Stephen Cruz Vs. Horatio Alger

Initially, Stephen Cruz believes the American Dream to be one of hard work and determination, in fact, he thought that he was a perfect example of this dream.  He had very little growing up in a Mexican family, and was as innovative as possible in order to live the American Dream for himself.  He was able to work his way up creating opportunity for himself and become successful.  Horatio Alger was a man who to had the same thought process on the American Dream.  Alger believes that anyone born into poverty was able to create the same opportunities that everyone else had though "hard work, persistence, initiative, and daring."  At first glance, and even in Stephen eyes, he was a living example of this dream.  He worked though college and was then presented with many job offers creating endless opportunity and what would seem to be the definition of the American Dream.  Horatio might have had the same view and understanding as Alger at first, but he soon came to the realization that he was not living the American Dream at all, in fact, he was now questioning its actual existence.  He realized that the only reason he was presented with these job offers had nothing to do with hard work.  It only had to do with the fact that he was a minority that people found expectable to have in company a and still look accepting to all races.  He realized that no matter what he did he could never work his way up higher than the job he was originally presented with.  Horatio came to the knowledge that the American Dream did not exist, and was truly controlled by the majority.  It had nothing to do with hard work or determination, but who you were born to be in society. 

Ragged Dick

Dick did not have much and had given up much hope of obtaining his dream.  Until one day his world was flipped upside down when he was given all of this for one heroic action.  The implicit argument in this excerpt is saying that if you are willing to dive in and risk your self for one thing expecting nothing in return, you will be greatly rewarded.  It is trying to prove that in order to become successful you must take chances in life for this to happen because things are rarely handed to you.  In addition to this, when taking these risks you must not have your own good will in mind, but the interests of others.  In this story in order to be successful you have to be willing to do anything even if it means putting your own life at risk for the sake of others.  If you have what it takes to be a "hero" then you will be rewarded with your greatest desires in life.  essentially, if you give with nothing expected in return you will receive much more than if your motives were not for the good of the cause. 

Visual Arguments

Visual arguments persuade the viewer in a very different way than writing arguments.  When you can look at something and see a picture such as a graph, photograph, website, or posters, the argument seems to click much faster.  If I was reading an article that had the same facts as a graph, I know I would believe the graph over the writing piece.  It is much easier to look at something because all the facts are laid out in front of you and you can easily compare it to something else.  Because I am much more of a visual person, when reading a writing piece it is hard for me to see the full effects of the facts that they are trying to convey.  Arguments such as posters or bumper-stickers also are much more persuasive, because they are short and to the point.  It leaves little room for questioning the other side of the argument.  Real photos are also much from visual persuasive than writing.  For example, if I were reading an article about genocide's in Africa it would be a lot more persuasive than actually seeing a real picture.  When reading you tend to question the missing facts or what is missing because you are never really sure if it is real.  But, on the other hand, if you see a real picture you know it's true.

Ethos and Pathos

when setting up an argument you have to have both emotions and ethics working together in oder to best appeal to your audience.  It is not only important to connect to your audience, but to have the audiences trust as well.  To gain this trust, one must create a strong knowledgeable tone by supporting your point with substantial evidence that proves your credibility.  Once the audience believes that you know what you are talking about then they can start to listen to you argument.  As a writer setting up an argument, if you wish to have the support of readers you are responsible for providing your readers with true substantial evidence.  When it comes to the media, there is always something they are debating.  But, they usually never use ethics in their reasoning.  To appeal to their audience they make up what ever they can credible or not.  They set up their arguments based on what they think people want to hear, not what the truth is.  Because of this, the media has lost their credibility due to the fact that most of what you hear from them is not true.  But as a respectable author, if you wish to have respect and gain peoples trust you must use ethos and pathos in a respectable manner. 

David Langley- Skateboarding

David langley's argument is settled around the unjust treatment and judgment that skateboarders have to face on a regular bases.  Langley feels that as a skateboarder his is judged with stereotypical notions, and treated unfairly when it comes to where and when he can skate.  He uses many different pieces of evidence and claims to help him support his argument.  

The first main piece of evidence he uses is one of his won experience.  A time when a police officer grabbed him and gave him a warning for skating in public even though David was sure he didn't violate any laws.  He stated that it was unfair that there are so many laws that forbid skateboarding in public areas because he feels that skating is a form of transportation.  Such as bikes, cars, or even a simple means of entertainment like a surfboard. He also gives the point that as a skate boarder he is actually helping the environment by keeping the air clean and picking up trash in order to not run over it while skating.  Even though David has good evidence for his claims, he still leaves me to question why there are these laws in the first place.  He gives me no good reasons as to why there would be an established law against skateboarding, yet there isn't one against biking.  It makes me wonder about the other side of the story. 

