Considering Types

This blog post discusses the type of argument I am considering for my project.

"Dogs Arguing." 10/30/15 via Pets Fans

The argument that I will most likely be using for my project is a position argument. I will be evaluating the basis of the Tour de France controversy involving Froome, and will be giving information that will support a side that I am arguing for.

Mixed into this argument will be refutation, which will argue against certain views. This is because I am taking different sides for different situations of the controversy, and must explain why the other side is less valid.

The arguments that I will not be using, and that are not as useful, are casual, evaluative, and proposal arguments. This is because the basis of these arguments revolve around providing a solution, which I will not be doing. There is no solution to the issue I am discussing, merely sides to be taken and positions to be defended.



After reading Chris and Austin's posts I realized what a wide variety of arguments people will be using in their projects. Ultimately there is no right or wrong answer for what type of argument you chose, it just depends on your personal approach and style, and your topic of choice. Everything is dependent on fitting your argument to your goals and purposes, which leads to different results for each person in the class. Also, I think that 2 or 3 types of arguments is a perfect number, that will give me and my peers enough content, but not too much to think about.

My Rhetorical Action Plan

This blog post includes a discussion of my plan moving forwards in relation to audience, genre, and reactions.

"Green Action Plan 2010." 10/30/15 via Riverside Public Utilities

Audience:
1. My audience will, for the most part, have general knowledge regarding the context of the controversy. Most of them will have preconceived ideas and beliefs about Froome's situation, and I will have to change some of their minds.

2. The primary values at hand are honesty in the sport of cycling, and the rights regarding public availability of data, as well as the protection of personal data.

3. I think the primary research for persuading my audience revolves around data. Numbers don't lie, and having research that can definitively say one thing or another will be extremely useful in crafting an argument and supporting it.

4. Displaying this data visually with graphs or video will be far more effective and easy to understand than just words on paper.

5. My audience primarily be interested in my argument for resolution, as much of what was written about Froome after the controversy was mere speculation. For this reason I am trying to convince them of a certain belief, and they can use this information in any way they see fit.

Genre:
One genre that would be effective is a power point presentation with text and visuals.

These examples are the best I could find of powerpoints with supporting text. Although these powerpoints are more contextual than argumentative, they gives a good idea of the genre.

1. The function of this genre is to balance a combination of visual communication with supplemental and explanatory text. The argument will be communicated through the text, and supported with visuals.

2. One of the struggles with this genre is I see it in more of a classroom or live presentation setting. Simply reading data from a power point is not always effective without live explanation, and attempting to explain through text does not always work. However, with some work, I can see this outside of a classroom or live presentation setting, being used as more of a visual guide for the audience to read.

3. This genre would suit logos and pathos very well, as visual statistics and explanations are straightforwards and logical, and proper use of imagery can effectively provoke strong emotional reactions.

4. As mentioned above, this genre will utilize visuals such as graphs and provoking images to strengthen the argument.

5. This genre will attempt to balance a conversational and academic style and tone. Depending on the accompanying visuals, I will either be conversationally appealing to emotions, or academically using logic to support my argument.

Another genre that would be effective is a video with data footage, images, and audio voiceover.

I searched for examples of this everywhere, but couldn't find exactly what I had in mind. This link shows an example of video footage, and voiceover, but instead of having actual video of myself speaking, I would include still images of data. Again, this is an example  of a similar idea, but not exactly what I am shooting for. There are a few instances of still images edited into the video, but this would be more common, and once again, I wouldn't actually be present on screen, or do any filming with a camera, but instead clip together a majority of images with recorded audio voiceover.

1. Although different in concept from the first genre discussed, this genre has similar goals and strengths. It is designed to balance visuals and explanations to create a powerful and clear argument.

2. The setting of this genre could be more widely available, through social media or other websites it could be published on. This setting is more wide and free than the first genre, giving this genre a slight advantage over the previous one.

3. Again, the genre would focus on logos and ethos. Using provoking visuals and firm data, the genre emphasizes logical facts and emotional imagery.

4. The whole basis of the genre uses photos, and possibly videos, to support the audio explanations and argument.

5. As I will be talking to my audience through audio clips, the style will most likely be conversational, although in some situations I will attempt to be as academic as possible.

Positive Reactions:
1. People understand the data behind the controversy more clearly because of good explanations and visuals.
2. People understand the logical approach to making an accusation of cheating.
3. People understand the overreaction Sky had to the data as being overly emotional.

Negative Rebuttals:
1. Some may argue that at the end of the day the data was rightfully Sky's.
Response: Yes, but if Froome is so adamant about being clean, he should be acting in as little suspicion as possible, so trying to hide something is wrong.

2. Some may argue that the amount of times Froome has been under question means he is cheating.
Response: People need to understand the gravity of a doping accusation, especially in the realm of cycling, and how hard it is to completely cheat the system in place to test for doping. As there is no definitive evidence of cheating, and merely speculation and slightly suspect actions/performances, this is still not enough for people to condemn Froome.

3. Finally, some may argue that suspect data does prove something about Froome.
Response: Yes, suspect data does prove something about Froome, but all it can prove at this point is that he is a masterful athlete, because it doesn't show anything that is 100% humanly impossible.

Analyzing Purpose

This blog post contains an discussion of my own goals for my argument in project 3.

