Debate rebuttal post (make the rebuttal post POL 3440

Post ID: 3446779

Overview

Instructions

Each student will then submit a 200 word rebuttal to answer the arguments from the other side. Rebuttals must be posted by Saturday 11^th October.

Read the arguments posted by the other side. Pick out one or two of their strongest points and post a rebuttal (about 200 words) by Sunday. Your rebuttal is due by Saturday 11^th October.

Your rebuttal should reply to points made by at least two members of the opposing team. Please identify them by name.

Just one rebuttal, please, or else things will get very busy.

If you use course readings you should include references such as (Simpson 1997, p 45). As with the short essay, we will reward you doing independent research outside of the course readings so have a look and see what you can find!

If you want to add any outside references, please do so at the end. They won’t be part of the word count.

A tip: This is a debate, not a seminar or a polite discussion. It is meant to be a vigorous argument. Make your points clearly and forcefully. Remember, you really want to win that audience vote.(whole rebuttal post to be in persuasive tone )

For each debat, you are responsible for posting a rebuttal post at least two arguments made by your classmates.

After you have made your debate argument post, read some of the argument posts from your classmates and construct a rebuttal post on the argument made by Opposing team/ Group( A) post of 200 words exactly that responds to one of your group-mate’s opposing team A original debate argument posts. Your rebuttal post should be written such that it does one or more of: identifies something that you find especially interesting or insightful about your classmate’s original debate argument post; poses an engaging and relevant question and/or builds on the ideas from your classmate’s original debate argument post; raises a real-life experience or observation that you feel would be relevant to illustrate or help further develop an idea or point in your classmate’s original post.

Please note that you will need to make an rebuttal post before you can read and respond to your peers’ posts.

Some points to keep in mind:

Be clear and to the point in your postings.
You just have write one single rebuttal in 200 words exactly
Edit your work. Your posts should be coherent and use proper grammar and spelling.
Keep postings the rebuttal post 200 words exactly . Quality is better than quantity.
Contribute your own thoughts about the material you have read.
Support your thoughts by referencing the readings used, and references used in post below or other outside literature.
Raise additional questions or points of original argument to stimulate further rebuttal.
If you have questions, show that you have already tried to find a solution.
Respect the viewpoints of your peers. Ask for clarification if you don’t understand a point. Assume good intentions.
Use the proper terminology introduced in the course readings.
When using literature in your postings, make sure to provide references in proper APA 7 Style.
Show respect and sensitivity to peers' gender, cultural and linguistic background, political, and religious beliefs.
You are strongly encouraged to take the time to review the following documents on writing quality debate rebuttal posting and on taking roles in rebuttal. Taking a role in online debate rebuttal post Taking a Role in Online debate rebuttal Below are some roles that anyone in an online debate rebuttal can fulfill in order to help move an online debate rebuttal forward in productive ways. See if you can determine what role is required in your online debate rebuttal and then write a message that takes on that role. Devil's Advocate • Takes opposing points of view to those currently under debate rebuttal Pollinator • Travels to other groups, reads their postings and summarizes points made in other groups not made in home group. Facilitator • Comments on the groups process (e.g. “Perhaps we should all remember to put a subject line in our messages.”) • Encourages others to participate, • Starts a thread or an idea on the topic, if the rebuttal lags. Summarizer / rebuttal Weaver • Summarizes the rebuttal for the group at specific intervals in 1 or 2 short paragraphs. Usually summarizes twice per week or if the rebuttal lags • Reminds others about what has already been discussed. • Asks the group what issues have been concluded and what ones are still to be discussed. • Relates ideas in posted messages to one another. Researcher • Assumes responsibility for looking at what is available on the net, journals etc. and brings ideas back to the group. Responder Replies to others and builds on the ideas of others. This is a role that everyone in the group must perform for every debate rebuttal.
Help others feel safe about participating;
Show curiosity and willingness to experiment;
Make or raise issues that are relevant to the current focus of the class;
Offer support for rebuttal arguments; and
Take into consideration the ideas already offered by others.
And quality (insight and critical analysis) of your contributions Additionally, intellectual and thoughtful (i.e., you need to demonstrate that you have thought about the topic).

The debate rebuttal post should not just agree or disagree with their statements. Instead, respond in a way that expands on the peer's question and ideas by incorporating relevant material from the textbook, unit, and media sources.
Your debate rebuttal response should provide new insights or perspectives, referencing the course content to deepen the conversation and encourage critical thinking.
Word count: 200 words exactly.
Follow the structure provided below to write the debate rebuttal post

The Basic Structure of a Rebuttal(this is very important you have to follow it very strictly)

Rebuttals may feel difficult at first, but once you understand the structure, they become much easier. Here’s a commonly used format that even beginners can follow

1.Restate the Opponent’s Argument Briefly: This shows that you understood the argument before challenging it.

