Vegetarianism: Introduction

The question of whether plant-based dieting benefits mankind is one that has been asked for many decades, but even more so in recent years. When it comes to food, people can become very defensive of their personal choices. While one side considers any consumption of meat to be unnecessarily cruel or inhumane, the other side believes removing meat entirely will cause us to lack nutrition and become sickly.  However, this issue is not “black-and-white,” or one which needs to be solved in absolutes. The fact of the matter is that Americans eat double the amount of animal protein than what’s necessary. With that said, countries that lack the resources that we do cannot drop meat products so easily. The lowering of overall meat consumption would be highly beneficial in sustaining life as we know it, however, vegetarianism for everyone in the world is simply unrealistic.

Review: Research Proposals

I felt overall, each presenter excelled in certain spots and fell short in others, but were good overall.

Most presenters had a good variety of facts and statistics used in all of their focal points. While a few did a good job in citing these sources, many failed to include any MLA citation throughout their presentations.  I also noticed some people did not put their sources in MLA format, but simply included links to the source.

With that said, these same presenters had clear voices and made a point not to use too many filler words during their presentation. And even without the sources being cited, the use of statistics relevant to their topics will still be beneficial for their final essay.

I believe my sources being properly cited and and my slide designs were high-points in my presentation. However, I'm aware that my presentation skills are very lacking. I likely used a lot of filler words and mumbled quite a bit.

Topic: Vegetarianism

The topic I chose for my essay is vegetarianism.

Research Question: Is vegetarianism a viable option for all of society, and will it benefit us in the long run?

An example of someone becoming too
hostile in their veganism. 

Claim: . The lowering of overall meat consumption would be highly beneficial in sustaining life as we know it, however, vegetarianism for everyone in the world is simply unrealistic.

Why Vegetarianism?: I chose this topic because it is one I've thought about before outside of a classroom setting. I feel fairly strongly about this topic, not necessarily in the sense that I believe people should become vegetarian, but because I feel people become too hostile/defensive when choosing a "side," so to speak. I feel it is a topic which people are very "black and white" about without considering the "grey areas" or middle ground.

Audiences: I would like my topic to be seen by people on either extremes of the topic. For example, the vegan people who criticize anybody that still chooses to eat meat or omnivorous people who are instantly dismissive when the negatives of the meat industry are brought up. This could also be good for those who want to make dietary changes but don't think they could commit to a vegetarian diet, and therefore believe they shouldn't even try. The topics discussed in my claim could show these 3 groups that there is a solution that doesn't lead to a "one or the other" decision.

Standing By

Invention

This music video required a considerable amount of preparation before it could be made. Playing for Change had to find talented street musicians all around the globe, meaning they had to find time to travel to numerous countries and record these scenes. They also needed a hefty amount of money saved for recording equipment, airfare, etc. It is also likely that a video editor (or multiple) were hired in order to create this seamless ensemble. 

Disposition

The video essentially goes around the globe visually. It begins in California with Roger Ridley, transitions to other US cities, but then travels the globe from Europe to South America, until the video finishes with Ridley, right where it started. This variety of locations accents the argument of the video: no matter where/ who you are, we can all stand together as one. 

Style

Playing for Change chose a very popular, classic song to display their message. The lyrics aren't too complex nor alienating in any way. The genre of the song is pop, which is the most popular and universally enjoyed genre in our society. All of the shots were done either on the streets of the city or at the homes of the musicians (presumably). All of these elements serve to create a feeling of intimacy between the viewer and the musicians. By doing this, the viewer feels the message that we are all capable of togetherness.

Memory

The creators chose musicians with clear, strong singing voices and/or solid skill with their instruments. The singers had a firm grasp on the lyrics and delivered them in a way appropriate with the argument.

Delivery

The fact that they used a song rather than a speech/essay made the message more accessible to those around the world. The language of music is easier to grasp on an emotional level, even if you don't necessarily speak the language of the song being sung. Playing for Change found people who were emotionally in sync with the music and weren't bland or emotionally misaligned with his main idea.

Images

This scene in the video is one that I remembered after watching it. The man dancing with his child, I felt, was a wonderful image of peace and togetherness. Although it was a father/child interaction, I believe this could be extended towards others in our lives. 

I felt images like these throughout the video also displayed the overall message of peace. A large group of people coming together to make beautiful music displays the argue against violence in a fun and wonderful way. 

Playing for Change. YouTube, Playing for Change, 6 Nov. 2008, youtu.be/Us-TVg40ExM.

Response: Violent Media is Good for Kids

In "Violent Media is Good for Kids," Gerard Jones uses anecdotes relating to his and other's childhoods in order to make his argument that violent media provides a healthy outlet for children's inner rage. He provides various examples of how superheroes created an emotional outlet and thus aided in a child's behavior.

