Michael Binyon's Argument Analysis

Through manipulating the power of rhetorical devices in anthology of speeches, orators accentuate the significance of language and learning as a platform for prompting an abiding social change. Hence, an effective speech highlights composer's contextual issues and ideas that resonates within their immediate audience, envisaging a social equity. Lessing's On Not Winning the Nobel Prize, delivered at the Nobel Lecture in 2007, explores the power of language to fuel radical social reform in Zimbabwe, through the representation of educational inequality. Similarly, Keating's Redfern Speech empowers hope within Australian's social progress by accentuating the importance of learning and acknowledging of our past colonial mistake. Both speeches share

Elie Wiesel uses rhetoric to convey his message in his Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech. In the speech, he uses rhetoric by telling from his own perspective or from his own point of view. In paragraph three, the authors explains his opinion from his point of view that he doesn’t think he has the right to accept the Nobel Peace Prize: “It frightens me because I wonder: do I have the right to represent the multitudes who have perished? Do I have the right to accept this great honor on their behalf? I do not. That would be presumptuous. No one may speak for the dead, no one may interpret their mutilated dreams and visions.” He questions himself and he thinks that he doesn’t deserve the honor to be given the Nobel Peace Prize. In paragraph eleven, the author explains that there’s always something that can be done: “There is much to be done, there is much that can be done. One person...of integrity can make a

Elie Wiesel, a Noble Peace Prize winner and Boston University Professor, presented a speech as part of the Millennium Lecture Series at the White House on April 12, 1999. President Bill Clinton and his wife Hillary Clinton hosted the formal lecture series. Numerous dignitaries from a wide array of public, private and foreign office attended the event. Although Elie Wiesel designed his speech to persuade, it actually fell somewhat outside the deliberative genre category, as being more non-typical within this genre category.

Stoll begins the preface of his book by asserting that there is "no doubt about the most important points" Menchú makes (viii). Moreover, despite press reports about requests to the Nobel Prize Committee to rescind the Peace Prize after the Times article, in his book Stoll states that he believes awarding the Nobel Prize to Rigoberta Menchú was a "good idea" and that "she has been the first to acknowledge that she received it, not for her own accomplishments but because she stands for a wider group of people who deserve international support." (ix) The prize was awarded to Menchú not for her testimony but for her later political work and peace organizing.

Since the dawn of mankind, clusters of innovations throughout history have allowed for societal progression at an explosive rate. While primarily fostering a centrifugal system of advancements; humans’ interests in expansion is spiraling out of control. Throughout history elements of collapse can be traced through civilizations and natural resources. Wright’s argument posits humans have hyperextended their utilization of resources at a rate that cannot be replenished, therein by setting up the world for the largest ecological collapse in history (Wright, 2004, pg. 130-131). Due to the cyclical process of past collapse and reformation humans have an advantage to rectify our current consumption rates ultimately avoiding a fate similar to past societies (Wright, 2004, pg. 131). As such Wright’s argument should frame larger discussions of responsible citizenship.

On the 12th of April, in the year 1999, Elie Wiesel gave a speech at the White House. Several members of congress, President Clinton, and the First Lady, Hillary Clinton, were present to listen to him. His speech became a powerful testament to the pitfalls and dangers of being indifferent to the sufferings of others. However, Wiesel’s speech was also a very skillful exercise in using rhetoric for persuasion. By using certain wording and striking the right balance of facts and emotions, he was moving the audience in the direction of understanding his point of view. He was moving the audience to not feel sympathy, but actual empathy to the events he was speaking about. To feel the as closely as he felt for these events in history. He acted as judge, jury, disappointed parent and as vengeful deity. In this paper, I will examine key elements of his speech to show that by instilling deep feelings of shame, fear, and even pride at the right moments can inspire people to open their minds to the dangers of ignoring the pleads of help from their fellow man.

