Rhetorical Features of the Controversy

Paper

Introduction/

Conclusion

Strong introduction of the topic through an

attention getting device. Strong thesis

statement. Clear preview of the document to

come. Narrative flows nicely from

introduction to body of paper. Conclusion

reviews the major arguments of the document

and demonstrates what new perspectives we

might take on the controversy and how to

productively engage in discourse around it.

Good introduction of the topic. Thesis

statement is identifiable and clear. Preview

of the document effectively communicates

the general organization of the document.

Narrative flows nicely from introduction

to body of paper. Conclusion reviews the

major arguments of the paper and

demonstrates what new perspectives we

might take on the controversy and how to

engage in the debate.

Introduction and conclusion are present

but could use some work to make them

more compelling and effective as opening

and closing movements of the document.

Thesis statement is present but not strong.

Preview of document is present but

unclear. Conclusion reviews the arguments

of the paper and starts a conversation

about what new perspectives we might

take on the controversy.

Introduction and conclusion are weak

and/or ineffective. Thesis statement is

missing or very weak. No preview is

identifiable or is ineffectual. The

conclusion is abrupt and/or makes little

effort at reviewing the major arguments

of the document.

Explication of

Theory

Group provides a clear and succinct

explanation of theory used to analyze the

rhetoric of the controversy. Theoretical

concepts are specifically addressed, defined,

and their importance is articulated. Steps of

the analysis process of clear, concise, and

organized. Writing explains and justifies why

they chose the specific texts analyzed.

Explains the connection the texts have to the

controversy itself. Clear, concise, organized

explanation of why the texts analyzed are the

most rich in terms of content.

Group provides a clear and succinct

explanation of theory used to analyze the

rhetoric of the controversy. Theoretical

concepts are defined and their importance

explained. Steps of the analysis are clear.

Writing explains why they chose the

specific texts analyzed. Explanation of the

connection between the texts and the

controversy itself is apparent. Overall, a

good justification for the selection of texts

is crafted.

Group provides an explanation of theory

used to analyze the rhetoric of the

controversy. Theoretical concepts are

generally explained and their importance

to the analysis is noted. Steps in the

analysis could be more clear or organized.

Explanation of the connection between the

texts and the controversy itself is apparent

but could use more detail or clarity.

Overall, adequate justification for the

selection of texts is crafted.

Group’s explanation of theory used to

analyze the rhetoric of the controversy

is missing, significantly under-covered,

and/or very unclear. Theoretical

concepts are missing or treated with no

depth. Steps in the analysis are missing

or incorrectly explained. Explanation of

the connection between the texts and

controversy is missing or muddled.

Overall, little effort is made in the way

of justification for the selection of texts.

Analysis of

Arguments

Analysis is clearly documented with several

examples provided from the controversy as it

appears in the public sphere. Application of

theory is systematic, detailed, and clearly

demonstrates a new perspective on the

rhetoric of the controversy itself. Analysis is

organized efficiently and effectively to

progressively reveal the rhetorical landscape

of the controversy and avoid unnecessarily

repetitive claims. All parts of the theory

explained above are addressed in each section

of the analysis where relevant. Where the

chosen theory is insufficient to explain the

rhetorical features of the controversy

alternative explanations or theory suggestions

are provided. Clear, specific, topical examples

are abundant as evidence for the claims

forwarded.

Analysis is documented with several

examples provided from the controversy

as it appears in the public sphere.

Application of theory is detailed and

clearly demonstrates a new perspective on

the rhetoric of the controversy itself.

Analysis is organized to avoid

unnecessarily repetitive claims. All parts

of the theory explained above are

addressed in each section of the analysis

where relevant. Where the chosen theory is

insufficient to explain the rhetorical

features of the controversy alternative

explanations or theory suggestions are

provided. Clear, topical examples are used

as evidence for the claims forwarded in the

paper.

Analysis is documented with several

examples provided from the controversy

as it appears in the public sphere.

Application of theory is demonstrated. A

new or different perspective of the rhetoric

of the controversy is developed. Analysis

is organized and clear, but falls into

repetition in some places. The theory

explained above is mostly apparent in each

section of the analysis. Topical examples

are used as evidence for the claims

forwarded in the paper.

Analysis is missing examples, or

examples provided do not support the

claims of the paper. Application of

theory is weak or missing. A new or

different perspective of the rhetoric of

the controversy is missing or is not

clearly discernable. Analysis is

unorganized and repetitive. Theory

explained above is apparent in each

section of the analysis but does not help

understand the rhetorical features of the

controversy. Examples are missing or

do not support the claims forwarded in

the paper.

