As I was writing my previous blog entry, a thought-provoking idea jumped into my head... I noticed that the response that was "voted" number one to the yahoo question someone had posted about whether or not they should debark their dog was submitted by someone who was sourced as a "Rescuer, vet tech, groomer, and show exhibitor of Shetland sheepdogs for 20 years" (http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080718192951AAJ21lV). Clearly, this person has knowledge surrounding the topic of dogs and he argument can be trusted more than someone who responds to the question with little to no background. At least that is the way it appears since her response was voted as the "best answer" by other voters.
This goes back to what Crowley discusses in my argumentative writing textbook, and what I have talked about in previous blog entries: establishing credentials for yourself as a writer (improving your ethos), or using evidence from someone who is considered an expert on a particular subject will greatly strengthen an argument.
So I was curious if this was true, and decided to do a very small survey in which I looked at different questions posted on yahoo to determine if the answer that was chosen as the "best answer" was in most cases submitted by an "expert" on the particular subject.
Here is what I found:
The first question that came up was a boy asking if his sister might have an eating disorder (http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AhZZzlYfm6PmC7CiqPsUpaEjzKIX;_ylv=3?qid=20061105201248AAEjrpf). The "best answer" was chosen because "Whoever wrote this seems to know a lot about this subject." Although he is not sourced as a doctor, the writer appears to be an expert on the subject, or at least sounds as though he has a wealth of knowledge about eating disorders.
Although the trend seems apparent, I will give one more example, which was a question posted asking how to stop global warming (http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=Ap5sGvWyir39YTPHPg0dAnYjzKIX;_ylv=3?qid=20080913172021AAKjgR6). The answer that was chosen as the best was one that was not sourced as an environmentalist or scientist, however, but in this person's "sources," he provided a link that takes us to a news web page, explaining ways to slow down global warming.
Although these are only a few examples, I think it is clear that Crowley is right in mentioning the importance of having credible sources in an argument. The argument is clearly more persuasive that way.
Monday, November 24, 2008
The Arrangement of an Argument
In continuing my discussion about the importance of arranging an argument in order to make that argument more clear and persuasive, I was thinking of an instance recently where I have seen a good example of this. I couldn't think of any off the top of my head, but it came to me pretty quickly after I started doing research for another psychology class of mine.
For another class, I was assigned to research the pros and cons associated with cosmetic surgery on dogs as sort of a fun end of the semester debate project. While I was searching for information, a story appeared in my search that was posted by a man on yahoo telling of his dog barks excessively and asking whether or not he should have his dog "debarked," which is a surgery removing part of the vocal cords to soften but not completely eliminate the dog's ability to bark (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debarking). Of course, many people responded to the post with varying opinions, but as I read the responses, I noticed that a few of the arguments people made were better than others.
The yahoo posting and the responses can be found at: http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080718192951AAJ21lV.
The argument that I found to be the most persuasive was posted by a person who, ironically, organized their argument in such a way that it was easy and clear to follow. (hmm...this is exactly what Crowley mentions in my argumentative writing textbook as being important to think about when organizing an argument). This person actually numbered the main points within their argument, separating three different subcategories that all help prove his argument that a bark collar should be used before debarking a dog. Each of his categories is also expanded upon, not only by giving his own opinion, but by backing up his own thoughts with stories of failures of debarking surgeries, for example. At the end of his argument, he summarizes his points and even gives a link that we can visit to learn more about the debarking debate.
Although this response was short, and it would be far more difficult to organize and arrange an entire paper, this person's argument was clearly well thought out and easy to read. His points were also good, making it more persuasive than most of the arguments posted as responses to this man's story of his barking dog. The only thing missing from this person's argument was an introduction, which I do not think was even needed because the subject matter was clear as well as relevant to all who were reading the responses of what to do with a barking dog.
For another class, I was assigned to research the pros and cons associated with cosmetic surgery on dogs as sort of a fun end of the semester debate project. While I was searching for information, a story appeared in my search that was posted by a man on yahoo telling of his dog barks excessively and asking whether or not he should have his dog "debarked," which is a surgery removing part of the vocal cords to soften but not completely eliminate the dog's ability to bark (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debarking). Of course, many people responded to the post with varying opinions, but as I read the responses, I noticed that a few of the arguments people made were better than others.
The yahoo posting and the responses can be found at: http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080718192951AAJ21lV.
The argument that I found to be the most persuasive was posted by a person who, ironically, organized their argument in such a way that it was easy and clear to follow. (hmm...this is exactly what Crowley mentions in my argumentative writing textbook as being important to think about when organizing an argument). This person actually numbered the main points within their argument, separating three different subcategories that all help prove his argument that a bark collar should be used before debarking a dog. Each of his categories is also expanded upon, not only by giving his own opinion, but by backing up his own thoughts with stories of failures of debarking surgeries, for example. At the end of his argument, he summarizes his points and even gives a link that we can visit to learn more about the debarking debate.
Although this response was short, and it would be far more difficult to organize and arrange an entire paper, this person's argument was clearly well thought out and easy to read. His points were also good, making it more persuasive than most of the arguments posted as responses to this man's story of his barking dog. The only thing missing from this person's argument was an introduction, which I do not think was even needed because the subject matter was clear as well as relevant to all who were reading the responses of what to do with a barking dog.
Grabbing the audience's attention
I was reading my argumentative writing textbook again this week and the chapter I was reading was about the arrangement of rhetorical writing; the way you organize and put your arguments together. I think this is should be a very important focus of argumentative papers because a variety of things can affect how well a paper comes together or how persuasive it actually is. One of the most important things, in my mind, is the introduction of a paper.
