About Me On the path to discover what’s next following a 23 year career in the United States Navy. Something inside me said to give college another shot after impressively failing on my first attempt. My “Why” is rooted in family and service to others.
Scroll to Review Writing Samples
The Evolution of Writing - from OK to Goodish
Reflecting on my past writing submissions this semester has been enjoyable. I appreciated receiving feedback from both peers and my professor. I have also been able to think about and evaluate my evolution as a writer. That statement may sound silly, but from Essay #1 through Essay #3, when reviewing the rubric, I made marked improvements across every criterion and rating. My grade for each assignment also increased each time. However, my takeaway from the course was not that I received good grades from my essay’s. What I am confident in is my ability to consistently write a clear and concise thesis, utilize strong and credible sources, and have a solid rough draft available for feedback. I will also carry with me skills that need further attention which were utilizing MLA Format, increasing my idea development, and gain proficiency in both grammar and proofreading. As I continue to write as part of my college experience it is imperative to use my writing strengths and weaknesses as a road map to improve upon my writing and grow as a writer.
It was not a full-blown panic, but I initially tended to hesitate to open the feedback from an essay submission. What I discovered after the essay was reviewed and graded is that I consistently wrote a clear and concise thesis. I start with a working thesis, but by final submission, my thesis statements have specificity, are effective, and can be easily identifiable. For Essay #2 – Literature Review, I achieved in having an objective, direct, and an effective overview of the issue. My thesis proposed, “Some proponents believe that chatbot AI (Artificial Intelligence) technology can help with critical thinking development while others believe that it will be detrimental to student’s development of critical thinking skills.” My lesson learned is that a clear thesis contains well-developed and logically organized supporting points. Another area I gained confidence in was that I would take the time to research and identify strong and credible sources. I consistently received ratings for the required sources criteria that exceeded expectations. This pre-writing research directly contributed to receiving positive feedback for the source requirements for each essay. An equally key area that I have confidence in is my ability to submit a solid rough draft for review. My rough drafts still had plenty of room for improvements, but I found confidence in feedback that spoke to having a clear thesis, strong supporting arguments, exceeding the minimum length, as well as maintaining focus.
What I am very appreciative of is the fact that I have a lot to improve upon as a writer. These areas are also the skills I will need to spend the most time focusing on in the future. Despite these ratings that said I ‘Needs Improvement,’ ‘Needs Attention,’ or was rated as ‘Competent,’ I am looking forward to gaining a better grasp of MLA format, idea development, and reducing grammar errors. During peer reviews, my classmates did an excellent job at identifying issues, but where I really received the most feedback was the comments from my professor after each assignment was graded. I not only received constructive criticism, but I was also given a reminder of exactly where I could read-up on how to fix these issues from the reading within our textbook, Little Seagull Handbook.
This semester has been valuable for me as a writer. These skills, whether positive or negative, are all reasons I would argue are important to writing. It is the effort I put into writing that when I receive feedback either positive or negative, I am grateful and want to improve. A famous quote from Peter Hagerty reads, “Life is a journey, and if you fall in love with the journey, you will be in love forever.” I want to take a similar perspective regarding my writing like, “Writing is a process, and if I get better at the process of writing, I will continually grow as a writer.” I admit it is cheesy, but now I have confidence in the words I write.
Proactively Addressing Policy and Usage Guidance for Chatbot AI Technologies
Executive Director and Chief Information Security Officer for Old Dominion University (ODU), Douglas Streit, shares during our personal communication, “I am not aware of a policy that specifically addresses ChatGPT, but there are policies that address academic dishonesty” (Streit). Academic Technology Specialist Kristen Palmer from Butler University provides a similar response, “We have a computer usage policy that states technology should be used in an ethical manner, and we have an academic integrity policy that defines cheating and other forms of academic dishonesty” (Palmer). The leading chatbot AI technology, ChatGPT was created by OpenAI and made available to the masses back in November 2022. The reason for ChatGPT’s remarkable growth, with over 100 million users and counting, is due to its incredible ability to provide responses that are often both human-like and correct across a wide range of queries. Mark Wilson in his article “ChatGPT explained: everything you need to know about the AI chatbot,” details, its capability to create written works such as essays, articles, and poetry has contributed to its popularity, as well as sparked controversy, particularly in the realm of education (Wilson). However, ChatGPT and similar technologies are not the first internet-based technologies that have caused worry within academia. Although chatbot AI technologies are being used by students and have raised concerns regarding academic honesty and plagiarism, we should instead begin to redefine the language within academic integrity policies along with policies within the classroom to keep up with all technological advancements.