Jones uses the first 5 paragraphs of his essay to recall his childhood and the effect that the Incredible Hulk had on him. Hulk is the character who "caught" and "freed" him from his parents who did their best to avoid violence in the household. While his anecdote strengthens his argument by presenting his journey from loner kid to successful writer, it can only go so far. His personal story only provides evidence that violent media was good for him as a child, not for children across the globe.

Throughout paragraphs 9 through 12, Jones attempts to solidify his argument by citing psychologist Melanie Moore, Ph.D., who shares his opinion on violent media. Moore, who works with urban teens, states that "children need violent entertainment in order to explore the inescapable feelings that they've been taught to deny..." Jones proceeds to discuss the research the two have performed involving this topic, essentially explaining that "rebellious, even destructive" heroes prevent children from becoming meek or overly dependent. While he makes multiple claims regarding this, he provides no statistics, surveys, etc. that support his statements. He relies primarily on the fact that he works with a psychologist to instill credibility in his argument.

Jones provides two examples of case studies done on young girls with troubled situations at home through paragraphs 13-15. The first girl, who acted out whenever adults attempted to subdue her, released her rage in the form of comics and writing, aiding her through the divorce of her parents.  The other case study involved an older girl going through a "chaotic family situation" from which she powered through with the help of "mythologized street violence" found in rap music. While these two examples are inspiring, they aren't 100% valid. For one, they present no proof of whether violent media can actually improve children as a whole; these are only individual examples. Another issue is that Jones does not specify whether these girls sought help from other sources which may have led to their improvement (ex. speaking to counselors about their issues).

In paragraph 16, Jones challenges the argument that violent entertainment "has helped inspire some people to real-life violence." While this is true, he claims that "it's helped hundreds of people for every one it's hurt." That being said, his refutation is just that: various claims. Much like some of the previous arguments made, he provides zero factual evidence for his statements that kids in today's society are prone to becoming "too passive" without violent media, or that they are being significantly helped by it. While he presents his argument in a factual way, nothing he claims is verifiable and is highly opinionated.

Image from a popular video game, Grand Theft Auto, which
allows you to kill innocent civilians.

Jones could have made a stronger refutation by citing articles such as these which cite video games as the inspiration for mass murderers. The main issue that can be refuted is that correlation does not equal causation. Sure, they may have played violent games, but it doesn't necessarily mean the games were the inspiration for their actions. He could also more convincingly use his argument of violent media helping hundreds more than they've hurt. While this is 14 unfortunate examples, compare that to the number of copies of games sold in relation.


Jones' concluding paragraph includes a warning to parents and society. He warns that if the pattern of censoring children continues we "risk confusing them about their natural aggression" much like Victorians did with sexuality. While concerning, this cautioning message has no backbone. Once again, there is no evidence that censoring violent media from children leads to them becoming confused or weak-minded as Jones boldly claims.

While I do not disagree with Jones' mindset on violent media, I feel that in many ways he fails in presenting his argument convincingly. While written very persuasively, when looking beyond the surface it seems Jones did very little to find any true evidence to support his broad statement that violent media is good for kids. Sure, it was good for him as a kid, and a sprinkle of children in case studies he presents. However, none of this can reliably prove to readers that there is a correlation between violent media and a healthier coping mechanism for anger.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Jones, Gerard, "Violent Media is Good for Kids" Mother Jones, 28 June 2000.

"14 Mass Murders Linked to Violent Video Games" Charismanews, 15 Oct. 2015, https://www.charismanews.com/culture/52651-14-mass-murders-linked-to-violent-video-games

Wasting Time

Thesis, evidence, refutation, conclusion. These are the key elements (commonly known as "Four Pillars") used to create an argument. Dale Stephens' piece titled "College is a Waste of Time" utilizes these elements to argue the worthiness of obtaining a college education.

Thesis:

Unlike many essays in which the thesis is located in one sentence, this essay's thesis is split throughout the first four paragraphs. In paragraph 1, he ends with the statement "I believe higher education is broken." This, however, is merely a vague opinionated statement. He develops this statement further in the 2nd paragraph, stating, "Our creativity, innovation, and curiosity are schooled out of us." Stephens continues his thesis in paragraph 3. He claims, "College fails to empower us with the skills necessary to become productive members of today’s global entrepreneurial economy." Finally, in beginning the 4th paragraph, he begins with "College is expensive," thus developing all his points to support his thesis.

Evidence:

In paragraph 4, his first reason as to why college is a waste is the high costs involved. Stephens lists multiple statistics to back up this claim. Public university tuition has increased 3.6 times in the past 30 years, according to The College Board Policy Center. The book Academically Adrift (written by two sociology professors) says that 36 percent of college graduates showed no improvement in critical thinking, complex reasoning, or writing after four years of college. Finally, Stephens writes that student loan debt had outpaced credit card debt as of 2010, topping $1 trillion in 2011. By using well-sourced facts, Dale Stephens is able to solidify his initial claim and develop his argument successfully.