As my textbook states, “It is necessary to explain to an audience why they should pay attention to a discourse if the issue taken up in the discourse is ambiguous, mean, or obscure” (Crowley, 300). In many of the papers I have written for assignments in school, the topics of the papers have often seemed unimportant, or having very little meaning, at least pertaining to anyone outside of my classroom. Inside of the classroom, the topics of these papers makes sense to only the audience within the class, but as I have learned this year in my argumentative writing class, it is important to keep in mind a broader audience, defining all terms and explaining any discourses taken within the paper. In this case, it is important to have something in your introduction that grabs the attention of a wider audience, one larger than the audience confined only to the classroom.
To do this, one option would be to prevent kairos. As I have mentioned in a previous blog entry, kairos provides relevance or reason for discussing something or raising an argument. This is what I often try to do in my own writing. I think it is very effective to provide kairos in an introduction of an argumentative writing paper because it makes an audience attentive to the subject that will be discussed throughout the paper. To do this, I usually provide my audience with a story that is relevant to the argument I will be making. Stories, or anecdotes provide excellent kairos for discussing topics because I feel that the audience can relate to stories and if they are presented right of the bat in an introduction of a paper, the audience will be more attentive and take a deeper interest in the paper.
As my textbook states, “It is necessary to explain to an audience why they should pay attention to a discourse if the issue taken up in the discourse is ambiguous, mean, or obscure” (Crowley, 300). In many of the papers I have written for assignments in school, the topics of the papers have often seemed unimportant, or having very little meaning, at least pertaining to anyone outside of my classroom. Inside of the classroom, the topics of these papers makes sense to only the audience within the class, but as I have learned this year in my argumentative writing class, it is important to keep in mind a broader audience, defining all terms and explaining any discourses taken within the paper. In this case, it is important to have something in your introduction that grabs the attention of a wider audience, one larger than the audience confined only to the classroom.
To do this, one option would be to prevent kairos. As I have mentioned in a previous blog entry, kairos provides relevance or reason for discussing something or raising an argument. This is what I often try to do in my own writing. I think it is very effective to provide kairos in an introduction of an argumentative writing paper because it makes an audience attentive to the subject that will be discussed throughout the paper. To do this, I usually provide my audience with a story that is relevant to the argument I will be making. Stories, or anecdotes provide excellent kairos for discussing topics because I feel that the audience can relate to stories and if they are presented right of the bat in an introduction of a paper, the audience will be more attentive and take a deeper interest in the paper.
Monday, November 17, 2008
Leadership in sports
As I mentioned in one of my very first blog entries, I am posting on this blog for my argumentative writing class. For our final paper in the semester, we have been asked to write about what defines a leader in the 21st Century. If you're thinking, "wow, that would be difficult to define in just one paper," you are definitely right. Defining what makes a good leader is an extremely difficult task, but I have decided to narrow my focus down and define what it means to be a good leader in sports.
I am on the Women's swim team at the University of Michigan, and I have a strong interest in sports, specifically swimming of course. I think it is important to look into the leadership within sports because many people play, watch, or take some sort of interest in sports. But the importance of leadership in sports? Think about it, without leadership within, sports teams would have a difficult time succeeding. But what makes a good leader? This is what I am trying to uncover in my final paper for class, but for this blog entry, I thought it would be a good idea to give an example of someone who I believe displays good leadership by naming the characteristics she possesses. (Of course this will only be a brief summary of what it means to be a good leader in sports in the 21st Century, but I think it's enough to get the ball rolling and get you thinking about how truly important a leader's role is).
As I said before, I am a member of the Women's Swim Team at U of M, and I frequently visit our "MGoBlue" website page that presents articles, gives stats, and displays the roster and pictures. A few weeks ago, something was written about Margaret Kelly, another swimmer on my team. The article can be found at: http://www.mgoblue.com/swimming-diving-w/article.aspx?id=153548 and states:
Junior Margaret Kelly (Ann Arbor, Mich./Pioneer) has continued to improve on last season's breakout campaign. So far, Kelly has finished in the top two in six of the eight races that she has competed in this season. Kelly has picked up a team-leading four individual wins this season in the pool and has never finished lower than fourth. The Ann Arbor native holds the top time in six different individual events for the Wolverines this season.
The article's heading reads, "Kelly Leading the Way." Although it is true, Margaret is indeed scoring numerous points for our team, I believe she is leading the way in more ways than that. Margaret displays excellent team leadership. There is no write-up about this, so you will have to trust me, when I explain through personal experience, the qualities Margaret possesses. The main reason I think Margaret is a good leader is through the characteristics she demonstrates within the way that she leads by example. Although she is not that vocal of a leader, she conducts herself in a way that allows others on the team to look up to her. She is an extremely hard-worker; giving her all every second she is in the pool (yes, the whole 2 hour morning practice and 2 hour evening practice). She also controls her emotions well, allowing others only to see her positive attitude, which does not bring anyone down, but rather lifts up those around her.
These are just a few characteristics Margaret displays in her leadership in swimming, and I guess the point I am trying to make is that it is important to contribute leadership to the team, not only points. By contributing leadership, you inspire those around you, not only yourself, and the team has a better chance of success. In relating this to the readings I have done for my argumentative writing class, it is clear that Margaret does not demonstrate the type of leadership Machiavelli, a diplomat in the 16th Century, described. He believed a leader should have complete power (Machiavelli, 46). Margaret clearly does not have complete power over others, as she strives only to set a good example while completing her goals and the team's goals. In fact, she takes more of Jean-Jacques Rousseau, a philosopher in the 18th Century approach to leadership. He believed no man should have authority over others (Rousseau, 60). Margaret has no authority, no power over her teammates, but specifically leads in ways that do not involve manipulation or ways that make her seem overbearing.
I am on the Women's swim team at the University of Michigan, and I have a strong interest in sports, specifically swimming of course. I think it is important to look into the leadership within sports because many people play, watch, or take some sort of interest in sports. But the importance of leadership in sports? Think about it, without leadership within, sports teams would have a difficult time succeeding. But what makes a good leader? This is what I am trying to uncover in my final paper for class, but for this blog entry, I thought it would be a good idea to give an example of someone who I believe displays good leadership by naming the characteristics she possesses. (Of course this will only be a brief summary of what it means to be a good leader in sports in the 21st Century, but I think it's enough to get the ball rolling and get you thinking about how truly important a leader's role is).