For those that have never interacted with a chatbot, a question or query is submitted similarly to how text messaging is done. After you click to submit the question, the chatbot begins to generate a response. When ChatGPT is asked, “Explain chatbot AI technologies?” The response provided by ChatGPT is as follows:
Chatbot AI technologies are computer programs designed to simulate human conversation and provide automated responses to user queries using artificial intelligence algorithms, natural language processing, and machine learning techniques. They are integrated with messaging platforms or websites and can be used in a variety of settings such as customer service, e-commerce, healthcare, education, and entertainment. Rule-based chatbots follow predetermined rules or decision trees, while machine learning-based chatbots can adapt to different situations and provide more personalized responses. Chatbot AI technologies offer benefits such as improved customer service and increased efficiency, but limitations include difficulty handling complex queries and the potential for biased responses. Overall, chatbot AI technologies have the potential to revolutionize how we interact with technology and each other (“Explain chatbot AI technology”).
The response takes a matter of seconds and there is even an option to ‘Regenerate response’ if the user would like a different answer to their question. The ease of use and its ability to quickly assist the user, especially if the user is a student looking for a quick answer to a question truly makes these technologies something that can drastically affect its influence in the world of education as we know it.
Eleni Adamopoulou and Lefteris Moussiades provide a history of chatbots in their article, “Chatbots: History, technology, and applications.” In 1966 ELIZA was created by Joseph Weizenbaum and is considered the first chatbot designed to mimic human conversation. There were other milestones and programs that continued to further advance the technology which included PARRY in 1972, Jabberwacky in 1988, Dr. Sbaitso in 1992. Richard Wallace pioneered A.L.I.C.E. in 1995, with major updates in 1998 and 2002, respectively. SmartChild was available on AOL IM (Instant Messaging) and MSN Messenger in 2001. Siri by Apple was released in 2010 and Google Now launched in 2012. Cortana (Microsoft) and Alexa (Google) were both introduced in 2014 (Adamopoulou and Moussiades). At the end of 2022, ChatGPT went live to the public and has since created a buzz across a wide array of industries to include education. Specifically, ChatGPT has caused varying responses for its capabilities which included banning the use of these platforms to keep school policies status quo. Shortly after the roll out of ChatGPT and other chatbot technologies, educators across the country addressed what they determined as negative aspects regarding these technologies and their concerns ranged from the effects it would have on a student critical thinking skills as well as concerns regarding cheating and/or plagiarism. While these considerations may be valid, it is important to also remember that generative AI is a recent addition to a series of technological innovations that have caused significant changes in the educational experience of college and university students. In the International Journal of Information Management, Yogesh Dwivedi, et al., emphasize, “Previous technological disruptions included tools such as calculators, email, statistical software, Google search, and many others (Dwivedi et al.). Calculators have enhanced our ability to do math, Google searches assist with research or finding anything across the internet. Over time and with a greater understanding of these technologies, they have become part of our everyday lives. It may be shortsighted to associate chatbots and their text-generated response capabilities with a negative connotation.
Across colleges and universities there is a lack of policy and regulations in place to govern the use of chatbot technologies. Without a specific reference to chatbot AI technologies, it is important to understand how or why a student could face academic issues if utilizing a technology that provides a text-based response like ChatGPT. The following definitions were taken directly from the Old Dominion University Student Code of Conduct Academic integrity violations include:
- Cheating is defined as unauthorized access to or use of assistance, or collaboration in an academic exercise (including, but not limited to unapproved resources or assistance on an assignment, quiz, or exam; submission of the same or similar paper more than once without permission, etc.).
