Some Final Thoughts on Rhetoric

At the start of the semester, I said, after examining the definition of rhetoric from Merriam-Webster and Dr. Gideon Burton of Brigham Young University, "Rhetoric is writing or speaking that serves either to inform or persuade an audience." And as the semester went along, I just thought rhetoric as nothing more than "another tool in the drawer" and a very broad, vague concept; something that is boring and invariable. However, when I started looking at the infamous vocab list and saw rhetoric defined as "the art of effective expression," my preexisting belief that rhetoric belonged to the mundane world of English was shaken but at the same time, was only further a reinforcement that the definition of rhetoric is vast as the sea because now rhetoric was defined as an art form, and I had a hard time accepting this. 

By defining rhetoric as "the art of effective expression," one could say that definition is the singularity of any creation ever (as long as in some way, shape, or form, this theoretical creation could be considered art and something expressive). For example, being a long-time musician who expresses himself by playing notes on a guitar with some friends on stage, I could say that this example is one of rhetoric because music is a form of art, and I am effectively expressing myself since playing guitar and composing songs/guitar parts for a song is how I express myself, therefore, rhetoric. The main theme I am trying to get at is that as long as something can be considered an art form that accurately (therefore effective) expresses the artist, it is rhetoric. Technically, yes, when a writer composes a piece of literature or an essay of some kind, according to the incredibly loose definition of rhetoric, this is art and a form of effective self-expression, therefore, rhetoric. This newer definition and understanding of rhetoric demonstrates the problems with my old definition and the common understanding of rhetoric.

One of the main issues that word rhetoric has is that it has a connotation that assigns it to only a realm of English. This is evident by when somebody says a rebuttal of, "Oh, that's just rhetoric" because the person saying this confines and restricts the definition of rhetoric to a world of manipulated words. Nobody wants to admit that music, painting, any form of art or self expression, is rhetoric.  By saying that these forms of art are rhetoric (something with a rather ho-hum connotation), this seems to detract from some of the inherent value and colorful aspects that these art forms provide. This might be due to the mindset that many people have the idea that rhetoric is something seen in an insipid and vanilla court room or in a high level literature or philosophy class in the world of academia, not something that could be in the bright, colorful, fun world of music, painting, etc. However, this is not the case. 

I have been enlightened to understand that rhetoric is not some other vapid instrument that belongs in a closed drawer full of similar constructs, rather, rhetoric is just as beautiful and bright as any other form of art. I have grown to understand that writing a story or a blog post is just as creative in its own unique way as sculpting a beautiful sculpture out of marble and limestone, or writing a passionate song from the inner thoughts of a human mind; both of these elements are beautiful and human in their own way. I realized that writing a story involved creativity since one has to map out a story line, yet, I never considered this a form of self expression because I could not directly associate the relation be between composer and creation. But as the semester wore on and I was further exposed to the ways of rhetoric, I began to use my strong sense of intuition and fondness of thinking imaginatively to connect the myriad of floating ideas I had in the clouds about rhetoric to the ground. If there is one thing I have learned from this course, it is that rhetoric is much more than what I had originally constricted it to be. 





P.S. Professor Strickland, I hope that if you've read this, you feel a certain sense of excitement since one of your students (who is primarily of the brain of "I want hard facts and quantified data derived from complex equations that state specific things.") has grown to develop a deeper understanding of such a fundamental yet simple, therefore (as used in the fields of Physics and Math) elegant word and has let his naturally curious and always thinking mind run free with the bulls in the world of English and rhetoric and now see it as something fun and different than what he used to see it as: boring. 

Matt Graham's Multimedia Project: Podcast

Here you go!

https://soundcloud.com/user779060262/matts-podcast

Insert Title Here

The process of writing this research paper has certainly been a long one no doubt. However, I think weekly smaller papers would be more worthwhile. These weekly papers could be the fight club topics and then you could spend more time in class going over something else of interest such as the multimedia project.

