Assignment Prompt & Instructions
**files (2)**
– ## Philosophyweek7.docx
– ## 06CriticalThinkinginaPartisanWorldSpring2026.pptx
**## Philosophyweek7.docx**
**Philosophy (Ad) Refer to the attached powerpoint 200 words**
202620 09 Writing Assignment: Evaluating Arguments: Deductive and Inductive Arguments
·
**Available** Jan 12 at 12am – Apr 3 at 11:59pm
What is the most important insight you gained from the required readings for this module? This insight could be a definition, a term, concept, idea, or even a specific passage or quote from the readings. Your writing must demonstrate careful reading and thoughtful reflection on the PowerPoint introduction and textbook. Please answer each of the following.
1.
**What is the insight?** Explain it thoroughly and include specific details from the readings. Please note that this assignment is NOT asking for a summary of the readings.
2.
**Why is this insight important?** Does this insight strengthen, reinforce, clarify, change, or correct your previous understanding or knowledge?
3.
**How will you apply this insight?** How will this insight help you address the challenges you face (or will face) in your personal life, academic work, profession, or in carrying out your duties as a responsible citizen?
**Since this assignment asks for your personal reflections on the required readings, essays generated by Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools will**
**_not_ express**
**_your_ thoughts and**
**_your_ voice and, thus, will not meet the criteria of the rubric (See below). Critical thinking, above all else, means thinking for yourself. Please do not let AI think for you!**
**## 06CriticalThinkinginaPartisanWorldSpring2026.pptx**
Module 6 Intro: Critical Thinking in a Partisan World – Spring 2026
Critical Thinking Online
Fayetteville State University
Dr. Jon Young, Instructor
1
Learning Outcomes: In this module, you will
Describe “blue-pill” partisanship and explain the attitude toward experience it involves.
Understand the reasons why someone might adopt extreme partisanism.
Know the telltale signs that you have become a blue-pill partisan.
Be able to define motivism, negative partisanship, whataboutism, and “nutpicking.”
Understand the value of being able to defend your views without using hyperpartisan sources and fallacies.
Be able to distinguish between legitimate and illegitimate reasons for believing something.
2
Learning Outcomes: In this module, you will:
Understand why political advertising is a bigger challenge to critical thinking than most other forms of partisan communication.
Know how political ads on social can micro-target millions of users based on their psychological and behavioral characteristics and hit those users again and again with tailored messages.
Be familiar with the ways that political videos can be manipulated to produce political smearing, propaganda, and hatchet jobs.
3
What you will do, and how your learning will be assessed.
Complete the Required Readings
PowerPoint Introduction
Chapter 6n your electronic textbook .
Earn at least 6 of 10 points on the quiz.
Submit a writing assignment.
Contribute to the Discussion.
4
“Blue pill” partisanship
In the film, The Matrix, the “blue pill” permits a person to “continue to live unaware that they’re in a simulated world where nothing is real and fantasies rule their mind.” (See Section 6.1) Hence, the “blue pill” (not the one some men take!) becomes a convenient symbol for the partisan blindness that is impervious to evidence and seems so prevalent in the US (and around the world) among both liberals and conservatives (the far right and far left).
Motivated reasoning, confirmation bias, and ignoring contrary evidence (“obstacles to critical thinking) are especially evident in “blue-pill,” blind partisanship. Adherents to a political viewpoint do not ignore evidence and facts, but are very selective in highlighting only the evidence and facts that support their pre-determined views while ignoring all other evidence. A blind partisan will likely only interact (in person or online) with those who already share their views, which means they likely develop a sense of false consensus, that more people agree with them that actually is the case. Moreover, if you do not know anyone with differing views, it becomes very easy to view your opponents as evil, as “them,” who are not like “us,” and thus not really worthy of respect or disnity.
5
Consider this passage from textbook (sec 6.1, p. H 21)
“Many commentators have accused these conspiracy-minded partisans of being reckless, self-destructive, and potentially dangerous. But research suggests that most hyperpartisan people are psychologically normal, propelled by ordinary psychological and sociopolitical forces, and otherwise a lot like everyone else. And the same pressures can nudge almost anyone in that direction. The researchers point to the fuel being resentments and fears, the need for order and control, the need to overcome cognitive dissonance (whenever reality conflicts with what we want to believe), and negative partisanship (when beliefs are formed primarily because of hate for others). These unabating winds can drive people into a gale of unreason, false rationalizations, and political extremism.”
