.” Take a moment to review that scene by clicking here.

    By this time in my life, I was going to college, writing for my campus newspaper, and freelance reporting on the side. I learned how to find sources, check facts for accuracy, and properly interview people. That “journalism training” kicked in as I watched the movie. Discussing it a day or so later with my friends, I expressed why I felt so conflicted: “The argument this movie is making—the connection between ‘consumption’ and ‘fear’ is spot-on… But should a ‘documentary’ be ‘arguing’ something in the first place? I thought a ‘documentary’ was supposed to be ‘just the facts, no opinion.’ And that scene at the bank? Moore asks, ‘Don’t you think it’s dangerous handing out guns in a bank?’ Why didn’t we get to hear the answer?”

    My best friend replied, “You’re the reporter. Why don’t you find out?”

    So I did. I went and saw the movie again. This time, I took my notepad.

    Now before reading any further, if you didn’t review the bank scene above—or if you’d like to take one more look at it—click here to do so. (Note what happens in the clip at the 1:15 minute-marker; I’d like to know what you notice!)

    Watching the movie for a second time—among pages of other notes—I wrote down the name of the bank and bank teller. (You can see her nameplate when Moore first walks in.) I also took down the name of Moore’s publicist, which was listed in the end-credits. Using whitepages.com, I found them and gave them a call. My interviews, which you can read by clicking here, became the foundation for a series of newspaper articles I wrote… which then became a larger magazine article… which then became a book.

    Over the next series of distance learning lessons, I am going to have you pick apart certain scenes from the movie, specifically Moore’s use of rhetorical devices (some of which are appropriate and some of which are fallacious). Ultimately, what I’d like you to consider these questions.

    How do you go about defending someone’s argument when you have a difficult time defending the person making the argument?

    How can you legitimately say, “While the claim you’re making is absolutely correct, the way you’re making it is questionable, and sometimes fallacious.”

    In short: Is it possible to believe the message even when you have reason to doubt the ways that message is being conveyed?  

    Monday, we will dive much, much deeper. Until then…

    ASSESSMENT: Email Mr. Zoubek (anthonyzoubek@u-46.org) with a short “reaction statement” to this online lesson—what it made you think about and why. What came to mind throughout this lesson as you moved from point-to-point? What struck you as being the most interesting? What struck you as confusing? What do you want to know more about? Please be specific.

    THURSDAYAPRIL 162020CATCH UP (AND CLEAR OUT)

    CONTEXT (“BACKGROUND”) YOU NEED TO KNOW FOR TODAY’S ASSIGNMENT: To make room on this webpage for new assignments and video clips, all of the posted assignments below need to be moved. Today is your day to play catch up (so that Mr. Zoubek can clear it out). If you have not completed any of the assignments below (dating all the way back to the start of distance learning), please use today to finish and submit them. If you are caught up, then you are free and clear for today. For everyone else, please use this opportunity to earn distance learning credit. Again, starting tomorrow, all of the assignments and video clips below will be archieved. 

    INSTRUCTIONS FOR THIS ASSIGNMENT (“PUTTING IT ALL TOGETHER”): Email all work to Mr. Zoubek (anthonyzoubek@u-46.org) upon completion 

     WEDNESDAYAPRIL 152020SOLD (PART FOUR)

    CONTEXT (“BACKGROUND”) YOU NEED TO KNOW FOR TODAY’S ASSIGNMENT: As discussed over several recent distance learning lessons, documentarian Morgan Spurlock is a rhetor not unlike Michael Moore; both directors make movies that are less about “informing you” and more about making rhetorical arguments. As mentioned in previous distance learning lessons, Spurlock (like Moore) “inserts himself” into his movies like a “character” exploring the subject. But again, please be fully aware—Spurlock isn’t “making discoveries” while his cameras roll. He knows exactly what he is looking for; he has a claim he wants to prove, and he’s using his journey as “evidence” to convince you of his point.