As I said before, I am a member of the Women's Swim Team at U of M, and I frequently visit our "MGoBlue" website page that presents articles, gives stats, and displays the roster and pictures. A few weeks ago, something was written about Margaret Kelly, another swimmer on my team. The article can be found at: http://www.mgoblue.com/swimming-diving-w/article.aspx?id=153548 and states:
Junior Margaret Kelly (Ann Arbor, Mich./Pioneer) has continued to improve on last season's breakout campaign. So far, Kelly has finished in the top two in six of the eight races that she has competed in this season. Kelly has picked up a team-leading four individual wins this season in the pool and has never finished lower than fourth. The Ann Arbor native holds the top time in six different individual events for the Wolverines this season.
The article's heading reads, "Kelly Leading the Way." Although it is true, Margaret is indeed scoring numerous points for our team, I believe she is leading the way in more ways than that. Margaret displays excellent team leadership. There is no write-up about this, so you will have to trust me, when I explain through personal experience, the qualities Margaret possesses. The main reason I think Margaret is a good leader is through the characteristics she demonstrates within the way that she leads by example. Although she is not that vocal of a leader, she conducts herself in a way that allows others on the team to look up to her. She is an extremely hard-worker; giving her all every second she is in the pool (yes, the whole 2 hour morning practice and 2 hour evening practice). She also controls her emotions well, allowing others only to see her positive attitude, which does not bring anyone down, but rather lifts up those around her.
These are just a few characteristics Margaret displays in her leadership in swimming, and I guess the point I am trying to make is that it is important to contribute leadership to the team, not only points. By contributing leadership, you inspire those around you, not only yourself, and the team has a better chance of success. In relating this to the readings I have done for my argumentative writing class, it is clear that Margaret does not demonstrate the type of leadership Machiavelli, a diplomat in the 16th Century, described. He believed a leader should have complete power (Machiavelli, 46). Margaret clearly does not have complete power over others, as she strives only to set a good example while completing her goals and the team's goals. In fact, she takes more of Jean-Jacques Rousseau, a philosopher in the 18th Century approach to leadership. He believed no man should have authority over others (Rousseau, 60). Margaret has no authority, no power over her teammates, but specifically leads in ways that do not involve manipulation or ways that make her seem overbearing.
Saturday, November 15, 2008
University of Michigan is a "Tree Campus"
I didn't know what I wanted to write about this week in my blog entries, but I was looking at the Ann Arbor News online, and came across an editorial that sparked my attention. It was titled, Editorial: U-M is a natural for "Tree Campus" honor and can be found at this website: http://www.mlive.com/annarbornews/opinion/index.ssf/2008/11/um_is_a_natural_for_tree_campu.html. Growing up in Ann Arbor, and now going to college at the University of Michigan, I was always aware that this city had a lot of pride for the numberous trees it contained. I had no idea, however, what a "tree campus" even was. In reading this editorial, I learned that "The Arbor Day Foundation has introduced a new program for colleges called Tree Campus USA." The University of Michigan has met the requirments for becoming a "Tree Campus" and was awarded such standing last Thursday, November 13.
This recognizes U of M's contribution and awareness of the importance of trees in developed settings. "This recognition helps to highlight the interaction of the city and the campus into a broader urban forest." The author of the editorial makes the argument that since the Tree Campus program is open to any two or four year accredited university, the University of Michigan serves as a good model for other universities to adopt the program.
Although this is a good argument, I think it could be much stronger if it was supported with more evidence that adopting the "Tree Campus" program is important for our environment. It is stated within the editorial that "trees absorb carbon dioxide and generate oxygen; they help protect soil and water; they provide wildlife habitat and food; they offer a connection to the natural world; and so on." This information is not cited, however, as coming from a credible source (no extrinsic proof). If it were, the argument that trees serve as great importance to our environment would be stronger and also more persuasive.
I am in an environment class right now that discusses ecological issues occuring in the world today, and we have actually learned a lot about urbanization and deforestation. I have learned about numerous issues that come from urban sprawl and deforestation, one of them being that with less and less trees, we are releasing more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Of course, the editorial states that trees absorb CO2, but goes into no detail about how this actually effects us when trees are not in abundance. From what I learned in class, when a tree is cut down, carbon dioxide is then not only not absorbed by where that tree used to be, but more CO2 is released into the atmosphere from what was once being stored in the tree that was cut down.
Many people might know this, but they might now know the effects increased CO2 in our atmosphere has on the environment. It leads to global warming, which in turn changes weather patterns, precipitation levels, sea levels, and much more, as I learned in my environment class. Stating some of these effects in the editorial would help make a stronger argument that more universities need to be conscious of trees.
When I read about "Tree Campuses," I thought that it was a great program that should certainly be adopted at more universities than just U of M. I think this is a very good idea that deserves more attention, because it brings us one step closer to making more people environmentally conscious.
This recognizes U of M's contribution and awareness of the importance of trees in developed settings. "This recognition helps to highlight the interaction of the city and the campus into a broader urban forest." The author of the editorial makes the argument that since the Tree Campus program is open to any two or four year accredited university, the University of Michigan serves as a good model for other universities to adopt the program.
Although this is a good argument, I think it could be much stronger if it was supported with more evidence that adopting the "Tree Campus" program is important for our environment. It is stated within the editorial that "trees absorb carbon dioxide and generate oxygen; they help protect soil and water; they provide wildlife habitat and food; they offer a connection to the natural world; and so on." This information is not cited, however, as coming from a credible source (no extrinsic proof). If it were, the argument that trees serve as great importance to our environment would be stronger and also more persuasive.