Please note highlighted passages –
6
Political Advertising
Political advertisements – and especially political attack ads — are among the most clever and deceptive ads ever produced. Bear in mind that no political ad seeks accuracy, completeness, objectivity, or lack of bias. These ads have one goal and one goal only: to influence, persuade, and manipulate you to vote for a specific candidate. This is not to say that such ads are completely devoid of important information, but simply that critical thinkers will always recognize that ALL political ads oversimplify and distort the truth. Hence, critical thinkers will never look exclusively to political ads as a source for deciding how to vote.
Targeting is especially prevalent in political advertising. If you receive political advertisements via email, social media, or while browing the Web, you can be sure these ads are targeted to your profile, i.e., the issues that will likely make you angry, fearful, resentful – emotions that will likely motivate you to action. Beware, the advertisers seek to manipulate you.
7
Consider for a moment”
Imagine the difference in our experience of political advertisements before and after the advent of the Internet, online technologies, and political advertisements. When I was a much younger person voting for the first time, I would see many, many ads in the newspaper, on television, bumper stickers, lapel pins, and yard signs.
But now, in addition to all of the above, you are inundated by email, text, and social media with online ads and messages targeted specifically at you based on what campaign thinks will spur you to vote for them. On social media, you hear information (true or not) repeated ad nauseum to points that you may believe them. (Remember “mere exposure effect.) Moreover, you cannot be sure the image are real or fakes created by A.I.
8
Reasonable skepticism
As was the case with the news media the best approach to advertising of all types is reasonable skepticism. This approach recognizes that advertisements can be informative and helpful but that you must never rely them exclusively in making your decisions about what to think and do.
Never forget: advertising exists to influence, persuade, and manipulate you.
9
Excerpts from Article about partisan blindness
Why, when we can we see the evil in the opposition so clearly, are we blind to our own faults?
When my opponents do something wrong, that’s emblematic, Michael said, but when my allies do something wrong, that’s exceptional.
Here’s what he meant. If, say, you’re a highly partisan Republican, you will often look at corruption and acts of violence by your partisan opponents and say, “That’s just what the left does” or “That’s what leftism leads to.” Corruption and violence reveals the left’s true nature.
If a right-leaning extremist commits an act of violence — or if a Republican is brazenly corrupt — then the response is different. “Every orchard has a few bad apples” or “How dare you compare me to that terrible person?” or “Normal Republicans are nothing like that.”
10
Excerpts from Article about partisan blindness
As a result, no matter the facts of the moment, you end up mad at the opposition. If a left-leaning assassin kills a Republican, then you’re angry because the left is violent. If a right-leaning assassin kills a Democrat, then you’re angry because the left blames the right for what is obviously an evil individual act.
Online algorithms magnify the problem. They recognize that you are hungry for content that amplifies every bad act by your political enemies and that you hate to read or see any form of attack on your friends, so you live in a carefully curated false reality.
As a result, no matter the direction of the tragedy, the end result is the same — the right grows angrier at the left, and the left grows angrier at the right.
11
Excerpts from Article about partisan blindness
As one columnist wrote,, wrote “One thing that’s clear from the online debate over whether the left or the right is more violent is that many people have an encyclopedic command of the attacks perpetrated by the other side, and have memory-holed attacks by their co-ideologists.”
She’s right, and this isn’t a harmless error. If we’re convinced that political violence comes from only one side of the divide, then the temptation toward punitive authoritarianism is overwhelming. “They” are evil and violent, and “they” must be crushed.
If, however, we accurately understand that America has an immense problem with violent extremism on both sides of the ideological aisle — even if, at any given moment, one side is worse than the other — then the answer lies in reconciliation, not domination. In fact, it’s the will to dominate that magnifies the crisis and radicalizes our opponents.
12
Excerpts from Article about partisan blindness
Confirmation bias is entirely human. We screen out negative information about our side because we so desperately want to see ourselves as good people, fighting hard in a righteous struggle. It’s not just that we believe our ideas are better, but that we are better — we possess higher character and better values than the people on the other side.
The truth, however, tends to complicate simple narratives, and in the United States the truth is grim. Violent acts aren’t uniting our nation in introspection, grief and grace — they’re separating us into warring factions.