    INSTRUCTIONS FOR THIS ASSIGNMENT (“PUTTING IT ALL TOGETHER”): Today, watch the final excerpt from the movie by clicking here. As you watch excerpts from the film, answer as many questions as you can from Mr. Zoubek’s worksheet (click here). Email Mr. Zoubek (anthonyzoubek@u-46.org) your finished work.

    TUESDAYAPRIL 142020SOLD (PART THREE)

    CONTEXT (“BACKGROUND”) YOU NEED TO KNOW FOR TODAY’S ASSIGNMENT: As discussed over several recent distance learning lessons, documentarian Morgan Spurlock is a rhetor not unlike Michael Moore; both directors make movies that are less about “informing you” and more about making rhetorical arguments.

    At first, Spurlock’s 2011 documentary The Greatest Movie Ever Sold seems to be an unbiased, straightforward look at advertising. (We are surrounded by product placement. So why don’t we see it, even though it’s sitting right in front of our faces?) To this point in watching clips from the movie, you probably haven’t realized that Spurlock isn’t “searching for the answer.” He already has an answer in mind; he is purposefully seeking out evidence to “prove” that answer. That point bears repeating: Spurlock is not “reporting information” so much as using it prove a claim he had in mind long before his cameras ever started rolling.

    NEW MATERIAL FOR TODAY: So why do we buy what we buy? What forces quietly work to keep you purchasing things you do not need based on promises that cannot be kept? Spurlock’s claims are very similar to those made by Moore in Bowling for Columbine (when he discusses the link between fear and consumerism). As mentioned in previous distance learning lessons, Spurlock (like Moore) “inserts himself” into his movies like a “character” exploring the subject. But again, please be fully aware—Spurlock isn’t “making discoveries” while his cameras roll. He knows exactly what he is looking for; he has a claim he wants to prove, and he’s using his journey as “evidence” to convince you of his point.

    This is made even more interesting when you consider that The Greatest Movie Ever Sold is, in and of itself, about the concept of rhetoric. While (1) making an argument about (2) people and companies whose arguments surround us, often without us realizing it, Spurlock himself is (3) making an argument, (4) without us realizing it, (5) using the same techniques as the people and companies he examines… Everything comes full circle!

    INSTRUCTIONS FOR THIS ASSIGNMENT (“PUTTING IT ALL TOGETHER”): Over the next several distance learning lessons, Mr. Zoubek will post 10-15-minute-long scenes from the movie. He cannot post the entire movie, but it is likely available through online movie rental platforms if you would like to watch the entire film on your own. You have now watched two clips from the movie. Click here to watch a third clip. As you watch excerpts from the film, answer as many questions as you can from Mr. Zoubek’s worksheet (click here). Email Mr. Zoubek (anthonyzoubek@u-46.org) your finished work. 

    MONDAY, APRIL 13, 2020SOLD (PART TWO)

    CONTEXT (“BACKGROUND”) YOU NEED TO KNOW FOR TODAY’S ASSIGNMENT: Morgan Spurlock is a documentarian. Each of his movies makes an argument. Much like Michael Moore, Spurlock makes his argument by “inserting himself” into his movies, as a “character” who is personally exploring the subject. In his 2011 documentary The Greatest Movie Ever Sold, Spurlock looks at how rhetoric impacts our culture through the marketing of products (even when you don’t realize that you’re being “sold” products in everyday situations).

    INSTRUCTIONS FOR THIS ASSIGNMENT (“PUTTING IT ALL TOGETHER”): Over the next several distance learning lessons, Mr. Zoubek will post 10-15-minute-long scenes from the movie. He cannot post the entire movie, but it is likely available through online movie rental platforms if you would like to watch the entire film on your own. Last Thursday, you watched the opening of the movie. Click here to watch today’s clip. As you watch excerpts from the film, answer as many questions as you can from Mr. Zoubek’s worksheet (click here). Email Mr. Zoubek (anthonyzoubek@u-46.org) your finished work.

