As most of you know, I have been writing this blog entries for an argumentative writing class, but this semester is almost over, and sadly, this will be the last blog entry I will write (as a requirement for this class at least). I was searching CNN on the web and came across a very interesting article, one that I thought would be a perfect topic for my final blog entry; it is about social networks and that studies have shown that happiness actually is contagious. Usually in my blog entries, I relate something I have read in the news or in other current events to what I have read in class, but I will not be doing that for this blog entry. Of course, I could probably somehow relate the article to what Aristotle wrote about happiness being achieved through virtuous actions, but that would be stretching it. Since this is the final entry, I figured I'd have some fun with it, and share this interesting article.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/HEALTH/12/05/happiness.social.network/index.html
The article states that "new research shows that in a social network, happiness spreads among people up to three degrees removed from one another." 3 degrees? That seems like a lot! Further, the article also goes on to explain a study being conducted about Facebook and it is stated that "The researchers are also looking at the phenomenon on Facebook, which has more than 120 million active users. This study, which has not yet been published, looked at who smiles in their profile pictures who doesn't, and whether their connections also smile or not." This study is apparently looking at whether or not smiling is contagious, which could perhaps be associated with happiness, although not in all cases.
Going back to the first finding, though, that a person up to three degrees removed from you can still make you happy if they themselves are happy, poses an interesting topic of discussion. This is very interesting because of course many of us think, if a friend of ours is happy, of course we have a better chance of being happy ourselves...but a friend of a friend? That seems incredibly distant. Perhaps, close rhetorical distance is not needed to persuade someone to smile and be happy?...
Sunday, December 7, 2008
Wednesday, December 3, 2008
Rhetorical Distance
I already presented this to my classmates, so hang in there if you are from my class and reading this, but I felt it was an interesting topic and deserved to be mentioned in my blog entry this week. The topic I am speaking of is rhetorical distance, specifically the rhetorical distance present in sports rhetoric. In viewing the following Visa commercial, there is a certain message sent to the public about the leadership in sports.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bk7QbKGgsm8
It is told to us that we do not root for athletes because of where they are from, but because they are human. We too are human, so we are able to relate to these athletes. In stating this, it is clear that there is a very intimate rhetorical distance formed here. The advertisement is persuading us that their product is good (Visa) by pulling us in through this close rhetorical distance. "They are human, and we are human, and when they succeed, we succeed." This statement alone creates clear, close distance between an athlete and the general public. We are able to relate to them because they are similar to us, and we look up to them, and root for them because they are successful, and we too are striving for success.
Another thing I noticed, that I did not pick up on the first time I watched this commercial is the fact that they show many athletes struggling in the commercial: broken ankles, tripping on the track, etc. Clearly this creates a close rhetorical distance as well because most people in society struggle to achieve their success, which is what these athletes have done. In looking at it this way, rhetoric played out through sports creates a message of hard work and success. Further, by creating this close distance, perhaps we are persuaded to use Visa because we feel an intimate relationship with the athletes, who are associated with Visa because they are the ones in the commercials. Looking beyond the advertising ploy, it is clear that there is certainly close rhetorical distance present here, as we can relate to the athletes we look up to on many levels.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bk7QbKGgsm8
It is told to us that we do not root for athletes because of where they are from, but because they are human. We too are human, so we are able to relate to these athletes. In stating this, it is clear that there is a very intimate rhetorical distance formed here. The advertisement is persuading us that their product is good (Visa) by pulling us in through this close rhetorical distance. "They are human, and we are human, and when they succeed, we succeed." This statement alone creates clear, close distance between an athlete and the general public. We are able to relate to them because they are similar to us, and we look up to them, and root for them because they are successful, and we too are striving for success.
Another thing I noticed, that I did not pick up on the first time I watched this commercial is the fact that they show many athletes struggling in the commercial: broken ankles, tripping on the track, etc. Clearly this creates a close rhetorical distance as well because most people in society struggle to achieve their success, which is what these athletes have done. In looking at it this way, rhetoric played out through sports creates a message of hard work and success. Further, by creating this close distance, perhaps we are persuaded to use Visa because we feel an intimate relationship with the athletes, who are associated with Visa because they are the ones in the commercials. Looking beyond the advertising ploy, it is clear that there is certainly close rhetorical distance present here, as we can relate to the athletes we look up to on many levels.
The Importance of Expertise in Persuasion
Today I was sitting in one of my psychology classes, and a group was presenting a topic about the issue of No-Kill dog shelters and whether or not they are better than shelters that promote euthanization. But that's besides the point I am trying to make in this blog entry. In my past few entries, I have spoken about the importance, that Crowley mentions as well in my argumentative writing textbook, of citing "experts" on your topic of focus to make your argument more persuasive. To refresh your memory, Crowley stated that we "try to cite an authority whenever we make a point that might be misunderstood or contested by an audience" (Crowley, 274). It helps make our own ethos, and therefore, our own argument stronger.
Rewinding back to when I was sitting in psychology class today listening to a group present, I will now mention that in their presentation I noticed a lot of "experts" on dog shelters being quoted to support their position that no-kill shelters are good. However, I also noticed that they did not present these people as "experts," giving only their name and title (on occasion). I feel that had the expert been properly introduced in the presentation, it would have made him/her seem even more knowledgeable on the subject and therefore, more persuasive.
With that being said, I think it is equally as important to provide a brief introduction about why someone should be considered an expert in their field (their accomplishments, etc.) before stating their quotation, than just stating their quotation right off the bat. Therefore, you are actually persuading two things: your own argument, and the fact that someone is an expert. If you can persuade your audience that someone is an expert, and they agree with your argument, this will make your argument more persuasive...Credit the expert...
Rewinding back to when I was sitting in psychology class today listening to a group present, I will now mention that in their presentation I noticed a lot of "experts" on dog shelters being quoted to support their position that no-kill shelters are good. However, I also noticed that they did not present these people as "experts," giving only their name and title (on occasion). I feel that had the expert been properly introduced in the presentation, it would have made him/her seem even more knowledgeable on the subject and therefore, more persuasive.
With that being said, I think it is equally as important to provide a brief introduction about why someone should be considered an expert in their field (their accomplishments, etc.) before stating their quotation, than just stating their quotation right off the bat. Therefore, you are actually persuading two things: your own argument, and the fact that someone is an expert. If you can persuade your audience that someone is an expert, and they agree with your argument, this will make your argument more persuasive...Credit the expert...
Monday, November 24, 2008
My Yahoo Survey
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.
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.
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.
Monday, October 27, 2008
Palin's emotional appeal comes too late
As I have mentioned in my past few blog entries, it is beneficial to appeal to the emotion of the audience when trying to persuade others to agree with a certain argument. In the news last week I read that Sarah Palin introduced new proposals for special needs children that she "says the McCain-Palin administration would persue" http://www.foxnews.com/video2/video08.html?maven_referralObject=3161758&maven_referralPlaylistId=&sRevUrl=http://www.foxnews.com/politics/.
These proposals include giving parents withe special needs children more choice in what schools their children attend, as well as keeping federal funds with these children along the way. I think it is good the Palin raised such an issue because, as one reporter mentioned, it "might help her among some women voters." Clearly, these issues are not political issues, but deal more with the ways in which individual families are affected on a daily basis. In such a way, Palin is appealing to the emotion of the audience, which in this case is any family with a child who has special needs.
This newsfeed also mentioned, however, that she should have raised this issue earlier. In my argumentative writing textbook, the intensity of emotions is discussed. In most cases, the more intense an emotion, the more effective it will be in an argument. The textbook states that "Love tends to grow with time" (Crowley, 252). I believe this is true, and if so, it would have been beneficial for Palin to have raised the issue of proposals for special needs children long ago. Since it appeals to the emotion of many individual families, had Palin mentioned this earlier in the campaign, it only would have helped her because these families might have grown to love her over the course of the entire campaign. Now that she mentions this just days away from the election, it will be much more difficult for Palin to sway the emotions of the American public to vote for her, and love her, if they do not already.
These proposals include giving parents withe special needs children more choice in what schools their children attend, as well as keeping federal funds with these children along the way. I think it is good the Palin raised such an issue because, as one reporter mentioned, it "might help her among some women voters." Clearly, these issues are not political issues, but deal more with the ways in which individual families are affected on a daily basis. In such a way, Palin is appealing to the emotion of the audience, which in this case is any family with a child who has special needs.
This newsfeed also mentioned, however, that she should have raised this issue earlier. In my argumentative writing textbook, the intensity of emotions is discussed. In most cases, the more intense an emotion, the more effective it will be in an argument. The textbook states that "Love tends to grow with time" (Crowley, 252). I believe this is true, and if so, it would have been beneficial for Palin to have raised the issue of proposals for special needs children long ago. Since it appeals to the emotion of many individual families, had Palin mentioned this earlier in the campaign, it only would have helped her because these families might have grown to love her over the course of the entire campaign. Now that she mentions this just days away from the election, it will be much more difficult for Palin to sway the emotions of the American public to vote for her, and love her, if they do not already.
Thursday, October 23, 2008
Pathos continued...
In my last blog entry, I wrote about the use of pathos in argumentative writing. As a refresher, I will mention once again that pathos refer to a rhetor appealing to the emotion of the audience in order to persuade and make his/her argument stronger. In that entry, I mentioned a commercial that appeals to the emotions of the viewers and how it is effective in its persuasion. On a larger scale, I was reading the news today and I came across an example of rhetors using pathos to further persuade the American population of voters to vote for Obama.
This article explains why Obama will be taking a break from his campaign trail for the weekend to "visit his ailing grandmother" http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/20/campaign.wrap/index.html#cnnSTCText. I think this article serves two purposes. First, it simply informs the audience why Obama had to suddenly cancel his campaigning in multiple cities, and secondly, it appeals to the emotions of the audience. Many people have dealt with the grief of losing a loved one or with the sickness of a loved one, and by explaining that Obama will be doing just that, an emotion is sparked within the members of the audience because they can relate.
In my textbook, it states, "Emotional responses help people to change their minds. When a person experiences an emotion such as anger, pity, or fear, she enters a new state of mind in which she sees things differently" (Crowley, 251). By giving the story of how much his grandmother means to him, and therefore, he must visit her in her sickness, Obama's campaign is eliciting an emotional response within the audience that might in fact persuade people to believe that Obama is a caring man, a family man, a loving man. I'm not saying that he is not any of these things; instead, I am saying that this is the rhetorical practice of using pathos and appealing to the emotions of the audience for further persuasion toward an argument (in this case trying to persuade people to vote for Obama because he is a good guy).
This is an interesting technique, but I find in looking at various articles, pathos are used quite often and appear to be quite effective in rhetoric.
This article explains why Obama will be taking a break from his campaign trail for the weekend to "visit his ailing grandmother" http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/20/campaign.wrap/index.html#cnnSTCText. I think this article serves two purposes. First, it simply informs the audience why Obama had to suddenly cancel his campaigning in multiple cities, and secondly, it appeals to the emotions of the audience. Many people have dealt with the grief of losing a loved one or with the sickness of a loved one, and by explaining that Obama will be doing just that, an emotion is sparked within the members of the audience because they can relate.
In my textbook, it states, "Emotional responses help people to change their minds. When a person experiences an emotion such as anger, pity, or fear, she enters a new state of mind in which she sees things differently" (Crowley, 251). By giving the story of how much his grandmother means to him, and therefore, he must visit her in her sickness, Obama's campaign is eliciting an emotional response within the audience that might in fact persuade people to believe that Obama is a caring man, a family man, a loving man. I'm not saying that he is not any of these things; instead, I am saying that this is the rhetorical practice of using pathos and appealing to the emotions of the audience for further persuasion toward an argument (in this case trying to persuade people to vote for Obama because he is a good guy).
This is an interesting technique, but I find in looking at various articles, pathos are used quite often and appear to be quite effective in rhetoric.
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
Evoking emotion to persuade an audience
Pathos are the way in which rhetors "appeal to human emotion" (Crowley, 246). It seems logical that members of the audience will be more easily persuaded if rhetors are able to evoke certain emotions within them. In my argumentative writing textbook, it is stated that "as emotional intensity wanes, so does the persuasiveness of arguments based on emotional appeals" (Crowley, 247). In other words, if the intensity of the emotion evoked in an argument is minimal and the argument is based on the emotional appeal, then the audience will not easily be persuaded.
As I read this in my textbook, I was thinking of an everyday example of pathos being used in the media and I immediately thought of a specific commercial on TV. This commercial http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9gspElv1yvc asks people to donate $18 a month to BCSPCA to help rescue animals who have been abused by giving them food, shelter, etc. I think this commercial is extremely persuasive and its argument that one should sponsor an animal at a monthly rate is based on emotional appeals and certainly appeals to the audiences' emotions. As my textbook mentions, "emotional appeals are based on the assumption that human beings share similar kinds of emotional responses to events" (Crowley, 250). It can be assumed that many people have pets, or rather that many people love animals and have such a strong connection with them that they can't imagine any animal that deserves to be abused. The commercial plays a very sad song in the background while simultaneously showing pictures and video clips of injured dogs and cats. I think that because of the emotion this commercial sparks inside of a viewer, it serves as very effective argument that these animals need help and persuades a large audience to donate "$18 a month, just 60 cents a day" to such a worthy cause.
As I read this in my textbook, I was thinking of an everyday example of pathos being used in the media and I immediately thought of a specific commercial on TV. This commercial http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9gspElv1yvc asks people to donate $18 a month to BCSPCA to help rescue animals who have been abused by giving them food, shelter, etc. I think this commercial is extremely persuasive and its argument that one should sponsor an animal at a monthly rate is based on emotional appeals and certainly appeals to the audiences' emotions. As my textbook mentions, "emotional appeals are based on the assumption that human beings share similar kinds of emotional responses to events" (Crowley, 250). It can be assumed that many people have pets, or rather that many people love animals and have such a strong connection with them that they can't imagine any animal that deserves to be abused. The commercial plays a very sad song in the background while simultaneously showing pictures and video clips of injured dogs and cats. I think that because of the emotion this commercial sparks inside of a viewer, it serves as very effective argument that these animals need help and persuades a large audience to donate "$18 a month, just 60 cents a day" to such a worthy cause.
Sunday, October 19, 2008
Closing the Gap Further
In my last entry I discussed rhetorical distance and how rhetors can form relationships with the audience to be more persuasive. Today, as I was reading my argumentative writing book for class, I came across something called "Grammatical Person." This sparked my interest because it can be applied to so many different scenarios. There are three types of grammatical persons:
First-Person Reference: "I want you to do the dishes today."
Second-Person Address: "Do these dishes today or else."
Third-Person Reference: "Someone must do these dishes today." (Crowley, 217)
Often in writing, the third-person reference is used because of its formality, however, "first and second-person discourse creates less distance between a rhetor and an audience...because the participants in the action are referred to directly" (Crowley, 217). Clearly, first and second-person discourse is used on a day to day basis when speaking to a friend, for example. It makes much more sense to say, "it is your turn to make dinner tonight" rather than, "it is her turn to make dinner tonight." If the latter (third-person reference) is used, the intimacy distance is lost and the person you are referring to may not even understand what you are saying or if you are referring to them.
A lot of times, it would make sense that in large speeches, for example, the third-person reference would be used because the rhetor is addressing a larger audience and not just a single person. This is not necessarily true, however. In the town hall style presidential debate last week, both candidates, Obama and McCain, attempted to close the distance between themselves and the audience by patting them on the back, and most importantly by using first-person reference with sayings like "My friends" and addressing those who asked questions by name before answering the question. I thought this was particularly interesting because although the audience of this debate was the entire nation, it seems more effective to address either the one person who asked the question directly or to address the entire nation as if they were being addressed individually. After all, we are all "friends" with the candidates, right? A simple use of first-person discourse in this situation allows the rhetorical distance to close and make thousands of people to believe the candidates are talking directly to them.
First-Person Reference: "I want you to do the dishes today."
Second-Person Address: "Do these dishes today or else."
Third-Person Reference: "Someone must do these dishes today." (Crowley, 217)
Often in writing, the third-person reference is used because of its formality, however, "first and second-person discourse creates less distance between a rhetor and an audience...because the participants in the action are referred to directly" (Crowley, 217). Clearly, first and second-person discourse is used on a day to day basis when speaking to a friend, for example. It makes much more sense to say, "it is your turn to make dinner tonight" rather than, "it is her turn to make dinner tonight." If the latter (third-person reference) is used, the intimacy distance is lost and the person you are referring to may not even understand what you are saying or if you are referring to them.
A lot of times, it would make sense that in large speeches, for example, the third-person reference would be used because the rhetor is addressing a larger audience and not just a single person. This is not necessarily true, however. In the town hall style presidential debate last week, both candidates, Obama and McCain, attempted to close the distance between themselves and the audience by patting them on the back, and most importantly by using first-person reference with sayings like "My friends" and addressing those who asked questions by name before answering the question. I thought this was particularly interesting because although the audience of this debate was the entire nation, it seems more effective to address either the one person who asked the question directly or to address the entire nation as if they were being addressed individually. After all, we are all "friends" with the candidates, right? A simple use of first-person discourse in this situation allows the rhetorical distance to close and make thousands of people to believe the candidates are talking directly to them.
Saturday, October 18, 2008
Rhetorical Distance
The other day I was reading an article that stated, "There's something about Barack Obama—his youth, his transcendence of race, his coolness—that has awakened the sleeping giant of the youth vote." http://www.newsweek.com/id/164358. This was very interesting to me because it made me think about how many youth votes Obama probably is gaining every day due to his own "youth." In my argumentative writing book, there was a section called "Voice and Rhetorical Distance." In this section, it is stated that "As a general rule, persuasion occurs more easily when audiences can identify with rhetors" and "Intimate Distance= Closer Identification, More Persuasive Potential" (Crowley, 213). I believe this is most certainly true. If a person in the audience can relate to the rhetor, his or her persuasion would be more effective. This is very true in the presidential election this year. As this article stated, "[Obama's] youth, his transcendence of race, his coolness" will most likely be an incentive for many young voters to head to the polls on November 4th. Although Obama is very charismatic and persuasive through his language, I believe he is also persuasive to a young audience because of his age. Many youth are more likely to relate to him than McCain, which may provide Obama with many votes from youth who were "sleeping" before. It is interesting to me, although it does make perfect sense, that a person can achieve more "intimate distance" to be more persuasive in ways that do not include language. It seems the trick for a rhetor in this case is to get the audience to more closely identify with you through language and other means as well.
Rhetorical Distance
The other day I was reading an article that stated, "There's something about Barack Obama—his youth, his transcendence of race, his coolness—that has awakened the sleeping giant of the youth vote." http://www.newsweek.com/id/164358. This was very interesting to me because it made me think about how many youth votes Obama probably is gaining every day due to his own "youth." In my argumentative writing book, there was a section called "Voice and Rhetorical Distance." In this section, it is stated that "As a general rule, persuasion occurs more easily when audiences can identify with rhetors" and "Intimate Distance= Closer Identification, More Persuasive Potential" (Crowley, 213). I believe this is most certainly true. If a person in the audience can relate to the rhetor, his or her persuasion would be more effective. This is very true in the presidential election this year. As this article stated, "[Obama's] youth, his transcendence of race, his coolness" will most likely be an incentive for many young voters to head to the polls on November 4th. Although Obama is very charismatic and persuasive through his language, I believe he is also persuasive to a young audience because of his age. Many youth are more likely to relate to him than McCain, which may provide Obama with many votes from youth who were "sleeping" before. It is interesting to me, although it does make perfect sense, that a person can achieve more "intimate distance" to be more persuasive in ways that do not include language. It seems the trick for a rhetor in this case is to get the audience to more closely identify with you through language and other means as well.
Sunday, October 12, 2008
The Presidential Debate
As I have mentioned in previous blog entries, I have never been interested in politics. However, for my argumentative writing class, it would only make sense that we are expected to follow this year's presidential election, as much of the campaign deals with persuasive rhetoric through events such as debates. I have to admit also, that in addition to the fact that I am expected to follow current issues and politics for class, I have enjoyed how much I have learned so far and how much interest the campaign has sparked in me thus far.
Last Tuesday night, I watched the second of three presidential debates. I thought both candidates did a nice job presenting their arguments, even though they consistently went over their time constraints. One thing in particular that I noticed was something concerning the very last question, "What don't you know, and how will you learn it?" It seemed to me that Obama never actually answered this question. Instead, he stated what he did know: that he had many opportunities handed to him in life, and that we need fundamental change to ensure that these opportunities are passed down to the next generation. McCain appeared to clearly answer the question by saying that what he does not know is what the unexpected will be; what challenges we will face at home and abroad.
On another note, I also was interested to hear what both candidates had to say about energy and the environment, because I am in an environment class right now where we discuss many ecological issues and ways of solving these problems. What I thought was interesting about this part of the debate was after McCain spoke, and Obama told the audience that McCain mentioned that over the last 30 years, politicians in Washington haven't done anything about our energy problems, but that what he didn't mention was that he was there for 26 of those years. He then proceeds to say it is easy for us to talk about this during a campaign, but "it requires a sustained effort from the next president." I thought this was a very effective point, and Obama did a nice job of presenting it.
Last Tuesday night, I watched the second of three presidential debates. I thought both candidates did a nice job presenting their arguments, even though they consistently went over their time constraints. One thing in particular that I noticed was something concerning the very last question, "What don't you know, and how will you learn it?" It seemed to me that Obama never actually answered this question. Instead, he stated what he did know: that he had many opportunities handed to him in life, and that we need fundamental change to ensure that these opportunities are passed down to the next generation. McCain appeared to clearly answer the question by saying that what he does not know is what the unexpected will be; what challenges we will face at home and abroad.
On another note, I also was interested to hear what both candidates had to say about energy and the environment, because I am in an environment class right now where we discuss many ecological issues and ways of solving these problems. What I thought was interesting about this part of the debate was after McCain spoke, and Obama told the audience that McCain mentioned that over the last 30 years, politicians in Washington haven't done anything about our energy problems, but that what he didn't mention was that he was there for 26 of those years. He then proceeds to say it is easy for us to talk about this during a campaign, but "it requires a sustained effort from the next president." I thought this was a very effective point, and Obama did a nice job of presenting it.
Monday, October 6, 2008
Celebrity, Leader, or Both?
Rene Descartes, a 16th century French philosopher, wrote: "For, finally, whether we are awake or asleep, we should never let ourselves be persuaded except on the evidence of our reason." After reading this sentence, I realized what a good philosophy this still is today. No one should be told what to think, or persuaded to think something different than they already do, but rather every individual should formulate their own opinions about issues. The only reason a person should be persuaded in their thoughts is if their own reasons provide evidence that they should indeed be persuaded.
In society today, however, this is not the case. People are persuaded to formulate opinions based on things other than their own reasons. The most clear example of this is certainly the role the media plays in multiple aspects of life, ranging from important issues like the election,
to smaller issues like what to buy for dinner or where to go shopping. The media provides ways of persuading society through many advertisements and propaganda techniques. An explicit example of this is found in a John McCain campaign commercial where it implies that Barack Obama is the "biggest celebrity in the world" and that that does not make him ready to lead a nation. The ad can be viewed at this website: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHXYsw_ZDXg. Clearly, this propaganda technique is a way that the media reaches society and persuades them to formulate an opinion about Obama other than their own. This is just one example of propaganda such as this, it is not one sided, but rather a common practice and effective technique in persuasion.
Further, on a much smaller scale, one might be wondering what to eat for dinner and perhaps they cross paths with an advertisement such as this: http://www.inkthinkerblog.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/3-taco-bell-signs.jpg, which is a picture of the 79 cent, 89 cent, and 99 cent meals at Taco Bell. This use of propaganda may influence a person to eat at Taco Bell for dinner, because as the sign says, it is cheap. I understand that this example is on the utmost small end of an issue (deciding what to eat), but still provides evidence that propaganda can influence the way we think. According to Descartes, no one should be persuaded to think something other than with their own reason, but it appears that this is hard to accomplish in a society like today, where the media attempts to persuade us on issues from both ends of the spectrum.
In society today, however, this is not the case. People are persuaded to formulate opinions based on things other than their own reasons. The most clear example of this is certainly the role the media plays in multiple aspects of life, ranging from important issues like the election,
to smaller issues like what to buy for dinner or where to go shopping. The media provides ways of persuading society through many advertisements and propaganda techniques. An explicit example of this is found in a John McCain campaign commercial where it implies that Barack Obama is the "biggest celebrity in the world" and that that does not make him ready to lead a nation. The ad can be viewed at this website: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHXYsw_ZDXg. Clearly, this propaganda technique is a way that the media reaches society and persuades them to formulate an opinion about Obama other than their own. This is just one example of propaganda such as this, it is not one sided, but rather a common practice and effective technique in persuasion.
Further, on a much smaller scale, one might be wondering what to eat for dinner and perhaps they cross paths with an advertisement such as this: http://www.inkthinkerblog.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/3-taco-bell-signs.jpg, which is a picture of the 79 cent, 89 cent, and 99 cent meals at Taco Bell. This use of propaganda may influence a person to eat at Taco Bell for dinner, because as the sign says, it is cheap. I understand that this example is on the utmost small end of an issue (deciding what to eat), but still provides evidence that propaganda can influence the way we think. According to Descartes, no one should be persuaded to think something other than with their own reason, but it appears that this is hard to accomplish in a society like today, where the media attempts to persuade us on issues from both ends of the spectrum.
Wednesday, October 1, 2008
We use probability everyday?