As far as having resources like Strunk and White earlier in the course, I wouldn't be opposed to that, however, I feel like that could be taught in class and that resource could be linked on Blackboard or the class blog under a tab called "Useful Resources" or something similar to that. I enjoyed reading TSIS however. While a lot of what was taught in that book seemed relatively like common knowledge, it was nice to get a reinforcement of those ideas and see different templates to see how they could be worded and add some spice to one's writing. That is what I learned from that book: the templates and how to use them. I would definitely keep that in the curriculum of the course.

To elaborate on the research paper assignment. Personally, I enjoyed reading all the research affiliated with my topic because it is about a subject in which I care deeply, and the resources and help available has made it nowhere near as stressful as it might have been otherwise, it has just been an agonizingly slow process (or at least it seems like). We have been working on this paper since September and it has been demotivating since it has been such an arduously long process. Another struggle with writing the research paper has been an internal one of finding the motivation to crank out the pages. Again, this is a more personal issue with the assignment because I tend to work well under pressure and because the paper has been spaced so far out, it has been a struggle to find the drive to work on it. However, there is an upside to making the research paper (if the assignment was to be kept) assigned and due sooner: it would not take as much time to read and grade all of the papers. Also, getting this assignment out of the way sooner could also lead to more free time in the classroom enabling different assignments that would be fun or interesting to be done. Also, maybe instead of the vocab being quizzed (which could be replaced by reading quizzes over articles relating to fight club or something else), it could be assigned as extra credit and at the end of the semester, there could be an optional vocab quiz or scattered ones throughout the semester offered as extra credit. This would encourage students to look at the vocab list more often and not a day or two (or minutes) before class.

As a whole, the class is a great class. With some of these minor improvements or suggestions, the class could be much better because there would be more time to teach other material, or, enjoy more time to the self because there wouldn't be as much to grade all at once (like there inevitably will be for the research papers when they are due), and who would not want more time to the self?

Fight Club 11/19: President of Mizzou

Pro-he should step down
Andrew 

• There were numerous incidents during his time as president. He did nothing about the incidents and brushed them under the rug. He is the face of the university, so he should have acted.
• He cannot control what happens, but he should have taken steps to support the people affected by the racial issues.
• He should have reprimanded the offenders. There should be stricter policies towards racial slurs.
• There is a low percentage of African American faculty members at Mizzou. 
• The president chose not to do anything about it. He had a lack of response to incidents which is why the protestors were upset.
• Counter (Matthew): It is a small incident between specific groups. It is not a campus-wide event. The president should not have to deal with this. The smaller departments should be targeted. The president is more of a business leader of the university.
• (Moderator:) How will the leadership change affect the problem?
• The new president will make this his/her priority. A change in leadership will be good for the morale of the students. A fresh face is good in a time when the student body is aggravated.

Con-he should not step down
Matthew

• It does not resolve the problem. It will take time to find a new president to fill in. It is not his responsibility to monitor what individual students say to each other. 
• (Moderator:) The president is the face of the university so shouldn't he be responsible for the students of his university?
• When adolescents are put together in a college setting, incidents will happen. This is the case at any university. Perpetrator should be reprimanded, but the president should not be responsible for their actions. The perpetrator should be responsible for his/her own actions.
• When students are together they will do stupid things. These incidents should not result in the loss of someone's job.
• It is a student body issue. The president should be given time to solve the problem.
• The protestors blew the issue out of proportion. It is unfortunate that people were racially offended, but this slip should not force the president to resign. Everyone makes mistakes. He could have used this as learning experience for the future of his career.
• Counter (Andrew): Why should he be given a second chance? He has been given many second chances in the past.

Humanity's Last Hope: Fin (The Continued Post of Last Week's Blog Post "Humanity's Last Hope.")

