Argument set, standardization and contextualization. (You don't have to do this for the homework.)

Luciano. I don't know how you can seriously claim that the Soviet Union was not actively pursuing territorial expansion during the Cold War. Have you forgotten their unprovoked invasion of Afghanistan, a country that was outside the Iron Curtain at that time? The only thing that distinguished Afghanistan from other countries on their border was that Afghanistan was vulnerable. They saw that vulnerability, and they pounced.
Kaela. But aren't you forgetting that the government of Afghanistan was about to fall to a bunch of religious terrorists that had only gotten to be a serious threat because the Jimmy Carter administration had been arming them for the last six months? Given that Zbigniew Brzezinski had armed these people with the specific intention of sucking in the Soviet Union, you can hardly claim that the invasion was unprovoked.

Standardizations

Luciano:
1. The USSR invaded Afghanistan without provocation.
2. Afghanistan was outside the Iron Curtain at the time.
3. Afghanistan was vulnerable.
4. (Only an expansionist power would have invaded without provocation.)
C. The USSR was expansionist.

Kaela:
1. Afghanistan was about to fall to religious terrorists.
2. The terrorists were only a threat because Jimmy and Biggy had armed them.
3. (Having a neighbor state fall to terrorists is most provoking.)
C. The invasion was not unprovoked.

Context
Basic Question: Was the Soviet Union actively pursuing territorial expansion during the Cold War? (Luciano says yes, Kaela says no.)
Background knowledge: Most nations actively pursue territorial expansion, at least at some points in their histories.
Null Hypothesis: "No," because it was a narrow time period, most nations go long periods without pursuing territorial expansion, and this is a moral issue.

Burden of Proof
Luciano: Heavy burden of proof. (If his argument fails, the Soviet Union was not actively pursuing territorial expansion during the Cold War.)
Kaela. No burden. (She's supporting the null hypothesis.)


Analysis (This is the bit you should have done before looking at the answer.)
Luciano. Direct argument. (He's arguing against the null hypothesis.)
Kaela. Counter argument. (Because she attacks one of Luciano's premises .)

Luciano's argument crucially depends on his claim that the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan was unprovoked. Kaela brings up a reason why we might think that this premise is false, so she's making a counter argument. Think about it. If Kaela proves that the invasion was provoked by Jimmy and Biggie, would that prove that the Soviet Union was not actively pursuing territorial expansion during the Cold War? No it wouldn't, so Kaela can't be pushing a direct argument.

(Evaluation skipped.)

Use your browser's "back" key to return to your place in the reading.

---

This Site is Proudly Hosted By: