In conclusion, not only does she effectively contribute to the conversation regarding the decline of creativity and why it happens, but through her efficient usage of ethos, logos, pathos, and kairos, Manoush Zomorodi gives a thoroughly convincing presentation. Weaving these together creates a favorable argument for why taking time to set aside electronic devices boosts creativity. Overall, Zomorodi created a compelling argument that not only convinces her intended audience, but also those who may have initially disagreed with her.
However, instead of planning the escape Socrates started the dialog about why he would rather obey the law and be executed. At first, Crito presented two arguments to
Within his argument in favor of merging his sentences under the required evidence test, Rivas-Membreno claims that “[w]ith respect to [his] conviction for soliciting witness intimidation, there is simply no evidence to support it.” If the State’s evidence is insufficient to sustain a conviction with respect to a particular charge, the proper means of challenging the charge is to make a motion for judgment of acquittal under Md. Rule 4-324. If a defendant fails to move for a judgment of acquittal, or fails to renew his motion at the conclusion of his presentation of evidence, the motion is waived. Md. Rule 4-324(c).
Driven by the belief that space was bequeathed to them, the Native Americans feel justified in defending their land against the growing encroachment of the white man as the American landscape unfolds. Their motive is the premise that a higher authority has granted them the right to the space, and that the Great Spirit has created the landscape exclusively for them. Fueled by the formation of conflict over land, the Great Ottawa Chief, Pontiac, in his speech at Detroit, seeks to persuade the tribes, including the Ottawa, Huron, and Pottawatomi to agree to resistance. Invoking the words of the Delaware prophet, Neolin, Pontiac recounts the vision which he believes justifies resistance. Neolin urges the tribes to sever all relations to the customs
Position Paper #1: For Socrates’ Argument of Tacit Agreement In The Crito Socrates uses two metaphors to justify his reason for staying in jail and dying instead of leaving Athens and starting a new life in another town. The metaphor he uses that most justifies his reasoning is the argument of tacit agreement, that he agreed to the laws and regulation of Athens when he decided to live there. Socrates knew that living in he agreed to follow all rules that the city had.
Crito is distressed by Socrates reasoning and wishes to convince him to escape since Crito and friends can provide the ransom that the jury demands. If not for himself, Socrates should escape for the sake of his friends, sons, and those who benefit from his teaching according to Crito. However, Socrates denies the plan of escape. The three arguments to be acknowledged are as follows: the selfish, the practicality, and the moral. Socrates reason not to escape, Socrates explanation of the good life, and an objection for breaking the laws that would put no harm to his fellow citizens is
Crito was able to get passed the prison guards, in the morning, to find Socrates and try to convince him that he should escape from his jail cell. Crito and Socrates each provide arguments of why Socrates should escape, and Socrates provides his reasons of why he will not. The three arguments are if Socrates does not escape he will hurt Crito, if Socrates is worried what will happen to his friends and family, and lastly, if Socrates violates the agreement with the law. Socrates would rather follow the laws and have the death penalty then escape and flee to a different city. If Socrates does leave Athens then the people will most likely think that Socrates was guilty of the charges against him.
Socrates’ Arguments in the Crito In The Crito, Socrates argues that he should not escape prison because it would be morally incorrect. He says that the really important thing is not to live but to live well. Therefore, by escaping prison, not only will he suffer the consequences but also his family, his friends, and the city of Athens. Socrates argues that the city of Athens would be affected if he escapes from prison.
With the Apology, and the Crito, Socrates comes to delve into his many teachings and finds himself put to death with the words of wisdom that have been passed down generation after generation. Socrates for many in this present day is a man of many words and great teachings, but anyone but Socrates thought differently, in Athens people thought of him as an annoyance rather than an integral part of society. As Socrates stood in front of the counsel of judges, he stood for what he thought was right and never changed opinion of himself or of his words. That’s why Socrates is still talked about in classrooms everywhere today.
Even though Socrates claims to be innocent of the charges brought against him, he is ultimately sentenced to death. After he hears the jury's decision, Socrates is sent to jail to await his execution. Crito arrives before Socrates is scheduled for execution and offers him a chance to escape. Crito believes the jury's decision was unjust. In Crito's eyes, Socrates is innocent and therefore has the right to escape. However, even though Crito believes Socrates has the right to escape, Socrates disagrees with him.
Socrates should remain in prison after evaluating Critos arguments although Socrates’s were stronger. I’ll begin with Crito’s argument and what makes them strong, and what doesn’t. Next, I’ll focus on Socrates arguments and what makes them good and what makes them weak, mainly his focus that living with a bad soul isn’t worth living when you have a bad soul. Crito gives Socrates three arguments.
To be just or to be served an injustice and obey, this is the very basis of the philosophical dialogue between Socrates and Crito. The Crito begins as one of Socrates’ wealthy friends, Crito, offers Socrates a path to freedom—to escape from Athens. Through the ensuing dialogue, Socrates examines, as a man who is bound by principles of justice, whether an unjust verdict should be responded to with injustice. In the dialogue between Socrates and Crito, Socrates outlines his main arguments and principles that prevent him from escaping under such circumstances. Socrates is under guard when Crito visits him, thus the plan to escape.
Socrates is one of a kind, and Crito does not want to lose him. Crito 's next argument is what people will think. Crito was worried that people would think that he did not care for Socrates if he did not break him out of jail. Crito did not want to be seen as someone who valued wealth more than valuing the opportunity to bribe the jailer and save Socrates. The most interesting argument is that Crito tells Socrates that it is morally wrong for him to stay and allow himself to be executed.
On his way to his death some might say he should escape since his trial is unjust. Some might argue, like Socrates, that it isn't right for him to escape and go against his word. His friend Crito is trying to argue the reasons why Socrates is in the right for escaping, while Socrates is arguing the opposite, why his morals will not allow him to do so. Socrates argues many things and makes very firm arguments.
The Victory Lap, a Story of Redemption In “The Victory Lap,” by George Saunders, the author takes us deep into the scene of an attempted kidnapping and rape in an ordinary suburban neighborhood. Much of the emotional power in the story comes from two distinct sources. The first is the setting in an innocent suburbia which is much like the quiet ordinary setting of “The Lottery,” by Shirley Jackson. The second is the author’s use of POV, telling most of the story through the inner dialogue of each of the three characters; the girl, the boy, and the would-be rapist.