Excerpts from David French, “There are Monsters on your side, too,” NY Times, September 14, 2025.
13
Complete each of the following.
Complete the Required Reading
Chapter 6n your electronic textbook .
Earn at least 6 of 10 points on the Quiz.
Contribute to the Discussion.
14
Good luck!
Contact me via Canvas, at
[jyoung@uncfsu.edu](mailto:jyoung@uncfsu.edu) .
15
**## 06CriticalThinkinginaPartisanWorldSpring2026.pptx**
Module 6 Intro: Critical Thinking in a Partisan World – Spring 2026
Critical Thinking Online
Fayetteville State University
Dr. Jon Young, Instructor
1
Learning Outcomes: In this module, you will
Describe “blue-pill” partisanship and explain the attitude toward experience it involves.
Understand the reasons why someone might adopt extreme partisanism.
Know the telltale signs that you have become a blue-pill partisan.
Be able to define motivism, negative partisanship, whataboutism, and “nutpicking.”
Understand the value of being able to defend your views without using hyperpartisan sources and fallacies.
Be able to distinguish between legitimate and illegitimate reasons for believing something.
2
Learning Outcomes: In this module, you will:
Understand why political advertising is a bigger challenge to critical thinking than most other forms of partisan communication.
Know how political ads on social can micro-target millions of users based on their psychological and behavioral characteristics and hit those users again and again with tailored messages.
Be familiar with the ways that political videos can be manipulated to produce political smearing, propaganda, and hatchet jobs.
3
What you will do, and how your learning will be assessed.
Complete the Required Readings
PowerPoint Introduction
Chapter 6n your electronic textbook .
Earn at least 6 of 10 points on the quiz.
Submit a writing assignment.
Contribute to the Discussion.
4
“Blue pill” partisanship
In the film, The Matrix, the “blue pill” permits a person to “continue to live unaware that they’re in a simulated world where nothing is real and fantasies rule their mind.” (See Section 6.1) Hence, the “blue pill” (not the one some men take!) becomes a convenient symbol for the partisan blindness that is impervious to evidence and seems so prevalent in the US (and around the world) among both liberals and conservatives (the far right and far left).
Motivated reasoning, confirmation bias, and ignoring contrary evidence (“obstacles to critical thinking) are especially evident in “blue-pill,” blind partisanship. Adherents to a political viewpoint do not ignore evidence and facts, but are very selective in highlighting only the evidence and facts that support their pre-determined views while ignoring all other evidence. A blind partisan will likely only interact (in person or online) with those who already share their views, which means they likely develop a sense of false consensus, that more people agree with them that actually is the case. Moreover, if you do not know anyone with differing views, it becomes very easy to view your opponents as evil, as “them,” who are not like “us,” and thus not really worthy of respect or disnity.
5
Consider this passage from textbook (sec 6.1, p. H 21)
“Many commentators have accused these conspiracy-minded partisans of being reckless, self-destructive, and potentially dangerous. But research suggests that most hyperpartisan people are psychologically normal, propelled by ordinary psychological and sociopolitical forces, and otherwise a lot like everyone else. And the same pressures can nudge almost anyone in that direction. The researchers point to the fuel being resentments and fears, the need for order and control, the need to overcome cognitive dissonance (whenever reality conflicts with what we want to believe), and negative partisanship (when beliefs are formed primarily because of hate for others). These unabating winds can drive people into a gale of unreason, false rationalizations, and political extremism.”
Please note highlighted passages –
6
Political Advertising
Political advertisements – and especially political attack ads — are among the most clever and deceptive ads ever produced. Bear in mind that no political ad seeks accuracy, completeness, objectivity, or lack of bias. These ads have one goal and one goal only: to influence, persuade, and manipulate you to vote for a specific candidate. This is not to say that such ads are completely devoid of important information, but simply that critical thinkers will always recognize that ALL political ads oversimplify and distort the truth. Hence, critical thinkers will never look exclusively to political ads as a source for deciding how to vote.
Targeting is especially prevalent in political advertising. If you receive political advertisements via email, social media, or while browing the Web, you can be sure these ads are targeted to your profile, i.e., the issues that will likely make you angry, fearful, resentful – emotions that will likely motivate you to action. Beware, the advertisers seek to manipulate you.
7
Consider for a moment”
Imagine the difference in our experience of political advertisements before and after the advent of the Internet, online technologies, and political advertisements. When I was a much younger person voting for the first time, I would see many, many ads in the newspaper, on television, bumper stickers, lapel pins, and yard signs.
But now, in addition to all of the above, you are inundated by email, text, and social media with online ads and messages targeted specifically at you based on what campaign thinks will spur you to vote for them. On social media, you hear information (true or not) repeated ad nauseum to points that you may believe them. (Remember “mere exposure effect.) Moreover, you cannot be sure the image are real or fakes created by A.I.
8
Reasonable skepticism
As was the case with the news media the best approach to advertising of all types is reasonable skepticism. This approach recognizes that advertisements can be informative and helpful but that you must never rely them exclusively in making your decisions about what to think and do.
Never forget: advertising exists to influence, persuade, and manipulate you.
9
Excerpts from Article about partisan blindness
Why, when we can we see the evil in the opposition so clearly, are we blind to our own faults?
When my opponents do something wrong, that’s emblematic, Michael said, but when my allies do something wrong, that’s exceptional.
Here’s what he meant. If, say, you’re a highly partisan Republican, you will often look at corruption and acts of violence by your partisan opponents and say, “That’s just what the left does” or “That’s what leftism leads to.” Corruption and violence reveals the left’s true nature.
If a right-leaning extremist commits an act of violence — or if a Republican is brazenly corrupt — then the response is different. “Every orchard has a few bad apples” or “How dare you compare me to that terrible person?” or “Normal Republicans are nothing like that.”
10
Excerpts from Article about partisan blindness
As a result, no matter the facts of the moment, you end up mad at the opposition. If a left-leaning assassin kills a Republican, then you’re angry because the left is violent. If a right-leaning assassin kills a Democrat, then you’re angry because the left blames the right for what is obviously an evil individual act.
Online algorithms magnify the problem. They recognize that you are hungry for content that amplifies every bad act by your political enemies and that you hate to read or see any form of attack on your friends, so you live in a carefully curated false reality.
As a result, no matter the direction of the tragedy, the end result is the same — the right grows angrier at the left, and the left grows angrier at the right.
11
Excerpts from Article about partisan blindness
As one columnist wrote,, wrote “One thing that’s clear from the online debate over whether the left or the right is more violent is that many people have an encyclopedic command of the attacks perpetrated by the other side, and have memory-holed attacks by their co-ideologists.”
She’s right, and this isn’t a harmless error. If we’re convinced that political violence comes from only one side of the divide, then the temptation toward punitive authoritarianism is overwhelming. “They” are evil and violent, and “they” must be crushed.
If, however, we accurately understand that America has an immense problem with violent extremism on both sides of the ideological aisle — even if, at any given moment, one side is worse than the other — then the answer lies in reconciliation, not domination. In fact, it’s the will to dominate that magnifies the crisis and radicalizes our opponents.
12
Excerpts from Article about partisan blindness
Confirmation bias is entirely human. We screen out negative information about our side because we so desperately want to see ourselves as good people, fighting hard in a righteous struggle. It’s not just that we believe our ideas are better, but that we are better — we possess higher character and better values than the people on the other side.
The truth, however, tends to complicate simple narratives, and in the United States the truth is grim. Violent acts aren’t uniting our nation in introspection, grief and grace — they’re separating us into warring factions.
Excerpts from David French, “There are Monsters on your side, too,” NY Times, September 14, 2025.
13
Complete each of the following.
Complete the Required Reading
Chapter 6n your electronic textbook .
Earn at least 6 of 10 points on the Quiz.
Contribute to the Discussion.
14
Good luck!
Contact me via Canvas, at
[jyoung@uncfsu.edu](mailto:jyoung@uncfsu.edu) .
15
**## Philosophyweek7.docx**
**Philosophy (Ad) Refer to the attached powerpoint 200 words**
202620 09 Writing Assignment: Evaluating Arguments: Deductive and Inductive Arguments
·
**Available** Jan 12 at 12am – Apr 3 at 11:59pm
What is the most important insight you gained from the required readings for this module? This insight could be a definition, a term, concept, idea, or even a specific passage or quote from the readings. Your writing must demonstrate careful reading and thoughtful reflection on the PowerPoint introduction and textbook. Please answer each of the following.
1.
**What is the insight?** Explain it thoroughly and include specific details from the readings. Please note that this assignment is NOT asking for a summary of the readings.
2.
**Why is this insight important?** Does this insight strengthen, reinforce, clarify, change, or correct your previous understanding or knowledge?
3.
**How will you apply this insight?** How will this insight help you address the challenges you face (or will face) in your personal life, academic work, profession, or in carrying out your duties as a responsible citizen?
**Since this assignment asks for your personal reflections on the required readings, essays generated by Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools will**
**_not_ express**
**_your_ thoughts and**
**_your_ voice and, thus, will not meet the criteria of the rubric (See below). Critical thinking, above all else, means thinking for yourself. Please do not let AI think for you!**
**## 06CriticalThinkinginaPartisanWorldSpring2026.pptx**
Module 6 Intro: Critical Thinking in a Partisan World – Spring 2026
Critical Thinking Online
Fayetteville State University
Dr. Jon Young, Instructor
1
Learning Outcomes: In this module, you will
Describe “blue-pill” partisanship and explain the attitude toward experience it involves.
Understand the reasons why someone might adopt extreme partisanism.
Know the telltale signs that you have become a blue-pill partisan.
Be able to define motivism, negative partisanship, whataboutism, and “nutpicking.”
Understand the value of being able to defend your views without using hyperpartisan sources and fallacies.
Be able to distinguish between legitimate and illegitimate reasons for believing something.
2
Learning Outcomes: In this module, you will:
Understand why political advertising is a bigger challenge to critical thinking than most other forms of partisan communication.
Know how political ads on social can micro-target millions of users based on their psychological and behavioral characteristics and hit those users again and again with tailored messages.
Be familiar with the ways that political videos can be manipulated to produce political smearing, propaganda, and hatchet jobs.
3
What you will do, and how your learning will be assessed.
Complete the Required Readings
PowerPoint Introduction
Chapter 6n your electronic textbook .
Earn at least 6 of 10 points on the quiz.
Submit a writing assignment.
Contribute to the Discussion.
4
“Blue pill” partisanship
In the film, The Matrix, the “blue pill” permits a person to “continue to live unaware that they’re in a simulated world where nothing is real and fantasies rule their mind.” (See Section 6.1) Hence, the “blue pill” (not the one some men take!) becomes a convenient symbol for the partisan blindness that is impervious to evidence and seems so prevalent in the US (and around the world) among both liberals and conservatives (the far right and far left).
Motivated reasoning, confirmation bias, and ignoring contrary evidence (“obstacles to critical thinking) are especially evident in “blue-pill,” blind partisanship. Adherents to a political viewpoint do not ignore evidence and facts, but are very selective in highlighting only the evidence and facts that support their pre-determined views while ignoring all other evidence. A blind partisan will likely only interact (in person or online) with those who already share their views, which means they likely develop a sense of false consensus, that more people agree with them that actually is the case. Moreover, if you do not know anyone with differing views, it becomes very easy to view your opponents as evil, as “them,” who are not like “us,” and thus not really worthy of respect or disnity.
5
Consider this passage from textbook (sec 6.1, p. H 21)
“Many commentators have accused these conspiracy-minded partisans of being reckless, self-destructive, and potentially dangerous. But research suggests that most hyperpartisan people are psychologically normal, propelled by ordinary psychological and sociopolitical forces, and otherwise a lot like everyone else. And the same pressures can nudge almost anyone in that direction. The researchers point to the fuel being resentments and fears, the need for order and control, the need to overcome cognitive dissonance (whenever reality conflicts with what we want to believe), and negative partisanship (when beliefs are formed primarily because of hate for others). These unabating winds can drive people into a gale of unreason, false rationalizations, and political extremism.”
Please note highlighted passages –
6
Political Advertising
Political advertisements – and especially political attack ads — are among the most clever and deceptive ads ever produced. Bear in mind that no political ad seeks accuracy, completeness, objectivity, or lack of bias. These ads have one goal and one goal only: to influence, persuade, and manipulate you to vote for a specific candidate. This is not to say that such ads are completely devoid of important information, but simply that critical thinkers will always recognize that ALL political ads oversimplify and distort the truth. Hence, critical thinkers will never look exclusively to political ads as a source for deciding how to vote.
Targeting is especially prevalent in political advertising. If you receive political advertisements via email, social media, or while browing the Web, you can be sure these ads are targeted to your profile, i.e., the issues that will likely make you angry, fearful, resentful – emotions that will likely motivate you to action. Beware, the advertisers seek to manipulate you.
7
Consider for a moment”
Imagine the difference in our experience of political advertisements before and after the advent of the Internet, online technologies, and political advertisements. When I was a much younger person voting for the first time, I would see many, many ads in the newspaper, on television, bumper stickers, lapel pins, and yard signs.
But now, in addition to all of the above, you are inundated by email, text, and social media with online ads and messages targeted specifically at you based on what campaign thinks will spur you to vote for them. On social media, you hear information (true or not) repeated ad nauseum to points that you may believe them. (Remember “mere exposure effect.) Moreover, you cannot be sure the image are real or fakes created by A.I.
8
Reasonable skepticism
As was the case with the news media the best approach to advertising of all types is reasonable skepticism. This approach recognizes that advertisements can be informative and helpful but that you must never rely them exclusively in making your decisions about what to think and do.
Never forget: advertising exists to influence, persuade, and manipulate you.
9
Excerpts from Article about partisan blindness
Why, when we can we see the evil in the opposition so clearly, are we blind to our own faults?
When my opponents do something wrong, that’s emblematic, Michael said, but when my allies do something wrong, that’s exceptional.
Here’s what he meant. If, say, you’re a highly partisan Republican, you will often look at corruption and acts of violence by your partisan opponents and say, “That’s just what the left does” or “That’s what leftism leads to.” Corruption and violence reveals the left’s true nature.
If a right-leaning extremist commits an act of violence — or if a Republican is brazenly corrupt — then the response is different. “Every orchard has a few bad apples” or “How dare you compare me to that terrible person?” or “Normal Republicans are nothing like that.”
10
Excerpts from Article about partisan blindness
As a result, no matter the facts of the moment, you end up mad at the opposition. If a left-leaning assassin kills a Republican, then you’re angry because the left is violent. If a right-leaning assassin kills a Democrat, then you’re angry because the left blames the right for what is obviously an evil individual act.
Online algorithms magnify the problem. They recognize that you are hungry for content that amplifies every bad act by your political enemies and that you hate to read or see any form of attack on your friends, so you live in a carefully curated false reality.
As a result, no matter the direction of the tragedy, the end result is the same — the right grows angrier at the left, and the left grows angrier at the right.
11
Excerpts from Article about partisan blindness
As one columnist wrote,, wrote “One thing that’s clear from the online debate over whether the left or the right is more violent is that many people have an encyclopedic command of the attacks perpetrated by the other side, and have memory-holed attacks by their co-ideologists.”
She’s right, and this isn’t a harmless error. If we’re convinced that political violence comes from only one side of the divide, then the temptation toward punitive authoritarianism is overwhelming. “They” are evil and violent, and “they” must be crushed.
If, however, we accurately understand that America has an immense problem with violent extremism on both sides of the ideological aisle — even if, at any given moment, one side is worse than the other — then the answer lies in reconciliation, not domination. In fact, it’s the will to dominate that magnifies the crisis and radicalizes our opponents.
12
Excerpts from Article about partisan blindness
Confirmation bias is entirely human. We screen out negative information about our side because we so desperately want to see ourselves as good people, fighting hard in a righteous struggle. It’s not just that we believe our ideas are better, but that we are better — we possess higher character and better values than the people on the other side.
The truth, however, tends to complicate simple narratives, and in the United States the truth is grim. Violent acts aren’t uniting our nation in introspection, grief and grace — they’re separating us into warring factions.
Excerpts from David French, “There are Monsters on your side, too,” NY Times, September 14, 2025.
13
Complete each of the following.
Complete the Required Reading
Chapter 6n your electronic textbook .
Earn at least 6 of 10 points on the Quiz.
Contribute to the Discussion.
14
Good luck!
Contact me via Canvas, at
[jyoung@uncfsu.edu](mailto:jyoung@uncfsu.edu) .
15
**## Philosophyweek7.docx**
**Philosophy (Ad) Refer to the attached powerpoint 200 words**
202620 09 Writing Assignment: Evaluating Arguments: Deductive and Inductive Arguments
·
**Available** Jan 12 at 12am – Apr 3 at 11:59pm
What is the most important insight you gained from the required readings for this module? This insight could be a definition, a term, concept, idea, or even a specific passage or quote from the readings. Your writing must demonstrate careful reading and thoughtful reflection on the PowerPoint introduction and textbook. Please answer each of the following.
1.
**What is the insight?** Explain it thoroughly and include specific details from the readings. Please note that this assignment is NOT asking for a summary of the readings.
2.
**Why is this insight important?** Does this insight strengthen, reinforce, clarify, change, or correct your previous understanding or knowledge?
3.
**How will you apply this insight?** How will this insight help you address the challenges you face (or will face) in your personal life, academic work, profession, or in carrying out your duties as a responsible citizen?
**Since this assignment asks for your personal reflections on the required readings, essays generated by Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools will**
**_not_ express**
**_your_ thoughts and**
**_your_ voice and, thus, will not meet the criteria of the rubric (See below). Critical thinking, above all else, means thinking for yourself. Please do not let AI think for you!**
**## 06CriticalThinkinginaPartisanWorldSpring2026.pptx**
Module 6 Intro: Critical Thinking in a Partisan World – Spring 2026
Critical Thinking Online
Fayetteville State University
Dr. Jon Young, Instructor
1
Learning Outcomes: In this module, you will
Describe “blue-pill” partisanship and explain the attitude toward experience it involves.
Understand the reasons why someone might adopt extreme partisanism.
Know the telltale signs that you have become a blue-pill partisan.
Be able to define motivism, negative partisanship, whataboutism, and “nutpicking.”
Understand the value of being able to defend your views without using hyperpartisan sources and fallacies.
Be able to distinguish between legitimate and illegitimate reasons for believing something.
2
Learning Outcomes: In this module, you will:
Understand why political advertising is a bigger challenge to critical thinking than most other forms of partisan communication.
Know how political ads on social can micro-target millions of users based on their psychological and behavioral characteristics and hit those users again and again with tailored messages.
Be familiar with the ways that political videos can be manipulated to produce political smearing, propaganda, and hatchet jobs.
3
What you will do, and how your learning will be assessed.
Complete the Required Readings
PowerPoint Introduction
Chapter 6n your electronic textbook .
Earn at least 6 of 10 points on the quiz.
Submit a writing assignment.
Contribute to the Discussion.
4
“Blue pill” partisanship
In the film, The Matrix, the “blue pill” permits a person to “continue to live unaware that they’re in a simulated world where nothing is real and fantasies rule their mind.” (See Section 6.1) Hence, the “blue pill” (not the one some men take!) becomes a convenient symbol for the partisan blindness that is impervious to evidence and seems so prevalent in the US (and around the world) among both liberals and conservatives (the far right and far left).
Motivated reasoning, confirmation bias, and ignoring contrary evidence (“obstacles to critical thinking) are especially evident in “blue-pill,” blind partisanship. Adherents to a political viewpoint do not ignore evidence and facts, but are very selective in highlighting only the evidence and facts that support their pre-determined views while ignoring all other evidence. A blind partisan will likely only interact (in person or online) with those who already share their views, which means they likely develop a sense of false consensus, that more people agree with them that actually is the case. Moreover, if you do not know anyone with differing views, it becomes very easy to view your opponents as evil, as “them,” who are not like “us,” and thus not really worthy of respect or disnity.
5
Consider this passage from textbook (sec 6.1, p. H 21)
“Many commentators have accused these conspiracy-minded partisans of being reckless, self-destructive, and potentially dangerous. But research suggests that most hyperpartisan people are psychologically normal, propelled by ordinary psychological and sociopolitical forces, and otherwise a lot like everyone else. And the same pressures can nudge almost anyone in that direction. The researchers point to the fuel being resentments and fears, the need for order and control, the need to overcome cognitive dissonance (whenever reality conflicts with what we want to believe), and negative partisanship (when beliefs are formed primarily because of hate for others). These unabating winds can drive people into a gale of unreason, false rationalizations, and political extremism.”
Please note highlighted passages –
6
Political Advertising
Political advertisements – and especially political attack ads — are among the most clever and deceptive ads ever produced. Bear in mind that no political ad seeks accuracy, completeness, objectivity, or lack of bias. These ads have one goal and one goal only: to influence, persuade, and manipulate you to vote for a specific candidate. This is not to say that such ads are completely devoid of important information, but simply that critical thinkers will always recognize that ALL political ads oversimplify and distort the truth. Hence, critical thinkers will never look exclusively to political ads as a source for deciding how to vote.
Targeting is especially prevalent in political advertising. If you receive political advertisements via email, social media, or while browing the Web, you can be sure these ads are targeted to your profile, i.e., the issues that will likely make you angry, fearful, resentful – emotions that will likely motivate you to action. Beware, the advertisers seek to manipulate you.
7
Consider for a moment”
Imagine the difference in our experience of political advertisements before and after the advent of the Internet, online technologies, and political advertisements. When I was a much younger person voting for the first time, I would see many, many ads in the newspaper, on television, bumper stickers, lapel pins, and yard signs.
But now, in addition to all of the above, you are inundated by email, text, and social media with online ads and messages targeted specifically at you based on what campaign thinks will spur you to vote for them. On social media, you hear information (true or not) repeated ad nauseum to points that you may believe them. (Remember “mere exposure effect.) Moreover, you cannot be sure the image are real or fakes created by A.I.
8
Reasonable skepticism
As was the case with the news media the best approach to advertising of all types is reasonable skepticism. This approach recognizes that advertisements can be informative and helpful but that you must never rely them exclusively in making your decisions about what to think and do.
Never forget: advertising exists to influence, persuade, and manipulate you.
9
Excerpts from Article about partisan blindness
Why, when we can we see the evil in the opposition so clearly, are we blind to our own faults?
When my opponents do something wrong, that’s emblematic, Michael said, but when my allies do something wrong, that’s exceptional.
Here’s what he meant. If, say, you’re a highly partisan Republican, you will often look at corruption and acts of violence by your partisan opponents and say, “That’s just what the left does” or “That’s what leftism leads to.” Corruption and violence reveals the left’s true nature.
If a right-leaning extremist commits an act of violence — or if a Republican is brazenly corrupt — then the response is different. “Every orchard has a few bad apples” or “How dare you compare me to that terrible person?” or “Normal Republicans are nothing like that.”
10
Excerpts from Article about partisan blindness
As a result, no matter the facts of the moment, you end up mad at the opposition. If a left-leaning assassin kills a Republican, then you’re angry because the left is violent. If a right-leaning assassin kills a Democrat, then you’re angry because the left blames the right for what is obviously an evil individual act.
Online algorithms magnify the problem. They recognize that you are hungry for content that amplifies every bad act by your political enemies and that you hate to read or see any form of attack on your friends, so you live in a carefully curated false reality.
As a result, no matter the direction of the tragedy, the end result is the same — the right grows angrier at the left, and the left grows angrier at the right.
11
Excerpts from Article about partisan blindness
As one columnist wrote,, wrote “One thing that’s clear from the online debate over whether the left or the right is more violent is that many people have an encyclopedic command of the attacks perpetrated by the other side, and have memory-holed attacks by their co-ideologists.”
She’s right, and this isn’t a harmless error. If we’re convinced that political violence comes from only one side of the divide, then the temptation toward punitive authoritarianism is overwhelming. “They” are evil and violent, and “they” must be crushed.
If, however, we accurately understand that America has an immense problem with violent extremism on both sides of the ideological aisle — even if, at any given moment, one side is worse than the other — then the answer lies in reconciliation, not domination. In fact, it’s the will to dominate that magnifies the crisis and radicalizes our opponents.
12
Excerpts from Article about partisan blindness
Confirmation bias is entirely human. We screen out negative information about our side because we so desperately want to see ourselves as good people, fighting hard in a righteous struggle. It’s not just that we believe our ideas are better, but that we are better — we possess higher character and better values than the people on the other side.
The truth, however, tends to complicate simple narratives, and in the United States the truth is grim. Violent acts aren’t uniting our nation in introspection, grief and grace — they’re separating us into warring factions.
Excerpts from David French, “There are Monsters on your side, too,” NY Times, September 14, 2025.
13
Complete each of the following.
Complete the Required Reading
Chapter 6n your electronic textbook .
Earn at least 6 of 10 points on the Quiz.
Contribute to the Discussion.
14
Good luck!
Contact me via Canvas, at
[jyoung@uncfsu.edu](mailto:jyoung@uncfsu.edu) .
15