The general argument made by Michael Binyon in “Comment: Absurd Decision on Obama Makes a Mockery of the Nobel Peace Prize” is that many recipients of the Nobel Peace Prize have not actually achieved peace. More specifically, Binyon argues that Barak Obama should not have been awarded the prize. He writes “rarely has an award had such an obvious political and partisan intent. This is correct because it demonstrates a lack of the integrity that this award was I tended to uphold. More specifically it is believed that this was a way for the Norwegian Nobel Committee to show approval for America’s election of its first black president and in hope that Washington will “honor its promise to re-engage with the world”.

1.If you were stripped of your freedom and individuality to be held in a camp waiting to die would you feel indifferent. Elie Wiesel, a Nobel Peace Prize winner and Boston University Professor, presented a speech as part of the Millennium Lecture Series at the White House on April 12, 1999 2.(Wiesel 221). President Bill Clinton and his wife Hillary Clinton hosted the formal event. Numerous government officials from a wide order of public, private and foreign office attended the event 2.(Wiesel 221). Although Elie Wiesel designed his speech to persuade, it actually felt somewhat outside from its original intended purpose, as being more different.

Lewis could support Lasn arguments because Lewis describes A&F as a place that does not seem un-Moonielike. Lasn make a distinction between the feeling of independence and the rules. Lasn mentions, “The atmosphere is quite un-Moonielike. We’re free to roam and recreate. No one seems to be forcing us to do anything we don’t want to do. In fact, we feel privileged to be here. The rules don’t seem oppressive. But make no mistake: There are rules” (378). Lasn emphasized the comfort ability the consumer culture creates for its members. The ambience of the culture he considers a cult is supposedly free and unrestricted. With that feeling, Lasn believes one becomes so welcome that they feel privileged- they belong here. The rules of the cult do not seem

On April 20, 2017, the undersigned detective responded to the complainant’s residence, located at 5036 Astor Place, SE #301. The complainant and his 13 year old brother Antwan Freeman opened the door and that their mother’s at work. Antwan stated that their 14 year old brother Fashad Freeman is at home but sleeping in his room.

President Obama’s victory speech and Martine Luther King’s speech are two of the most famous discourses that everybody is discussing today. The speeches are representation of racial progression, which starts from the beginning of the Civil Rights Movement to the election of the first black president in the American history. Both speeches are a symbol of hope and a new start of the upcoming changes. In fact, both speeches called for unity and inclusion to achieve the American dream. Furthermore, both occasions had loud voices echo not only in the United State, but also in the global level. Despite the similarity of Obama’s and King’s speeches in the persuasive and inspirational tones, their goals were for different purposes and audience, also the effects on the audience were different.

I think Kaling has a very strong argument. It is important to be able to express yourself and your thoughts and feeling but, you also need to listen to other people and try to understand their views. There is value in listening because you can learn so much and see things in a new perspective if you listen to someone and what they have to say. I also think there is value in speaking. Speaking out about how you feel about something, being able to express yourself, and feeling worthy of speaking out and not scared to share your opinion. Forall you know, what you have to say could make a difference for the better in someone else's life.

The entire world paid tribute to the leader who was celebrated globally as a Nobel Prize-winning visionary who pushed his country toward peace during a remarkable seven-decade career.

In their letters to the Nobel committee in 1993, both Nelson Mandella and Frederik Willem de Klerk both speak of what they feel that needs to happen for South Africa at the time to succeed in the efforts of peace. Both speak of the upcoming elections, that they are on opposite sides of. Mandella speaks of others who have won the Nobel and their contributions and what needs to be done to make certain apartheid come to an end. de Klerk tells of what he has been doing recently to move along the cause, how the elections will not be about black or white, but the best solutions for the future of the country. He also believes that the elections will show that peace and equality are possible. They both agree that the children are the future

It was announced on October 9, 2009 that American President Barack Obama is this year’s recipient of the Nobel Prize for Peace. The Nobel Foundation states that Obama was chosen "for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples." (Nobel Foundation) Controversy and debate ensued in the world wide media. Critics have debated Obama’s worthiness. Supporters have cited numerous examples of the current U.S. Presidents’ nobility. Obama does deserve this prestigious award.