Volokn's Argument Analysis

The idea of sovereignty has been very popular in Quebec that it was distributed within two

In “We’re a Democracy” by Eugene Volokh, he shows that there is a fine line between being a

I concur with your thoughtful analysis and conclusion that Hochswender’s argument lacked the substance necessary to effectively persuade the reader. Initially, I too felt a sense of arrogance in his tone and rhetoric until I came across documentation explaining the event that provoked his contemptuous response for the “virtuous ones”. “The Detroit Project”, spearheaded by Arianna Huffington and “Pulp Fiction” producer Lawrence Bender, collaborated with the Natural Resources Defense Council in their efforts to force auto makers to make more fuel efficient cars. The purpose of their campaign was demonize auto industry companies, such as Toyota and GM, for manufacturing SUV’s, and label those who purchased them as supporters of terrorism. Hochswender’s

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

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.

After sorting out what constitutes a Democratic Spirit and how to maintain such an attitude the author questions who has the authority to write a dictionary and, thus, determine which words go into the book and which words are left on the wayside. Wallace praises Garner for his “full discloser” statement, which acknowledges Garner’s principles and gives background information to his text.

Besides BonJour's argument of illustrative examples, moderate rationalism is defended by two intimately related dialectical arguments. The argument is that the denial of a priori justification will lead to a severe skepticism, in which only the most direct experience could be justified. Stemming from this severe skepticism, comes the stronger argument that argumentation itself becomes impossible. This essay will describe the distinct segments of the argument and will demonstrate the relationship between the two arguments.

Moreover, Bok cannot be considered as a credible source simply because of his familiarity with Harvard University. Although he was educated and served as president of Harvard, one cannot deem him an expert on the topic of freedom of expression. Bok does not make a single reference to any work he has completed that would make him any more qualified, to speak about this topic, than any other person. On the other hand, Bok successfully incorporates both sides of the argument and attempted to explain why his way of going about the issue was the most beneficial overall. For example, he describes the incident as “a clear example of the conflict between our commitment to free speech and our desire to foster a community based on mutual respect.” With this, he refers to people’s desire to say what they please while keeping it appropriate for anyone to hear. The reader is convinced by his reference to both sides of the argument. Further, he goes into detail regarding why people should and should not regulate or restrict their First Amendment rights. In turn, the reader is slightly convinced of the author’s argument because he accurately conveyed the positions of whom he disagrees with.

He goes on to discuss the notion of democracy and the fact that when people come together they can insist that democratic ideals are essential for everyone even if we do not always agree on the same ideas. He stresses the notion that democracy is not about always getting along or agreeing but in working towards solutions that will make the world a better place for all. He suggests that democracy is not only “his belief” but that it is the “beating heart of our American idea” which is a phrase that combines both logos and pathos. By using the phrase beating heart, Obama draws on the audience’s passion for their country while at the same time establishing the notion that democracy is a reasonable idea that should be adhered to.

Democracy is the feat on which the united states prides itself. This democracy was built over the ages and over many events through trial and error. By analyzing the history of the Monroe Doctrine, the two elections in which Andrew Jackson was voted a president, the theory of John C. Calhoun, and the Cherokee Nation vs Jackson trail we can arrive at the strengths and shortcomings of the American democracy in the period between 1820 and 1836.

In 2004, Obama walked up to the podium at the Democratic National Convention as a political novelty. The speech he delivered established Obama as a natural leader and transformed him into a future presidential candidate. Rich in demonstrative rhetoric, its purpose was to unite the American people through nationalism. The exploration of his rhetoric and style throughout this paper will cement why the speech was beneficially identity transforming for Obama's political career.

A strong liberal versus security strand runs consistently from the outset and throughout. Bauman believes that our liberty should not be sacrificed at the expense of unnecessary security procedures. Instead, a sense of security through liberty should be universalised, not security at the expense of liberty. Though, while there are points within the article where the line of argument can be lost, if one is to pay close attention to the semantics, one can identify that Bauman is looking to lean on the reader to subconsciously dictate what will be believed after evaluating the evidence. This allows the article to read more convincingly. At times Bauman lacks that cutting edge of arguing what changes would be the desirable outcome of events, and

In the Philosophy world there has been an argument about what value people have. What kind of values men follow and what values women follow. In the book Philosophical Dilemmas they talk about two side. The first one is unifiers argues that gender is not important and that everyone is equal. The second one is complementer argues that differences between men and women is important in philosophy. Also that men and women do not have the same talent but is complementary talent, so both of them help each other. To show that philosophy is sexist, because all of the well-known western tradition philosophers were men.

Introduction: Barack Obama was re-elected as President of the U.S on November 6th, 2012. Barack Obama held his Victory Speech on the following day. This essay will analyze and comment on an excerpt of that exacting Victory Speech and the solution focus of the criticism will be on the Rhetorical belongings of the Speech. By using numerous forms of Rhetorical apparatus like Anaphora or Tautology, Barack Obama controls to offer a Speech that is full of American thoughts of life, similar to the American promise, the American Dream and the outlook. The Speech is very alike to the one he did in 2008 at the Democratic meeting, and contains numerous forms of replication and between the outline political views.

“It is a shift in the practice of democracy from hostility to civility, from advocacy to engagement, from confrontation to conversation, from debate to dialogue, and from separation to community.” (p. 4)