Organization

and

Mechanics

Well organized sections and excellent

transitions among sections. Readers can easily

follow the flow of the argument in the

document. Correct citation and reference

format; double-spaced; 1 inch margins, 12 pt.

Times New Roman font; few grammatical

errors or typos. Paper is at least 8 pages and

no longer than 12 pages.

Well-organized sections and excellent

transitions among sections. Readers can

follow the flow of the argument in the

document. Correct citation and reference

format; double-spaced; 1 inch margins, 12

pt. Times New Roman font; some

grammatical errors or typos. Paper is at

least 8 pages and no longer than 12 pages.

Somewhat well-organized sections with

transitions. Readers can follow the flow of

the argument, but must fill in gaps or

jumps in logical transitions between ideas

or points. Some errors in citation and

reference format; double-spaced; 1 inch

margins, 12 pt. Times New Roman font;

moderate number of grammatical errors or

typos. Paper is at least 8 pages and no

longer than 12 pages.

Document is not effectively organized

and lacks useful transitions. Readers

cannot follow the flow or argument of

the document. Writing jumps between

and among ideas. Lacks a narrative

quality. Problems with citation and

reference format; double-spaced; 1 inch

margins, 12 pt. Times New Roman font;

many or very many grammatical errors

or typos. Paper is does not make 8 pages

or is over 12 pages.

Rhetorical Features of the Controversy 100 points

This assignment asks you to begin the research process of understanding the complexity of a controversy we discuss this semester. You will select a controversy listed in the syllabus (Immigration, Covid-19, Protest, Cancel Culture, Social Media and Democracy, or Negative Partisanship). You will write a 4-page paper identifying the specific rhetorical features you see presented in your research of the topic (public controversy, discourse & power, spheres of argument, rhetoric of distrust, ideographs). The assignment requires 4-pages of analysis and does not include cover sheet, abstract, references, images, or figures. This paper will serve as the foundation for the State of the Controversy paper that you will turn in at the conclusion of the semester. Begin this assignment by introducing the topic you selected. Tell your readers why you selected this topic. Frame the topic within the study of rhetorical criticism. Explain why rhetorical criticism is the best framework for analysis of your topic; i.e. explain how rhetorical criticism will help you to best understand your topic and effectively analyze its different rhetorical components. Then identify and explain the different rhetorical features present within the rhetoric surrounding your topic; i.e. public controversy, power, spheres of argument, distrust, ideographs). Explain how the rhetorical features of your topic work and what messaging they favor, convey, or promote. Conclude by explaining how your understanding of the rhetorical features of your controversy will situate your controversy for further investigation. You have some flexibility in the organizational structure of the paper—the requirements are that it has an introduction, thesis statement, preview statement, a description of the major arguments of the controversy, a discussion of the relationship in and among the arguments, and a conclusion (see the paper structure outline for guidance). You may organize the argument and discussion sections however seem appropriate to your particular topic. It is expected that this paper is written in APA format and contains cover sheet, abstract, and references pages. Please review the rubric for discussion of formatting expectations.

Paper

Introduction/

Conclusion

Strong introduction of the topic through an

attention getting device. Strong thesis

statement. Clear preview of the document to

come. Narrative flows nicely from

introduction to body of paper. Conclusion

reviews the major arguments of the document

and demonstrates what new perspectives we

might take on the controversy and how to

productively engage in discourse around it.

Good introduction of the topic. Thesis

statement is identifiable and clear. Preview

of the document effectively communicates

the general organization of the document.

Narrative flows nicely from introduction

to body of paper. Conclusion reviews the

major arguments of the paper and

demonstrates what new perspectives we

might take on the controversy and how to

engage in the debate.

Introduction and conclusion are present

but could use some work to make them

more compelling and effective as opening

and closing movements of the document.

Thesis statement is present but not strong.

Preview of document is present but

unclear. Conclusion reviews the arguments

of the paper and starts a conversation

about what new perspectives we might

take on the controversy.

Introduction and conclusion are weak

and/or ineffective. Thesis statement is

missing or very weak. No preview is

identifiable or is ineffectual. The

conclusion is abrupt and/or makes little

effort at reviewing the major arguments

of the document.

Explication of

Theory

Group provides a clear and succinct

explanation of theory used to analyze the

rhetoric of the controversy. Theoretical

concepts are specifically addressed, defined,

and their importance is articulated. Steps of

the analysis process of clear, concise, and

organized. Writing explains and justifies why

they chose the specific texts analyzed.