I am in an environment class right now that discusses ecological issues occuring in the world today, and we have actually learned a lot about urbanization and deforestation. I have learned about numerous issues that come from urban sprawl and deforestation, one of them being that with less and less trees, we are releasing more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Of course, the editorial states that trees absorb CO2, but goes into no detail about how this actually effects us when trees are not in abundance. From what I learned in class, when a tree is cut down, carbon dioxide is then not only not absorbed by where that tree used to be, but more CO2 is released into the atmosphere from what was once being stored in the tree that was cut down.
Many people might know this, but they might now know the effects increased CO2 in our atmosphere has on the environment. It leads to global warming, which in turn changes weather patterns, precipitation levels, sea levels, and much more, as I learned in my environment class. Stating some of these effects in the editorial would help make a stronger argument that more universities need to be conscious of trees.
When I read about "Tree Campuses," I thought that it was a great program that should certainly be adopted at more universities than just U of M. I think this is a very good idea that deserves more attention, because it brings us one step closer to making more people environmentally conscious.
Monday, November 10, 2008
Who do I believe?
I was reading for my argumentative writing class again today, when I noticed something similar that Aristotle mentions in "The Aim of Man." He states, "A man judges and is called a good judge of the things about which he knows. If he has been educated in a particular subject he is a good judge of that subject" (Aristotle pg. 653 from A World of Ideas). The reason this struck my attention was because it was exactly what I wrote about in my blog entry yesterday. People often quote experts on a subject when writing papers on that subject. It provides "extrinsic proof" that allows a writer to better establish their ethos, or character. This is effective because a person who is an "expert" on a subject is thought of to be highly educated on a particular topic and as Aristotle mentions, "a good judge of that subject."
As I was thinking about this, I thought about a particular time in my life that provided me with proof that what many accomplished writers were stating about extrinsic proofs was indeed true. It was not difficult to come up with numerous occasions where this could be applied to my own life, but I will limit this blog entry to one example: I am a part of the swim team for the University of Michigan, and a few weeks ago after one morning practice, we had a team meeting. My coach decided it would be beneficial for all of us to hear about recovery, so she took the liberty of looking up statistics, facts, and information on the internet to share with us and prove to us that we needed to sleep to aid in our recovery process. It was never shared with us where this information was coming from, and knowing the background my coach has as a German major, I was not compelled to accept everything she was teaching us. On the contrary, I am also in a Neurobiology of Sleep class right now where we had a lecture on the restoration and recovery that occurs in sleep. A doctor specializing in sleep came in to present this information, and was indeed given an introduction of his accomplishments and studies, etc. before he began to lecture. Everything he said that day, I believed without questioning.
So now I get to my point; in the same week, I had almost all of the same information given to me about certain processes of sleep, but it was far easier to accept the information that was presented by an expert on the subject. This is just an simple example I came up with of how providing extrinsic proof can help build a better argument.
As I was thinking about this, I thought about a particular time in my life that provided me with proof that what many accomplished writers were stating about extrinsic proofs was indeed true. It was not difficult to come up with numerous occasions where this could be applied to my own life, but I will limit this blog entry to one example: I am a part of the swim team for the University of Michigan, and a few weeks ago after one morning practice, we had a team meeting. My coach decided it would be beneficial for all of us to hear about recovery, so she took the liberty of looking up statistics, facts, and information on the internet to share with us and prove to us that we needed to sleep to aid in our recovery process. It was never shared with us where this information was coming from, and knowing the background my coach has as a German major, I was not compelled to accept everything she was teaching us. On the contrary, I am also in a Neurobiology of Sleep class right now where we had a lecture on the restoration and recovery that occurs in sleep. A doctor specializing in sleep came in to present this information, and was indeed given an introduction of his accomplishments and studies, etc. before he began to lecture. Everything he said that day, I believed without questioning.
So now I get to my point; in the same week, I had almost all of the same information given to me about certain processes of sleep, but it was far easier to accept the information that was presented by an expert on the subject. This is just an simple example I came up with of how providing extrinsic proof can help build a better argument.
Sunday, November 9, 2008
Listen to the higher authority
This week in my argumentative writing textbook, I was reading about something called "extrinsic proofs." An extrinsic proof is a piece of evidence that already exists; it does not need to be invented by a rhetor to help persuade someone, but needs to be decided on by a rhetor how to use the proof in their argument. Extrinsic proofs are things such as data, testimonies, and facts, for example (Crowley, 267). They are used frequently in any type of argument and I think they are extremely effective.
When reading about them, I immediately thought of the numerous papers I have had to write for assignments in school. In almost every scholarly paper I have written, I have been forced to provide my audience with evidence that helps promote my argument. Often times this means quoting someone of high authority on the subject my paper is about or providing primary sources such as interviews. Although not everything you read is true just because it has been written down, it helps to "try to cite an authority whenever we make a point that might be misunderstood or contested by an audience" (Crowley, 274). If someone of higher authority agrees with my argument, quoting that person helps promote my own authority as a writer. As Crowley states in my argumentative writing textbook, "to quote from sources also suggests that we have read rhetorical authorities carefully, which reinforces our ethos" (272). If a writer's ethos (character) is reinforced, then the audience is bound to trust what he or she is writing, closing the distance between the author and the reader (a good rhetorical strategy I talked about in a previous blog entry).
Hopefully by now you've all caught on to what I was trying to accomplish in the previous paragraph. If you haven't, I referred to Sharon Crowley numerous times to establish my own ethos. Had I not done this, majority of my readers would not have known whether or not to believe what I was saying. By quoting Sharon Crowley, the author of my argumentative writing textbook, my argument was made stronger that providing evidence from someone of higher authority helps our own ethos as a writer. Since Crowley is the author of an argumentative writing textbook, it can be assumed that she is an authority surrounding the topic of rhetoric, and by quoting her, my argument is made stronger because it agrees with what I was trying to say.