    THURSDAY, APRIL 9, 2020SOLD (PART ONE)

    PURPOSE: Soon, we will tie together our most recent study topics (logical fallacies, groupthink, Bowling for Columbine, and its arguments regarding gun control and “the culture of fear”). However, when we all left school on March 13, Mr. Zoubek left all of his Debate (Argumentation) study materials in his cubicle. The building has been locked ever since.

    Mr. Zoubek will be allowed to retrieve those study materials late Thursday afternoon. For now, we will spend three distance learning lessons on material Mr. Zoubek planned to tackle after Bowling for Columbine.

    CONTEXT (“BACKGROUND”) YOU NEED TO KNOW FOR TODAY’S ASSIGNMENT: You may have seen Morgan Spurlock before. This filmmaker, humorist, television producer, screenwriter, and playwright became famous by directing and starring in the Academy Award-nominated documentary Supersize Me, a controversial look at health and fast food. (That movie is required viewing in many American high school Health courses.) Spurlock operates much in the same way as Michael Moore—making an argument in a movie wherein he “inserts himself” as a “character,” personally exploring the subject. In his 2011 documentary The Greatest Movie Ever Sold, Spurlock looks at how rhetoric impacts our culture through the marketing of products (even when you don’t realize that you’re being “sold” products in everyday situations).

    INSTRUCTIONS FOR THIS ASSIGNMENT (“PUTTING IT ALL TOGETHER”): Over the next several distance learning lessons, Mr. Zoubek will post 10-15-minute-long scenes from the movie. He cannot post the entire movie, but it is likely available through online movie rental platforms if you would like to watch the entire film on your own. Click here to watch today’s clip. As you watch excerpts from the film, answer as many questions as you can from Mr. Zoubek’s worksheet (click here). Email Mr. Zoubek (anthonyzoubek@u-46.org) your finished work.

    WEDNESDAYAPRIL 82020GROUPTHINK

    PURPOSE: Over the last several lessons, we discussed controversial debate strategies known as fallacies. (You have likely encounted fallacies in discussions regarding COVID-19.) Fallacies—which are also known as fallacious arguments—are flawed by their structure. They sound logical… until you take a step back and deconstruct them.

    Today, we will examine the fallacy of groupthink. Please click here and watch an introductory video clip.

    Groupthink is unique among logical fallacies. Sometimes it is not an "intentional strategy." Groupthink is more often a psychological phenomenon that occurs within a group of people, when they are debating in order to arrive at a solution to a problem. The desire for "group harmony" can result in irrational or dysfunctional decision-making. The desire to minimize conflict within the group means that members reach a consensus-decision without any critical evaluation. The fallacy of groupthink results in groups of thinkers not considering alternative solutions. This results in a loss of individual creativity and independent thinking.

    Groupthink is often the result (or consequence of) the inflated ego of a specific individual within the group (usually someone who is in the leadership position).

    CONTEXT (“BACKGROUND”) YOU NEED TO KNOW FOR TODAY’S ASSIGNMENT: When groups convene to debate and resolve problems, they are frequently hampered by group members’ random behavior. Even when they get down the business, the group strays. When discussions become loose and vague, groups lose track of where they are going. Sometimes one person monopolizes the conversation while others become hostile or remain silent. Sometimes groups just cannot seem to get started. At such times, members may blame their designated leader. A group leader has the responsibility of keeping the group moving. Furthermore, a leader needs to balance structure with interaction. That is, an effective leader should facilitate rather than dictate how the group will conduct itself; the leader must also have an agenda, and keep the group focused on that agenda. Additionally, a strong leader will give group participants the chance to shape the agenda, providing the group as a whole with “ownership” over the group’s central task.

    Still, inasmuch as a leader gives a group structure and ensures participant interaction, each participant has similar obligations. In many respects, each participant has leadership responsibilities, too. The world “leadership” means “to influence.” 

    INSTRUCTIONS FOR THIS ASSIGNMENT (“PUTTING IT ALL TOGETHER”): Please read a handout that would have been distributed to you in class (click here), then answer the questions on this Google Doc (click here). (Submit your work finished work electronically to anthonyzoubek@u-46.org.)

