After a severe crash in Kentucky, federal officials are looking to place a ban on all use of cell phones, both hand-held and hands-free. To my knowledge in this argument there really isn't a qualifier, though considering the source I wouldn't expect there to be. Qualifying words like "probably" and "maybe" are avoided most of the time, because the paper needs to know for a fact something before they publish it. Now, they can publish with these words included, but it might put the credibility of the paper in jeopardy, so must prefer not to.
However there is a rebuttal statement. The ban should be placed on cell phone usage unless in an emergency. This is a logical rebuttal statement. Things happen that the driver could not have accounted for and he will have to use his or her cell phone. It is a nice loop hole to get out of a situation.
I figure any good argument will have a rebuttal, because most people will need a loop hole so they can escape backlash from people arguing against the point. Having a qualifier I don't think is nearly as important though. While these words may make your argument stronger, they could also weaken the integrity of the argument, so it's kind of a crapshoot.
I agree with what you said about newspapers not wanting to publish articles with qualifiers because it seems as though the article might not be completely factual. To me, it really depends on the medium of the argument because if it is in a different setting, then qualifiers might be more helpful. I said in my post that qualifiers might be more useful in arguments where there are not clear sides or it is a less explored field.
ReplyDeleteAs you said about rebuttals, it makes sense sometimes for arguments to have them because it is kind of a way out for people so they can escape overly harsh criticism. However, they can weaken the argument at times too. I just think rebuttals should be carefully chosen by the person arguing.