- Plagiarism is defined as using someone else’s language, ideas, or other material without a proper citation in an academic exercise1 (including but not limited to submitting work of another person, making minor changes to borrowed materials, taking credit for group work without participating, etc.). For more information about plagiarism, please visit the Academic Integrity Tutorial.
- Fabrication is defined as. Inventing, altering, or falsifying data, citation, or information in an academic exercise (including but not limited to citating a secondary source as primary; or inventing or altering data).
- Facilitation is defined as helping a student commit an academic integrity violation (including, but not limited to sharing course materials without permission). (ODU Code of Conduct).
Most students have a basic understanding of what academic violations mean and encompass. Where it gets clouded is when a student uses a tool like ChatGPT. A recent post on Reddit titled, “Caught using ChatGPT in college” highlights issues students are facing but also touch on the reality of the way ChatGPT is being utilized:
So I’ve been using chat gpt to help me write discussion posts at school. Everything was fine until my teacher sent me an email saying my previous two posts were flagged to be written by AI (my previous 5 posts were not flagged even though I used AI there as well) … I did use ChatGPT to help me craft my answers, but I incorporated texts from the class and some of my own original ideas. It wasn’t just a blatant copy and paste. I have to pass this class and don’t want to receive a zero. The professor wants to have a talk with me about it and I’m not sure if I should be honest or deny the allegations. I’m also not sure exactly what evidence he has against me. Please help. (@MuhammadAli5).
If the use of ChatGPT or similar chatbot technologies were not authorized for use in this course, this student may be facing accusations of cheating, plagiarism, and fabrication based on the above definitions from the ODU Student Code of Conduct.
When the evidence points to students being unaware of the potential pitfalls of this type of technology, there are those that are introducing ideas that aim to inform about the use of these programs and whether it is a breach of the academic integrity policies. As an advocate for AI literacy, Anna Mills and Distinguished Professor of English from Rutgers University Lauren Goodlad propose, “from an academic integrity perspective, this means that “AI”-generated writing: 1) is not easily identifiable as such to the unpracticed eye; 2) does not conform to “plagiarism” as that term is typically understood by teachers and students; and 3) encourages students to think of writing as task-specific labor disconnected from learning and the application of critical thinking. (Mills and Goodlad).
The idea to completely ban or restrict the use of chatbot technologies is a completely unattainable goal. The focus should be directed in redefining and/or updating language to address acceptable use policies, course syllabi, and academic integrity guidelines. Mark Cu and Sebastian Hochman reveal in The Stanford Daily, “Some colleges and universities have already incorporated the new technology into their academic integrity policies. Washington University in St. Louis and University of Vermont in Burlington are among the institutions that have amended their academic integrity policies to include the usage of AI tools like ChatGPT” (Cu and Hochman). This is a proactive effort in keeping up with the advancements of technologies. Others have a similar position. Mills and Goodlad, provide an example of what and how to address any omission to text-generated response platforms, “Update academic integrity policies to make them explicit about the use of automated writing tools. Academic integrity policies and honor codes should specify what, if any, use of automated writing assistance is appropriate (teachers may wish to consult departmental or institutional policies). (Mills and Goodlad).
There is also a grass roots type effort of sharing resources to provide instructors with an awareness of the types of policies that are being developed and drafted to help with navigating AI-generative tools (such as ChatGPT, MidJourney, Dall-E, etc.). “Classroom Policies for AI Generative Tools” a document shared by Kristen Palmer consolidates an extensive list of Courses, Institutions, and the Policies (See fig. 1.) that are being either utilized and/or proposed by colleges and universities across the country:
This excerpt highlights the proactive measures professors are trying to address regarding text-generated programs advancement. This is a step in the right direction to tackle this reality head-on vice pretending it does not exist or blanket statements like banning these platforms would prove completely ineffective.