When reading about them, I immediately thought of the numerous papers I have had to write for assignments in school. In almost every scholarly paper I have written, I have been forced to provide my audience with evidence that helps promote my argument. Often times this means quoting someone of high authority on the subject my paper is about or providing primary sources such as interviews. Although not everything you read is true just because it has been written down, it helps to "try to cite an authority whenever we make a point that might be misunderstood or contested by an audience" (Crowley, 274). If someone of higher authority agrees with my argument, quoting that person helps promote my own authority as a writer. As Crowley states in my argumentative writing textbook, "to quote from sources also suggests that we have read rhetorical authorities carefully, which reinforces our ethos" (272). If a writer's ethos (character) is reinforced, then the audience is bound to trust what he or she is writing, closing the distance between the author and the reader (a good rhetorical strategy I talked about in a previous blog entry).
Hopefully by now you've all caught on to what I was trying to accomplish in the previous paragraph. If you haven't, I referred to Sharon Crowley numerous times to establish my own ethos. Had I not done this, majority of my readers would not have known whether or not to believe what I was saying. By quoting Sharon Crowley, the author of my argumentative writing textbook, my argument was made stronger that providing evidence from someone of higher authority helps our own ethos as a writer. Since Crowley is the author of an argumentative writing textbook, it can be assumed that she is an authority surrounding the topic of rhetoric, and by quoting her, my argument is made stronger because it agrees with what I was trying to say.
Saturday, November 8, 2008
The Incentive to Vote
On November 4th last week, businesses like Starbucks, Ben and Jerry's, and Krispy Kreme all provided the American public with incentives to go out and vote. For each it was a different goody: coffee, ice cream, or donuts. However you look at it, providing these delicious foods for anyone who voted would have been a felony. As many businesses were reminded, "Any person who gives or receives, or offers to give or receive, or participates in the giving or receiving of money or gifts for the purpose of registering as a voter, voting, or voting for a particular candidate in any primary or election shall be guilty of a felony" (http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/shared-blogs/ajc/politicalinsider/entries/2008/11/03/handel_says_starbucks_may_have.html?cxntfid=blogs_political_insider). Thus, businesses were forced to extend their offers to anyone who asked for them at the counter. Lines around town were outrageously long on Tuesday as word spread of free food and tall coffees. The issue presented itself on Tuesday, however, whether or not providing people with incentives to vote should actually be against the law. I think arguments could be made for both sides of this issue, but I will begin by arguing that in no way should an act such as this be considered a felony. Krispy Kreme Spokeswoman, Ayana Hernandez stated, "It's not in any way tied to you have to be a member of a certain party, political party or anything like that" (http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hkZDug9EuV1uHWF1h8Rn1Wy4IagAD947QH1G0). I think this is an important point to bring up. These businesses were not attempting to sway the election in favor of one party or one specific candidate, they were simply trying to get American society into the polls and exercise their right as citizens to vote, a right so many Americans have fought to achieve in the past. Voting should therefore be encouraged in any way possible, and providing incentives should not be considered a felony. This is just one way of looking at the issue, however. In contrast, a good argument can be made promoting the idea that incentives to vote should be a felony. Although it is our right as citizens to partake in such a privilege, tempting people to exercise their right to vote may lead Americans to the polls who never intended on going in the first place, just to bubble in whichever name sounds best to them at the time so they could go back to Ben and Jerry's with a sticker to prove themselves worthy of a scoop of ice cream. Shortly after the election was over, I came across something that was a bit disturbing to me: a youtube video of Howard Stern's radio show in which African Americans were interviewed in Harlem about the presidential election. You can see for yourself: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D48R_CDjqec (I can't figure out how to insert the video here, but it is definitely worth watching!)
In this video, McCain's policies are attributed to Obama and people who say they are voting for Obama agreed with the policies mentioned without fail, they even said Sarah Palin was a smart choice for Obama's VP pick! It is scary to me that people like this voted in the election of which they apparently know nothing about, and I'm sure this happens on the Republican side as well. I'm also sure that many people would still head to the polls and vote for a candidate without having much reason, but wouldn't providing people with incentives just entice them to make the move to the polls even faster? I think both sides of the argument can be looked at as having good reason, and I personally do not know if it should be a felony or not, but providing these incentives to vote certainly did stir up debate on Tuesday November 4th.
In this video, McCain's policies are attributed to Obama and people who say they are voting for Obama agreed with the policies mentioned without fail, they even said Sarah Palin was a smart choice for Obama's VP pick! It is scary to me that people like this voted in the election of which they apparently know nothing about, and I'm sure this happens on the Republican side as well. I'm also sure that many people would still head to the polls and vote for a candidate without having much reason, but wouldn't providing people with incentives just entice them to make the move to the polls even faster? I think both sides of the argument can be looked at as having good reason, and I personally do not know if it should be a felony or not, but providing these incentives to vote certainly did stir up debate on Tuesday November 4th.
The Incentive to Vote
On November 4th last week, businesses like Starbucks, Ben and Jerry's, and Krispy Kreme all provided the American public with incentives to go out and vote. For each it was a different goody: coffee, ice cream, or donuts. However you look at it, providing these delicious foods for anyone who voted would have been a felony. As many businesses were reminded, "Any person who gives or receives, or offers to give or receive, or participates in the giving or receiving of money or gifts for the purpose of registering as a voter, voting, or voting for a particular candidate in any primary or election shall be guilty of a felony" (http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/shared-blogs/ajc/politicalinsider/entries/2008/11/03/handel_says_starbucks_may_have.html?cxntfid=blogs_political_insider). Thus, businesses were forced to extend their offers to anyone who asked for them at the counter. Lines around town were outrageously long on Tuesday as word spread of free food and tall coffees. The issue presented itself on Tuesday, however, whether or not providing people with incentives to vote should actually be against the law.
