This article is discussing the accomplishments of a 8 year old wrestler. The argument being made is that this young boy is one of the best wrestlers, and is going to be immensely popular and hard to be the older he gets.
The author is Max Thompson, and I honestly have no idea who he is. He is writing for Yahoo Sports though which makes him pretty credible in my opinion. While he may be biased in his view of how this young wrestler will turn out, the video is proof that the kid has extraordinary talent.
The intended audience is anyone that is interested in real wrestling, not the fake wrestling of the WWF or whatever it is called these days. Thompson believes that the audience will know at least something about wrestling, and asks them to accept his views that this kid will be a certified national champion that may be impossible to beat later in life. The author uses a non-academic approach, but through the wording and the video attached, he makes a valid argument, and also makes me believe him. I believe that the author makes a valid argument through logical proofs (showing a video of this kid pinning and wrestling multiple opponents.)
http://www.thepostgame.com/blog/futuresport/201103/pint-sized-pin-machine-8-year-old-wrestling-champ
Saturday, March 5, 2011
Tuesday, March 1, 2011
Kill the Terrorists of the HIgh Seas
My article is written over the idea of killing pirates as they try to take over ships. My author uses some pretty good arguments that appeal to the emotions of the readers. He also presents logical arguments, and states history on what has been done to combat the pirate population. I don't think this is a very educated argument, in the fact that he just states what he thinks would work best. The author does state how several countries have let pirates go after disarming the pirates, and the attacks continue. I am swayed however by his view, because he relates so much to the values of self preservation I have. His audience is the world population, of every country that has been affected or assaulted by pirates. The author shared his views of how he thinks the pirates should be given warning shots and then shot on sight. I agree with him.
http://www.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/02/26/etzioni.stop.piracy/index.html
http://www.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/02/26/etzioni.stop.piracy/index.html
Tuesday, February 22, 2011
Is she for real?
In this opinion piece, the author is talking about how Oprah (the first lady of the media) feels about the criticism of President Obama. The author makes points about Oprah's treatment of Former President Bush and also stresses the things that people criticize most about the current president.
I think that this author is somewhat neutral in his political beliefs. This rhetor also has valid points that he stresses which gives him credibility. The intended audience that the author is trying to reach is the American public, who may or may not support the president.
The article has some academic quality to it, which are proven when the author brings up historical converstations Oprah herself has had, as well as bringing up polls. The arguement brings up logical problems using pathos and logos alike. The rhetor wants the audience to see his side by appealing to their own beliefs and feelings about the president's choices and actions so far in his term.
I am persuaded by this person's opinion. I feel that Oprah is kind of "off her rocker" if she can criticize George W. Bush and believe that everyone should support Barrack Obama without thinking twice about it. The policies of both presidents, and for all politicians can be faulted or challenged at all different angles. Oprah of all people should not be shocked by the nation rising up against government.
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/02/15/oprah-shocked-president-obama-gets-r-e-s-p-e-c-t/
I think that this author is somewhat neutral in his political beliefs. This rhetor also has valid points that he stresses which gives him credibility. The intended audience that the author is trying to reach is the American public, who may or may not support the president.
The article has some academic quality to it, which are proven when the author brings up historical converstations Oprah herself has had, as well as bringing up polls. The arguement brings up logical problems using pathos and logos alike. The rhetor wants the audience to see his side by appealing to their own beliefs and feelings about the president's choices and actions so far in his term.
I am persuaded by this person's opinion. I feel that Oprah is kind of "off her rocker" if she can criticize George W. Bush and believe that everyone should support Barrack Obama without thinking twice about it. The policies of both presidents, and for all politicians can be faulted or challenged at all different angles. Oprah of all people should not be shocked by the nation rising up against government.
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/02/15/oprah-shocked-president-obama-gets-r-e-s-p-e-c-t/
Tuesday, February 15, 2011
How Conservatives are weakening
This author is expressing his views of how the conservatives of America are losing strength. This author feels very strongly on this topic, and how they can prevent losing strength while possibly gaining more conservatives.