The advancements of technologies that can be used today are impressive and are continually getting better each day. Once an innovative technology is made available for public use, there is a reality that a student will come across this new capability, and they are highly likely to use it to their advantage. In a blog post on Education from Purdue University Online, “Technology has always been at the forefront of human education. From the days of carving figures on rock walls to today, when most students are equipped with several portable technological devices at any given time, technology continues to push educational capabilities to new levels…” (“The Evolution of Technology in the Classroom”). This push and access to tools and programs will continue. In the case of chatbot AI technology, the problems that concern potential plagiarism and academic honesty should be addressed head-on. It can be done by gaining a better understanding of technology (i.e., Capabilities versus Limitations), updating language to address text-generated response platform within institution policies and addressing ChatGPT and other programs usage in course syllabi. There should be an emphasis on the need to continually have dialogue on not only chatbot AI technologies but all advancements in technologies that directly impact education as we know it.
The Imperfect ChatGPT
“ChatGPT Is Incredibly Limited, but Good Enough at Some Things to Create a Misleading Impression of Greatness. It’s a Mistake to Be Relying on It for Anything Important Right Now. It’s a Preview of Progress; We Have Lots of Work to Do on Robustness and Truthfulness” (Altman). This tweet from OpenAI’s chief executive officer, the company behind ChatGPT provides an insightful take for both the good and the bad of this specific chatbot AI technology. Chatbot artificial intelligence (AI) technology is a type of computer program that can have text or voice-based conversations with humans. It uses machine learning and natural language processing algorithms to understand and respond to the user inputs in a conversational way. Chatbots are designed to simulate a human-like conversation and its use is seeing a significant increase amongst students. Chatbot AI technologies are also known as ChatGPT, Bing with ChatGPT, Jasper, and YouChat, to name a few. Those who oppose the use of chatbot AI technologies due to negative impacts on education argue that it is an imperfect tool with limitations in the technology itself, using it equates to academic fraud as well as plagiarism by students. However, these arguments are based on inaccurate assumptions of the capabilities of the technology.
Some may argue that chatbot AI technologies are imperfect computer programs with glaring issues within the platforms themselves. In an Op-Ed from the New Jersey Spotlight News, Dr. Leslie Allison and Dr. Tiffany DeRewal argue that based on how ChatGPT and other large language model chatbots were created, they have been known to generate wrong and made-up responses. The inconsistencies of these platforms vary from providing inaccurate information to basic questions, to incorrect calculations in math formulas, to errors in coding, to creating fully manufactured quotes and citations for writing assignments. (Allison and DeRewal). Sam Altman, chief executive of OpenAI the company behind ChatGPT shares a similar position as Allison and DeRewal going on the record with, “The model will confidently state things as if they were facts that are entirely made up” (Passy). The possibilities that chatbots provide inaccurate and/or false responses serve as valid reasons for educators to restrict the use of these types of technologies.
Supporters of chatbot AI technology openly acknowledge the potential errors that a result may contain from a query. In a post on their website, OpenAI addresses ChatGPT limitations. While the statement lacks specificity to a target audience, proponents that view chatbots in a negative light may need to consider OpenAI’s statement on ChatGPTs’ limitations when using their product; before disregarding ChatGPT in its entirety because of a plausible sounding but incorrect or nonsensical answer is, “ChatGPT is sensitive to tweaks to the input phrasing or attempting the same prompt multiple times. For example, given one phrasing of a question, the model can claim to not know the answer, but given a slight rephrase, can answer correctly” (“Introducing ChatGPT”). Before making a stance that chatbot AI technologies are imperfect, it may be worth asking a question in a different manner and consider the alternate responses.