I think arguments could be made for both sides of this issue, but I will begin by arguing that in no way should an act such as this be considered a felony. Krispy Kreme Spokeswoman, Ayana Hernandez stated, "It's not in any way tied to you have to be a member of a certain party, political party or anything like that" (http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hkZDug9EuV1uHWF1h8Rn1Wy4IagAD947QH1G0). I think this is an important point to bring up. These businesses were not attempting to sway the election in favor of one party or one specific candidate, they were simply trying to get American society into the polls and exercise their right as citizens to vote, a right so many Americans have fought to achieve in the past. Voting should therefore be encouraged in any way possible, and providing incentives should not be considered a felony.
This is just one way of looking at the issue, however. In contrast, a good argument can be made promoting the idea that incentives to vote should be a felony. Although it is our right as citizens to partake in such a privilege, tempting people to exercise their right to vote may lead Americans to the polls who never intended on going in the first place, just to bubble in whichever name sounds best to them at the time so they could go back to Ben and Jerry's with a sticker to prove themselves worthy of a scoop of ice cream. Shortly after the election was over, I came across something that was a bit disturbing to me: a youtube video of Howard Stern's radio show in which African Americans were interviewed in Harlem about the presidential election. You can see for yourself:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D48R_CDjqec (I can't figure out how to insert the video here, but it is definitely worth watching!)
I think arguments could be made for both sides of this issue, but I will begin by arguing that in no way should an act such as this be considered a felony. Krispy Kreme Spokeswoman, Ayana Hernandez stated, "It's not in any way tied to you have to be a member of a certain party, political party or anything like that" (http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hkZDug9EuV1uHWF1h8Rn1Wy4IagAD947QH1G0). I think this is an important point to bring up. These businesses were not attempting to sway the election in favor of one party or one specific candidate, they were simply trying to get American society into the polls and exercise their right as citizens to vote, a right so many Americans have fought to achieve in the past. Voting should therefore be encouraged in any way possible, and providing incentives should not be considered a felony.
This is just one way of looking at the issue, however. In contrast, a good argument can be made promoting the idea that incentives to vote should be a felony. Although it is our right as citizens to partake in such a privilege, tempting people to exercise their right to vote may lead Americans to the polls who never intended on going in the first place, just to bubble in whichever name sounds best to them at the time so they could go back to Ben and Jerry's with a sticker to prove themselves worthy of a scoop of ice cream. Shortly after the election was over, I came across something that was a bit disturbing to me: a youtube video of Howard Stern's radio show in which African Americans were interviewed in Harlem about the presidential election. You can see for yourself:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D48R_CDjqec (I can't figure out how to insert the video here, but it is definitely worth watching!)
In this video, McCain's policies are attributed to Obama and people who say they are voting for Obama agreed with the policies mentioned without fail, they even said Sarah Palin was a smart choice for Obama's VP pick!
It is scary to me that people like this voted in the election of which they apparently know nothing about, and I'm sure this happens on the Republican side as well. I'm also sure that many people would still head to the polls and vote for a candidate without having much reason, but wouldn't providing people with incentives just entice them to make the move to the polls even faster? I think both sides of the argument can be looked at as having good reason, and I personally do not know if it should be a felony or not, but providing these incentives to vote certainly did stir up debate on Tuesday November 4th.
Sunday, November 2, 2008
Critiquing Blogs
In my blog entries, I consistently critique rhetoric put forth by politicians, basing how effective their arguments are on what I have learned through reading my argumentative writing textbook. In this entry, however, I will be looking at the rhetoric put forth by my peers in their own blog entries that they too, construct each week for our argumentative writing class.
In one of my classmate's entries I noticed a lot about the ethos he used, or the moral character he demonstrated to present his argument. In Nick's blog, he told that he watched the first presidential debate before stating that he also watched the second http://phaedrusflagg.blogspot.com/. Therefore, there is credibility within his character because his audience can trust that he has knowledge and awareness about the content of which he presents. Further, he provides humor when he states that the second debate "appeared to be more civil which ultimately caused a boring debate." By using humor such as this, Nick creates a close distance between himself and his audience, by using a simple, informal tone. At the same time, however, his entries are also formal enough through his use of grammar and vocabulary, that the audience is one of wider variety. Furthermore, one of the parts I enjoyed in a entry of Nick's was his critique of the use of logos in public rhetoric. In one entry particularly, he speaks of a speech in which William Jennings Bryan used the phrase, "My friends," to present one of the "most powerful speeches ever made by an American politician." This proves that "my friends" has rhetorical effectiveness, and therefore, since McCain uses the same phrase in his debates and speeches, he too is rhetorically effective. Nick poses the idea, however that this is not logical proof that McCain is effective in his rhetoric because he uses the phrase in such an excessive amount that all effectiveness is lost. I thought this was very interesting, as it is true; this simple phrase would ordinarily present logical proof that McCain would have effective rhetoric, but by overusing it, it becomes of little or no value for the audience to whom he speaks.
In looking at another classmate's blog entries, I felt like the author really invites his readers in. Matt G. is able to connect with the audience well because he is fair in both his thoughts and how he expresses them http://matogo18.blogspot.com/. For example, he states that he does not like Sarah Palin or her politics, but he goes on to explain that she may be unfairly judged because she is a woman. In this way, he is able to see both sides of an issue, he is not only stuck on his own single view. Matt even gives evidence for his warrant that Palin may be misjudged by stating that there is a gender bias of women present even at the earliest grades in school. His evidence comes from a book he read for another psychology class he is currently taking. This is a unique idea, tying in ideas from another class. It is effective as well, because at the same time it proves the author's ethos, or moral character, to be trustworthy. He clearly has knowledge on the subject, which makes his audience attentive to what he is saying.