2.State Your Counter-Claim: This is your opportunity to present an alternative viewpoint.

3.Provide Supporting Evidence: Use facts, examples, or data to show why your counter-claim is stronger.

4.Conclude with Impact: Tie it back to your main argument and highlight the flaw in the opponent's logic.

Rebuttal Sections(this is very important you have to follow how to write the rebuttal

In order to present a fair and convincing message, you may need to anticipate, research, and outline some of the common positions (arguments) that dispute your thesis. If the situation (purpose) calls for you to do this, you will present and then refute these other positions in the rebuttal section of your debate.

It is important to consider other positions because in most cases, your primary audience will be fence-sitters. Fence-sitters are people who have not decided which side of the argument to support.

People who are on your side of the argument will not need a lot of information to align with your position. People who are completely against your argument—perhaps for ethical or religious reasons—will probably never align with your position no matter how much information you provide. Therefore, the audience you should consider most important are those people who haven't decided which side of the argument they will support—the fence-sitters.

In many cases, these fence-sitters have not decided which side to align with because they see value in both positions. Therefore, to not consider opposing positions to your own in a fair manner may alienate fence-sitters when they see that you are not addressing their concerns or discussion opposing positions at all.

ORGANIZING YOUR REBUTTAL SECTION

Following the TTEB method outlined in the Body Paragraph section, forecast all the information that will follow in the rebuttal section and then move point by point through the other positions addressing each one as you go. The outline below, adapted from Seyler's Understanding Argument, is an example of a rebuttal section from a thesis essay.

When you rebut or refute an opposing position, use the following three-part organization:

1.The opponent’s argument:Usually, you should not assume that your reader has read or remembered the argument you are refuting. Thus, at the beginning of your paragraph, you need to state, accurately and fairly, the main points of the argument you will refute.

2.Your position:Next, make clear the nature of your disagreement with the argument or position you are refuting. Your position might assert, for example, that a writer has not proved his assertion because he has provided evidence that is outdated, or that the argument is filled with fallacies.

3.Your refutation:The specifics of your counterargument will depend upon the nature of your disagreement. If you challenge the writer’s evidence, then you must present the more recent evidence. If you challenge assumptions, then you must explain why they do not hold up. If your position is that the piece is filled with fallacies, then you must present and explain each fallacy.

POST-1 ARGUMENT FROM OPPOSING GROUP-A ( Matthew Johnston )- Argument: Patronage is an integral and essential element of the Canadian political system.

Patronage has a long history in Canadian politics, dating back to the British North America Act of 1867. Patronage has established itself as an integral and essential pillar within the Westminster parliamentary system, strengthening democracy by reflecting the will of the voters. When voting for a member of parliament, it is not simply about electing an official for your riding; you are voting for the government you want representing you, and the policy agenda you deem essential to the country. Patronage bridges the gap between the underrepresented and Ottawa, allowing citizens to see themselves reflected in office, thus strengthening loyalty and trust (Simpson, 1984, p.19). These bonds can be viewed as eroded by the division of powers, which centralized power federally. Patronage combats this by giving the provinces a stronger voice in federal decision making, promoting unity and strengthening Ottawa's ability to achieve promised policy (Simpson, 1984, p.19).

The Canadian judicial hiring process proves an example of the importance of representation over pure meritocracy for hiring. A study on the screening process for provincial appeal court appointees between 1989 to 2003 showed 27% had major party affiliation, 15% had minor affiliation, and 1/3 were women hired (Hausanger et al., 2013, p. 668-689). This study demonstrates how patronage can intertwine ideological and political priorities with diversity, which strengthens legitimacy through representation and thus gains public trust.

Unelected bureaucrats can pose issues for a successful governing body because the more political power they gain, the harder it is to ensure their goals align, which affects the delivery of policy implementations voted for by the people (Lewis, 2015, p. 5). Meanwhile, patronage strengthens bureaucratic legitimacy and accountability, since appointees are selected by elected officials, which creates an indirect link to the voters (Toral, 2021, p. 3,12).

Arguments against patronage undermine democracy and representation, slowing down policy implementation and opposing an essential and integral pillar of Canada's political system.