This rhetor is a conservative himself, that is well known in political talk radio. I believe that he is making a valid and academic argument that has many points. He uses pathos to try and appeal to conservative members that are his audience, or maybe undecided members that aren't sure if they are conservative or liberal. He uses both extrinsic and intrinsic proofs through stories of his own experience and what he can see happening around him. He fears that the conservatives "killing liberals is fun" mentality is going to completely turn away all people that are on the line for their political views. I feel that he is right, and that he needs to be heard. Both major political parties are so focused on making the other look bad these days that if they were to just step back and show random acts of kindness, they might get a lot more votes during the next election.
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/02/09/conservatives-losing-winning/
This rhetor is a conservative himself, that is well known in political talk radio. I believe that he is making a valid and academic argument that has many points. He uses pathos to try and appeal to conservative members that are his audience, or maybe undecided members that aren't sure if they are conservative or liberal. He uses both extrinsic and intrinsic proofs through stories of his own experience and what he can see happening around him. He fears that the conservatives "killing liberals is fun" mentality is going to completely turn away all people that are on the line for their political views. I feel that he is right, and that he needs to be heard. Both major political parties are so focused on making the other look bad these days that if they were to just step back and show random acts of kindness, they might get a lot more votes during the next election.
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/02/09/conservatives-losing-winning/
Tuesday, February 8, 2011
The Pledge to Save Our Own Future
This article describes the ways that the government is trying to change the ways they spend money on programs like social security and medicare. The rhetor shows that congressmen are just trying to get it over with, taking away from the ordinary Americans while they themselves don't have to adhere to the rules. The people that pay for these programs are going to get them taken away before they get to use them, while politicians enjoy whatever they need whenever they need them.
I feel that this article is well written. This author uses pathos. I'm not sure if the rhetor has the right credentials, for I haven't seen any of his other writings. I do agree with this writer when he has points in his pledge that are supposed to save Americas future. I believe there should be something done soon. We are falling apart at the seams as a country. The rich keep getting richer, and the poor keep getting poorer. There isn't a happy medium anymore like there was when I graduated high school. We need to all stand up and take accountablility for our actions, and realize that sacrifices must be made so that our children do not have to actually suffer more than we think we are these days.
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/02/07/need-pledge-america-save-country/
I feel that this article is well written. This author uses pathos. I'm not sure if the rhetor has the right credentials, for I haven't seen any of his other writings. I do agree with this writer when he has points in his pledge that are supposed to save Americas future. I believe there should be something done soon. We are falling apart at the seams as a country. The rich keep getting richer, and the poor keep getting poorer. There isn't a happy medium anymore like there was when I graduated high school. We need to all stand up and take accountablility for our actions, and realize that sacrifices must be made so that our children do not have to actually suffer more than we think we are these days.
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/02/07/need-pledge-america-save-country/
Tuesday, February 1, 2011
No need to pack heat on campus (1-30-2011)
In this article the argument over gun control and concealed carry on college campuses is the main topic. The rhetors seem very passionate in their anti gun views.
The rhetors are very biased in their article and views. They are writers for the newspaper at the University of Central Florida. These writers are very liberal in their views. The opinion of these college students, is just that, an opinion. They collectively do not have the ethos to make this argument due to the fact that there haven't been any studies to show whether concealed carry on campus would improve safety. These writers are stating their opinion, which almost seems along the lines of "guns are bad and kill people all the time." I don't believe that these writers have stepped back to look at the possibility of students that wish to carry on campus going through strenuous training in order to carry on campus.
The intended audience for this article is other campuses around the country, as well as the communities that would be affected by a concealed carry on campus bill. The rhetors seem to believe that the audience has the same views of weapons on campus. They ask the audience to see that there are other ways to protect themselves than to carry a concealed weapon. These writers also assume that every person that would carry a weapon on campus would be intimidating to other students on campus.
I believe this text to be non-academic due to the fact no studies have actually been presented or performed by college universities to show whether or not concealed carry on campus would make campuses safer. The writers apply to the logo views of many readers. If readers realize that the statements made in this article are not all completely based on facts, then I feel the argument will weaken.