Moving on to a third classmate's blog entry, the second presidential debate is talked about once more http://jadolce.blogspot.com/. Jill presents the argument that both presidential candidates did not listen to the questions they were asked during the debate. Instead, their responses were just attacks on the opposing candidate that were quite lengthy. Jill states that she was becoming interested in politics because of her requirement to keep up with debate due to her argumentative writing class, but after watching the debates, the election has become more of an annoyance to her now. She is skilled at presenting to the audience evidence for such claims that she feels the debates are irritating; it is clear to the audience that she feels this way because she feels the candidates only aim to attack one another, not inform the public of their actual views and beliefs. Her evidence for this claim comes from the fact that we are told she has been watching the presidential debates. I found this entry to be very similar to something I previously wrote on my blog, in that the candidates avoid the actual question they are asked on all accounts. I always find it interesting to notice that a classmate of mine feels the exact same way I do when listening to the presidential debates.
Further, I like the fact that Jill used kairos to provide relevance for a discussion about renewable energy sources in another blog entry. She states that there was an article mentioning that both candidates of presidency have an interest in the great outdoors, but poses the question then: what will they do to preserve the great outdoors? I thought this was a very effective way of presenting serious issues like environmental policies, through a way in which a larger audience might become easily interested.
In one of my classmate's entries I noticed a lot about the ethos he used, or the moral character he demonstrated to present his argument. In Nick's blog, he told that he watched the first presidential debate before stating that he also watched the second http://phaedrusflagg.blogspot.com/. Therefore, there is credibility within his character because his audience can trust that he has knowledge and awareness about the content of which he presents. Further, he provides humor when he states that the second debate "appeared to be more civil which ultimately caused a boring debate." By using humor such as this, Nick creates a close distance between himself and his audience, by using a simple, informal tone. At the same time, however, his entries are also formal enough through his use of grammar and vocabulary, that the audience is one of wider variety. Furthermore, one of the parts I enjoyed in a entry of Nick's was his critique of the use of logos in public rhetoric. In one entry particularly, he speaks of a speech in which William Jennings Bryan used the phrase, "My friends," to present one of the "most powerful speeches ever made by an American politician." This proves that "my friends" has rhetorical effectiveness, and therefore, since McCain uses the same phrase in his debates and speeches, he too is rhetorically effective. Nick poses the idea, however that this is not logical proof that McCain is effective in his rhetoric because he uses the phrase in such an excessive amount that all effectiveness is lost. I thought this was very interesting, as it is true; this simple phrase would ordinarily present logical proof that McCain would have effective rhetoric, but by overusing it, it becomes of little or no value for the audience to whom he speaks.
In looking at another classmate's blog entries, I felt like the author really invites his readers in. Matt G. is able to connect with the audience well because he is fair in both his thoughts and how he expresses them http://matogo18.blogspot.com/. For example, he states that he does not like Sarah Palin or her politics, but he goes on to explain that she may be unfairly judged because she is a woman. In this way, he is able to see both sides of an issue, he is not only stuck on his own single view. Matt even gives evidence for his warrant that Palin may be misjudged by stating that there is a gender bias of women present even at the earliest grades in school. His evidence comes from a book he read for another psychology class he is currently taking. This is a unique idea, tying in ideas from another class. It is effective as well, because at the same time it proves the author's ethos, or moral character, to be trustworthy. He clearly has knowledge on the subject, which makes his audience attentive to what he is saying.
Moving on to a third classmate's blog entry, the second presidential debate is talked about once more http://jadolce.blogspot.com/. Jill presents the argument that both presidential candidates did not listen to the questions they were asked during the debate. Instead, their responses were just attacks on the opposing candidate that were quite lengthy. Jill states that she was becoming interested in politics because of her requirement to keep up with debate due to her argumentative writing class, but after watching the debates, the election has become more of an annoyance to her now. She is skilled at presenting to the audience evidence for such claims that she feels the debates are irritating; it is clear to the audience that she feels this way because she feels the candidates only aim to attack one another, not inform the public of their actual views and beliefs. Her evidence for this claim comes from the fact that we are told she has been watching the presidential debates. I found this entry to be very similar to something I previously wrote on my blog, in that the candidates avoid the actual question they are asked on all accounts. I always find it interesting to notice that a classmate of mine feels the exact same way I do when listening to the presidential debates.
Further, I like the fact that Jill used kairos to provide relevance for a discussion about renewable energy sources in another blog entry. She states that there was an article mentioning that both candidates of presidency have an interest in the great outdoors, but poses the question then: what will they do to preserve the great outdoors? I thought this was a very effective way of presenting serious issues like environmental policies, through a way in which a larger audience might become easily interested.
Saturday, November 1, 2008
The Ups and Downs of Blogging
In this blog entry, I will talk about the "ups and downs" of blogging. There are many freedoms awarded by blogging, but also many constraints. An individual who chooses to maintain a blog accepts the freedom of writing anything they want to, literally. People can keep blogs as online diaries, as discriptions of events, to provide people with videos or artwork, or to promote one's own business. These are just a few examples, but you catch my drift I'm sure; blogs can really be used for a wide variety of things, it is up to the individual who is keeping one.
In my case, I am writing my blog for an argumentitive writing class. Because it is for class, my freedom of the choice of what to write is limited, but not as much so as if I were to be writing a weekly paper for my teacher for example. There is no set topic, which allows freedom, but perhaps too much. On occasion, it is difficult to know if I am writing proper entries that will recieve full credit. In contrast, though, this freedom is also a good thing because it opens up my mind and forces me to step out of my comfort zone. If I was never uncomfortable, I probably wouldn't learn anything.
The audience of a blog, perhaps mine, I do not know to what extent, is much larger than it would be if one were writing journals for a specific person. The fact that I am forced to show some understanding of the readings in my blogs as well as critique arguments put forth by politicians or in any current event, limits what I can focus my entries on, without actually giving me an assigned topic. I feel that this is better than being handed a weekly assignment, however, where I would be writing only what my teacher wanted me to write, and not what I actually feel passionate about. In this way, blogging allows people to speak freely about what they truly believe, while exercising awareness of the audience at the same time.