Throughout the rest of the essay, he relies less on statistics. While some factual statements are made, he doesn't back them up with reliable sources, causing them to be somewhat less trustworthy than his previous paragraph. He makes anecdotal statements in paragraph 6 such as "Learning by doing—in life, not classrooms—is the best way to turn constant iteration into true innovation." And in the 8th paragraph, "Employers are recruiting on LinkedIn, Facebook, StackOverflow, and Behance. People are hiring on Twitter, selling their skills on Google, and creating personal portfolios to showcase their talent." 

Refutation:

Stephens addresses possible refutations with a mature attitude and a reasonable challenge towards said refutations. In regards to people who want a formal education, Stephens tells us "I do not think everyone should leave college, but I challenge my peers to consider the opportunity cost of going to class" (paragraph 9). He acknowledges the fact that his path is not for everyone, avoiding an either/or stance, but challenges us to reconsider our plans.

Many people fear that not going to college leads to a deadbeat lifestyle. He reminds us in paragraph 10 that "the people who indulge in drugs and alcohol do so before, during, and after college."

Concluding Statement:

Also in paragraph 10, Stephens concludes his essay be reiterating his argument from the thesis. "We who take our education outside and beyond the classroom understand how actions build a better world. We will change the world regardless of the letters after our names." This reinforces the idea that college is not needed in order to educate ourselves or become successful in life.

Appeals:

Stephens applies the three appeals of argument throughout his essay in order to drive his points home. Paragraph four is littered with logos as he uses multiple statistics to exemplify the high costs of college education. He references a book written by Daniel Pink in paragraph 6, which develops ethos. The fact that an author's views coincide with his own causes the argument to appear more credible. 

Russia Probes Scandal

People utilize on a variety of argumentative techniques in order to gain support on their views. That being said, some rely more heavily on facts (logos) or credibility (ethos) while others depend on the emotions of the audience (pathos). When it comes to political arguments, emotions can easily take over a debate, leading to quarrels rather than productive conversation. The four clips discussing the Russian Probe controversy highlight different methods of argumentation and their effects on the audience.

Sarah Sanders Argument

Sarah Sanders takes an open stance with the Republicans when making her argument to the reporter. She primarily uses logos, however, there is clearly spin used in many of her statements. "Everything that the Clinton campaign and the DNC were falsely accusing this president of doing over the past year they were actually doing themselves," she tells the reporter; while this may be factual, the wording and delivery of the statement antagonizes the Clinton campaign and implies that the DNC did nothing wrong in this situation. Sanders heavily takes an either/or viewpoint in her argument, saying that Trump was "right all along" while Democrats were "wrong all along." Sanders seems to avoid using pathos in order to project a more professional and reliable image, therefore strengthening her ethos at the same time. Her position as political advisor alongside the apparent lack of emotional outrage makes her statements more trustworthy versus arguments such as Tomi Lahren's.

Tomi Lahren Argument        

In contrast to the Sarah Sanders clip, Tomi Lahren is very opinionated and uses pathos very heavily in her segment. Her argument is much more informal, using emotionally charged terms such as corrupt, "so ridiculous", and crooks to develop her views. She emphasizes the fact that millions of our tax dollars are being put towards this Russian probe. While this serves as logos as well, it is primarily used as ethos in order to make the audience equally angry with the current circumstances.

She refers to Americans as "hardworking" to acknowledge the efforts that the average citizen faces, giving her more likeability. Due to her informal delivery, her argument is lacking in ethos, as she doesn't present herself as a credible source of information. 






Mark Mazzetti Argument 

Similar to the first clip, Mark Mazzetti focuses on logos to make his argument. His Republican/Democrat stance is not as apparent, however, as his statements are less skewed. He states, in a concise manner, that the Russia probe began primarily due to George Papadopoulos' drunken banter rather than the dossier. Mazzetti gets his point across without the use of ethos of pathos, but the lack of development towards his argument helps in this case. If he had been too emotional during his statement (ex. name-calling the group giving out misleading information), it may have come across as if he were trying to hide information from the public rather than trying to clear up a miscommunication.

Matt Apuzzo Argument 

Matt Apuzzo, unlike some of the others, seems to side less with Trump in this debate. He refers to Papadopoulos as "little" and "inexperienced" which alludes to his side of the argument. That being said, he goes on to use logos, stating directly what information he learned from leaked emails regarding Russian relations with the Trump campaign. He also uses ethos by quoting a "veteran counter-intelligence person" who would likely have more credibility than a journalist such as himself.