     TUESDAYAPRIL 72020LOGICAL FALLACIES (DAY FOUR)

    PURPOSE: Logical fallacies can relate to ethos (a rhetor's credibility or the credibility of a rhetor's sources), pathos (a rhetor's appeals to our emotions), and, as we learned yesterday, logos (fallacies demonstrated by an argument's illogical conclusions). 

    CONTEXT (“BACKGROUND”) YOU NEED TO KNOW FOR TODAY’S ASSIGNMENT: As stated in previous distance learning assignments, you should avoid using similar fallacies in your own arguments; you should challenge them when they appear in the arguments that other people present to you. Think of fallacies not in terms of the errors you can detect and expose in someone else’s work, but rather as flaws in reasoning. Fallacies are strategies that, in the long run, hurt everyone—including the person using them. They make productive arguments more difficult. Fallacies cloud the civil conversations people should be able to have (regardless of their differences) to come to a consensus and better society.

    INSTRUCTIONS FOR THIS ASSIGNMENT (“PUTTING IT ALL TOGETHER”): Please read a handout that would have been distributed to you in class (by clicking here), then complete the questions that would have been assigned to you (by clicking here). Submit your work electronically to anthonyzoubek@u-46.org.

    MONDAYAPRIL 62020LOGICAL FALLACIES (DAY THREE)

    PURPOSE: Last week, we discussed logical fallacies as they relate to ethos (a rhetor's credibility or the credibility of a rhetor's sources) and pathos (a rhetor's appeals to our emotions). For purposes of review, in general, logical fallacies are unethical debate strategies. They allow rhetors to unfairly "reshape" arguments to their benefit. Some fallacies rely on our emotions. Some fallacies make us question someone else's credibility or authority for false or illogical reasons. Today marks the first to two lessons where we will focus specifically on logos. What fallacies hinge entirely on an argument's illogical conclusions? 

    CONTEXT (“BACKGROUND”) YOU NEED TO KNOW FOR TODAY’S ASSIGNMENT: To start, please click here to watch another clip from the movie Thank You For Smoking. In this scene, Nick—a government lobbyist who uses logical fallacies to defend the tobacco industry—sits as his son completes homework. Nick's son is having difficulty with an essay question. He discusses it with his father. Nick reveals that the teacher's question is, in fact, a fallacy unto itself. The essay prompt "begs the question" (a term you will learn about in today's lesson). It is also founded on a hasty generalization (another term you will learn about in today's lesson).

    As stated in previous distance learning assignments, you should avoid using similar fallacies in your own arguments; you should challenge them when they appear in the arguments that other people present to you. Think of fallacies not in terms of the errors you can detect and expose in someone else’s work, but rather as flaws in reasoning. Fallacies are strategies that, in the long run, hurt everyone—including the person using them. They make productive arguments more difficult. Fallacies cloud the civil conversations people should be able to have (regardless of their differences) to come to a consensus and better society.

    INSTRUCTIONS FOR THIS ASSIGNMENT (“PUTTING IT ALL TOGETHER”): Please read a handout that would have been distributed to you in class (by clicking here), then complete the questions that would have been assigned to you (by clicking here). Submit your work electronically to anthonyzoubek@u-46.org

    FRIDAY, APRIL 3, 2020LOGICAL FALLACIES (DAY TWO)

    PURPOSE: Yesterday, you were introduced to the concept of logical fallacies—unethical debate strategies through which people “reshape” arguments to their benefit. You focused on fallacies that dishonestly appeal to emotions. Today, we will look at appeals to ethos, and fallacies that deal with credibility and authority.

    CONTEXT (“BACKGROUND”) YOU NEED TO KNOW FOR TODAY’S ASSIGNMENT: To start, please click here and watch a famous commercial for Camel Cigarettes, which aired on television in the 1950s.