"Greek rhetoricians called any kind of statement that predicts something about human behavior a statement of probability. Probabilities are not as reliable as certainties, but they are more reliable than chance" (Crowley, p.160). This is how Sharon Crowely explains what probability is. Probability that rhetoricians use in writing is different from probabilities used in mathematical equations, for there is no way to calculate and quantify human behavior. I had never really thought about this before, but it makes perfect sense. We use rhetorical probabilities everyday. For example, a child who wants a puppy must evaluate the situation before he or she asks for one. In other words, what would he or she predict their parents reaction might be? In this case, this child would be gathering information to best predict what would happen if he or she did decide to ask for a puppy. In this way, I believe that probability in rhetoric has the ability to further an argument because in making a prediction about human behavior, one must look at all sides and angles of what might occur in the situation. In doing so, a person who has used probabilities will have already thought of rebuttals, in this scenario, of the reasons why he or she shouldn't get a puppy, and will be able to refute their argument on the spot. I am amazed I never looked at this process as being probability, as I limited the term only to math, but it is a procedure that involves predicting something less than absolute, but more than just chance. Another example would be the probability of what would happen if you turned your homework in late. Would there be consequences? In order to determine this, you would need to first draw from inside information about what you know: how lenient is the teacher? do you normally turn your homework in on time? etc. It is fascinating how often probability is used outside of math, which also raises the question: what is a definition? Is it limited to one defining factor? In this case, no, the word "probability" defines something slightly different in math than it does in rhetoric.
Monday, September 29, 2008
The Great Debate
I have never really been interested in politics, but for my argumentative writing class, one of my assignments was to watch the first of three presidential debates that was shown live on Friday night. To my surprise, I actually enjoyed it. I learned a lot by watching, such as many more issues and policies being discussed, but the part that I really thought to be fun to watch was that both candidates seemed very knowledgeable to me. Of course, I am no political science major, nor do I have any interest in politics, but as an unbiased viewer, I thought McCain and Obama did a nice job of presenting themselves and debating each other.
In my argumentative writing textbook, I learned that a topic is a term used to describe something that generates an argument. Additionally, there are two types of topics; common topics, "suited to any argument" (Crowley, 120), and special topics, "those that belonged to some specific field of argument" (Crowley, 120). Sharon Crowley also states that "rhetors need a good deal of specific knowledge to argue from special topics" (p.121). I think that McCain and Obama have a lot of specific knowledge about many different issues, which is what allowed them to debate so well on Friday. Each candidate seemed to know a lot about specific topics, such as McCain knowing the details of Obama's proposals, for example. This was very impressive to me, as I feel that most people use common topics in arguments because they have not built such a specific knowledge on one, or even many, subjects.
In my argumentative writing textbook, I learned that a topic is a term used to describe something that generates an argument. Additionally, there are two types of topics; common topics, "suited to any argument" (Crowley, 120), and special topics, "those that belonged to some specific field of argument" (Crowley, 120). Sharon Crowley also states that "rhetors need a good deal of specific knowledge to argue from special topics" (p.121). I think that McCain and Obama have a lot of specific knowledge about many different issues, which is what allowed them to debate so well on Friday. Each candidate seemed to know a lot about specific topics, such as McCain knowing the details of Obama's proposals, for example. This was very impressive to me, as I feel that most people use common topics in arguments because they have not built such a specific knowledge on one, or even many, subjects.
Thursday, September 25, 2008
2 Late Nights on the "Late Show"
In reading the news over the past few days, I came across an article about McCain and how he was scheduled to be on the "Late Show," but cancelled his appearance and took a break from the campaign Wednesday night to focus on the economic crisis in our country. I did not actually see the show, and have only the information given to me in the article to go off of, but apparently "Letterman [unloaded] on McCain for not showing up" http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hIbK5ZyWUeEJrqOEcChTTkzHi3JgD93DP7U06. Letterman even stated: "Are we suspending it because there's an economic crisis or because the poll numbers are sliding?" Of course Letterman would feel a bit bitter about a presidential candidate cancelling coming on his show, but I do not believe that gives him the right to judge someone's character on national television. In fact, I feel that because of things in the media, such as this, happen everyday, ideas and opinions are formed by people other than ourselves. Another article I was reading was about the same topic: Letterman continued to "assault" McCain today and even went as far as to say, "Well, we might not see you on Inauguration Day" http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080925/ap_en_tv/mccain_letterman. This reminds me of something I read in my textbook in English class: Sharon Crowley discusses the topic of past and future conjecture and states that future conjectures are "educated guesses about something that will take place in the future" (Crowley, 121). In this case, it seems to me that Letterman is demonstrating the idea of future conjectures. He is assuming that because McCain cancelled his appearance on his show, that McCain is therefore not a good leader and would not make a good president in the future. I assume that because of his numerous "attacks" on McCain, Letterman is making an educated guess about McCain's leadership in the future, future conjecture.
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
As I was looking through the news today, I stumbled across an article in which the headline read, "Poll finds 18 percent of voters persuadable" http://news.yahoo.com/page/election-2008-political-pulse-the-persuadables. Not long before the presidential election itself, eighteen percent of voters say they do not know who they are going to vote for or are willing to change their decision. Many people agree that neither candidate is the right man for dealing with the issue of economics in the United States during the present time, which does not assist in choosing one person.
Eighteen percent of all voters seems like quite a few people who could easily be swayed to vote one way or another, or even change who they were originally voting for. The article states, "Whichever presidential candidate convinces a swath of persuadable voters that he gets it...Could win the White House http://news.yahoo.com/page/election-2008-political-pulse-the-persuadables. This stresses the exact point mentioned in Crowley's, Ancient Rhetoric for Contemporary Students: rhetoric. In the beginning of her book, Crowley mentions the fact that "[rhetors] can make language do what they want it to do, can make listeners or readers hear or read in the way they intended" (Crowley, 25). This comparison provides evidence that in ancient times, rhetors were much like the presidential candidates of modern time, in that both are striving to be persuasive. Rhetors used language to manipulate others to do as they wanted them to, while modern Presidential candidates use language to win the persuasion of the majority of the people and work their way into office.
Eighteen percent of all voters seems like quite a few people who could easily be swayed to vote one way or another, or even change who they were originally voting for. The article states, "Whichever presidential candidate convinces a swath of persuadable voters that he gets it...Could win the White House http://news.yahoo.com/page/election-2008-political-pulse-the-persuadables. This stresses the exact point mentioned in Crowley's, Ancient Rhetoric for Contemporary Students: rhetoric. In the beginning of her book, Crowley mentions the fact that "[rhetors] can make language do what they want it to do, can make listeners or readers hear or read in the way they intended" (Crowley, 25). This comparison provides evidence that in ancient times, rhetors were much like the presidential candidates of modern time, in that both are striving to be persuasive. Rhetors used language to manipulate others to do as they wanted them to, while modern Presidential candidates use language to win the persuasion of the majority of the people and work their way into office.
Sunday, September 21, 2008
Anxious to fly?
