“Virtuous Arguments” Reading Response Through John Duffy’s written works, he stated that Rush Limbaugh’s sexist comments were insults towards the Georgetown University law student Sandra Fluke. John Duffy describes in a well-written manner how critical it is to have knowledge in having an opinion towards a certain topic and commenting about it in a structured format. John Duffy states that rhetoric has taken a turn into a negative path to where people do not care about what they say anymore to the public. John Duffy suggested that Rush Limbaugh was being sexist towards Sandra Fluke on public radio. We should be respectful of other people’s beliefs and or values, because if we have dissimilar opinions we need to be cautious in verbalizing those thoughts so that we do not offend others. John Duffy later states that rhetoric is being used in a negative way in news …show more content…
Sandra Fluke’s opinion over this matter has impacted many people and she has, by some means, persuaded numerous people to agree with her opinion on this argument. On the other hand, Limbaugh lost many advertisers and suffered a major loss on his radio talk show. Duffy states how important it is to know how to speak in well-manner style in an argument if you want to accurately get your message across. The author states that college students need to know how to act in a mature manner when having an argument about a certain topic. Duffy talks about how students should have the capability to understand that when confronting an argument there must be evidence to back up the argument. John Duffy makes a pivotal point. Us students should take advantage of the vital writing courses offered at the universities to further our education as well as our life skills. Learning to make a valid argument is a necessary tool in college to achieve a valid viewpoint from both sides of the given
Within “Thank You for Arguing What Aristotle, Lincoln, and Homer Simpson Can Teach us About the Art of Persuasion,” Jay Heinrichs, a skilled editor, and author with a long history of rhetoric delineates a very educational lesson over the power of persuasive writing or speaking in order to interact with the world around us. He accomplishes this by lucidly describing the steps to become a powerful persuader. My favorite chapter is chapter 7, which proves, to me, that this book should continue to be used in schools. Heinrichs organizes the book by explaining the skill then recounting an anecdote to help further explain when and how the strategy is most useful.
Rhetorical Analysis Draft Three “The Privileges of The Parents” is written by Margaret A. Miller, a Curry School of Education professor at the University of Virginia in Charlottesville. This woman was a project director for the Pew-sponsored National Forum on college level learning from 2002-2004. This forum assessed the skills and knowledge of college educated students in five states by a way that allowed the test givers to make state-by-state comparisons. Miller believes that “[a] college education has benefits that ripple down through the generations” and this has enabled her to work and speak on topics such as: college level learning and how to evaluate it, change in higher education, the public responsibilities of higher education, campus
John Colter and Tom Murphy, where two men who had the same dream. The dream of exploring Yellowstone park. Yellowstone park is in Wyoming Both men had packs Johns weighing thirty pounds and Toms weighing around 70/80 pounds with every thing he need to live including... food, A portable stove, camera gear, down jacket, huge warm mittens, a small emergency kit, a headlamp, two water bottles, and a three pound sleeping bag, john on the other hand had a thirty pound pack, some ammunition and his gun John Colter's shelter was much different from Tom Murphy's . For John Colter's shelter he had a trading fort. Tom Murphy however had only a tarp tied onto a stick frame with rope.
When it comes to arguments, debates, and anything else, you must do and say tailored things in order to show your point or justify how you're right. Comparable to the debate during the 1980 US presidential election, the two candidates, current President Jimmy Carter and California Governor Ronald Reagan, participated in a debate over how they would address inflation if elected, and they did so to persuade the public to vote for them in the election. In the debate, Ronald Reagan had a better argument because of what he said and how he said it. Firstly, in the debate about inflation, Ronald Reagan had a more compelling argument because he used evidence in the form of statistics.
A Debating Democracy America has been built on the principle that everyone has a voice and that everyone should use it, this leads to an innumerable amount of arguments, some that still persist. In The Thirteen American Arguments by award-winning writer, NBC Analyst, and American journalist, Howard Fineman, the author outlines what he believes are the thirteen most fundamentals arguments in U.S history. These thirteen arguments as well the numerous others are the building blocks of democracy and debate in our country. One of the ideals that makes this country unique, is the value of free speech. Everyone has the freedom to make their voice heard to the rest of the country.