Humanity's Last Hope

11/06/2015 4:58PM

The year is 2471, at this point in time, Earth is suffering from overpopulation and has been depleted of many of its resources; Climate change has caused animal populations to die and rising sea levels have completely destroyed some cities. These monstrous problems motivated the major countries of the world to set aside their political differences and allocate all their remaining resources and talent to help solve Earth's disastrous problems. These countries founded a new government so that the entire world is under one government to be better organized with dealing with Earth's major issues.  This new government has been working with a private space company, Graham's Aerospace Research Company, to help combat these issues on Earth. This private space company was founded by Trillionaire, Matthew Graham, originally as an asteroid mining company (which is how he acquired his insane wealth) but has since been putting his wealth into colonization of the Moon and various satellite bodies in the Kuiper belt, terraforming Mars and Europa for future colonization, as well as stabilizing Earth's runaway atmosphere to help restore balance to the environment to help animal populations (1, stock setting). 

This leads to the current situation (2). A team of researchers are investigating a dwarf planetary body, named KBB196, deep in the Kuiper belt that could potentially be habitable. The crew is on their ship, "Sagittarius 12" approaching KBB196, they are currently 7.11 hours from arrival.

"Hey Captain Janson, can you go over landing protocol for KBB196? I know it is a dwarf planet with some rather unusual atmospheric composition and I want to make sure I program the landing system right for when the descent rockets have to turn on."

"No problem Marcus, the, albeit very thin, atmosphere of KBB196 is mainly composed of Methane, CO2,  Nitrogen and Oxygen, with trace amounts of Carbon tetrafluoride gases and Sulphur compounds. This is unusual because normally, this far out, especially being in the Kuiper Belt, a dwarf planet shouldn't have this much methane or carbon dioxide in its atmosphere. What you'll have to do is program the computer so that it turns on the afterburners once we get through the methane part of the atmosphere so that way the rocket doesn't ignite any of the methane and destroy the ship. The methane is in the upper part of the atmosphere so we won't have to experience as much deceleration once we clear it. So program the landing pod to safely get us down there, once you do that, we will enter our life-support chambers and be put under for the landing. After we land, we will be woken up and do some data checking and surveying to then begin our mission. "

"Thanks for letting me know, I'll get on that."

"No problem, remember crew, we are here because we have to see if this planet has any signs of life. We have to collect samples for the lab,  Commander Harper, that is your job, you're the crew botanist, elaborate on that."

"Right, so, as Captain said, I am the crew botanist, and it is my job to make sure that all samples collected remain safe and preserved and also that we are completely sterile so we do not introduce any earth bacteria or microbes to the environment of KBB196. We are going to be landing near a large basin that is said to have large amounts of salt water and methane in it as well as be near a river that has flowing liquid methane and trace mounts of sulphur dioxide. Chances are, there is some microbial life. This is not some mission that some people made a movie about centuries ago called The Martian (3, allusion), this isn't science-fiction (genre 4), remember, this is real, so we have to take extreme caution in our actions and treat it as a serious manner. We are determining whether this place could be a place humans could live."

The crew mechanical engineer, Yinsen, spoke up, "So what if there is no evidence (5) of life? How will we convey this data to the public? I'm not trying to have an argument or anything, but we don't know if there is life on this planet."

"You're right," Commander Harper said, "but, remember, we have to do all we can to support our statement that this could be a worthy place to live. Human lives are at stake. If we find no data (6) that says this place is habitable, we have to find data that supports it would be feasible to terraform it. It's about the delivery (7) and the editing (8) of said delivery; no matter what we find, we just have to make sure that the public buys into it. As centuries ago, a famous man once said, 'ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country (9, antimetabole).' In this case, our country is Earth, and what we are doing for it involves trying to save the people on it."

The crew biologist, John, spoke up, "What Commander Harper said. But as a generalization (10), by simply reading (11) or using efferent reading (12) the mission outline of KBB196, since we are the audience (13) for whom it was meant, you could see that we are here on scientific inquiry that has big implications."

Commander Harper replied, "yeah, what John said. That's (contraction, 14) a confirmation (15)of our mission: we are here on scientific inquiry with big implications. It is not an understatement (16) that what we are doing is important, but, no need to make it some hyperbole (17) of purpose. The planet is like the moon of Saturn, Titan: It is an isolated wasteland (metaphor, 18)and our mission is as serious as a cat finding food in some desperate time (simile, 19).  It's about survival--life or death of the human race. Our mission can be thought of as a symbol (20) for how courageous and inventive humans are. We are on the edge of the solar system seeking to save the human race after all."