Another good thing about blogging is that people can counter arguments put forth in another person's blogs, or critisize what is written in some fashion. This is an aspect that I think is better than in papers or assignments, because in these such things, the author presents counterarguemtns and refuts them within their own writing. It is clear within a blog to tell exactly what the audience is thinking. Clearly, the feedback is a positive factor of blogging.
In my case, I am writing my blog for an argumentitive writing class. Because it is for class, my freedom of the choice of what to write is limited, but not as much so as if I were to be writing a weekly paper for my teacher for example. There is no set topic, which allows freedom, but perhaps too much. On occasion, it is difficult to know if I am writing proper entries that will recieve full credit. In contrast, though, this freedom is also a good thing because it opens up my mind and forces me to step out of my comfort zone. If I was never uncomfortable, I probably wouldn't learn anything.
The audience of a blog, perhaps mine, I do not know to what extent, is much larger than it would be if one were writing journals for a specific person. The fact that I am forced to show some understanding of the readings in my blogs as well as critique arguments put forth by politicians or in any current event, limits what I can focus my entries on, without actually giving me an assigned topic. I feel that this is better than being handed a weekly assignment, however, where I would be writing only what my teacher wanted me to write, and not what I actually feel passionate about. In this way, blogging allows people to speak freely about what they truly believe, while exercising awareness of the audience at the same time.
Another good thing about blogging is that people can counter arguments put forth in another person's blogs, or critisize what is written in some fashion. This is an aspect that I think is better than in papers or assignments, because in these such things, the author presents counterarguemtns and refuts them within their own writing. It is clear within a blog to tell exactly what the audience is thinking. Clearly, the feedback is a positive factor of blogging.
Critique of an Editorial
I found an editorial in the Saginaw News that was titled, "Obama best for U.S." The editorial can be found by visiting http://www.mlive.com/saginawnews/opinion/index.ssf/2008/10/letters_is_barack_obama_really%20.html. I looked at the argument presented in this editorial, breaking down the ethos, pathos, and logos the author used to demonstrate her claims and the warrants she gave to justify her argument.
First, I will look at the argument put forth by the author before going into further detail about how she presented her argument. The author states, "[Obama] is the best hope we have for the next four, and hopefully, eight years." Clearly, the author believes Obama should be elected the next President of the United States, as she makes the argument that Obama is our "best hope." She then uses warrants to justify her argument by stating that Obama is "a man with a unique viewpoint," and "with the God-given gifts of insight and wisdom." The author further provides warrant by stating, "he can speak with authority to all of us and to listen to us because he understands who we are--as individuals and as a nation." It is evident that the author justifies her argument by stating a few reasons of why Obama would be the best candidate for presidency.
Further, the author provides evidence as to why her argument is correct and why her warrants are true. She does so mostly by using logos. Logos, as I mentioned in a previous blog entry, are rational proofs, or logic used in rhetoric (Crowley, 158). In this editorial, logic is used the rhetoric so the audience is forced to infer something: It is stated that biracial people can understand other people, and because Obama is biracial, we can infer that he can understand people. This technique is used again when the author mentions that someone who is part of both the black and white worlds has unique authority because he/she can talk about both views. Obama is part of both of these worlds, and therefore, we can infer that he has unique authority and views.
Ethos, putting a person's character to persuasive use (Crowley, 196), is also used in this editorial when the author mentions Obama's speech he gave on race in Philadelphia. She mentions this in the very beginning of her editorial, demonstrating to the audience her character that has been following the elections and the speeches the candidates have been making. By doing this, the audience is given the sense that she knows about politics and is not making arguments up without proof.
Lastly, pathos, an appeal to human emotions (Crowley, 246), is used in this editorial to persuade the audience by eliciting their emotions. People feel strongly about the election, so the author appeals to the emotion of the audience just by mentioning politics. She doesn't even need to invent emotional appeals to spark the audience's interest, because their interest is grabbed from the first few sentences.
First, I will look at the argument put forth by the author before going into further detail about how she presented her argument. The author states, "[Obama] is the best hope we have for the next four, and hopefully, eight years." Clearly, the author believes Obama should be elected the next President of the United States, as she makes the argument that Obama is our "best hope." She then uses warrants to justify her argument by stating that Obama is "a man with a unique viewpoint," and "with the God-given gifts of insight and wisdom." The author further provides warrant by stating, "he can speak with authority to all of us and to listen to us because he understands who we are--as individuals and as a nation." It is evident that the author justifies her argument by stating a few reasons of why Obama would be the best candidate for presidency.
Further, the author provides evidence as to why her argument is correct and why her warrants are true. She does so mostly by using logos. Logos, as I mentioned in a previous blog entry, are rational proofs, or logic used in rhetoric (Crowley, 158). In this editorial, logic is used the rhetoric so the audience is forced to infer something: It is stated that biracial people can understand other people, and because Obama is biracial, we can infer that he can understand people. This technique is used again when the author mentions that someone who is part of both the black and white worlds has unique authority because he/she can talk about both views. Obama is part of both of these worlds, and therefore, we can infer that he has unique authority and views.
Ethos, putting a person's character to persuasive use (Crowley, 196), is also used in this editorial when the author mentions Obama's speech he gave on race in Philadelphia. She mentions this in the very beginning of her editorial, demonstrating to the audience her character that has been following the elections and the speeches the candidates have been making. By doing this, the audience is given the sense that she knows about politics and is not making arguments up without proof.
Lastly, pathos, an appeal to human emotions (Crowley, 246), is used in this editorial to persuade the audience by eliciting their emotions. People feel strongly about the election, so the author appeals to the emotion of the audience just by mentioning politics. She doesn't even need to invent emotional appeals to spark the audience's interest, because their interest is grabbed from the first few sentences.