Shortly after the rollout of ChatGPT and other chatbot technologies, educators across the country addressed what they perceived as negative aspects in regards to these technologies and their concerns ranged from the effects to critical thinking skills to plagiarism to a lack of knowing its sources. One of the largest school districts in the US voiced, “Due to concerns about negative impacts on student learning, and concerns regarding the safety and accuracy of content, access to ChatGPT is restricted on New York City Public Schools’ networks and devices,” said education department spokesperson Jenna Lyle (Elsen-Rooney). Others agreed with New York Public Schools arguing, recent investigations have shown that despite claims that modern chatbots reply with only authentic choice of words, they have been proven to reproduce existing content, which can result in academic fraud as well as issues with crediting sources as required (Allison and DeRewal). It is understandable if a student is to use a response from a chatbot, the student should know where the result was based upon.
Wanting to ensure the integrity of the work a student submits is in keeping with a minimum expectation within academia. As chatbot technologies continue to refine and enhance themselves, there actually have been updates that address the concerns of potential academic fraud. Bing with ChatGPT uses Microsoft ecosystem tools (ie. Microsoft Edge browser, Microsoft Bing search engine, etc.). A unique capability of Bing with ChatGPT vice OpenAI ChatGPT is that at the bottom of a Bing ChatGPT query there are footnoted references to where the bot is pulling the data from; which includes links to those sources too (Wawro). This solution directly looks to counter the concerns from the likes of New York City Public Schools and other School Districts that followed their lead. Sofia Barnett writes to those anchoring on the chatbot technologies and possible plagiarism. The creation of ChatGPT does not signal the first instance of worries about the inappropriate utilization of the internet in the academic realm. In 2001, when Wikipedia was introduced, schools all over the country were struggling to define research principles and other concepts of ethical academic behavior, modifying policies to keep up with technological advancements (Barnett). As a result, the argument that the use of chatbots directly equates to academic fraud and its use is entirely negative is short-sighted and lacks a better understanding of these technologies.
There is a technological advancement that is here to stay. This specific advancement has the potential to play a significant role for education. These types of platforms known as chatbot AI technologies allow for a complete human-like conversation with a computer program. As with all technologies that were once new, there were flaws and a lack of understanding of the technology itself. There are many that have prohibited the use of the technology or accused the computer software of contributing to academic fraud and plagiarism for those that use the text-based results that are given. These chatbots have been made public only recently. But its potential and possible significance for the landscape of education is already acknowledged. The detractors may need a bit more patience as well as taking time to better gain an in-depth understanding of the capabilities of the technology itself. Those that have embraced these platforms may need to be patience as well and explain all their potential uses to those that may be fearful of a technology they don’t clearly understand.
Chatbot AI Technology - Developing Critical Thinking
Critical thinking is an essential skill for students to develop, as it involves the ability to analyze, evaluate, and make informed decisions based on evidence and reasoning. There are many ways that a student further develops these skills but, in an education, setting this becomes a task of teachers. How educators choose to develop a student’s critical thinking is varied and a growing discussion within academia is about technology used by students. A specific example of technology that is being debated are the use of chatbot Artificial Intelligence (AI) technologies. These types of technologies are known as ChatGPT, Bing ChatGPT, Jasper, and YouChat, to name a few. However, the question of whether chatbot AI technology should be used by students to help with their critical thinking development is being continuously argued. Educators who are tasked with developing critical thinking skills of students have either embraced or prohibited the use of this type of technology. Some proponents believe that chatbot AI technology can help with critical thinking development while other believe that it will be detrimental to student's development of critical thinking skills.
Individuals who support the use of chatbot technologies believe that embracing these types of platforms will become indispensable tools that assist in learning. According to Ungar and Duckworth, educators have made efforts for students to possess knowledge as well as have critical thinking skills. However, chatbot technologies showcases the differences between these two concepts. While knowledge involves memorizing information, critical thinking involves making decisions based on that information. In the future, chatbot AI technology will be as essential for writing essays in the same way that calculators are used for solving math problems (Ungar and Duckworth). Matt Miller argues “Calculators, Search engines, Google Translate, Wikipedia, PhotoMath, #ChatGPT. They disrupt traditional teaching. We adapt. Education evolves forward. “Condensing his position on ChatGPT and other technologies that were once a hinderance to learning, he declares, “Blocking them isn’t the answer. Making education more relevant is” (Miller). Likewise, Roose agrees with Ungar and Duckworth, suggesting that the perspective has changed after discussing with numerous educators. Forbidding the use of ChatGPT in the classroom is not the correct decision. Rather, schools should carefully adopt ChatGPT as an educational tool that can enhance students' critical thinking skills when taken with the right approach, provide tailored tutoring, and improve their ability to collaborate with artificial intelligence systems in their future careers (Roose). The ability to enhance critical thinking of students can be further developed with tools such as chatbot AI technologies.