Captain Johnson alerted the crew: "Alright everybody, enough discussion about our mission. Marcus is done with coding the computer for the landing system, Get in your chambers and rest up, we have a long day ahead of us approaching."

--TO BE CONTINUED--




































However, these were the last words recorded on the ship's voice monitoring system (the engineers and scientists back on Earth thought it would be a good idea to record and listen in on the conversations that the astronauts were having for psychological reasons as well as logistical/emergency reasons). As the astronauts went to deep sleep in their pods, they were to never awake again. The atmosphere of KBB196 was unexpectedly turbulent and caused an electrical misfiring in the fusion reaction chamber of the ship's engine, causing an explosion that rocked the spacecraft, destroying a significant mass of the hull and 17 out of the 30 descent rockets, leading it to spiral downwards and crash on the surface of KBB196. Due to safety protocol, once the astronauts are in deep slumber, the programming of their life-support chambers is instructed to not wake the astronauts but make sure they stay under so they have an increased chance of surviving any emergency situation. Once the ship hit the surface of KBB196, it was smashed into two main parts and was utterly obliterated. The northern part of the spacecraft (where the astronauts were) remained recognizable (if one compared it to its condition just after the descent rockets exploded) but the back half of the ship was completely destroyed--it exploded and was just a flaming heap of metal. This is where the story begins. 

It has been 2 years since the incident. When Graham's Aerospace Research Company had to inform the world of the news, it would go down as one of the most tragic events in history. In such a desperate time and after a few major successes, one of the company's biggest endeavors resulted in an enormous failure. Lives were lost, and a sense of hopelessness enraptured the world as people began to wonder if their species was doomed for extinction and that there was nothing that humans, in all of their ingenuity, could do to save themselves. To investigate the crash of Sagittarius 12 and seek closure, Graham's Aerospace Research Company's CEO, Matt Graham, decided to send his personal quantum computer-controlled AI bot, Vincent, hoping to gain insight as to what happened that fatal day (though this ached Matt very much, for he loved and admired Vincent, he needed to see what exactly happened to the crew and determine whether the planet would still be worth the effort of terraforming). 

Vincent (who Matt refers to as "he" when speaking about his beloved bot) stands at seven feet tall, and is composed of four columns that are all linked together (so if Vincent was to stand straight, he would look like four, seven foot tall columns squeezed together). Being a self-aware quantum computing based robot, he is extremely gifted. He can compute large orders of numbers and extreme data in seconds and provide a rather humorous, sometimes mildly sarcastic response. Vincent is also a very personable and non-violent being (Vincent views violence as inefficiency and a waste of one's energy), while he does not yet fully understand human emotion (he understands elements of it, thus, he can provide mildly sarcastic/humorous witty answers at times), he is there for Matt and is one of the only beings in which Matt confides and equally, Vincent loves talking to Matt and appreciates his master's company. Vincent's pastimes (he will tell you he does love having time to himself and doing things he enjoys) include running astrophysical and geophysical experiments as well as gathering data on human actions, counting the digits of Pi, reading about human psychology and anatomy as well as history, play chess, and his favorite: dreaming. Yes, Vincent can dream. He was programmed to be a self-aware machine that stores his daily data in a log and everyday, rests so that he can repair and improve any damaged lines of computer code. This is arguably the most interesting aspect about Vincent, simply because it is the most human aspect about Vincent. Like a human interacts with its world and makes and stores memories in its brain, Vincent does the equivalent, and like humans, as a result and stated in existing dream theory, dreams. Another very personified aspect about Vincent is Vincent experiences wants. For example, Vincent would love to be a human being, not a robot that does not have a pair of  arms and legs, eyes, ears, nostrils, and a mouth. Instead, Vincent is a uniquely designed robot that can traverse any terrain at a speed between 0mph and 30 mph (however, in drastic, emergency situations, Vincent can travel at a top speed of 120 mph, but will then need a lot of time to recover, as this is heavily damaging to Vincent's body) and remain functional with a temperature range of -370 degrees Fahrenheit all the way to a searing 3,000 degrees Fahrenheit. Vincent does not "walk" like the traditional human does, instead, given his design, he uses a combination of his columns to move much like how an ape would use their hands and feet in unison to move: like a mild gallop. One aspect Vincent loves about himself is his ability to die. Vincent likes this because, since he wants to be a human, not a highly intelligent, self learning machine, he, like a human, can die and, potentially, be the cause of his death. Vincent feels a certain sense of pride with this, being a self-aware robot, he can deem when his purpose for existence (whatever he determines this to be) is gone and therefore, either choose whether to keep living, or, die. However, like a human, Vincent is currently struggling to determine what his reason to exist is. He has come up with three plausible hypotheses for his existence. His first hypothesis is that he exists in order to serve his creator and master, Matthew Graham, until Matthew Graham dies. His second hypothesis is that he exists in order to help the human race survive, therefore, engraining in history, the importance of his master, Matthew Graham, for the eons. His third, and final hypothesis for existence, is that he exists to establish a new race of self-actualizing robots that can carry on the existence and reasons of existence that humans had if the human race does not survive their perils. This last one causes Vincent much trouble because it takes into account why humans live, something that Vincent is still trying to figure out. 

