Week 13 Discussion — Call It Out or Answer It? — Traditional alternative (no AI)

Instructors: publish this instead of the adaptive version if you prefer, and unpublish or delete the adaptive one.

Hook

Knowing the names of the fallacies is a little like knowing the rules of a sport: it changes what you notice, and it tempts you to blow the whistle. This week you learned the four types of reasoning, Toulmin's map of an argument with its claim, evidence, and warrant, and the fallacies this course names.

Your discussion question — choose Option A or Option B; they carry the same weight and the same rubric, and you say which you picked.

Option A: When you hear a fallacy in someone's argument — at a meeting, in a group project, or in a debate — is it better to name it out loud ("that's a straw man") or to answer the strongest fair version of their argument without naming the fallacy? Some people say naming it teaches everyone in the room to spot the flaw; others say it sounds like a gotcha and makes the other side dig in. Take a position, support it with a real exchange you have heard or been part of, and use this week's terms, such as fallacy, warrant, straw man, ad hominem, or red herring, accurately.

Option B: Does a qualifier — words like "for a two-week trial" or "in dining halls like ours" — make a persuasive speaker more believable, or does it make the argument sound weaker? Some people say admitting the limits of a claim earns the audience's trust; others say an audience follows the speaker who sounds sure and hears every qualifier as doubt. Take a position, support it with a real speech, pitch, or request you have heard or made, and use this week's terms, such as claim, evidence, warrant, qualifier, and rebuttal, accurately.

There is no single right answer here. A workplace, a team, or a community meeting can each be argued well in more than one direction. If your example comes from public life, discuss the move and how it works on listeners, never the person or any side of a public question. Pick an exchange or a speech you actually remember, and tell us about one moment in it.

Expectations

Activity format: one initial post followed by two substantive peer replies. Plan on about 45 minutes across the two deadlines; your instructor sets both due dates in Canvas.

Your initial post — by the first due date (early in the module week):

• Say which option you chose.
• For Option A, describe the real exchange, name the fallacy you heard, say how it broke the link between the evidence and the claim, and take a position on whether naming it out loud or answering the strongest fair version works better. For Option B, describe the real speech, pitch, or request, name its claim and its qualifier, and take a position on whether the qualifier made the speaker more believable.
• Use at least two of this week's terms (fallacy, claim, evidence, warrant, qualifier, rebuttal, straw man, ad hominem, red herring) correctly.
• Name one specific moment, such as a reply, a qualifier, or the sentence where the argument broke, rather than a general impression.
• Say what you would change in your own persuasive speech, and at which moment.
• Describe arguments and exchanges only; never name or describe a real classmate, coworker, or family member, and never use a real public figure as an example of a fallacy.
• Length: roughly 150–250 words if written. You may instead record your post as audio or video (about two minutes) and attach a transcript; both forms are scored by the same rubric. A recording is optional; a written post earns the same credit.

Your replies — by the second due date (the end of the module week):

• Reply substantively to at least two classmates.
• A substantive reply does more than agree: check whether the poster's fallacy label fits the definition, suggest the warrant hiding under the poster's example, or offer the strongest objection to the poster's position. "Nice point!" on its own does not count.

What a strong post looks like (an illustrative example, attributed to no one):

I chose Option B. At a staff meeting, a coworker asked to try a four-day schedule "for one month, on our team only." That qualifier made me trust the request: it told me she knew the evidence came from other teams and might not fit ours, so her warrant was "test before you adopt," not "this always works." The strongest objection is that a small pilot sounds timid and gives skeptics a reason to wait. I would answer that the qualifier turned a big yes into a small one, and small yeses are easier to give. In my own persuasive speech I will say "for a two-week trial" right after my claim.

Notice how it names a real moment, labels the qualifier and the warrant accurately, gives a reason tied to the audience, and answers an objection. That is the bar.

Participation rubric

This discussion is worth 10 points. The three criteria below look at your initial post and your peer replies.

Post early if you can — the best threads happen when people have time to reply before the second due date.

Built with The Course Maker · samples.thecoursemaker.com