    Commercials such as this one were common on North American television until April 1, 1971, when the U.S. Federal Communications Commission banned them from the airwaves. Leading up to that historic moment, tobacco companies were the single-largest product advertisers on television. (Even The Flintstones, a family-friendly cartoon, was sponsored by a cigarette company!) Any commercial is a minute-long argument; an advertiser tries to convince consumers to make a purchase. Cigarette companies relied heavily on logical fallacies to do this. Their most effective advertisements leaned on such statements as “more doctors smoke our brand over other brands” (leading some people to the highly illogical conclusion that cigarettes must be healthy for you, since they are used by doctors).

    The comedic film Thank You For Smoking pokes fun at this. Please click here and watch a scene from the movie in which Nick—a lobbyist for the tobacco industry—visits his son’s classroom. He’s there to talk about what he does for a living. Over the course of the scene, Nick humorously demonstrates how the students can question the authority of their own parents. Of course, Nick is wrong, and his technique is highly unethical. But the young students, who lack critical thinking skills, buy his argument. Sadly, even adults with critical thinking skills can fall into similar traps.

    Take a step back. Deconstruct Nick’s statements. You should avoid using similar fallacies in your own arguments; you should challenge them when they appear in the arguments that other people present to you. Think of fallacies not in terms of the errors you can detect and expose in someone else’s work, but rather as flaws in reasoning. As we learned yesterday, fallacies are strategies that, in the long run, hurt everyone—including the person using them. They make productive arguments more difficult. Fallacies cloud the civil conversations people should be able to have (regardless of their differences) to come to a consensus and better society.

    INSTRUCTIONS FOR THIS ASSIGNMENT (“PUTTING IT ALL TOGETHER”): Please read a handout that would have been distributed to you in class (by clicking here), then complete the questions that would have been assigned to you (by clicking here). Submit your work electronically to anthonyzoubek@u-46.org.

    THURSDAY, APRIL 2, 2020AN INTRODUCTION TO FALLACIES (PART ONE)

     PURPOSE: Yesterday’s lesson discussed fear and the impact it can have on our decision-making, especially when someone is making an argument. Today, we will take that subject and connect it to a broader issue in debate—the use of logical fallacies.

    CONTEXT (“BACKGROUND”) YOU NEED TO KNOW FOR TODAY’S ASSIGNMENT: To start, please click here and watch a clip from the comedic film Thank You For Smoking. The movie is about a lobbyist—someone who works on behalf of a corporation or an organization, to sway public opinion and the passing of legislation. In the film, Nick—the father featured in the clip—is a lobbyist for the tobacco industry. Nick’s job is to sway the public and politicians to stop antismoking laws. That bears repeating: Nick’s job is to argue on television and in Washington D.C. that people should smoke, and that lawmakers should stop making laws that prevent the public from smoking. This requires the use of questionable debate techniques.

    In the scene, having a conversation with his son, Nick demonstrates how to (unethically) “reshape” an argument—that is, how to quickly (and dishonestly) manipulate a debate, such that it seems as if you “won.” Rather than having an intelligent, thoughtful, productive discussion in which two people freely exchange ideas, Nick “distracts” his son (or his “opponent”). His son accepts the resolution when, in fact, there was no resolution whatsoever.

    This is what Nick does for a living—he lobbies politicians and the general public using techniques such as this one. Thank You For Smoking is a comedy. But sadly, what Nick demonstrates happens every single day.

    Controversial debate strategies such as the one illustrated in the clip are known as fallacies. Fallacies are dishonest. Yet, they appear in countless (seemingly legitimate) arguments. You have likely encounted fallacies in discussions regarding COVID-19. Without critical thinking skills, we tend to accept fallacies at face value.

    Fallacies—which are also known as fallacious arguments—are flawed by their structure. They sound logical… until you take a step back and deconstruct them. You should avoid using fallacies in your own arguments; you should challenge them when they appear in the arguments that other people present to you. Think of fallacies not in terms of the errors you can detect and expose in someone else’s work, but rather as flaws in reasoning. Fallacies are strategies that, in the long run, hurt everyone—including the person using them. They make productive arguments more difficult. Fallacies cloud the civil conversations people should be able to have (regardless of their differences) to come to a consensus and better society.