Additionally, those who advocate for the use of chatbots as a tool for critical thinking skills suggest that educators actively engage with these platforms to better understand its capabilities. Communications studies professor Ulises Mejias suggests, “Firstly, as an instructor I would encourage students to play around with it. ChatGPT is an ingenious instrument, and instead of trying to scare students away from it, let them use it and experience what it can and can't do. Have a discussion with them about it” (SUNY Oswego News & Events). Other proponents that believe in engaging chatbot technology shared a similar view as Mejias; Artificial intelligence-driven learning platforms would enable instructors to obtain valuable insights into their students’ learning preferences, capabilities, and advancement, as well as offer recommendations on how to tailor their teaching approaches to meet the unique needs of each student (Rouhiainen). Chatbot AI platforms have a wide range of uses. Having a comprehensive understanding of its capabilities can assist teachers and students alike in enhancing critical thinking skills.
However, there are some that look to ban the use of chatbot platforms as there are potential negative effects to students. Case believes that it is is concerning that students may experience a decline in their critical thinking and creative skills if chatbots like ChatGPT are relied upon too heavily to complete their assignments. If students allow ChatGPT to do all of their thinking for them, there is a risk that they may lose the ability to think independently. Case continues with students may have less of a desire to complete their assigned tasks if they know that ChatGPT can complete it for them significantly faster (Case). Lock expands upon Case’s position that another consideration that highlights the negative aspects of chatbot technologies is that “ChatGPT can also give entirely wrong answers and present misinformation as fact, writing plausible-sounding but incorrect or nonsensical answers” (Lock). Further adding to this position an AI chatbot contributed a similar stance as Case and Lock, if depending solely on AI chatbots for learning it could lead to students relying heavily on these technologies instead of honing their critical thinking abilities and acquiring the tools to seek information on their own (“Chat AI and Education: First Thoughts – Owl Tutors”). There is an understanding amongst some that chatbot platforms can be detrimental to the development of critical thinking of students.
To embrace or restrict chatbot AI technology can be looked at as a positive or negative impact within the education environment. In either case, those that are want to use the technology for students will advocate how it can be an important role in the development of critical thinking. Those that want to remove this technology from use by students make arguments that students will no longer think for themselves and submit chatbot responses as their own thoughts and work. Both sides of this issue truly want what’s best for students. The technology in its current state has glaring issues but continues to learn, change, and adapt as people continue to use these tools. The fact is that this technology is here to stay.
Perspectives on a Student Debt Relief Plan
Since the 1950’s the US Government has provided loan assistance to those in need to attend College or University. Borrowing money to attend a school, has resulted in millions of American’s incurring thousands of dollars in debt. United States Senator’s Roy Blunt and Richard Durbin during separate opportunities to address their peers on the Senate Floor, each took a few minutes to talk about Student Loan Debt but more specifically President Joe Biden’s Student Debt Forgiveness Plan. Although, both Senator’s employ similar rhetorical strategies and make excellent use of data, logical arguments, and cause and effects to formulate either a positive take on the Plan or a negative take on the Plan, with all rhetorical intent being equal, Senator Blunt’s restraint to not make emotional appeals or highlight specific individuals that have been affected by the Student Loan Debt issue was a more effective strategy.