Everyone has their own opinions on different topics. Some arguments may be more clear than others, but they exist. Some debates on arguments should end, but people always find a way to argue the other side. For example the argument on student debt has been going for a long time. To many, student debt should be eliminated, which makes sense in order to improve our economy.
Through the analysis of the numerous arguments that we have read throughout the course, I have learned how to effectively catch logical fallacies in arguments. Although the use of appeals was a review from high school, I had trouble telling the difference and distinguishing which appeal was which. I have learned how to differentiate and distinguish emotional from rational rom ethical appeals in literary works. I was able to apply what I’ve learned to the presidential debates, which shed light on the candidates’ arguments. I learned that using fallacies can be dangerous, especially in an important event.
Arguments over the First Amendment and its guarantee of a freedom of speech and expression have existed since the dawn of the country, and although these discussions often happen as a result of a major policy changes or violent events involving both sides of the political spectrum, I personally feel as if the amendment should be looked in another light. Just as Ben Shapiro explores in his article titled “The End of the First Amendment,” the crisis that we are facing about our First Amendment results from the individual actors on the debate stage. Both sides are at fault here, where in some locations liberals are the one to blame and other places, conservatives. Arguments should be intellectually stimulating and conducted as a way to not only
Thank You for Arguing is a popular substitute textbooks for upper level English classes written by Jay Heinrichs, a journalist that has taught the art of persuasion to numerous Ivy League schools, the Pentagon, and even NASA. In attempt to restore that art of persuasion, Heinrichs submerges the modern world into the ancient realm of persuasion in the most entertaining way possible. Based on the teachings of Aristotle, Lincoln, and Homer Simpson, this clever approach to teachings displays the best of rhetoric through the eyes of the twenty-first century. Despite other unique methods, Heinrichs primarily utilizes anecdotes to convey various techniques which is best displayed in Chapter 21: Lead Your Tribe.
William Dersiewicz, author of “The Neoliberal Arts” contends that making arguments is a paramount skill in education. Deresiewicz disapproves of the idea that education is merely a step in the staircase of life, where the goal is to learn enough to attain a career as opposed to learning for the sake of learning. Neoliberal education molds students whose only reason for learning is to move up a corporate ladder so they can become the next aristocrats. This is emphasized by the fact that students mainly pursue careers in STEM or vocational fields. According to him, “When you study the liberal arts… what you’re learning to do is make arguments” (Dersiewicz).
For example, in this quote, he compares a news reporter to a judge, “For millions of Americans the network reporter who covers a continuing issue -- like the ABM or civil rights -- becomes, in effect, the presiding judge in a national trial by jury”(Agnew.) Making this comparison helps the audience understand how powerful news reporters are, therefore, proving Agnew’s initial statement about the television reporters’ capabilities. He also makes an analogy within the
Summary In chapter three “In the defense of a Liberal Education” author Fareed Zakaria opens up what he believes to be “central virtue of liberal education”(72). He writes that it teaches one how to think critically and clearly. He explains that thinking is the stronger advantage one could have in writing well. Before writing it helps first people to think in a critical sense so work should be using simple language in a well comprehendible way.
He explained that when arguing it is not just presenting your opinions and refusing other people’s stances, it is a matter of listening to other aspects of the argument and
In conclusion, Dana Gioia applies vocabulary and rhetorical appeals to actively influence his audience to agree to his argument. Furthermore, connecting his audience to the subject and inspiring them to help his issues and understand his
Mr. Farmer Jr learned most of his teaching from his father before he joined the debate team. His trial and tribulations are stuck between him and his conscientious. Then we have Mr. Henry Lowe; a young man with his whole life ahead of him. At first he wasn’t interested in anything to deal with debate, but he is very easy to persuade.