Kory. I'm taking a political science class at the university. We just started studying socialism, and the professor says that socialism has actually worked in every country where it's been given a fair chance.
Noelia I cannot believe they teach socialism in the University. It's like teaching arson in a fireworks factory.
Kory. 1. Kory's political science professor says that socialism works.
(2. Systems that work are good systems.)
(C. Socialism is good)
Noelia. 1. Teaching socialism in the University is like teaching arson in a fireworks factory.
(2. Teaching arson in a fireworks factory would have bad consequences that look cool when viewed from a distance.)
(C. Socialism is bad.)
If someone here was arguing that socialism is okay, or that we don't know whether socialism is good or bad, that person would not bear burden of proof. However, we have one person arguing that socialism is good, and another arguing that it is bad, so both sides bear the burden of proof against the null hypothesis.
Evaluation:
Kory's argument is based on the historical record of socialism. He points out that socialism has worked in all the countries where it's been given a fair chance to succeed or fail on it's own merits, which implies that it's a good thing, since political systems that work are good systems.
Noelia's argument is based on an analogy between socialism lessons in a university and arson lessions in a fireworks factory. It relies on the fact that teaching arson in a fireworks factory would be a very dangerous thing to do, given that fireworks will be very likely to go off if someone is setting fires very close to them. Noelia's argument says that teaching teaching socialism in a university is so similar to teaching arson in a fireworks factory that teaching socialism in a university is just as dangerous as teaching arson in a fireworks factory. Noelia probably doesn't mean that socialism lessons are likely to actually set fire to the univesity. More likely she means that they will result in some kind of unacceptable social cost.
INCORRECT
This isn't an evaluation. It doesn't even start to be an evaluation. Evaluation doesn't happen at any point in the above. Can you find any part of this "evaluation" that says anything about which argument is stronger, or why one might be stronger than the other? I can't, so this would get zero points if it was handed in as an evaluation.
Use your browser's "back" key to go back and try again.
This Site is Proudly
Hosted By:
