Visual Arguments

This image is a typical visual argument from alcohol companies. There is a bottle of vodka pouring over a portion of a dark city, making the part that touches the vodka bright, exciting, and fun. It implies that by adding vodka to any sort of outing, party, etc., the event will instantly be one of the best things one has ever experienced.

I believe that the way this argument is presented is extremely effective. While some of us, including myself, are not drinkers and simply ignore ads like these, others appreciate the idea that the product implies and many of the latter go out and try the product. It is obviously a blanket statement, and some of these people will find that the statement is not true. However, many will, and it is because of statements like this that they expect to absolutely love the product.

The Softest TP in the World?

The Cottonelle Puppy. We have all seen him on television. There is hardly a cuter actor on the tube than this. And this is where one can find the emotional appeal: no one can resist an adorable puppy, sleeping comfortably in the cutest position on a roll of toilet paper. This image needs no explanation—it makes a strong argument about the softness of Cottonelle standing by itself.

The persuasion? I want to find out if it’s really that soft!

Wave that Confederate Flag!

Ever since it’s early establishment, freedom of speech has been a touchy subject. While everyone enjoys the right to be able to speak freely, there are terms of acceptance that one must agree to. In general, if I have the right to speak my mind, then so does everybody and their mother. Granted, there are forms of free speech that one does not have to accept. This form, called hate speech, is discussed in an article by Derek Bok.

I agree with Bok in his essay. I believe that since we have had the right of free speech for over 200 years, there will be no suppressing it now—especially in a world that is becoming more selfishly literal. For example, consider what it would be like to approach the record companies with a proposition: censor the language the musicians use, or Congress will either slap a huge fine on the company or simply shut it down based on a new establishment of limitations on free speech. The record company, not to mention the American public, would go crazy. Inevitably, they would go back to the Anti-federalist view and plead the first.

I am not saying that hate speech is okay. By all means, I am like any other American in believing that hate speech should be avoided at all times. Hate speech, in my opinion, goes beyond the freedom of speech. Not only does it infringe upon the right of freedom of religion, many times it also simply attacks a person for being who or what they (which they consequently cannot change). To quote the writer, “The fact that free speech is protected by the First Amendment does not necessarily mean that it is right, proper, or civil.”

As Bok said in his essay, perhaps the better way of diffusing hate speech on a college campus is to simply ignore it. He makes a good point in saying that once prohibitions are made known, many will start to test the limits of the prohibition. After all, censorship is still coming from a human-to-human perspective. Bok reasons that if we do not give attention to the many forms of hate speech, then to cause a ruckus will be less desirable. However, I think that what he states after this is also true: “[officials and faculty members] should seek to educate and persuade” students on living humanely in a society based on mutual respect.

While it is true that this is a free country, and while we do have the right to free speech, one cannot simply say what is on their mind at any moment in time. This goes back to our civil duty as respectful citizens. If we walked around yakking about whatever we wanted, we would not make many friends!

Where I have experienced hate speech the most is through religion, mine and the religion of others. I am Christian, and I am not simply a church-going, pray-before-meals one. While I was researching information on my paper topic—Creationism—I found many political cartoons boasting about evolution, and degrading Creationism. This was not purposefully planned to be hate speech, but it is in the way that it is offensive to myself and others who believe in Creationism.

Thus there are solutions to the hate speech/free speech conflict. The problem is implicating them in everyday life.

ASP Round 2

Scott, Eugenie C. “Antievolution and creationism in the United States.” Annual View of Anthropology 26.1 (1997): 263. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. 28 October 2009.
This article is about how the argument started as a fight between evolutionism and creationism. In recent years, the article says that there has been a new addition to the argument: Intelligent Design. The article discusses people who are for creationism and Intelligent Design, and what they have been doing to move evolution out of the way.

Windsor, Donald A. “Creationism is a dumbing-down of God.” Perspectives in Biology & Medicine 42.2 (1999): 288. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. 28 October 2009.
The refute against my argument is an article about the similar view of many evolutionists. The writer gives all the generally rebuttals to the argument for creationism, using scientific evidence as usual. Overall, the writer simply wants to imply that while creationists believe the world was created by God, the idea of creationism is one that makes God seem dumb.

Zuidema, Henry P. “Less Evolution, More Creationism in Textbooks.” Educational Leadership 39.3 (December 1981): 217-218. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. 28 October 2009.
This article analyzed the surprising change of science textbooks. It discusses the fact that there is more creationism now published, and that these publishers are simply catering to creationists to make their living. The article also shows the reactions of the schools to this change, called creation science. The writer also expands on the specifics of the creation science movement.

