a counterclaim statement for this: Gandhi and King wanted to distinguish themselves from the party of violence and make it clear that they both favor only nonviolence.
@Elsa213 just one more .-.
So, do you know what the claim is you are counter claiming?
thats the claim
so what are u asking us to do
just write a counterclaim for it?
ahh okay
You need to make a counterclaim against the claim above. Im thinking we take the route of making them appear pro violence.
I guess you could say Gandhi and king want to distinguish themselves from a party of nonviolence to make it clear that they favor a party of violence.
then a short refutation and that's it, literally a short sentence, i just struggle in it
Something along the lines of why a more violent approach to the situation might have yielded more effective results. An example of that would be Malcolm X's lack of adamance about non-violent protest, unlike MLK and Ghandi.
so whats a short refuation for it?
refutation*
That would be the easy part: you simply state what makes non-violent protest more powerful and more effective than a violent approach, and ultimately, why those two activists chose to use that approach.
ok I’ll write it and u tell me how it is in a bit
Alright, tag me, I might be afk if not offline though
@AP
When dispute arises, those involved in the dispute find themselves in a state of transient need for social support. Both of these leaders did not use violence, They used their words and knowledge to spread their word and changed the world.
That's pretty good, now, but before you discuss the approach that Ghandi and MLK used, explain why an activist might think it's a better idea to use violence if a situation makes it necessary. Then refute that, using examples from these two activists' lives.
ok i pretty much finished everything i just need to write a final conclusion on my planning sheet
Good luck. (:
thank you!
You're welcome
Join our real-time social learning platform and learn together with your friends!