Ede, Sharon. "Calvin-Susie." 10/30/15 via Cruxcatalysit

The main goals of my public argument is to convince two sides of a controversy to agree with one another on certain points that I believe to be right. My belief is that Froome should not be under such close scrutiny and shouldn't be accused of cheating until this actually can be proven. As far as evidence or proof, there is nothing substantial or definitive that justifies the accusations that are being thrown at Froome. On the other hand, Froome and Sky clearly had the wrong reaction to leaked data. I support their opposition on this situation, as if they truly had nothing to hide Froome should've allowed the data to be public. When arguing this I want readers to see the logic and reasonable position that I am taking, so that they can primarily agree with my argument, or at least be able to see the reason behind the argument of opposition.

Plausible actions/reactions:
Because I am going down the middle, and taking the side of (lets call them group a and group b, a being in support of all that Froome did, and b being in opposition of all that Froome did) each group in one of the two situations, my audience will most likely react in agreement to a portion of my argument.
I believe that even if some aren't convinced of my argument, they will still be able to see the reason behind the side that I am arguing, and will better understand the other side of the argument than what they agree with.

Not plausible:
Of course it is not plausible that everyone agrees with everything I have to say.
I don't expect everyone to finish my entire argument, and this will most likely depend on how I structure it.

Likely Consequences:
I don't expect to be reaching a huge audience, so I don't expect the consequences of my argument to be that widespread.
The first consequence I can foresee is that some audience members change their minds about what they believe about the controversy.
A second consequence I can foresee is that some of my audience learns about the Froome controversy for the first time, and as I am their first source, they will most likely agree with my argument.
If I was reaching a wider audience, and include the proper data to support my argument, I could see accusations against Froome being somewhat stifled as a consequence of my argument.

Possible Audiences:
Among the audiences are the two groups that I mentioned above, group a and group b. Both of these groups are equally likely to move towards my goal in some way, as I expect them both to agree with at least some of my argument. Also among my audience is those who have no previous conceptions or ideas about the Froome controversy, and have not yet taken a side. These audience members are most likely to advance my cause, because I expect them to agree with most of what I have to say.

Analyzing Context

This blog post discusses and analyzes the context of the Froome controversy that project 3 is on, according to questions from Writing Public Lives.

"Context Matters." 10/29/15 via Contextfm.com

1. There are two schools of thought in my debate, the first believes that Froome was doping according to certain data, and the other believes that Froome is clean, and furthermore that the data was private and illegally procured.

2. As I mentioned above, the primary points of contention are the question of Froome's honesty, and whether or not he is doping, as well as the issue of the data that was released regarding his Tour de France performance, whether or not it was legally distributed, and the harsh reaction to it being made public.

3. The points of agreement between parties is the sanctity of cycling, and the continual progress in the sport in sportsmanship and competition.

4. The ideological differences between the parties hinge on the question of whether or not Froome is actually doping, which it is hard to definitively say.

5. As far as the text that I am most familiar with, there is very little call to action for the audience in this controversy. The purpose of the information is mostly to inform the audience, and to raise awareness, as there is little the majority of average interested fans can do.

6. For the issue of doping, Froome and supporters' perspectives will be helpful for my argument, and for the issue of data, the perspective of those vying for freedom of information will be useful. I chose these perspectives because they support the situations that I believe should've played out at the Tour de France.

7. The perspectives that will be a threat are the opposite of those that support. These are the perspectives of those who are convinced completely that Froome was doping, and Sky and Froome's perspective on the data that was released. This may seem backwards, but it will make sense as I get more in depth with my argument.


After reading Grace and Zayla's blog posts, I realized how much people have been improving throughout this class, and how well most of the class is executing their assignments. Both the posts I read seemed similar to mine, reassuring me that I executed the assignment correctly. Another point I realized, is how important understanding the viewpoints opposing my argument will be. Refuting these views with information will strengthen my argument immensely, so I should keep the importance of this idea in mind as I proceed. 

Audience and Genre

This blog post discusses the target audience of my 3'rd project, the places I could publish my research, and links to examples of these ideas.

Lund, John. "Pets at the Movies." 10/13/15 via John Lund Photography

Audience 1:

Obviously the primary audience involved will be sports fans, and specifically those who follow cycling closely. They will be interested for more input on the Froome controversy, simply because it died down, and was never resolved. Also, going forwards into future cycling competitions it is an important reminder of what major scandal happened previously.

For this audience I could publish my research in more sports specific venues, such as a sports dedicated website or a sports journal. 

Examples:

Sports website:

ESPN
Cycling News

Sports Journal (Just examples of Journals, these are also websites but I could publish research in an actual journal form."

Sports Illustrated
The Ride Journal (This link opens to the Ride Journal homepage, where you can download the past versions of the actual Journal, as an example.)

Audience 2:

Another audience I may reach is less sports specific, and more controversy specific. This audience is the type of people who are very interested in news, related to all venues, such as people who read newspapers consistently, watch the new on TV, or are active in social media.

For this audience I can publish my research and opinions through more wider venues, such as more general news sources or social media.

News:

New York Times
CNN

Social Media

Facebook
Twitter

Extended Annotated Bibliography

This blog post includes a link to my extended annotated bibliography. 

"German Shepherd Puppy." 10/23/15 via InspirationSeek.com

Narrowing my Focus

This post includes a few edited questions from the previous post, and an explanation of why I think these are key to the focus of my project.

Jump, Paul. "Narrowing Road Sign." 10/23/15 via Times Higher Education

1. When did this controversy end/fizzle out? Is it still an issue today? Is Froome still under question today?

2. Was there any backlash about the freedom of social media and data?
3. What was proved about this controversy, and can anything be said about Froome's doping for sure?

I think these two questions address the main points of the issue. First, the initial question involves information about the current state of the controversy, and the importance of Froome's alleged doping, as well as the eventual outcome of the investigation, regarding whether or not Froome was evidently cheating. Second it deals with the information regarding the data, as well as the issue of it being removed.