1. What aim of argument should have been deployed in this video clip?

The aim of argument that should have been used in this video clip was arguing to convince.

2. How did they violate the aim of argument you chose as your answer for question one?

Both of the men in the clip failed to make a solid case. They offered very little evidence as to why a death tax would be a good or bad thing, all you knew was that one wanted it while the other didn’t. They just used personal anecdote which eventually led them completely off topic all together.

3. List the different ways these two speakers violate each criteria of being a reasonable reasoner.

First thing, they we not well informed AT ALL. They presented little to no factual or statistical evidence to support their stance. They kept interrupting each other so the idea that they were open to constructive criticism can be thrown out the window. They were both fanatics, just blindly arguing their side of the debate without taking into consideration the other persons position at least in the beginning. Towards the end, Steve 1 was not so concerned about the death tax anymore when Stephen 2 agreed to “kill” the “hypothetical person”. They didn’t consider the audience because they were just arguing for their position on the argument because it had some sort of benefit to them not because they were trying to actually accomplish anything or come to some sort of compromise on the subject. They were yelling at each other and cussing as well. This eventually led to them going completely off topic. They vaguely mentioned the arguments context which in my opinion should be an important part of any argument. they vaguely mentioned it was a bill proposal.

4. In your opinion, how did the two Stephens collective disregard for sticking to an aim or using the criteria for the responsible reasoning lead to the final outcome of the clip?

Well, in reality they didn’t even have an argument! They pretty much just stated their stance on the matter. This led to them talking about their “hypothetical” stories and eventually plotting murder while “not” plotting murder. They were able to agree on a price.. so I guess that counts for something.

It honestly points out what I need to do to create a solid argument. Obviously I will pick my side, but all of this information on how to form an argument and present it will hopefully help me get a good grade.