    INSTRUCTIONS FOR THIS ASSIGNMENT (“PUTTING IT ALL TOGETHER”): What exactly is a fallacy? Why should the use of fallacies be avoided? Please read a handout that would have been distributed to you in class (by clicking here) and complete the questions that would have been assigned to you (by clicking here). Submit your work electronically to anthonyzoubek@u-46.org.

    WEDNESDAY, APRIL 12020:

    DECONSTRUCTING EMOTIONAL RESPONSES ("CORONAVIRUS, ANXIETY, AND FEAR")

    PURPOSE: The purpose of today’s assignment is to revisit issues raised in the movie Bowling for Columbine, which was our focus in class before break...

    CONTEXT (“BACKGROUND”) YOU NEED TO KNOW FOR TODAY’S ASSIGNMENT: During our last in-class lesson, we discussed several “debate-worthy” issues, notably gun control and our “culture of fear.” We will return to Bowling for Columbine sometime next week. However, it will require some “Distance Learning modifications.” That process is time-consuming. In the interim, we will explore several related topics…

    The term “culture of fear” is used to describe circumstances when actions by the government and statements by the media lead Americans to arm themselves. Let’s take a moment to clarify what that means. There is such a thing as “healthy fear.” For example, as we deal with the COVID-19 pandemic, it is understandable—and even recommended—that we exhibit some anxiety as a society. “Healthy fear”—being anxious about something that’s legitimate—makes us cautious, and caution prevents us from making poor decisions. It is understandable and necessary that we express some worry about a public health crisis. That said, “unhealthy fear” is when we let that anxiety get the best of us. Consider, for example, the series of headlines featured at Google News over the last ten days—click here to see those headlines as a collage.

    To be clear: Stocking-piling toilet paper may be silly. Stocking up on bleach wipes, soaps, and disinfectants is an understandable safety precaution. Whether or not there’s a “need” to buy ammunition is debatable. Again, we can (and to a healthy extent, we should) feel threatened by the coronavirus; we cannot deny that it brings a sense of uncertainty to our lives. But why do we also feel threatened by our fellow man?

    Psychologists believe that uncertainty about the things that threaten us worsens our feeling of “not being in control.” Consider the following statistic: 78-percent of all Americans do not own guns. Yet, over 300 million guns are owned by Americans. Gunowners represent a small minority within our populous. The average gunowner has anywhere from eight to 22 weapons in their possession. Please note: That statistic is just that—a statistic. It is not a judgement. Gun ownership is every American’s 2nd Amendment right. That said, those numbers make some wonder why, in any crisis situation, a significant number of gunowners feel compelled to stock up. (Again, consider the collage of recent headlines.) Healthcare—not gunpowder—provides us with the only means by which to battle COVID-19.

    Recall Barry Glassner, the University of Southern California professor who appeared in Bowling for Columbine. Glassner is an expert on culture and deviant behavior. In his writings, he discusses America’s fears and why so many of them are unfounded. In the movie, Glassner made the ironic point that, in a country with so much “unhealthy fear,” perhaps we should not have ammo so readily accessible.

    According to Glassner, our fears are fueled by the news and politicians, and then exploited for profit and power. These fears, however, are disproportionate to any real danger. Again, there is a key distinction between “productive fear”—washing your hands regularly and avoiding social contact—and “unproductive fear”—fearing that your neighborhood will be overrun by crime because of the pandemic. There is no logical connection between staying indoors to prevent the spread of a virus (a reality) and the idea that the pandemic will fill our neighborhoods with crime (something that is highly unlikely). And yet, some people in society make it sound like the worldwide panic warrants us to arm ourselves. When some people have toilet paper, hand sanitizer, and bullets all on the same shopping list, it should give us pause.