It was on Vincent's personal spaceship (while on the way to KBB196) when he heard the news. His master and loving creator, Matthew Graham, died from the bullet of a radical assassin who believed that the Lord Jesus Christ had already determined how the human race will end and that Matt was interfering with the Lord's plans. At that moment in time, Vincent understood what emotion was and what love was. He felt sad and grieved for the loss of his creator. He loved his creator. Matt was the one person who gave him life, the one person who helped Vincent become what he is today. Vincent was furious at the religious extremist who killed the one person Vincent ever loved and cared for. He began to question the importance and existence of the human race. He questioned if they were all radical beings that deserved the potential outcome of their irresponsible actions and if he should help the human race. He questioned if Matt would approve of this line of thought because Matt was a caring soul who was not extremist and always told Vincent that in order to leave a positive mark on the world and ensure one's memory is preserved, one has to do good for the world on such a level that people will appreciate one's actions and make sure the entity who did the good actions will be remembered and honored. Basically, what Vincent began to question was "should I help the human race and ensure their survival? Or should I let the natural effect of their actions take over and be passive as I watch the demise of the human race. Would my master, Matthew Graham, a human, approve of this?" Vincent realized, "I now control the destiny and future of mankind. I, am humanity's last hope." 

Disparity in Women as CEO's and political leaders

Pro:

• Women tend to value team efforts more than men, they're more generous
• bring more harmony which results in better results for the company because people will be treated more fairly since they wont feel threatened because of the teamwork within the workforce
• they won't be replaced, they will just be given the higher level jobs
• advantages to gender diverse workforce because it allows for a more diverse customer base
• since men and women have different view points, they can better problem solve because of the different types of views
• debt in america - when more women work, the economies grow, and if you include more women in the political arena, they can better understand what women want 

Con:

• if you look at any statistic, the amount of women in the workforce and politics is increasing every year
• no action needs to be taken because the problem is working itself out
• most of the people in leadership positions are starting to die out and will have to be replaced by the younger generation
• there are more women in college now 
• every year there are more women in political positions, eventually they are starting to run for the most high powers
• they are becoming more strong-willed on their own
• people are starting to have different ideas about patriarchy 
• prime minister from Germany has been doing a good job

Humanity's Last Hope

The year is 2471, at this point in time, Earth is suffering from overpopulation and has been depleted of many of its resources; Climate change has caused animal populations to die and rising sea levels have completely destroyed some cities. These monstrous problems motivated the major countries of the world to set aside their political differences and allocate all their remaining resources and talent to help solve Earth's disastrous problems. These countries founded a new government so that the entire world is under one government to be better organized with dealing with Earth's major issues.  This new government has been working with a private space company, Graham's Aerospace Research Company, to help combat these issues on Earth. This private space company was founded by Trillionaire, Matthew Graham, originally as an asteroid mining company (which is how he acquired his insane wealth) but has since been putting his wealth into colonization of the Moon and various satellite bodies in the Kuiper belt, terraforming Mars and Europa for future colonization, as well as stabilizing Earth's runaway atmosphere to help restore balance to the environment to help animal populations (1, stock setting). 