Image Quest

This photo is in agreement with my view on creationism. I was drawn to it because of its artistic attributes: I imagine Intelligent Design as something creative and fantastic, not simply the sudden establishment of plants, animals, and people.








The second photo I found is a different kind of argument. Everyone knows what a human heart looks like, but have you ever pondered the complicity of it? My theory is that the heart, with all of its valves, pumps, and intricacies, is a direct reference to Intelligent Design.











My third chosen photo is a depiction of the theories compared: in one, God is solid and absolute. In the other, man is gooey and indecisive. As I believe that evolution in its entirety is a theory simply created by man, this aids to my argument well in showing the messiness of man's theory.

Academic Search Premier

Cracraft, Joel. "The New Creationism and Its Threat to Science Literacy and Education." Bioscience 54.1 Jan. 2004: 3-4. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. 21 Oct. 2009.
This article is about the conflicts Charles Darwin’s ideas present to the American people. The interesting aspect about this article is that the writer strives to inform people of Darwin’s religious beliefs. While his book sparked religious controversy, the writer of this article uses direct quotes to show that Darwin was not an atheist. On the contrary, he speaks of how the origins of species can go along with Creationism: the species change and adapt over time, but they were originally formed by a Creator. The writer of the article then continues on to speak of how Creationism sparked out of the debate over Darwinism, and how those beginnings have affected people throughout history up until the current time.

Dixon, Thomas. "America's Difficulty with Darwin." History Today 59.2 (2009): 22-28. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. 21 Oct. 2009.
The second article I read is about the problems Creationism causes for new age science. The writer argues that Creationism gets in the way of science education and that with many people arguing for Intelligent Design Creationism (IDC), science cannot be correctly taught as science. He believes that IDC is “an antiscientific world view.” With this argument, he attacks Creationism by attempting to prove that while Creationists are trying to get their view taught in schools, it is pushing pure science out.

Moore, Randy. "The revival of Creationism in the United States." Journal of Biological Education 35.1 (2000): 17-17. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. 21 Oct. 2009.
The third article is about the comeback Creationism is making. He begins by explaining Creationism and its historical beginnings, and continues to explain when exactly Creationism lost popularity (Darwinism and the Scopes trial is included in this). To endorse his reasoning that Creationism will not go away, he points out all of things that have happened and happen currently in schools, i.e. biology teachers avoiding in-depth conversations about evolution so as not to spark controversy. He also uses the results of many polls about how many Americans believe in Creationism, what percentage of the Republican party believes in it, and the belief of science teachers that evolution is or is not central to biology.

An Argument for...

Normally I am a very non-confrontational person. I tend to stay away from topics that people become heated and argue over constantly. I decided, for my topic, to go out on a limb and choose a topic that I—as well as many other people on both sides of the argument—feel strongly about. I chose the argument for Creationism.

• Do you agree with Creationism?
• Based on hard natural evidence, do you believe in the existence of a Creator?
• Based on hard scientific evidence, do you agree with Creationism?
• Do apologetics have any sway towards or against Creationism?

Snapshots

1. This is the reason that a good percentage of Americans are obese. Using the information from this graph, we can say that 69.2% of Americans eat at a fast food restaurant every week, at least once. This is not simply a slight majority. The eating habits of Americans based on this pie graph show that many Americans are too busy to consider eating more healthily by packing their lunch.

2. Many American families are doing something right. From the information, one can see that 97% of people eat no more than three times at a fast food restaurant per week. One-third of these people do not eat out at all during the week. The other two-thirds eat out only once, twice, or occasionally three times a week.

3. Some Americans eat at fast food restaurants more than half of the days of every week. The graph shows that 69.2% of Americans eat out up to 5 times a week. If one considers a 5-day work week, many of these people are eating out every day or nearly every day. Again the eating habits show that people are too busy to eat well-balanced meals at regular intervals.

Hard Evidence

“The bigger they are, the harder they fall.” This is not an example of hard evidence. It is a statement that could be applied after using hard evidence to prove it to be correct. With this statement the reader must assume too much.

Drunk drivers are involved in more than 50 percent of traffic deaths. This is not hard evidence because it uses statistics from an unnamed source. Again it is useful only if the reader assumes basics: that the statement is from a reliable source that conducted a study and received these results.

DNA tests of skin found under the victim’s fingernails suggest that the defendant was responsible for the assault. It is hard to argue with DNA: DNA almost always represents hard evidence. Retrieving and analyzing DNA is an accepted practice to provide solid evidence for a case.

Polls suggest that a large majority of Americans favor a constitutional amendment to ban flag burning. This statement could be hard evidence, provided that the polls were shown to be relevant. The polls would also have to be legitimate.

A psychologist testified that teenage violence could not be blamed on computer games. This statement raises many questions. The title psychologist does not make the evidence concrete because the statement does not specify which psychologist.

Honey attracts more flies than vinegar. This statement suggests that a study or observation has been done. However, the statement by itself is not an example of hard evidence. It is not nearly specific enough.

History proves that cutting tax rates increases government revenues because people work harder when they can keep more of what they earn. This is hard evidence. The statement uses historical reference, which is generally good evidence for any claim. The last part is a little misleading, because it sounds like opinion; it’s fine if it’s historical.

“We have nothing to fear but fear itself.” A cliché is not hard evidence in my opinion. Like I’ve said previously for some of the other statements, it is too general and makes too many questions. The statement leaves for every person to make an opinion of their own. In this case, the facts can’t coincide with all the opinions.

Air bags ought to be removed from vehicles because they can kill young children and small-framed adults. This could be hard evidence, if the correct statistics were provided. The statement could be proved but would also have significant evidence against it.

Obama and his Prize

With the announcements of the winners of the Nobel Peace Prize recently, many people in the United States have one thought on their mind: Why did President Obama receive a Nobel?? With good reason, I might add. As I have nothing against Obama, I think it is rather ridiculous that he would win a Nobel after having been in office for a couple weeks at the time. As I was researching the op-eds for The Washington Post, I found an article all about this topic: An Unconstitutional Nobel by Ronald D. Rotunda and J. Peter Pham.

The writers clearly lay out the facts. A president receiving a Nobel is unconstitutional. I would not have necessarily believed this on hearing the phrase, but the evidence is concrete. Rotunda and Pham including a quote from the Constitution in their article, stating, “"And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince or foreign State."

Because of the newness of this opinion piece in the news, I only found one opposition article on the Opposing Viewpoints Research Center. (In searching for future articles for arguments of fact, however, I will make sure to pick a topic that has many viewpoints.) This article I found, called President of Planet Earth, is extremely pro-Obama. In his byline, writer Howard Fineman describes his article as “why Obama’s Nobel was inevitable.” He continues to explain all the things Obama has done during and well before his presidency that put him in the ranks for the prize.

Although I was not overly swayed by the opposing article, I found reinforcements to my idea that I can support President Obama while still being a Republican. The opposing article did not have any “concrete evidence” like the first article did, but it was persuasive in its own way. I also came upon support of my beliefs: everyone has different opinions about everything.

The Walls have Eyes

I recently read a book called 1984, by George Orwell. The book was all about Orwell’s idea of what the future will be like, with dingy prospects and an overly controlling government called the “Party.” Through his main character, Winston, he emphasizes the fact that the “Party” is always watching its citizens: the posters have eyes; the telescreens are watching and monitoring from anywhere and everywhere. When I watched the YouTube video showing you instance of police brutality, I thought of Orwell’s book and our modern ideas of surveillance.

We should be thankful that our government is not so controlling as to place watchful eyes even in our homes. But I think we’re coming close to having even our personal space invaded. There are hardly any public places where you can go that does not have some sort of surveillance camera. Even if you are walking outside in a city, you could be picked up by a camera at a traffic light or outside of a store.

I once heard that a person is caught on camera approximately eighty-three times a day. Eighty-three is a big number for those of us who live at home! I do not know about the rest of you, but I certainly cannot come up with eighty-three places I could be caught on surveillance a day.

Granted, I am not totally against surveillance. As stated in the commentary of the police brutality YouTube video, the surveillance of one officer’s act cost him punishment for this obscenity. If you agree as I do with James Madison that the human race is not held by civic virtue, then surveillance is a needed crime-stopper. For that it is an invention of genius. Surveillance is an aid to those individuals or companies who have been wronged unduly. In our increasingly crime-riddled world, the camera fits well.

Perhaps I am slightly paranoid, as was George Orwell. I see my personal space shrinking, along with everyone else’s personal space. I find myself asking a similar question Orwell’s Winston asked himself while deciding whether or not to go out on a limb of betrayal: how much of my personal freedom am I willing to give up to be protected by the government’s surveillance techniques?

An Op-Ed about...Hitler?

It is natural for humans to be intrigued by dark topics. Why else would people watch horror movies, research articles about Charles Manson, and read books about some of history’s massacres? In my case, my favorite dark and twisty subject to study is Adolf Hitler. (Don’t get me wrong, I am not a fan—I am simply a curious person.) So when I found a New York Times article arguing the absolutes of Stalin actually storing Hitler’s body in Moscow, I knew that I had found my article to research.

I am one of those people that go to the AOL homepage every day and watch the newsfeed, picking out articles that sound interesting. Most of the articles I select are questioning arguments made by others. The article I found on the NYT website, called Hitler’s Jaws of Death, falls into this category. These types of articles interest me greatly.

While I am not Jewish, nor overwhelmingly German, this article relates to my life in only one way: history is one of my favorite subjects to study, and this article is all about the history of the aftermath of WWII. The impact that Hitler made has had rippling effects, effects that draw people like me to study them today.

These effects are also widely researchable. There is a vast amount of information about Hitler, his death, and his body because of the importance of the Holocaust to many people. Material about all of this would thus be extremely easy to find.

To some people this would obviously seem like a futile attempt at researching a mum topic. It is obvious that this topic is not important in the way of stopping future dictators. But to people like myself, however, it would be the production of another stint of research about one of our favorite dark topics to study.

Everyone likes to Argue (response to #1 on page 200)

Hurricanes are increasing in number and ferocity. This claim is not worth explaining in my opinion. The simple fact that the United States has not had a significant hurricane since Hurricane Katrina in 2005 would prove this argument to be questionable already. Where we live also is a factor—not many college students are worrying about hurricanes in northeast Indiana.

Many people die annually of cancer. Perhaps if this claim was about the causes of cancer then it would be more important to a majority of college students, but it is too simple of a statement to need arguing. Based on what we already know about cancer, not many people would disagree that many people die from it every year.

Fewer people would die of heart disease each year if more of them paid attention to their diets. This is a good argument to present. Rather than just stating that people die of heart disease, as in the last statement about cancer, this statement presents a way to act on the argument. It also could provide very important facts about a healthy diet that not many people know.

Japan might have come to terms more readily in 1945 if the Allies had not demanded unconditional surrender. This would probably be an argument important to the World War 2 buff rather than the average college student. It is an interesting historical debate, but only for people interested in the topic.

Boys would do better in school if there were more men teaching in elementary and secondary classrooms. Because of its relevance to many of my peers, this is a “claim worth arguing.” Not only is this argument relevant because of the many people majoring in education, but because of the males that have made it to college.

The ever-increasing number of minorities in higher education is evidence that racial problems have just about ended in the United States. This claim is extremely important to many people in colleges. One reason is that it deals with “higher education.” A second reason is that many people on college campuses are in a racial minority.

There are not enough high-paying jobs for college graduates these days. This claim is another that is extremely relevant to college students. I can speak for myself when I say that I want to know what kinds of high-paying jobs will be available to me when I graduate!

Hydrogen may never be a viable alternative to fossil fuels because it takes too much energy to change hydrogen into a useable form. Though it should be important because it deals with the kinds of problems our world will face when we are out of college, not many current college students would care about this claim. It is an issue that seems too far out of touch with our lives and problems.

Only one of the first forty-three presidents of the United States was Catholic. This is not a broad enough topic to interest and be important to the majority of college students. While many are admittedly Catholic, there is not necessarily an overwhelming Catholic population. There are also probably not enough students that would care whether or not their president had the same faith as them.

Political activists have grossly exaggerated the effects of the USA Patriot Act on free expression. Free expression is important to people of all age groups, but especially to college students. In a time where we are finally getting to have our own voice about things, a claim such as this would be important to research. Most college students want to know the extent of their free expression.

Definition Criteria

“Graphic novels are serious literature.” This is simply a statement of the adult nature of graphic novels. Graphic novels are not meant for children to read, nor are they meant for younger teens either. Instead of defining serious literature in the terms of Hamlet, one can safely say that graphic novels are serious literature because they contain topics that are explicit or inappropriate for some readers.

“Burning a nation’s flag is a hate crime.” Hate crime is defined formally as “a crime, usually violent, motivated by prejudice or intolerance toward a member of a gender, racial, religious, or social group.” Since a nation could be considered a social group, burning their flag would be categorically defined as a hate crime.

“The [Obamas] have become America’s royal family.” (I replaced “Bushes” with “Obamas” because of the appropriate context.) While America does not actually have a royal family, the President and his family are the closest to that. They are a family that nearly everyone in the nation respects, they are in the news constantly, and since Barack Obama is the president, he is a leader of the nation—just as a royal person is recognized as a head of a country.

“Matt Drudge and Larry Flynt are legitimate journalists.” Blogs are a new part of journalism. They are as informative as most news sites—they are opinionated, but so are editorials. Drudge and Flynt can be labeled as journalists because they post about issues that are seen in the news just as other news sites and newspapers do.

“Plagiarism can be an act of civil disobedience.” Plagiarism is by all means an immoral act. Using other peoples’ papers, etc., is frowned upon as stealing. It can be called civil disobedience because plagiarism can harmful to the public good.

"Pink Think"

When I was younger, I was continually sucked into the “pink think” attitude. I have an older sister, and she happens to be quite girly. If she announced that her favorite color was pink, I followed shortly with the statement that my favorite color was pink. I did not grow up with very many girls whose mothers did not dress them with little bows in their hair or did not let them take their Barbies to show and tell.

This is the way we’re raised. It’s called “pink think” by writer Lynn Peril. And I think it is a completely accurate way of labeling it. It starts when we are little, as I mentioned previously. It is not considered normal for a young girl to hate dresses, loathe bouncing pigtails with ribbons, and long to go outside and tumble around in the mud with her friends (who just happen to be all boys).

When girls grow older, they notice more examples of it in the television, as Peril points out. The “joys of housewifery” are displayed clearly on nearly all sitcoms. One can rarely find a television show with a mother or grandmother that is not either a stay-at-home mom, pregnant constantly, or always cooking or cleaning.

In my own life, I find things that make this statement true (although I am not nearly as girly of a person as I used to be): the places I work are nearly overrun by women. I work at a children’s toy store, and a chocolate shop. At the first, the only people who work there are women and gay men—other than my boyfriend, that is. Women are supposed to be more attracted to working with children than men are, apparently. At the second, the only men who work there do the “manly” jobs, such as running the big machines and working in the warehouse.

If this is not typecasting, I do not know what is. Women have grown up on the concept that we are to take certain roles and enjoy certain things. Granted, this is changing. But the idea is still there.

Through the textbook’s examples I have come up with another phrase that could define our world and how we relate to each other: “conformity think.” As I base my life on wishing to not settle into any stereotype, the world in general seems to enjoy placing people in stereotypes.

In fact, people are more comfortable this way. The way people gravitate towards other people with similar fashion style, music taste, and even ethnicity is astounding. Take my group of friends as an example. Though I am not racist, sexist, or opposed to associating with people who have different views on things, my closest friends are white girls who have all grown up in the Midwest, never listen to rap music, and are all very driven people when it comes to school and jobs. Thus I say that although America claims to be a very diverse nation, I believe that different people groups still have problems with integrating together.

Definition of Patriotism

Patriotism is a word that flies about, a word that generally has a lot of meanings. But patriotism is nothing more than pride in one’s identity that is associated with loyalty to one’s country. It does not mean that to be patriotic one must do acts of selflessness for the good of all, or that one must “cross the line,” as Peter Kierstin wrote in his article “How I Define Patriotism.”

One simply needs confidence in the fact that they are who they are, in part because they are American.

America = Superman?!

So much about the war has been circulating for such a long time. All the issues have been raised, many more than once. Numerous news videos and stories have been played on television and the Internet. With all of this going on since 2001, it is easy to forget that there even is a war—technically just an extremely large military operation—still happening.

At least it has been for me. I was fairly young when the terrorist attacks happened. I was only slightly older, and not really involved in anything but my own little teenage world, when there was talk of sending troops to Iraq. And even now, when the news stories about the goings-on in the Middle East have dwindled to the most recent terrorist bombings (but what else is new?!), the topic of the war is easily avoidable if one is not searching for it.

Along with my limited knowledge of the war, I developed a limitedly scant opinion of it a little while after the hubbub started: war is bad. Along the way I have developed my view slightly: we, as the most powerful nation in the world, do not have an obligation to all of the other countries to “save” them if they do not ask. We help, but we do not thrust our ideals upon them, and that is what I feel like we are doing—maybe we weren’t in the first few years, but we definitely are after 6+ years have passed.

The milblog fortified my thoughts of this. I do believe that there is a need for military, and I most certainly appreciate all of the people that choose to serve our country in that way. But my opinion is reinforced when I read that many of the people in the military do not think we should be involved in this war either. I was encouraged that, as I said in one of my responding posts to the milblog, all the people in the Middle East are not haunted by lives of “doom and gloom” constantly. However, having all those stations of troops is wasteful, when we could use our troops in other parts of the world.

America doesn’t always have to be the hero. We are powerful, and I believe we should be philanthropic enough to be helpful. But being helpful only goes so far.