References

Hausegger, L., Riddell, T., & Hennigar, M. (2013). Does patronage matter? connecting influences on judicial appointments with Judicial Decision making. Canadian Journal of Political Science, 46(3), 665–690. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0008423913000681

Lewis, D. E. (2010). The politics of presidential appointments: Political Control and bureaucratic performance. Princeton University Press.

Simpson, J. 1984. Mulroney 1984: Dividing the Spoils. In Spoils of Power: The Politics of Patronage. Toronto: Collins Publishers.

Toral, G. (2021). The beneﬁts of patronage: How political appointments can enhance. https://ic3jm.es/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/benefits_of_patronage.pdf

POST-2 (Leah Kivenko )-

While patronage is often frowned upon given the personal relationships those appointed have with political leaders. It is precisely this familiarity that makes patronage an essential element of the Canadian political system both domestically and abroad.

Research shows that domestically, patronage ensures governments work more smoothly. The theory of “upward embeddedness” poses that the social and political connections of an appointee actually facilitate accountability and effectiveness (Toral, 2023, p. 799). Political appointments and familiar connections allow for access to better governmental resources, which can then strengthen the effectiveness of the appointee (Toral, 2023, p. 813). By taking advantage of personal relationships, the appointee can use pre-established connections to facilitate their work.

The benefit of familiarity is also essential in international politics. In a perfect world, leaders would appoint someone who is both empirically qualified as well as familiar. Data shows that when appointing diplomatic positions both the difficulty and importance of a position are taken into account (Goldfien, 2023, p. 1425). Positions that are deemed difficult are more likely to be held by individuals with extensive experience, while the more important positions, are often held both those who have close familiarity with the leader (Goldfien, 2023, p. 1425). Familiarity is crucial for those holding positions deemed important by the political leader because during negotiations, the better the appointee knows the values and thought process of the leader, the better they are at taking this into account while doing their jobs (Goldfien, 2023, p. 1422). Additionally, if the appointee is seen as a close confidante to the leader, then foreign actors are more likely to trust the negotiator, facilitating faster deals (Goldfien, 2023, p. 1422). This also eliminates the concern that the leader will oppose whatever deal the appointee has put together.

Overall, familiarity makes patronage a far greater asset than detriment. The trust that already exists between appointees and political leaders allows for work to get done effectively, both in Canada, and internationally.

References

Goldfien, M. A. (2023). Just patronage? Familiarity and the diplomatic value of non-career ambassadors. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 68(7-8), 1417-1442. https://doi.org/10.1177/00220027231198518

Toral, G. (2023). How patronage delivers: Political appointments, bureaucratic accountability, and service delivery in Brazil. American Journal of Political Science, 68(2), 797-815. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12758

LABEL POST -1 AS (Rebuttal )

Post -2 summary reply WRITE in 19-20 lines also add personal opinion it should be personal opinion about other post and also add creative attractive question. Do not use AI AND CHATGPT AS MAM HAS SOFTWARE TO DETECT EACH AND EVERY LINE . She has software to detect each and every single word.

Grading criteria is
Criteria A+ Original Debate Rebuttal Post

Grading Rubric

The following rubric will guide you on how your discussions will be evaluated.

Criteria	Excellent 58 - 60 points
Knowledge	The original debate rebuttal post integrated evidence directly from the required reading, unit modules, and assigned media , and 3 academic peer reviewed literature that clearly support the rebuttal and demonstrate deep understanding thoughtful position on the topic of discussion.
Originality	The original debate rebuttal introduced new ideas or perspectives to the debate rebuttal, demonstrating deep engagement with the topic.
Critical thinking	The original rebuttal post included an original, thoughtful idea that stimulated further rebuttal, expanding on the unit material and media.
Degree to which proposition question is addressed	The rebuttal fully and directly answers the opposing team’s arguments question. It stays focused, addresses all key aspects, and provides clear explanation and supporting details or evidence. Rebuttal fully and directly answers the opposing team’s arguments.
Conciseness and Clarity of communication and presentation of argument	The original rebuttal clearly explained concepts, theory, and/or research introduced in the unit, media, and textbook. Ensuring that ideas are clearly articulated, well-structured, and easy to follow. The rebuttal flows logically and persuasively, making it easy to understand and impactful. The whole rebuttal has to be in persuasive tone.
Quality of writing	The original debate rebuttal paraphrased information from the required reading and were appropriate for an academic audience, with few spelling or grammatical errors. Demonstrates understanding of the question(s) through well-reasoned and thoughtful responses that are factually correct and substantive and use relevant references and examples; contributions make a clear connection to the readings.
Thoroughness of analysis and rebuttal	Provides a comprehensive, insightful, and well-developed analysis. The rebuttal demonstrates deep understanding, explores multiple perspectives or implications, and uses strong evidence or reasoning to support all key points.
Citation and Referencing	The debate rebuttal correctly cited sources using APA style for in-text citations and a reference list, without errors.
	The original debate rebuttal adhered to the 200 word count exactly requirement.
Overall Score	Level 10
	58 and Above