In the news today, a security scanner that can measure levels of anxiety was talked about. The article can be found at http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,425722,00.html. This scanner is in the beginning stages and still has a few more years until it will actually do its job of detecting terrorists, or perhaps it will be decided then that it will not work effectively at all. For now, scientists are studying ways of reading the levels of anxiety of a person as they walk through the scanner by measuring their body temperature, their heart rate, perspiration, etc. All in all, the goal of their research now is to be able to measure different levels of anxiety, so those who are just anxious about flying are not receiving the same reading as those who have other plans.
Although I do believe it is a good idea to invent a scanner for this purpose, so we are not only relying on reading a person's facial expression, I do not think it will be possible to separate those with anxiety about flying from those who are actually terrorists. The argument can be made for either position, I feel, but in this case I would have to side with the argument that this technology probably will not work. I think that if people knew they were walking through a machine that would scan physiological aspects of themselves, like breathing rate and heart rate, that they would be anxious not only about flying or missing a flight, but also about entering the scanner itself. Wouldn't most people's breathing rate and heart rate rise if they knew they were being evaluated in such a way? I think that this level of anxiety in addition to the anxiety some people already feel about being in airports and airplanes would just make the level reading skyrocket. I don't know enough about physiology or technology to state my argument with 100% clarity, but I raise the question: wouldn't high levels of anxiety appear on the screen the same as a terrorist's levels of anxiety? After all, aren't they terrorists trained to be calm in such situations?
Although I do believe it is a good idea to invent a scanner for this purpose, so we are not only relying on reading a person's facial expression, I do not think it will be possible to separate those with anxiety about flying from those who are actually terrorists. The argument can be made for either position, I feel, but in this case I would have to side with the argument that this technology probably will not work. I think that if people knew they were walking through a machine that would scan physiological aspects of themselves, like breathing rate and heart rate, that they would be anxious not only about flying or missing a flight, but also about entering the scanner itself. Wouldn't most people's breathing rate and heart rate rise if they knew they were being evaluated in such a way? I think that this level of anxiety in addition to the anxiety some people already feel about being in airports and airplanes would just make the level reading skyrocket. I don't know enough about physiology or technology to state my argument with 100% clarity, but I raise the question: wouldn't high levels of anxiety appear on the screen the same as a terrorist's levels of anxiety? After all, aren't they terrorists trained to be calm in such situations?
Friday, September 19, 2008
Comic relief
Last Saturday, the well-renown comedy show Saturday Night Live made its season premiere, and with Tina Fey portraying Vice President candidate Sarah Palin, it seemed to be a success. It is clear that SNL has a democratic bias, but I believe that Tina Fey did a wonderful job impersonating Sarah Palin in a non-offensive way. Of course her performance was exaggerated, but isn't that the point of SNL? In my opinion, Saturday Night Live is a satire, it exaggerates characters and their flaws, which is what makes it funny. However, I also believe that the situation makes the show funny as well. In other words, I think that because of the reputation of Saturday Night Live being a comedy show, people expect it to be funny. With the expectation of comedy combined with the exquisite performance of Tina Fey's Sarah Palin, the show was a huge triumph. Although it clearly expresses a democratic bias, I believe it is fair, in this episode particularly, because Hillary Clinton was also portrayed by Amy Poehler in a very exaggerated manner. By amplifying the flaws of the characters they played, Tina Fey and Amy Poehler were within the boundaries of comedic appropriateness. After all, it is their task to make us laugh.
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
A storm that blew over?
Recently, and with good reason, there has been a lot of news surrounding the topic of Hurricane Ike. A storm so viscous, that it left upwards of 50 people dead, millions without power, and damages far beyond repair. "The specific arguments that are currently circulating about a particular issue play an important role in creating kairos" (Crowley, p. 53). Kairos, as I discussed in a previous blog, are moments of opportunity that invite rhetorical responses. In this case, Hurricane Ike is a perfect example of a kairo because its surfacing opened the floor for numerous arguments to take place. A common topic of rhetoric in the news recently has been arguments presented for staying behind or evacuating areas such as Galveston, TX despite persistent warnings.
Many people ignore evacuation orders, based on a variety of reasons. Some may not have anywhere to go, some may not have heard the warnings, if they are hearing impaired for example, and others may have decided to wait out the storm http://www.usnews.com/articles/science/culture/2008/09/15/why-people-ignore-hurricane-evacuation-warnings.html.
On the other hand, many people evacuated upon the orders because it was explicitly stated that those in the path of Ike would face"certain death" if they did not leave http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/weather/09/11/hurricane.ike.texas/index.html.
It is possible for arguments to be made for either side, both leaving or staying, but I believe that it would not have been smart to ignore orders such as these. Of course, it is a little different if someone does not have the money or transportation to leave than if they are just choosing to stay and tough out the storm. Clearly Ike was not something that would just blow over. People were warned of the power of Ike and ordered to evacuate, so choosing to stay in harms way does not seem logical to me.
Many people ignore evacuation orders, based on a variety of reasons. Some may not have anywhere to go, some may not have heard the warnings, if they are hearing impaired for example, and others may have decided to wait out the storm http://www.usnews.com/articles/science/culture/2008/09/15/why-people-ignore-hurricane-evacuation-warnings.html.
On the other hand, many people evacuated upon the orders because it was explicitly stated that those in the path of Ike would face"certain death" if they did not leave http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/weather/09/11/hurricane.ike.texas/index.html.
It is possible for arguments to be made for either side, both leaving or staying, but I believe that it would not have been smart to ignore orders such as these. Of course, it is a little different if someone does not have the money or transportation to leave than if they are just choosing to stay and tough out the storm. Clearly Ike was not something that would just blow over. People were warned of the power of Ike and ordered to evacuate, so choosing to stay in harms way does not seem logical to me.
Monday, September 15, 2008
Kairos
In the textbook we are reading in class, Crowley and Hawhee explain kairos as being "a window of time during which action is most advantageous" (p.45, Ancient Rhetorics for Contemporary Students). It is in this time of opportunity in which the success or failure of an argument, story, or a joke can be determined. Kairos can also serve as the moment of opportunity in which an argument rises. For example, gun control has been a topic of debate for hundreds of years now in the United States, but it is often at moments of despair, such as gun shootings, that lead to an upheaval of debates, policies, and laws.
In an article written last spring in Time http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1731195,00.html?cnn=yes, the Virginia Tech shooting is discussed, demonstrating that events such as this reaffirm people's thoughts about privacy rights and gun control, and rightfully so considering the kairos, or timing. A few laws have been challenged since the tragedy, both in terms of notifying parents when their child seeks counseling and allowing concealed weapons for the purpose of protection. Had it not been for the shooting or other events in which the kairos, or the proper opportunity presented itself, I feel that many issues would remain unaddressed. On the other hand, would we need to address policies and laws if not for kairos in the first place?