Explains the connection the texts have to the

controversy itself. Clear, concise, organized

explanation of why the texts analyzed are the

most rich in terms of content.

Group provides a clear and succinct

explanation of theory used to analyze the

rhetoric of the controversy. Theoretical

concepts are defined and their importance

explained. Steps of the analysis are clear.

Writing explains why they chose the

specific texts analyzed. Explanation of the

connection between the texts and the

controversy itself is apparent. Overall, a

good justification for the selection of texts

is crafted.

Group provides an explanation of theory

used to analyze the rhetoric of the

controversy. Theoretical concepts are

generally explained and their importance

to the analysis is noted. Steps in the

analysis could be more clear or organized.

Explanation of the connection between the

texts and the controversy itself is apparent

but could use more detail or clarity.

Overall, adequate justification for the

selection of texts is crafted.

Group’s explanation of theory used to

analyze the rhetoric of the controversy

is missing, significantly under-covered,

and/or very unclear. Theoretical

concepts are missing or treated with no

depth. Steps in the analysis are missing

or incorrectly explained. Explanation of

the connection between the texts and

controversy is missing or muddled.

Overall, little effort is made in the way

of justification for the selection of texts.

Analysis of

Arguments

Analysis is clearly documented with several

examples provided from the controversy as it

appears in the public sphere. Application of

theory is systematic, detailed, and clearly

demonstrates a new perspective on the

rhetoric of the controversy itself. Analysis is

organized efficiently and effectively to

progressively reveal the rhetorical landscape

of the controversy and avoid unnecessarily

repetitive claims. All parts of the theory

explained above are addressed in each section

of the analysis where relevant. Where the

chosen theory is insufficient to explain the

rhetorical features of the controversy

alternative explanations or theory suggestions

are provided. Clear, specific, topical examples

are abundant as evidence for the claims

forwarded.

Analysis is documented with several

examples provided from the controversy

as it appears in the public sphere.

Application of theory is detailed and

clearly demonstrates a new perspective on

the rhetoric of the controversy itself.

Analysis is organized to avoid

unnecessarily repetitive claims. All parts

of the theory explained above are

addressed in each section of the analysis

where relevant. Where the chosen theory is

insufficient to explain the rhetorical

features of the controversy alternative

explanations or theory suggestions are

provided. Clear, topical examples are used

as evidence for the claims forwarded in the

paper.

Analysis is documented with several

examples provided from the controversy

as it appears in the public sphere.

Application of theory is demonstrated. A

new or different perspective of the rhetoric

of the controversy is developed. Analysis

is organized and clear, but falls into

repetition in some places. The theory

explained above is mostly apparent in each

section of the analysis. Topical examples

are used as evidence for the claims

forwarded in the paper.

Analysis is missing examples, or

examples provided do not support the

claims of the paper. Application of

theory is weak or missing. A new or

different perspective of the rhetoric of

the controversy is missing or is not

clearly discernable. Analysis is

unorganized and repetitive. Theory

explained above is apparent in each

section of the analysis but does not help

understand the rhetorical features of the

controversy. Examples are missing or

do not support the claims forwarded in

the paper.

Organization

and

Mechanics

Well organized sections and excellent

transitions among sections. Readers can easily

follow the flow of the argument in the

document. Correct citation and reference

format; double-spaced; 1 inch margins, 12 pt.

Times New Roman font; few grammatical

errors or typos. Paper is at least 8 pages and

no longer than 12 pages.

Well-organized sections and excellent

transitions among sections. Readers can

follow the flow of the argument in the

document. Correct citation and reference

format; double-spaced; 1 inch margins, 12

pt. Times New Roman font; some

grammatical errors or typos. Paper is at

least 8 pages and no longer than 12 pages.

Somewhat well-organized sections with

transitions. Readers can follow the flow of

the argument, but must fill in gaps or

jumps in logical transitions between ideas

or points. Some errors in citation and

reference format; double-spaced; 1 inch

margins, 12 pt. Times New Roman font;

moderate number of grammatical errors or

typos. Paper is at least 8 pages and no

longer than 12 pages.

Document is not effectively organized

and lacks useful transitions. Readers

cannot follow the flow or argument of

the document. Writing jumps between

and among ideas. Lacks a narrative

quality. Problems with citation and

reference format; double-spaced; 1 inch

margins, 12 pt. Times New Roman font;

many or very many grammatical errors

or typos. Paper is does not make 8 pages

or is over 12 pages.