Structrual Analysis

In the society we live today we surround ourselves with positivity and negativity. The stuff that is happening today are they getting better or worse? Based on the article “Taking a ‘War of Words’ Too Literally”, by Deborah Tannen, she defines the new norm of our society “the argument culture”. Tannen discusses her experiences and states that we are more confrontational and less open to others.

The 2016 Presidential Election is approaching quickly, and as is customary a number of highly controversial issues have taken center stage and each side argues their position with oftentimes charged rhetoric. Using the rhetorical strategies discussed in class (ethos, pathos, and logos) in varying degrees and combinations both Democrats and Republicans appeal to their base and attempt to reach out to those who are on the fence. Oftentimes, whether a presentation or piece of controversial writing is political or apolitical a sizable majority of the readership will begin reading with preconceived notions. Those who take a hardline stance against the writer's position typically will never be convinced to adopt it. However, a large minority of readers

The first chapter introduced the reader to the art of rhetoric. He describes how rhetoric works through real life examples. He demonstrates ways that rhetoric persuades us like, argument from strength, and seduction. He tells the reader that the sole purpose of arguing is to persuade the audience. He showed that the chief purpose of arguing is to also achieve consensus, a shared faith in a choice.

“The war on drugs, the war on cancer, the battle of the sexes, politicians’ turf battles- in the argument culture war metaphors pervade our talk and shape our thinking,” affirms Tannen. We approach the world in an argumentative frame of mind.”

Carlson gives evidence of the decline in public discourse by summarizing an incident in which a talk radio host crossed the line of decency by failing to respect a person whose ideas differed from his and his listeners’. Why is it important to maintain civility toward those whom you disagree?

Over the course of the month we have studied Eli Hager’s “For men in prison child support becomes a crushing debt”, Dana Rorabacher’s “My fellow conservatives should protect medical marijuana”, and Andreas Elpidorou’s “The quiet alarm”. Individual claims, audiences, and appeals vary drastically throughout the texts, but as we break them down we begin to uncover similarities between the trio. This analysis will expose techniques, strategies, and evidence while discovering the rhetorical appeals behind each one.

America’s Constitution was built upon the fundamentals that all citizens are created equal and tolerate one another. However in the recent years this tolerance for others beliefs has diminished, sprouting censorship, and sensitivity to others with different beliefs. Michael Bloomberg former mayor of New York City (NYC) and Harvard graduate and philtronphist then Wendy Kaminer, an attorney, author and social critic argues that intolerance needs to stop. Additionally, they believe that citizens should become more accepting of others and willing to converse despite their differences. Bloomberg wrote in his commencement speech at Harvard’s graduation for the class of 2014 that, citizens of the U.S. should protect their freedom of speech and also to tolerate the beliefs of others. Likewise Kaminer argued in her essay A Civic Duty to Annoy published in “The Atlantic” that citizens have a responsibility to enter thought provoking discussions on important issues to build tolerance for different beliefs. Similarly both authors believe that Americans have to tolerate others beliefs to respect the First Amendment. Although, they present similar ideas Bloomberg’s is better at persuading citizens to tolerate others’ beliefs than Kaminer’s essay.

A discourse community is said to be resistant to internal criticism and self-scrutiny because all ideas that severely contrast the values and beliefs within the community are defined as being on the outside, as demonstrated in the texts. “The Discourse itself defines what counts as acceptable criticism” (Gee 162). All of the articles use similar rhetorical strategies by describing a problem in shared thinking; the common conception that the

speaker, audience. In their writing (chapter 1) argue that everything can be turned into an argument. They support their claim by first telling about Michelle Obama's tweets about her concern of a kidnapping, by terrorist group Boko Haram, of more than 200 Nigerian girls in 2014. Then by explaining how we make arguments. The author’s purpose is to inform readers about make arguments by using ethos, pathos, and logos.

In the article, "For Argument’s Sake: Why Do We Feel Compelled to Fight About Everything? Witten by Deborah Tannen. She express that we live in an argumentative culture, where everyone is entitled to their own freedom of speech and rights. Tannen shows that arguments rarely lead to an understanding, but rather that an argument becomes less about the topic at hand and more about proving the opposing side wrong ( Tannen, Deborah(,2008). She tells her stories in many different form to gather the audience’s attention. She then starts to use big words and different logics to appeal to a more intellectual audience. She then starts her stories by manipulating and persuading the unintelligent audience to pull them in so they would know that she is insulting them by using the bigger words, making them feel intimidated.

In Thank You for Arguing, written by Jay Heinrichs had introduces to the reader about the rhetoric concepts and strategies that give us to understand more about offense and defense in an argument. He is not just to explain the concepts to the readers for how to build up a stronger argument but to make the readers to know what purposes that argument puts in our lives. Although rhetoric tools is hard to fits in our everyday life, Heinrichs still would help us to gain more ability on utilizing the knowledges of the rhetoric concepts, and convinces us to influence on our behavior that act in the argument.

Ethos, credibility of a source, is essential to the construction of an argument. During the film, several professors, activists, and scholars

Many important events in our nation's history were influenced by persuasive arguments. Many sides have gained support due to the writings or speeches gave by an effective speaker. These arguments take a lot to be effective. There are three key components, and if an argument lacks any one of them, it is not effective. Organization, diction, and bias words are all important aspects to any effective argument. Using these three elements, Thomas Paine was able to make a triumphant case, whereas James Chalmers' writing did not and was therefore ineffective.

Thus, when the “debates” of disagreement should have ended, the activists found a sense of unity and purpose that propelled them to success regardless of the obstacles. In regular disagreement, such harsh action usually dissuades the victim debater. However, the presence of dissent, as in this case, goes a long way in strengthening the motives of the activists and enabling truth to

After reading Obama's speech regarding the shooting at Baton Rogue, my AP English class was instructed to construct an open argument in response to Obama's words. We were asked to contemplate Obama's call to “focus on words and actions that can unite this country,” and develop a comprehensive and clear argument in response. Open arguments are very subjective and we were allowed to take the prompt in which ever direction spoke to us. As a result, each student's essay was unique in its concept and development. It was suggested that we do no research to prepare for the essay, but instead allow our minds to take it in whatever direction it wished. However, we were asked to make our argument more powerful through the use of rhetorical devices.