In an article written last spring in Time http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1731195,00.html?cnn=yes, the Virginia Tech shooting is discussed, demonstrating that events such as this reaffirm people's thoughts about privacy rights and gun control, and rightfully so considering the kairos, or timing. A few laws have been challenged since the tragedy, both in terms of notifying parents when their child seeks counseling and allowing concealed weapons for the purpose of protection. Had it not been for the shooting or other events in which the kairos, or the proper opportunity presented itself, I feel that many issues would remain unaddressed. On the other hand, would we need to address policies and laws if not for kairos in the first place?
Sunday, September 14, 2008
Fables, Tales, Urban Legends
In the news this week there was a story that caught my attention. In Miami there was a six-year-old boy who got stuck in a washing machine in a laundromat http://www.thedenverchannel.com/irresistible/17438022/detail.html. The horrible part about this story was that the machine was actually running. The boy's mother thought the machine was broken and moved to a different machine after inserting her money into, and leaving, the first machine. Her two children proceeded to play in the machine and minutes later her daughter was screaming that her older brother was caught. After finally getting the door open, the boy was rushed to a nearby hospital, where he was recovering well.
Although this may sound like a fable, it is indeed true in fact. This tale can be used to teach a moral story without any fabrication of the truth: always watch your children, especially in public areas containing numerous machines. This story is scary in and of itself without adding any false facts. By presenting it in such a straightforward manner, the attention of readers and viewers alike is grabbed, making them think twice about how careful they are about watching their children in unfamiliar settings. By simply stating the facts of such an unbelievable tale, the audience reading or watching this story feels compassion for the family and makes them become aware of the dangers of a simple piece of machinery.
Further, this article could be used to make a couple of arguments. Firstly, one might argue that washing machines are unsafe, especially for children. This article would prove that point head on. Secondly, one might argue that parents nowadays do not keep a close enough watch over their children and kids are able to run too freely. Again, this story would prove the point that children require a watchful eye at almost all times. In contrast, this story could be used to refute an argument in which one is trying to prove the dangers of a laundromat.
In conclusion, a simple tale can be used to teach a lesson, it doesn't even need to be something as outrageous as a fable or urban legend. Scary experiences happen everyday, and something can be learned from almost all of them.
Although this may sound like a fable, it is indeed true in fact. This tale can be used to teach a moral story without any fabrication of the truth: always watch your children, especially in public areas containing numerous machines. This story is scary in and of itself without adding any false facts. By presenting it in such a straightforward manner, the attention of readers and viewers alike is grabbed, making them think twice about how careful they are about watching their children in unfamiliar settings. By simply stating the facts of such an unbelievable tale, the audience reading or watching this story feels compassion for the family and makes them become aware of the dangers of a simple piece of machinery.
Further, this article could be used to make a couple of arguments. Firstly, one might argue that washing machines are unsafe, especially for children. This article would prove that point head on. Secondly, one might argue that parents nowadays do not keep a close enough watch over their children and kids are able to run too freely. Again, this story would prove the point that children require a watchful eye at almost all times. In contrast, this story could be used to refute an argument in which one is trying to prove the dangers of a laundromat.
In conclusion, a simple tale can be used to teach a lesson, it doesn't even need to be something as outrageous as a fable or urban legend. Scary experiences happen everyday, and something can be learned from almost all of them.
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
Is a definition truly definite?
Does the act of defining something truly making it definite? I believe that it is possible for people to interpret things in different ways depending on a their perspective. This agrees with what Crowley states, as noted in my previous blog entry in that there is no "absolute truth." With this being said, I believe that when people debate or argue about an issue, they are fighting for what they believe is the truth. But who is to define what is really right and wrong, true or false? As I pose this question, however, wouldn't that mean that a definition is not something definite or absolute, because there will always be people interpreting words, or definitions differently?
Jean-Jacques Rousseau, a philosopher and literary figure in the 18th century wrote, "Just as the shepherd is superior in kind to his sheep, so, too, the shepherds of men, or, in other words, their rulers, are superior in kind to their peoples" (p. 58, A World of Ideas). This exemplifies the exact question I raised earlier. If one was trying to "define" qualities a leader should possess, and they came across this passage, it could be interpreted in a few different ways. In one way, this passage could be interpreted in a way that means Rousseau defines a leader as someone who is superior above his/her people. However, another way this could be interpreted is that a leader is someone who is given his/her position as ruler and is therefore expected to be superior above all. In this case, it is unclear whether or not Rousseau believes that a leader should possess qualities of power and superiority, or if it is something that comes along with the territory that is perhaps not such a wonderful quality.
Therefore, how Rousseau defines a ruler in this particular passage is far from distinct. His definition of a leader is left up for interpretation from his audience.
Jean-Jacques Rousseau, a philosopher and literary figure in the 18th century wrote, "Just as the shepherd is superior in kind to his sheep, so, too, the shepherds of men, or, in other words, their rulers, are superior in kind to their peoples" (p. 58, A World of Ideas). This exemplifies the exact question I raised earlier. If one was trying to "define" qualities a leader should possess, and they came across this passage, it could be interpreted in a few different ways. In one way, this passage could be interpreted in a way that means Rousseau defines a leader as someone who is superior above his/her people. However, another way this could be interpreted is that a leader is someone who is given his/her position as ruler and is therefore expected to be superior above all. In this case, it is unclear whether or not Rousseau believes that a leader should possess qualities of power and superiority, or if it is something that comes along with the territory that is perhaps not such a wonderful quality.
Therefore, how Rousseau defines a ruler in this particular passage is far from distinct. His definition of a leader is left up for interpretation from his audience.
Sunday, September 7, 2008
Nature of disagreement in public debate
In my argumentative writing class, we are reading a book called "Ancient Rhetorics for Contemporary Students," by Sharon Crowley and Debra Hawhee. In my blog today, I will begin with a passage in which Sharon Crowley writes,
"Because knowledge originates with human knowers, and not from somewhere outside them, there is no absolute truth that exists separately from human knowledge. Moreover, contradictory truths will appear, since everyone's knowledge differs slightly from everyone else's, depending on one's perspective and one's language. Thus Protagoras taught that at least two opposing and contradictory logs (statements or accounts) exist in every experience. He called these oppositions dissoi logoi."