Speaking from a few sheets of paper with talking points, quotes from reputable sources, or a statistic from which to reference, Blunt and Durbin each maintained a calm and assertive tone throughout the entire speech. When they presented a specific point of emphasis, it was accompanied with an authoritative hand gesture. They both each clearly had a firm grasp of the topic at hand. Neither lost their train of thought or appeared to lose their audience. The speeches did include moments where the Senator’s voiced displeasure and frustration with those involved with this issue. Blunt responding to a recent statement by the President comments, “President Biden's been bragging frankly about how strong our economy is and how low unemployment is. Well if that's true why do we need to spend hundreds of billions of dollars on a program that's unfair, that disproportionately helps upper income Americans.” Durbin laments, "Theses Republican Colleagues of mine are setting out to stop this Executive Order by Joe Biden. I guess it'll be a great source of Pride if they do it."
Each Senator opened their speeches with a history lesson in Federal Programs that individuals seeking higher education used to secure the funds they needed to attend school. From these initial opening statements, they both presented a deep and through understanding of how the Government started loaning money. Senator Blunt casually states, “I’ve been a big supporter of Pell Grants and I know you have too.” Senator Durbin while speaking to the National Defense Education Act said when speaking of how he was able to attend college, “It was the government loans that got me through it and I wasn’t alone.” These statements are a reminder to the other Senator’s in attendance that the government has played a role in making higher education a possibility for those in need for a really long time.
Senator Blunt and Senator Durbin eventually highlight the details to the President’s Student Loan Forgiveness Plan. However, just prior to Blunt revealing the Plan during his speech, he makes a matter of fact statement to his fellow Senators saying, “I think the one thing that would be a mistake here would be to ask the Taxpayers of America to now pay the loans off of other Americans who made those loans.” This statement wasn’t emotional. This statement was the first of many logical, thought provoking statements that were to follow without so much as a change in his tone on the subject.
“You know 87% of Americans don’t have a Student Loan” was another non-emotional statement made by Blunt. He continues to say, “The President’s telling them frankly, we’re going to forgive the loans for 13%, the other 87% don’t have.” This statement along with other quotes from creditable sources were the cornerstones to Senator Blunt’s speech. He used a quote from the New York Times Editorial Board as well as statements from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. These sources contribute to the other talking points Blunt speaks to which were whether the President has the legal authority to forgive these student loans and what economic impacts would the Plan on the economy. Blunt clearly establishes a position of how he is not supportive of the President’s Plan.
Senator Durbin takes a different approach to Blunt in how he highlights the reasons he is supportive of the President’s Plan. The examples he uses were more emotional in nature and while thought provoking, it overshadowed the data driven talking points Blunt presented. Durbin speaks to the impacts For-Profit Colleges and Universities have had on the Student Loan Debt situation. He states, “They used to run ads on Washington TV that showed this lovely, lovely young lady. She was in her bedroom, in her pajamas with a laptop computer saying, “I’m going to college.” Durbin changes tone to say, “You think to yourself, get real, this isn’t real college.” This statement was an attempt to make emotional appeal with his colleagues, but actually took away from a statistic he highlights in regards to For-Profit Colleges and Universities which was, “8% of high school graduates go to For-Profit Colleges and Universities. 33% of these students’ loans are in default.” This is an example of Durbin using pathos with cause-effect arguments. An additional emotional appeal that Senator Durbin makes and again it’s in regards to For-Profit Colleges and Universities, is the story about Vicki. He provides a rather detailed story of how Vicki accumulated $50,000 in student loans while pursuing a degree from a College not-accredited in her State. He links how these For-Profit Colleges and Universities derailed a promising life based on poor decisions.
Although both Senator Blunt and Senator Durbin effectively use their time to highlight either positive support or negative support to the President’s Student Debt Forgiveness Plan, Senator Durbin’s choices to include examples that sought to illicit an emotional response while successful, weakened his overall rhetorical intentions. Senator Blunt maintained consistent use of focused rhetorical appeals which did not distract from his rhetorical strategy. Both Blunt and Durbin make a case that a Student Loan Debt Plan is worth pursuing, maybe not President Biden’s Plan, but a Plan none the less.