Im rebutting, my honorable friend Cristian’s opening statement of his proponent views on Wikileaks. His quote “thesis statement” is poorly worded with bad grammar.
“There purpose is to benefit society by doing this, not harm it.”
In this thesis statement, he lazily misspells a simple 2nd reading level word. I think that mistakes like this should be carefully looked for before trying to persuade anyone to agree with their view. Another thing that Cristian could do to be more persuasive is to capitalize the word Wikileaks to show that he thinks it is proper.
Cristian also says makes a point but does nothing to back it up, therefore it isnt very persuasive.“Our government does things in our nations name that we might not be proud of.”
He says this, but then gives no proof whatsoever to show that our country does thing that we aren't proud of. If I was reading this with an unbiased opinion, I would not be even slightly convinced that Cristian’s views should be my views too.
Cristian defines the word “democracy” by using a cheesy dictionary.com definition. If he was going to be more professional, then he should use a more credible source, such as Webster's Dictionary. Webster’s Dictionary is a widely known resource that can be more trustworthy that “dictionary.com”.
Another flaw in Cristian’s opening statement is that he doesn't even explain his topic, Wikileaks, until the very last paragraph and to be honest, he doesn't do a very good job at it.
In this quote, Cristian makes the highlight of his whole post.
“In Tunisia, the President Zine El Abidine Ben Ali, has been ruling Tunisia with an "iron fist" claims New York Times and The Atlantic. However the news of this has been sort of shut off to the rest of the world, if i read this correctly, and that, since wikileaks leaked this, the President was driven out to exile. This is, of course is a good thing because he was basically a dictator and censorship-leader.”
I think that he makes a good point when he quotes an actual source and takes a current event to make a valid point.
Dang. Kinda harsh on the typos, aren't you? Your initial criticisms seem almost personal...and we all make typing/grammar errors from time to time. You later rebuttal is more substantive, which is good. I'm glad you took time to highlight at least one strength of Cristian's argument. (How about linking to the post you're writing about, though?)
ReplyDelete