Pseudo Arguments

Pseudo arguments are very frustrating because you know no matter what you can not persuade the person to change their mind.  It is so easy for me to get very mad when arguing with someone that wont even consider you point of view, yet you are willing to consider theirs.  I have experienced this many times if the topic of politics come up with people my age.  When it comes to an argument about Democrats versus Republican with people my age, I can barley stand to listen.  I feel that a lot of people my age I know simple fallow their parents example and don't have their own real opinion they just feel like they are right and there is know changing it.  I think its important to not subject yourself to one side so you can open yourself up to all the possibilities.  Many times when getting into these arguments the person doesn't even have real information to back up their statement.  They simply say "because its the right thing to do," or make a bad comment about the opposing side thinking that this somehow justifies their reasoning.  In general, pseudo arguments are pointless because they don't go anywhere.  I think it is important to listen to others sides and take it into consideration in order to add growth to your opinion. 

Pathos

Pathos is an important key element in writing a persuasive argument because it helps you to connect to the reader on a more personal level.  It lets you engage the reader so they can open up to your point of view on a deeper level.  If you have an argument that is just logic the reader will feel no connection to the piece, and not pay much attention to why your point is important.  But, by adding in things that can trigger the readers emotions and imagination then the reader starts to think about the argument in a whole different light, because they are now using their own thoughts to connect to the authors meaning.  When we use our own experiences or when our own feelings are stimulated when reading something we are able draw up what we feel is our own conclusion to what the author is meaning.   It might not seem like engaging the reader through imagination and feeling would help when it comes to an argument, but if you want to make a point then using pathos is one of the most important things in writing or making an argument

Response to "A Case for Torture"

Michael Levin argues that torture can be acceptable under certain circumstances.  Although he recognizes that torture is unconstitutional, he also states that it is necessary in life or death situations.  He uses many examples of terrorist that could potentially kill hundred or thousands of people and they only way to stop them is to torture them in order to obtain the answers we need to stop the attack.  What he does not recognize is that torture is not going to automatically stop the attack, and in most circumstances we don't usually know who the perpetrator is. 

Michael Levin uses several extreme cases that seem inhumane not to agree with.  he does this to further prove his point in that torture needs to be used to some extent even if it is agaisnt our constitution.  I would have to mainly agree with Levin's argument in that I believe if a terrorist is willing to harm others then they need to be prepared for harm themselves.  There is no part of me that can argue that a person trying to kill many people life should be spared and in return hundreds die.  But, what Levin seems to believe is that torture is the answer to all our problems if in certain terrorist situations.  I can agree that in certain situations torture needs to come into account, but there are other ways of getting around such things that he fails to mentions.  

Biotech Foods

Peoples main concern about biotechnology enhanced food is the safety.  Because there is no label on grown food such as fruit, people are concern that they don't know what they are eating.  Who is to say that there is not harmful chemicals in the food, and there is no way of knowing because the ingredients are not listed.  This is why many people suggest that it should be a law that all biotechnology foods are printed with labels.  The council for biotech foods say this is not necessary because they test the foods for safety and there has never been a case where the food has harmed people.  They also think that it would waste an extreme amount of money in order to produce labels. 

If biotech foods were to be printed with labels I don't think it would make a difference in who bought the food or not.  When we look at labels the main things were look for are fat content, calories, or the amount of sugars.  We don't read the fin print about all the unknown chemicals we are putting into our bodies.  So, who's to say that the food even with labels are safe?  There is no point is wasting money putting labels on food that essentially people wont even pay attention to, because even if there was a harmful ingredient we wouldn't know how to tell.  The only logical thing to do is let the consumer know that the food is biotech enhanced, and if that person thinks those foods are potentially harmful then they don't have to buy it. 

Genetically Modified Food

Both of these advertisements are about the concern of genetically modified food, but one is for it and one is against it.  Even though it seems like you would be for genetically mortified food or against it i happen to agree with the argument of both advertisement.  For example, the cartoon on page 1 makes the point that it doesn't matter that the food is genetically modified because it is necessary that it be this way in order to be grown somewhere with little water, and it is better for people that are starving to have food then nothing.  On the other hand, the advertisement on page 24 shows how you don't know what is in genetically modified food and the effects could be potentially harmful to you.  There is no arguing with either statement because each proves there point without being much room for alternative reason.  As the reader I can not argue that starving people should not be fed, but at the same time I don't think it is right for us not to know what kind of chemicals we are eating.  So, the authors prove their point in a way that is really unarguable.