This leads to the current situation (2). A team of researchers are investigating a dwarf planetary body, named KBB196, deep in the Kuiper belt that could potentially be habitable. The crew is on their ship, "Sagittarius 12" approaching KBB196, they are currently 7.11 hours from arrival.

"Hey Captain Janson, can you go over landing protocol for KBB196? I know it is a dwarf planet with some rather unusual atmospheric composition and I want to make sure I program the quantum computer landing system right for when the descent rockets have to turn on."

"No problem Marcus, the, albeit very thin, atmosphere of KBB196 is mainly composed of Methane, CO2,  Nitrogen and Oxygen, with trace amounts of Carbon tetrafluoride gases and Sulphur compounds. This is unusual because normally, this far out, especially being in the Kuiper Belt, a dwarf planet shouldn't have this much methane or carbon dioxide in its atmosphere. What you'll have to do is program the computer so that it turns on the afterburners once we get through the methane part of the atmosphere so that way the rocket doesn't ignite any of the methane and destroy the ship. The methane is in the upper part of the atmosphere so we won't have to experience as much deceleration once we clear it. So program the landing pod to safely get us down there, once you do that, we will enter our life-support pods and be put under for the landing. After we land, we will be woken up and do some data checking and surveying to then begin our mission. "

"Thanks for letting me know, I'll get on that."

"No problem, remember crew, we are here because we have to see if this planet has any signs of life. We have to collect samples for the lab,  Commander Harper, that is your job, you're the crew botanist, elaborate on that."

"Right, so, as Captain said, I am the crew botanist, and it is my job to make sure that all samples collected remain safe and preserved and also that we are completely sterile so we do not introduce any earth bacteria or microbes to the environment of KBB196. We are going to be landing near a basin that is said to have trace amounts of water in it as well as be near a river that has flowing liquid methane. Chances are, there is some microbial life. This is not some mission that some people made a movie about centuries ago called The Martian (3, allusion), this isn't science-fiction (genre 4), remember, this is real, so we have to take extreme caution in our actions and treat it as a serious manner. We are determining whether this place could be a place humans could live."

The crew mechanical engineer, Yinsen, spoke up, "So what if there is no evidence (5) of life? How will we convey this data to the public? I'm not trying to have an argument or anything, but we don't know if there is life on this planet."

"You're right," Commander Harper said, "but, remember, we have to do all we can to support our statement that this could be a worthy place to live. Human lives are at stake. If we find no data (6) that says this place is habitable, we have to find data that supports it would be feasible to terraform it. It's about the delivery (7) and the editing (8) of said delivery; no matter what we find, we just have to make sure that the public buys into it. As centuries ago, a famous man once said, 'ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country (9, antimetabole).' In this case, our country is Earth, and what we are doing for it involves trying to save the people on it."

The crew biologist, John, spoke up, "What Commander Harper said. But as a generalization (10), by simply reading (11) or using efferent reading (12) the mission outline of KBB196, since we are the audience (13) for whom it was meant, you could see that we are here on scientific inquiry that has big implications."

Commander Harper replied, "yeah, what John said. That's (contraction, 14) a confirmation (15) of our mission: we are here on scientific inquiry with big implications. It is not an understatement (16) that what we are doing is important, but, no need to make it some hyperbole (17) of purpose. The planet is like the moon of Saturn, Titan: It is an isolated wasteland (metaphor, 18) and our mission is as serious as a cat finding food in some desperate time (simile, 19).  It's about survival--life or death of the human race. Our mission can be thought of as a symbol (20) for how courageous and inventive humans are. We are on the edge of the solar system seeking to save the human race after all."

