I haven't fully finished my paper yet, but I have a pretty good idea of where I am taking it, so far anyway.
My paper is mainly a disputation (is that a word?) of most of the works that we have read. I am using arguements from Kim's essay, Said's spiel, and Kumar's writing and disputing them, but I am trying to shape Pratt's piece into something that works for me, rather than against. As far as creating an air of conversation, I am attempting to sound as open as possible, via the use of questions (to engage the other conversers and to seem open-minded to other ideas) and by using a somewhat gentler syntax than most arguementative papers. I also start by stating clearly where I stand and how I have aquired the opinions and beliefs that I stand by. My biggest question: Is it okay to use personal experiences and beliefs to create an arguement? Most of my paper, it seems to me, is founded of experiences of my own, therefore, is it still a valid arguement? Or would facts make it more reliable?
Either way, I will probably continue with it as I started it. Just looking for input!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment