Spent a portion of the class today talking about the difference between arguing and merely narrating. As we had been talking about food earlier in the class, I used an example of narrating a trip to a restaurant (simple narrative) as compared to reviewing an establishment (building an argument around value judgments).
One student talked about going to Cracker Barrel. Another mentioned Red Robin and a number of students chimed in with the "I like that place" and "I want to go there" responses. I was asked if I had been there, and I simply said, Nope." I was then asked why, and realized I could either lie (and keep the class moving) or tell the truth ( and possibly steer the class away from what was topically pertinent). I decided to give the truth and said, "I try not to eat at chain restaurants."
A few students let out audible groans. Seems their suspicions were confirmed - pretentious looking liberal dude turns out to be a pretentious liberal dude. They, though, seemed to "buy" my two rationales. First, I told them, I worked in corporate dining and now know too much. Second, and more importantly, the culinary scene in Louisville is too massive with great local establishments that I don't really try to learn about or visit chains. To be fair, I should have said, " I have not been to Red Robin, so I should withhold judgment." I guess my ideology got in the way.
I put together a strong enough argument concerning Louisville's culinary reputation that a number of students seemed interested (that won't happen often this semester!) Maybe I'll start giving recommendations for parental visits, and first dates, and.....