Captain Johnson alerted the crew: "Alright everybody, enough discussion about our mission. Marcus is done with coding the computer for the landing system, Get in your pods, we have a long day ahead of us approaching."

--TO BE CONTINUED--

GMOs

Pro:
-nearly all foods are gmo, and no negative effects have been recorded so far
-foods can be more hardy and resistant, bigger crop yields
-more efficient use of resources
-artificial selection has been around for a long time

Con:
-breeding weed-resistant plants may produce super-weeds/ "GMO" weeds
-GMOs still take just as long to mature as non GMOs
-GMOs could be crossed with allergens that people are not aware of

Blog Post for 10/30

The strategies involved for fight club have their roots in critical thinking/analysis. One has to look at both sides of the issue and investigate the existing valid points that one could use for an argument. What this means is one has to look into how one's argument could be countered and therefore, how to respond to those counters. Another strategy is being aware and properly addressing the audience. This is part of critical thinking because one has to "analyze" their audience in order to appropriately cater their rhetoric to their audience.

Once one has an understanding of these concepts, one can implement them into their papers. Personally, when I write, as a result of this critical thinking part of audience analysis, I have been more conscientious of who my audience is and how I should cater my language to said audience. Having the experience of fight club has made it easier to know how to effectively communicate with my audience because I have had exposure to my primary audience.

However, there are some aspects that remain challenging. For example, it is difficult to find a myriad of supporting points for some arguments and when I have to argue a certain position yet there is not much substance to it, I have learned to make the best with what I have got, but the struggle is trying to make a great argument out of something that inherently does not provide much of a platform to do so.

Also, regarding papers, it is often difficult to explain certain things because reading the example off of a page is one thing, but hearing it in person over direct communication is more effective and therefore easier to understand. Also, if any confusion exists, it is much easier to clarify it in person than over writing.

FIGHT CLUB 10/29/15 Heavyweight champ Loftus versus Underdog Czelusniak, Who Wins?

Anna Czelusniak

Stance: "Don't flip the switch, 1 person lives 5 die", "let the majority die"

Points

• You don't know what that one person can offer. That person may be young and have a future versus older people who do not have as long to live
• It isn't moral to kill more people to save one life because that one life has equal value as the others
• You have to think about it from the perspective of the long-term, you have to consider their ages and health status
• If the 5 people were a family, none of the family would have to suffer from the loss of their other family members
• One person that you know versus if the other 5 people are strangers, the one person is more important because people die everyday that you don't know
• You don't know if the homeless people would amount to anything and they have the least to lose. 

Meghan Loftus

Stance: "Flip the switch, 1 dies 5 live", "Let the majority live"

Points

• Saving a higher number of people means statistically you're potentially saving somebody with more potential
• It is the morally right thing to do because you are saving more lives and is a selfless act that shows true dedication and compassion for others
• According to religion (the bible), God says it is the right thing to do
• If one man has three useful organs that three children need, along similar lines as stated above, it is moral and just because three lives would be saved that have a longer life to live
• Long-term "if the people aren't like, important, statistically they could live to have families that produce successful people."  
• Yet, if the family was to all die, the extended family would be left to mourn, the sorrow is unavoidable 
• That is a selfish way of looking at it because every life has value
• The person who dies would die an honorable and prideful death 
• If it were 5 homeless people with no job, no family, no house, etc., you should save them because this life-changing experience will motivate them to make something of their life because it is a gift that they would treasure forever. 

The Complexities of Addiction

     Everybody has learned of and about the effects of addiction. Addiction, whether it be one of drugs, alcohol, pornography, or gambling, has noxious effects on the addict and those affiliated with said addict. These effects are seen all throughout society and are quite costly economically. Furthermore, more so for the individual, these effects are toxic because the addict must have their need of substance of choice met or they go into withdrawal; they have a dependency on it; their body needs it to function. This means that it is incredibly difficult to overcome an addiction. Consider this article written by Dr. Alan Brody, for example (Graff, 136). Dr. Brody states his main argument that, "I believe that understanding addiction requires appreciating elements of that model [The Willingness Model] as well as conceiving of addiction as a disorder involving a compulsive process which undermines the ability to regulate one’s behavior" (Brody). I agree that addiction is a disease of the brain that undermines one's ability to have an appropriate level of self control because recent research confirms this as well as examples stated in Dr. Brody's article (Graff, 62). 

