30 of 43 people found the following review helpful
Excellent Source For Topics, But Heavy Bias,
This review is from: Everything's an Argument with Readings (Paperback)
I enjoyed this book and writing many essays from it for my various writing classes. You will enjoy the topics presented in the book with great ideas to help you start debating. As a centrist, I found many of the topics to be biased against the libertarian/conservative. Even with the more-than-obvious anti-right bias, it was still an excellent book. The reason why I said it was anti-right (maybe you should listen to this part) is because the authors picked topics, pictures, essays, or artwork, that would (un)seemingly go against conservatives and their ideas. Now, I am sure someone else could have made the same book and used topics that would go against liberal policies, presidents, but that wouldn't be acceptable in college. (kidding)
I have to admit that I didn't enjoy the book as much as I wanted. If all liberals in the classroom agree with something, but cannot prove it, that could be a liberal bias...
My advice to the authors is they should try to focus on making it completely even. I know there are some excellent conservative authors in there, but this bias needs to go.
Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-10 of 13 posts in this discussion
Initial post: Jul 21, 2011 1:05:10 AM PDT
Posted on Mar 19, 2012 2:27:34 AM PDT
Malachi Beale says:
your reason for disliking the book should teach you to appreciate it: the book made you THINK! the book CHALLENGED your ideas! whether you change your ideas or not is up to you, but don't you go to school to LEARN how to think? how does one learn if one's beliefs are never challenged?
In reply to an earlier post on Mar 19, 2012 1:41:32 PM PDT
Read the first part, I said that I enjoyed the book. I even thought of the book as being excellent for teaching purposes. Read that part again. I just wished that it had less bias. It just depends how liberal or conservative someone is...they usually can sense the bias in a book, show, or news channel for that matter. Even liberals in the class couldn't find much of anything conservative in there besides one article from dinesh d'souza and one from ann coulter. that was it.... the rest was fairly biased. Anyways, I still liked the book but thanks for your input.
In reply to an earlier post on Mar 19, 2012 8:47:14 PM PDT
[Deleted by the author on Mar 22, 2012 5:18:05 AM PDT]
In reply to an earlier post on Mar 19, 2012 8:48:30 PM PDT
[Deleted by the author on Mar 22, 2012 5:16:48 AM PDT]
In reply to an earlier post on Mar 19, 2012 8:48:33 PM PDT
[Deleted by the author on Mar 22, 2012 5:16:24 AM PDT]
In reply to an earlier post on Mar 19, 2012 8:48:36 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Mar 22, 2012 5:18:49 AM PDT
Ann Coulter used as counter example is pretty close to a straw man.
Apologies. Stormy weather was doing a number on my internet service (wireless) when I responded, resulting in multiple postings.
In reply to an earlier post on Mar 19, 2012 10:22:56 PM PDT
well, she was used in the book, using one of open essays directed towards a liberal that accused her of stuff. Anyways, I'm not sure why everyone keeps posting stuff on here...without reading the actual book. I wasn't using her as a counter example, I was using her just as one of the very few "conservative" points in the book, which it severely lacks a conservative viewpoint. Did any of you actually read my post....or the book? Seriously.
In reply to an earlier post on Mar 22, 2012 5:09:13 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Mar 22, 2012 5:45:32 AM PDT
I have this book (with readings). Did not when first reacting to your review, but purchased it at that time. I have only cherry picked through it so I don't recall an Anne Coulter article. However, knowing both the tone of the book and being familiar with Anne Coulter's work (the right's equivalent of her buddy Bill Mahr on the left: a disingenuous rabble-rouser), I expect she was cited (by the authors, not you) as a poor example. If my guess is off, you can of course point me to the appropriate page for correction.
What I said before even skimming the book is pretty much what I found: "don't just teach the art of controversy and propaganda, teach specifically the application of such to your cause." But, the presentation is more skewed than that; using the pretense of teaching rhetorical technique, the authors actually exploit the same in their presentation of (as you verify) distinctly left-leaning arguments. So it is not even left to an instructor to lead students to support the "correct" positions. For example: after offering an argument, readers/students are asked to find better ways (or more effective for themselves) of supporting the point, and almost always any intractable counter-position is labelled as a held "belief." It is a subtle attack, to imply that there can be no reasoned counter-position -- but of course, the authors don't call readers/students to scrutinize their own use of rhetoric and framing.
In reply to an earlier post on Mar 24, 2012 9:13:08 AM PDT
Wait, you have not read it yet? All this debating and you have not read the book yet...