I do not agree with this article at all. I feel that students should be allowed to carry concealed on campus, but that in order to do so, they should receive special training from the police department on campus. They should also be required to register their weapons and names on campus with the PD. I have extensive views on how this could work if done right, and am a proponent for the legalization for carrying concealed on campus.
http://www.centralfloridafuture.com/no-need-to-pack-heat-on-campus-1.2451659
The rhetors are very biased in their article and views. They are writers for the newspaper at the University of Central Florida. These writers are very liberal in their views. The opinion of these college students, is just that, an opinion. They collectively do not have the ethos to make this argument due to the fact that there haven't been any studies to show whether concealed carry on campus would improve safety. These writers are stating their opinion, which almost seems along the lines of "guns are bad and kill people all the time." I don't believe that these writers have stepped back to look at the possibility of students that wish to carry on campus going through strenuous training in order to carry on campus.
The intended audience for this article is other campuses around the country, as well as the communities that would be affected by a concealed carry on campus bill. The rhetors seem to believe that the audience has the same views of weapons on campus. They ask the audience to see that there are other ways to protect themselves than to carry a concealed weapon. These writers also assume that every person that would carry a weapon on campus would be intimidating to other students on campus.
I believe this text to be non-academic due to the fact no studies have actually been presented or performed by college universities to show whether or not concealed carry on campus would make campuses safer. The writers apply to the logo views of many readers. If readers realize that the statements made in this article are not all completely based on facts, then I feel the argument will weaken.
I do not agree with this article at all. I feel that students should be allowed to carry concealed on campus, but that in order to do so, they should receive special training from the police department on campus. They should also be required to register their weapons and names on campus with the PD. I have extensive views on how this could work if done right, and am a proponent for the legalization for carrying concealed on campus.
http://www.centralfloridafuture.com/no-need-to-pack-heat-on-campus-1.2451659
Tuesday, January 25, 2011
How State of the Union became a promBy Donna Brazile, CNN Contributor, January 25, 2011 8:07 a.m. EST
The author states her opinion on how congress, in the wake of the Arizona shooting, is becoming almost high-school like in their choosing to sit next to delegates of other parties during the state of the union address this next month.
The argument is being made by a CNN contributor, which means she is a part of the press. I believe that she is biased in her views because of her relationship to the press, therefore my being a veteran, has given her bad ethos with me. The press in America has twisted many stories on politics, war, celebrities, and other high profile topics to make money or get ratings.
The author's audience seems to be the American public. The author has the belief that all of the readers have gone to high school, and taken part in prom. She asks her audience to see how all of the congressmen and congresswomen are being non-chalant in the ways they are deciding to sit next to other parties while at a dinner where they usually fight.
The argument is non-academic, for she has not researched any of the specific reasons that the congressional members are choosing to eat with other party members. She may find that her audience does side with her, and is inclined to see her views as true on this topic though. The reason behind this may be that America likes to make all things into fantasy, celebrities are famous, and movies often protray how we wish life would end in a fairy tale.
While I can't say I completely agree with her on this topic, I can see where she is coming from. I believe that American congress has finally realized they should start working together, and instead of slinging mud at each other should support each other. I can't hold onto the opinion that congressmen and congresswomen are all happy to sit next to each other, but may be doing it to save face to others in their parties, the media, and the nation.
This post was taken from views based on the article at: http://www.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/01/25/brazile.congress.sit.together/index.html?hpt=T2
The argument is being made by a CNN contributor, which means she is a part of the press. I believe that she is biased in her views because of her relationship to the press, therefore my being a veteran, has given her bad ethos with me. The press in America has twisted many stories on politics, war, celebrities, and other high profile topics to make money or get ratings.
The author's audience seems to be the American public. The author has the belief that all of the readers have gone to high school, and taken part in prom. She asks her audience to see how all of the congressmen and congresswomen are being non-chalant in the ways they are deciding to sit next to other parties while at a dinner where they usually fight.
The argument is non-academic, for she has not researched any of the specific reasons that the congressional members are choosing to eat with other party members. She may find that her audience does side with her, and is inclined to see her views as true on this topic though. The reason behind this may be that America likes to make all things into fantasy, celebrities are famous, and movies often protray how we wish life would end in a fairy tale.
While I can't say I completely agree with her on this topic, I can see where she is coming from. I believe that American congress has finally realized they should start working together, and instead of slinging mud at each other should support each other. I can't hold onto the opinion that congressmen and congresswomen are all happy to sit next to each other, but may be doing it to save face to others in their parties, the media, and the nation.
This post was taken from views based on the article at: http://www.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/01/25/brazile.congress.sit.together/index.html?hpt=T2
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)