This heuristic is intended to help you work collaboratively and individually to develop a topic theme for the semester and a specific topic for your first paper.

1). Work as a group to discuss each of your responses to the first WebBoard posting. Go around the group and have each group member share his or her topic ideas. Be sure to give appropriate background information and explain why you find the topic interesting and what your particular claim or position might be. If you've whittled down your choices to one topic, that is great. If you are still undecided, share the topics that are most interesting to you and get feedback from your group members as to which topic might have the most appeal and/or potential. Your role as a group member is to give your group mates feedback on their issues in terms of what you might know about that issue, why you think it would make a good argument, what some of its difficulties/limitations might be, etc.

2). Once this is accomplished, choose one topic that your group can share with the rest of the class (even if you have to choose one arbitrarily). Share some basic background information about the topic, the potential position/claim that might be taken by the author, and a few reasons in support of that claim.

3). TOPIC PROPOSAL: Note that this section of the heuristic is to be completed individually over the weekend (as homework) and posted to WebBoard by class-time on Monday, 9/9. Post your response under the topic discussion thread titled, "Writing a Definitional Argument: Topic Proposal."

In creating your topic proposal, you should address the following questions:

· What is your thematic focus for the semester? Why have you chosen this focus?
· Within this focus, what is the specific issue or topic you have chosen for your definitional argument? What are your X and Y terms?
· Explain the underlying conflict and controversy, providing relevant background information.
· What is the definitional dispute at hand? What is the disputed definition on which your issue turns? Often, this requires that you think of how your particular issue involves, at its core, a definitional controversy and "tweak" your claim so that it fits into a definitional structure (X is (is not) a Y. This is a very important step.

Remember that, in a definitional argument, you are arguing that a particular X belongs in a category Y where Y is a controversial term with a disputed definition. Some examples might be:

"Professional baseball in America (X) is no longer a true sport (Y)."
"Title IX (X) is a discriminatory law (Y)."
"Spanking (X) is a form of child abuse (Y)."
"Media images of women (X) are gender-biased (Y)."
"Attacking Iraq (X) is a justifiable or appropriate military action (Y)."
"The treatment of abusive priests by the Catholic Church (X) is
unconstitutional and/or immoral (Y)."
"Public smoking (X) is a constitutional right (Y)"
"Public smoking (X) is a public health hazard (Y)"