Protagoras was a Greek philosopher who believed that there is no absolute truth, but only the truth as each individual perceives it. In other words, one might say there is no right or wrong. A person's perception of the truth may be impacted by ether their individual perspective or their language as it relates to a specific topic. Perhaps a very simple example that my help illustrate this point: Let's say you want to argue the thesis (truth) that "it's good to have a dog as a pet" based on your experience with dogs. Some people may argue that your "truth" is wrong because they have different perspectives. Perhaps they've been attacked by a dog, or they're allergic to dogs. Other people may argue that your truth is wrong because of cultural language or definitional differences. In some cultures "dog" may refer to a wild vicious wolf that no one in their right mind would want to have as a pet.
Of course the statement that "absolute truth" does not exist is somewhat comical since that statement in and of itself could be considered a statement of "absolute truth," and so the circular argument continues! Because people generally believe that the purpose of debate is to convince either the opposing side or other listeners (as it is in public debate), if you accept the theories of Protagoras or Cowley, one might ask what the purpose of debate would be given that there is no absolute truth or right or wrong, and consequently, there can be no winner or loser. In very simple terms, if everyone were to agree that there is no absolute truth, then why bother debating issues?
"Because knowledge originates with human knowers, and not from somewhere outside them, there is no absolute truth that exists separately from human knowledge. Moreover, contradictory truths will appear, since everyone's knowledge differs slightly from everyone else's, depending on one's perspective and one's language. Thus Protagoras taught that at least two opposing and contradictory logs (statements or accounts) exist in every experience. He called these oppositions dissoi logoi."
Protagoras was a Greek philosopher who believed that there is no absolute truth, but only the truth as each individual perceives it. In other words, one might say there is no right or wrong. A person's perception of the truth may be impacted by ether their individual perspective or their language as it relates to a specific topic. Perhaps a very simple example that my help illustrate this point: Let's say you want to argue the thesis (truth) that "it's good to have a dog as a pet" based on your experience with dogs. Some people may argue that your "truth" is wrong because they have different perspectives. Perhaps they've been attacked by a dog, or they're allergic to dogs. Other people may argue that your truth is wrong because of cultural language or definitional differences. In some cultures "dog" may refer to a wild vicious wolf that no one in their right mind would want to have as a pet.
Of course the statement that "absolute truth" does not exist is somewhat comical since that statement in and of itself could be considered a statement of "absolute truth," and so the circular argument continues! Because people generally believe that the purpose of debate is to convince either the opposing side or other listeners (as it is in public debate), if you accept the theories of Protagoras or Cowley, one might ask what the purpose of debate would be given that there is no absolute truth or right or wrong, and consequently, there can be no winner or loser. In very simple terms, if everyone were to agree that there is no absolute truth, then why bother debating issues?
My academic discipline is brain, behavior, and cognitive science, which is a biology-based psychology major. I actually plan to go on and complete a Second Career in Nursing program that is one year long in hopes of recieving my bachelor's in Nursing. Since this blog is for an argumentative writing class, though, I feel it is necessary for me to think about how argumentation relates to my personal interests, and not only those presented to me in the classroom.
Argumentation is used in the field of nursing on a daily basis as doctors and nurses have varying opinions about the treatment and care of a patient, for example. Although I do not know firsthand, I imagine that the main issue of debate in the medical field would deal with what medicines patients should be prescribed for the best possible recovery or pain killer, for instance. In these debates, the doctors would most likely be the leaders since they are the ones who decide on and finalize treatment plans. Nurses would be involved in these debates as well, I would presume, as they are the people actually giving direct care to patients in hospitals. Although they hold lesser power than doctors, nurses would most likely express their opinions about treatment options because of their personal relationships with patients and their knowledge of a patient's pain level, worries, doubts, etc. Together, doctors and nurses alike would then be having an "argument" in hopes to resolve to the best form of care possible.
All fields of study and careers use argument and debate, certainly not only nursing. This is only one example of how the field of nursing uses debate to accomplish goals and is certainly not limited to this.
Argumentation is used in the field of nursing on a daily basis as doctors and nurses have varying opinions about the treatment and care of a patient, for example. Although I do not know firsthand, I imagine that the main issue of debate in the medical field would deal with what medicines patients should be prescribed for the best possible recovery or pain killer, for instance. In these debates, the doctors would most likely be the leaders since they are the ones who decide on and finalize treatment plans. Nurses would be involved in these debates as well, I would presume, as they are the people actually giving direct care to patients in hospitals. Although they hold lesser power than doctors, nurses would most likely express their opinions about treatment options because of their personal relationships with patients and their knowledge of a patient's pain level, worries, doubts, etc. Together, doctors and nurses alike would then be having an "argument" in hopes to resolve to the best form of care possible.
All fields of study and careers use argument and debate, certainly not only nursing. This is only one example of how the field of nursing uses debate to accomplish goals and is certainly not limited to this.
Saturday, September 6, 2008
Writing a blog has never been something I have done, but due to an argumentative writing english class, I now have a reason to! As an undergraduate student, I am beginning my blogging experience as a requirement, but also as an opportunity to explore my own thoughts and opinions about various topics of discussion. I hope the audience I will be writing to in this blog will encompass a wide range of people, including my teacher, my classmates, my family, and my peers. Therefore, please bear with me as I may provide extensive information about certain topics or assignments. I will only do this so my blog will pertain to all of my audiences.
With this being said, I am writing for an argumentative english class and my first topic of discussion surrounds the idea of what an argument actually is. An argument is a disagreement about any point of discussion, but is difficult to define because an argument can also be a discussion in my opinion. Most people, myself included might think of an argument as being a fight or an unpleasant experience, but in thinking further into the subject, I have concluded that an argument can be something as simple as individuals expressing their own, opposing opinions and attempting to reason through them with each other.
Going along on the same subject, public debate is the next topic of discussion for this blog posting. Public debate is, not surprisingly at all, very similar to an argument with some differences of course. In my own opinion, I believe a public debate is a more formal argument that is often times restricted with rules, as it is in politics. In otherwords, I think that with these guidelines, public debates are far more restricted, more organized forms of arguments.
With this being said, I am writing for an argumentative english class and my first topic of discussion surrounds the idea of what an argument actually is. An argument is a disagreement about any point of discussion, but is difficult to define because an argument can also be a discussion in my opinion. Most people, myself included might think of an argument as being a fight or an unpleasant experience, but in thinking further into the subject, I have concluded that an argument can be something as simple as individuals expressing their own, opposing opinions and attempting to reason through them with each other.
Going along on the same subject, public debate is the next topic of discussion for this blog posting. Public debate is, not surprisingly at all, very similar to an argument with some differences of course. In my own opinion, I believe a public debate is a more formal argument that is often times restricted with rules, as it is in politics. In otherwords, I think that with these guidelines, public debates are far more restricted, more organized forms of arguments.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)