    INSTRUCTIONS FOR THIS ASSIGNMENT (“PUTTING IT ALL TOGETHER”): The television news program CBS Sunday Morning recently produced an overview of coronoavirus and the culture of fear. Please click here to watch the video, and here to open today's assignment. Please complete the assignment and email it (or "share it") with Mr. Zoubek (anthonyzoubek@u-46.org). 

    -- OLDER ASSIGNMENTS -- 

    TUESDAY, MARCH 31, 2020:

    DECONSTRUCTING AN ARGUMENT ("STAY HOME!")

    PURPOSE: The purpose of today’s assignment is to apply what we learned to a “real world” situation…

    CONTEXT (“BACKGROUND”) YOU NEED TO KNOW FOR TODAY’S ASSIGNMENT: Shortly after the COVID-19 outbreak, Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker started to host daily televised press conferences. He declared a statewide disaster proclamation; he announced the closing of bars and restaurants; he issued a “stay-at-home” order; and he grew increasingly frustrated by younger Illinois residents who continued to engage in social behaviors that spread the illness. COVID-19 is significantly more dangerous in older patients; 80-percent of all deaths associated with virus are adults over the age of 65. Yet, some young people refuse to practice “social distancing,” or take the threat of the virus seriously. Young people can carry the virus, not show or feel symptoms, and still pass it on to others—notably their elders. Contrary to popular belief, young people are not “immune” to COVID-19; they can become sick and require substantial medical attention. Nonetheless, no matter how many arguments they hear from the experts, it is hard to convince young people that changing their behavior is essential to slowing the outbreak.

    At one of his press conferences, with infections on the rise, Pritzker asked Dr. Emily Landon, the chief infectious disease epidemiologist at University of Chicago Medicine, to speak to young Illinoisians. Please click here and watch Landon’s persuasive (argumentative) speech in its entirety. (The text of the entire speech can be read by clicking here.)

    Her presentation received national attention. Writers for the Washington Post newspaper said that Landon: “outlined with clarity and urgency how seemingly small sacrifices” will “prevent deaths of loved ones and strangers.” The Post reported that Valerie Gunn, a Chicago marketing professional, thought that “[Landon] was very human” and “did a good job of sounding the alarm without making me feel like I need to go buy everything in the grocery store.” Michael Patrick Thornton, a Chicago actor and theater creative director, observed that “Landon’s comments provided the information and professionalism lacking in the government’s remarks… I heard a very clear story about shared responsibility in a time of pandemic.”

    INSTRUCTIONS FOR THIS ASSIGNMENT (“PUTTING IT ALL TOGETHER”): Please consider all of the following…

    (A) Every argument is “designed to influence… to inform, to convince, to persuade, to explore [and] to make decisions.”

    (B) Aristotle’s rhetorical “formula” requires that a good rhetor exhibit ethos, pathos, and logos.

    (C) The Toulmin Model (when used to evaluate argument that deals with justice, social problems, or the standards of living in a fair society) stresses that an argument (i) be as organized as possible, (ii) come as close as possible to solving a problem, and (iii) calling people to action to that they can help solve the problem.

    (D) Landon’s speech and the national reaction to her argument.

    Now click here to open a special Google Doc. Using the review above and specific citations from Landon’s speech, answer each of the questions, then submit your work electronically to anthonyzoubek@u-46.org. (“Citations” means pulling quotes directly from the source. You can do this by copying-and-pasting passages from the speech into your answers. However, recall that “evidence” is always proceeded by “elaboration.” Specific excerpts of (“small portions from”) the speech should be used as evidence; in your own words, you need to elaborate on what they prove and how they prove this.)

     

     

    HF Clip 6 here

    HF Clip 7 here

    HF Clip 8 here

    HF Clip 9 here

     

    Greatest Movie Ever Sold here

    Lay's Chips Ad here

    Son of a mill worker here

    The Dean Scream here

    Dean Scream Rock and Roll Part 2 here

    Howard Dean Welcome to the Jungle here

    Bill and Ted here

    Daisy Ad here

    Dukakis helmet here

    Stone Interview here.