Rebuttal Argument – Alex LaVallee – Portfolio

Posted on April 23, 2014 by Alex LaVallee

The Upsides to TOMS Shoes

TOMS Shoes have been seemingly causing more harm than good with their Buy-One, Give-One sales philosophy. Giving a pair of thin-soled, lightweight shoes that wear out after about a year to children in developing countries seems like the best way that the American public can give to less fortunate communities. There is more to the story than poor quality shoes and undermined local businesses to the story, however. According to TOMS.com,  the shoes provided indirectly give less fortunate children an education because of the attendance rules in local schools regarding sanitation (One). Children must wear shoes to get into the school, let alone walk several miles through the jungle just to get there.

TOMS recently started to expand it’s business–and philanthropy–to eyewear models. For every pair of glasses bought through TOMS, the gift of sight is given to someone in the third world. TOMS teamed up with the Seva Foundation, a group that focuses on giving sight to people that can’t afford it. TOMS and Seva Foundation achieve their goal by distributing prescription glasses and performing surgeries, this is surely the best idea coming from the TOMS company (TOMS).

Blake Mycoskie–Founder and CEO of TOMS Shoes–did more than just start a charity when he came up with this idea. He created a whole new style of making money. Philanthropic Capitalism focuses on what the public wants, and thrives off of the idea of making a difference in the world. Buy selling a cheap product, that costs even cheaper to make, the popularity of TOMS Shoes exploded in North America, making money like crazy (The Business). The increasing number of sales makes room for one of two things. Either an expansion in the company, or increased funding for better shoes and a better giving program.

“The Business of Giving: TOMS Shoes.” SUCCESS. N.p., n.d. Web. 23 Apr. 2014.

“One For One Movement – A Pair Of New Shoes Is Given To A Child In Need With Every Pair Purchased | TOMS.com.” One For One Movement – A Pair Of New Shoes Is Given To A Child In Need With Every Pair Purchased | TOMS.com. N.p., n.d. Web. 21 Apr. 2014.

“TOMS Eyewear Launches “Summer of Sight” Campaign to Help Save and Restore Sight to 100,000 People in Need.” TOMS Eyewear Launches ‘Summer of Sight’ Campaign to Help Save and Restore… N.p., n.d. Web. 23 Apr. 2014.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to Rebuttal Argument – Alex LaVallee – Portfolio

  1. Alex LaVallee's avatar alexlavallee1 says:
    April 23, 2014 at 11:55 AM

    Can I have feedback?

    Feedback provided. —DSH

    Reply
  2. davidbdale's avatar davidbdale says:
    April 30, 2014 at 9:19 PM

    Hey, Alex!
    P1. This is confusing. If it’s sarcasm, it’s hard to read as such. Irony? I can’t tell.
    1. TOMS Shoes are doing harm.
    2. Giving away cheap shoes is the best America can do.
    3. There is more to the story (than what? Are they doing more than harm? Can America do more?)
    4. The shoes help kids get into school.
    5. Because schools require shoes.

    First sentence: What does “seemingly” mean? It seems to Alex? Or it seems to others?
    Second sentence: What does “seems like” mean? Seems to Alex? Seems to others? Is likely to be true?
    Third sentence: There is more to the story than poor quality shoes. Does that mean the shoes are NOT poor quality? Or does it mean they are, but they’re good enough to get the kids into school? Is local business undermined or isn’t it?

    Assuming you’re being ironic, tell me if this sounds like the point you’re trying to make:

    To hear their critics tell the story, TOMS Shoes has been doing more harm than good with their Buy-One, Give-One sales philosophy. What should be a shining example of American philanthropy, they say, is instead a scam—foisting off cheap, thin-soled, lightweight shoes to kids in developing countries who wear them out in less than a year—just to gain some public relations karma, and meanwhile devastating local shoe-making businesses in the bargain! But the critics are wrong about one thing: those cheap shoes we send to poor kids in poor countries when we buy a pair of TOMS are good enough to get those kids into school. They don’t mind walking barefoot for miles through the jungle to their classrooms, but local sanitation regulations would stop them at the door if they didn’t have something on their feet.

    Is that what you meant? Read it carefully. Get a good grip on what you mean. Be very sure to say it clearly. If you want to use your own language to represent the ideas of others, use clear signal phrases to identify those ideas (To hear their critics tell the story) (they say) (critics are wrong). OK? Try that on the rest of your work, Alex.

    P2. A good new find, but this paragraph represents about three minutes’ work.

    P3. Even less work. Is this part of the same refutation argument? Or just a bit of PR language crafted mostly by the company itself?

    It’s hard to say whether you’ve refuted TOMS’ critics, Alex, since we can’t say clearly what they’ve charged. Are you serious about the local business charge? Is there any actual evidence it occurs? Does the fact that the shoes don’t last forever mean the kids would be better off barefoot?

    Grade recorded.
    Improve for a better Portfolio grade.

    Reply
  3. davidbdale's avatar davidbdale says:
    May 7, 2014 at 6:43 PM

    No revisions before Portfolio grading.
    Portfolio grade recorded.

    Reply

Leave a comment