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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.