 |
| "Outline." 11/08/15 via Outline Productions |
1. The opening 2 or 3 slides will be context.
a. These will include a basic overview of the general controversy, and the two main issues.
b. They will then discuss the parties involved in the controversy.
c. Finally, they will discuss what sides believe what about the two main issues.
What best fits my argument for the introduction is the Define or Narrow the Controversy category. This is because I need to clarify the issues at hand and the points of view on these issues. My introduction will start with broad context, and narrow in and focus on what my argument centralizes on.
Body:
1. Discuss issue one regarding Froome and doping accusations
a. Re-state the issue
b. State both sides, for Froome and against Froome
c. Argue for Froome and provide data, visuals, and logic to back up my argument
d. Provide the counterarguments against Froome, and refute these using logic and visual support
2. Discuss issue two regarding Froome and Sky and freedom of information/data
a. Re-state the issue
b. State both sides, Froome was in the right in his reaction to the data, and Froome was in the wrong
c. Argue for Froome was in the wrong using logic and pathos to back up my argument
d. Provide counterarguments against Froome being wrong and refute them using logic
Supporting arguments:
Not enough data to prove anything.
Innocent until proven guilty.
Accusations of cheating are very severe and must be substantial to be taken seriously.
Data suggests unordinary but not impossible.
Nothing is definitive.
If Froome has nothing to hide why react in such a way.
Do you really have the power or right to act in such a way over data?
Major Criticisms:
Froome is performing at a level that is inhuman, he has been under question before, and his data suggests something suspicious.
The data rightfully belonged to Sky and was illegally obtained.
Major Support and Rebuttal Points:
As there is not a ton of support or criticism I think it is easily possible that my project addresses all the points listed above.
Topic Sentences:
Ultimately, despite accusations and suspect data, there is not clear data that 100% proves the guilt of Froome.
As the rule of thumb in legal situations, so it must be said about Froome that he is innocent until proven guilty.
Accusations of cheating against Froome are very severe and must be substantial to be taken seriously and acted upon.
The data that is quoted as proving Froome's guilt suggests unordinary human performance, but nothing strictly impossible.
At the end of the day everything that has been brought up against Froome is speculation, any solid data proves nothing, and people are grasping at lose ends to try and say something definitive.
Just because Froome is performing at a level that is questionably human, he has been under question before, and his data suggests something suspicious, does not, by any means, prove something as serious as doping.
The data that Sky owned was quite possibly illegally obtained, but this does not justify or lessen suspicion regarding their reaction to its release.
Evidence:
Evidence and support for these arguments comes from many many many places, all of which are included in my annotated bibliographies.
Conclusion:
My conclusion will mostly be a recap of the sides I am supporting, and a brief overview of my argument. It will then look at the bigger picture of the issue.
The most applicable to my conclusion is the Future of the Debate approach, and I will most likely speculate as to where the Froome controversy will go moving forwards, as well as when the cycling events are that it might resurface as an important issue.
Not enough data to prove anything.
Innocent until proven guilty.
Accusations of cheating are very severe and must be substantial to be taken seriously.
Data suggests unordinary but not impossible.
Nothing is definitive.
If Froome has nothing to hide why react in such a way.
Do you really have the power or right to act in such a way over data?
Major Criticisms:
Froome is performing at a level that is inhuman, he has been under question before, and his data suggests something suspicious.
The data rightfully belonged to Sky and was illegally obtained.
Major Support and Rebuttal Points:
As there is not a ton of support or criticism I think it is easily possible that my project addresses all the points listed above.
Topic Sentences:
Ultimately, despite accusations and suspect data, there is not clear data that 100% proves the guilt of Froome.
As the rule of thumb in legal situations, so it must be said about Froome that he is innocent until proven guilty.
Accusations of cheating against Froome are very severe and must be substantial to be taken seriously and acted upon.
The data that is quoted as proving Froome's guilt suggests unordinary human performance, but nothing strictly impossible.
At the end of the day everything that has been brought up against Froome is speculation, any solid data proves nothing, and people are grasping at lose ends to try and say something definitive.
Just because Froome is performing at a level that is questionably human, he has been under question before, and his data suggests something suspicious, does not, by any means, prove something as serious as doping.
The data that Sky owned was quite possibly illegally obtained, but this does not justify or lessen suspicion regarding their reaction to its release.
Evidence:
Evidence and support for these arguments comes from many many many places, all of which are included in my annotated bibliographies.
 |
| Oh, Mathias "Screenshot of Cluster." 11/08/15 via Coggle |
Conclusion:
My conclusion will mostly be a recap of the sides I am supporting, and a brief overview of my argument. It will then look at the bigger picture of the issue.
The most applicable to my conclusion is the Future of the Debate approach, and I will most likely speculate as to where the Froome controversy will go moving forwards, as well as when the cycling events are that it might resurface as an important issue.
I love that you were able to come up with so many points and arguments and criticisms. This helps you have a really comprehensive argument. It may be hard to choose what it is most important as you do not want to overload your readers. In your conclusion, I would really focus on that second part in which you show the future of the controversy. I think this is really important since, like you said, the debate is likely to come up again in future races.
ReplyDelete