EVIDENCE, WHAT IS IT GOOD FOR?

EVIDENCE:WHAT IS IT GOOD FOR?ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHINGPERSUASION IS MADE OF:ETHOS

LOGOS

PATHOSEthos:the source's credibility, the speaker's/author's authorityLogos:the logic used to support a claim (induction and deduction); can also be the facts and statistics used to help support the argument.Pathos:the emotional or motivational appeals; vivid language, emotional language and numerous sensory details.2WHAT IS EVIDENCE?Evidence is a piece of information that supports a conclusion*

The facts, opinions, etc. of others that influence your perspective on the topic

*Taflinger, R. F. (1996). What is Evidence?. http://public.wsu.edu/~taflinge/evidence.htmlWHY USE EVIDENCE?Add credibility to your arguments

Show academic rigor

Increase critical thinking/reading skills

WHERE DOES EVIDENCE COME FROM?Newspapers

Magazines

Journals

Books

5WHERE DO I FIND EVIDENCE?SMC Library

Credo

Google Scholar/Books

Other national databasesCARDS IN A DEBATE???Not poker cards

Evidence is generally called a card

Collecting evidence is referred to as cutting cards

3 PARTS OF A CARDTag

Citation

BodyA warranted explanation of the tag

Calling homeless persons the homeless creates an us/them distinction that facilitates their marginalization

Daly, Gerald. Professor in the faculty of Environmental Studies at York University, Canada. He has worked with housing agencies and non-profit groups and has published widely on housing, homelessness and comparative planning. Author of Homeless: Policies, strategies and Lives on the Streets. 1996. Pg 8.Researchers are now beginning to address the way society categorizes and responds to homeless individuals. Rather than talk about homeless people as being "disaffiliated," some suggest that it is more appropriate to examine the notion of dissociation as it is applied to homeless people, victims of disasters, and poor inner city residents. These individuals are consigned to the periphery of public consciousness because by failing to conform they violate social norms and offend public sensibilities. We deal with them by dissociation, distancing ourselves to minimize or displace feelings of resentment, fear, contempt, guilt, shame, or conflict. In doing so a cycle of disinterest and disaffection is generated, allowing us to shun collective responsibility. We compartmentalize and place barriers between "us" and "them." We tend to see some things and to ignore others. As a dehumanizing process, the extent of this dualistic dissociation is manifest in the terminology used to describe homeless individuals. Common use of the term "the homeless" instead of "homeless persons" or "people without houses" facilitates the distancing process. "They" become an amorphous, remote, alien mass lacking individuality or even humanity. A sense of community is lost. Definitions and descriptions of "the homeless" expose our personal values and beliefs, especially when homelessness is characterized by what it is not. Our egos yearn "to be free of complexity and of change, of relation, and of needing to know the irksome other" (Keller 1986: 174). TagCiteBody

Calling homeless persons the homeless creates an us/them distinction that facilitates their marginalization

Daly, Gerald. Professor in the faculty of Environmental Studies at York University, Canada. He has worked with housing agencies and non-profit groups and has published widely on housing, homelessness and comparative planning. Author of Homeless: Policies, strategies and Lives on the Streets. 1996. Pg 8.Researchers are now beginning to address the way society categorizes and responds to homeless individuals. Rather than talk about homeless people as being "disaffiliated," some suggest that it is more appropriate to examine the notion of dissociation as it is applied to homeless people, victims of disasters, and poor inner city residents. These individuals are consigned to the periphery of public consciousness because by failing to conform they violate social norms and offend public sensibilities. We deal with them by dissociation, distancing ourselves to minimize or displace feelings of resentment, fear, contempt, guilt, shame, or conflict. In doing so a cycle of disinterest and disaffection is generated, allowing us to shun collective responsibility. We compartmentalize and place barriers between "us" and "them." We tend to see some things and to ignore others. As a dehumanizing process, the extent of this dualistic dissociation is manifest in the terminology used to describe homeless individuals. Common use of the term "the homeless" instead of "homeless persons" or "people without houses" facilitates the distancing process. "They" become an amorphous, remote, alien mass lacking individuality or even humanity. A sense of community is lost. Definitions and descriptions of "the homeless" expose our personal values and beliefs, especially when homelessness is characterized by what it is not. Our egos yearn "to be free of complexity and of change, of relation, and of needing to know the irksome other" (Keller 1986: 174). TagCiteBodyFIND THE WARRANT!C. Internal link Political capital key to START ratification

Sharp, Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation military analyst, 9(Travis, 8-28-9, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, Local priorities vs. national interests in arms control, http://www.thebulletin.org/web-edition/features/local-priorities-vs-national-interests-arms-control, accessed 7-16-10)

While beliefs about national sovereignty and international law matter, when it comes to arms control treaties, ideological considerations rarely trump pork-barrel politics. Would a senator from a state dependent on the nuclear weapons complex oppose an arms control treaty not on the basis of ideology, but because the treaty would mean the loss of jobs or funding in their home state? Absolutely. As such, the Senate could become a stumbling block in President Barack Obama's plans to reduce the U.S. nuclear arsenal and strategic triad of intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs), and strategic bombers. While past treaties such as START I and SORT were approved overwhelmingly by the Senate, those agreements didn't alter the triad's fundamental configuration. Warheads and delivery vehicles were retired, but the constellation of bases and supporting defense contractors, though reduced, remained in place. The force posture being considered by the Obama administration, however, challenges the long-standing status quo and therefore, threatens the local interests of many senators. With a two-thirds Senate majority of 67 votes needed for approval, treaties in the 111th Congress must not only attract support from all 60 caucusing Democratic senators, they must also win affirmation from at least seven Republicans. Based on the guidelines laid out by Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, the upcoming START follow-on shouldn't be hindered by the 67-vote threshold. But what happens after the next round of negotiations, when warhead numbers will really begin to be lowered? Pushing deeper nuclear reductions through the Senate will be extraordinarily difficult and will require a Herculean political effort from the White House. 11FIND THE WARRANT!C. Internal link Political capital key to START ratification

Sharp, Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation military analyst, 9(Travis, 8-28-9, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, Local priorities vs. national interests in arms control, http://www.thebulletin.org/web-edition/features/local-priorities-vs-national-interests-arms-control, accessed 7-16-10)

While beliefs about national sovereignty and international law matter, when it comes to arms control treaties, ideological considerations rarely trump pork-barrel politics. Would a senator from a state dependent on the nuclear weapons complex oppose an arms control treaty not on the basis of ideology, but because the treaty would mean the loss of jobs or funding in their home state? Absolutely. As such, the Senate could become a stumbling block in President Barack Obama's plans to reduce the U.S. nuclear arsenal and strategic triad of intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs), and strategic bombers. While past treaties such as START I and SORT were approved overwhelmingly by the Senate, those agreements didn't alter the triad's fundamental configuration. Warheads and delivery vehicles were retired, but the constellation of bases and supporting defense contractors, though reduced, remained in place. The force posture being considered by the Obama administration, however, challenges the long-standing status quo and therefore, threatens the local interests of many senators. With a two-thirds Senate majority of 67 votes needed for approval, treaties in the 111th Congress must not only attract support from all 60 caucusing Democratic senators, they must also win affirmation from at least seven Republicans. Based on the guidelines laid out by Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, the upcoming START follow-on shouldn't be hindered by the 67-vote threshold. But what happens after the next round of negotiations, when warhead numbers will really begin to be lowered? Pushing deeper nuclear reductions through the Senate will be extraordinarily difficult and will require a Herculean political effort from the White House. The warrant is the last sentence 12