Literature Responses Part VII: Uncovering Nuances of the Toulmin Method and of the Debater Role

It seems the more I co-teach and collaborate with Carol the more I'm impelled to be reflexive about what we're been working on in her classes as regards the Debater Role of Literature Responses (or the Toulmin method of argumentation).

In helping students try to understand and find logic and clarity in planning their essays/paragraphs using the Debater Role, it struck me that all the supporting Evidence needs to be aligned with a specific portion of the Warrant, usually the adjectives contained in the warrant.

OEQ: Do you think the government should have enacted the Removal Act that displaced many Shawnees? 

Claim: I believe the U.S. government shouldn't have enacted the Removal Act
Warrant: because the Shawnees were a resourceful people who could have helped the Ohio settlers
Evidence (3): 

1. Shawnees used all parts of an animal when they killed it  

2. Shawnees were peaceful (and proved it when they captured and then released Daniel Boone and his men unharmed and with supplies of food and weapons)

3. Shawnees knew how to survive in harsh conditions and were used to Mid-Western winters. 

In the above example Evidence #2 does not support the Shawnees being a resourceful people; if the original Warrant had been "because the Shawnees were a peaceful and resourceful people who could have helped the Ohio settlers," then #2 can be kept.  As it stands, however, a new idea needs to be proffered that directly supports the notion of the Shawnees being a resourceful people.

Another issue that's actually more of a reminder is that when creating their Claims, students should re-state the original open-ended question as can be seen in the Claim above.  Last, Carol and I have been having quite a time in steering students away from excessive pronoun use where the original OEQ is concerned as these can really muddy comprehension for readers...or for that matter, scorers.