Readings are as follows:

I have attached the pdf in order reading1 AND reading 2 ,reading 3 ,reading4,reading 5,reading 6 PDF AND AND DOCX NO –7 IS THE GRADING RUBRIC PHOTO.

READING-1(very very important reading

READING-2 (Lewis, D. E. (2010). The politics of presidential appointments: Political Control and bureaucratic performance. Princeton University Press.

READING-3 Simpson, J. 1984. Mulroney 1984: Dividing the Spoils. In Spoils of Power: The Politics of Patronage. Toronto: Collins Publishers.

READING-4 ( Toral, G. (2021). The beneﬁts of patronage: How political appointments can enhance. https://ic3jm.es/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/benefits_of_patronage.pdf

Reading 5- Goldfien, M. A. (2023). Just patronage? Familiarity and the diplomatic value of non-career ambassadors. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 68(7-8), 1417-1442. https://doi.org/10.1177/00220027231198518

Reading 6- Toral, G. (2023). How patronage delivers: Political appointments, bureaucratic accountability, and service delivery in Brazil. American Journal of Political Science, 68(2), 797-815. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12758

DOCX NO 7 GRADING INSTRUCTION AND GRADING RUBRIC VERY VEYR VERY VERY IMPORTANT DOCX HAS TO BE FOLOWED (in the form of image)(very very very important)

total :sources should be cited (6 reading provided by me. No other external has to be used.)

You have to use these all 6 reading +( docx7 grading rubric)in the form of image PDF grading rubric very very important. Only twelve (12) reading INTERNAL SOURCES has to be used provided by me ALLTEWLVE ( READING NO1 TO READING 11 IS VERY IMPORTANT - IS TEDTALK )READING SHOULD BE REFERENCE AND INTEXT CIATION SHOULD MATCH WITH REFERENCE. And DONOT USE ANY OUTSOUCE out of course material. FIRSTLY, YOU ONLY HAVE TO USE these readings which i have provided. ADTTIONALY ALL 11 READING ARE VERY IMPORTANT AND INCLUDING DOCX 12 GRADING RUBRUIC YOU HAVE TO FOLLOW VEYR VERY VERY IMPORTANT. Reading which i have are very important all three reading.

No any other outside source has to be used.

ALL THESE 6 (6READINGS ARE VERY VEYR VERY VERY IMPORTANT.

Reading no - 5(5) which is very important

And then only the course material readings readsing1,reading2,reading3,READING4,READING5,READING 6 Very very important and docx 7 is grading rubric which I have provided after that use one outsource first use have to use these reading which i have provided as these has to be used first and NO OUTSOURCE HAS TO BE USED

please start reading instructions mam

And guidelines and you have to answer to this i am proving the grading rubrics everything write in own words and do not use AI AND CHATGPT AS MAM HAS THE SOFTAWARE TO DETECT.EACH AND EVERY LINE and each and every single word.

suggestion. given by mam Improvement - Generally try to avoid using "I agree" style statements and focus your follow ups on adding and expanding to the discussion and respond in a way that expands on the peer's question or ideas by incorporating relevant material from the textbook, unit, and media sources.

I Have also attached the grading rubric photo which is in form of image grading rubric is very much important you have to follow each and every instruction very carefully.

only these sources which i have provided you have been provided in post for post1 and reference for post which are provided only those no outsource has to be used.

First analyse the original debate argument post -1 and+ original debate argument post2 and then write the reply post-1 (intext citation should match with reference and no outsource has to be used).(REFERTNCES USED BY FOR original debate post -1 andorginal debate post2 and SHOULD ONLY BE SUED For rebuttal as there should be only one rebuttal)

First analyse the the original debate post -1 and original debate post2 and then write the one single rebuttal post (only one rebuttal post (intext citation should match with reference and no outsource has to be used). (REFERNCES USED BY original debate argument post -1 and original debate post2 SHOULD ONLY BE SUED For debate rebuttal post )

writedebate rebuttal post -1in200 words exactly.

Ihave attached the grading rubric for debate rebuttal post.