     To take a case in point, observe what Dr. Brody discussed in his article (Graff, 136): "Addiction undermines the person’s self-regulation, true. But it also undermines their ability to accurately assess their problem’s seriousness as it repetitively generates a willingness or motivation for acting in violation of their most important preferences, even knowingly" (Brody). What Dr. Brody is saying here is that because of addiction, one's brain redirects its neuronal pathways which in turn impede with the ability to maintain a sense of self control and assess the severity of one's problems (135).  While the article may not explicitly state this fact, this is what is happening. The pre-frontal cortex of the frontal lobe of the brain is one of the anatomical structures that plays a part in making good choices. Due to addiction, these neuron pathways get rewired and in turn, do not function the way they are supposed to. This can be seen when Dr. Brody states, "For instance, many smokers would prefer not to smoke. They believe that smoking is bad for them, and often express their preference not to smoke, perhaps just before lighting up. These addicts know that they are failing to enact their preference, and they do not intellectually sanction their akratic acts, even though they have intentionally engaged in them" (Brody). This quote highlights this claim of redirecting cranial pathways by showing the example of the smoker. The smoker prefers not to smoke and knows it is bad for them, thus their prefrontal cortex is trying to do its job and tell the person "do not light and smoke that nasty carcinogen," but due to addiction and its effects, these neuronal pathways are not functioning the way they are supposed to which leaves the smoker to succumb to the urge to smoke.  

     As Dr. Brody says, "Addiction is not just a condition made up of a bunch of weak-willed acts" (Brody). Addiction is a disease of the mind. It is incredibly hard to overcome due to psychological and physiological factors. The effects of addiction spread far and wide meaning people as a whole have to support efforts to battle addiction. It is not an individual's problem, it is a societal problem that needs to be addressed. 

Brody, Alan. "Addicts, Mythmakers, and Philosophers." Philosophy Now. Philosophy Now:     

           2012. Web. 16 Oct. 2015.

Graff, Gerald, Cathy Birkenstein, and Russel Durst. They Say I Say. New York: W.W. Norton

           & Company, Inc., 2015. Print.

What is Original? Fight Club

Pro- There is no originality

Con- There is true originality


Pro Arguments- Matt Graham

• There will always be a source. For instance, the podcast raises many valid points.  
• Bob Dillon borrowed 2/3 of his melodies from other artists. This is called "sampling". 
• The "riff" from Free Bird came from the song Torus by Spirit. 
• Steve Jobs inventions with multi-touch weren't incredible. 
• In fashion, there are very few property rights. 
• The Big Bang was original but there is math that contradicts those theory. 
• These examples came about because these people's ideas were inspired from somewhere else, whether it was intentional or not. 
• Every choice that someone makes is influenced by someone else. 

Con Arguments- Matthew Gottsaker

• When you expand upon something, you are transforming something and building off of it. Even though it is originally from somewhere else people's inputs are original and so are the changes they created. 
• For example, when Bob Dillon sampled his songs, he created a new environment with the riff and thus created his own original work. His work is greatly appreciated today, even though people know it is unoriginal.  
• Ideas are meant to be expanded on, thus there is true originality. 
• As long as you credit the original creator, it gives you the right to expand of their ideas. 
• With the multi-touch technology, it may not have been original but he expanded on it in his own way and revolutionized the concept which has impacted society immensly. 
• Ben Franklin never patented anything because he wanted people to build off of his ideas and in the end improve them. It is never a bad idea to have multiple points of view. 

Pro Counter- Matt Graham

• Ultimately, there are two types of originality There is completely original work, where the creator or inventor inspired his work from his own thoughts, and there is influenced originality where the creator was inspired by others work to create something new. 
• For example, when homo-erectus started to use tools in new and innovative ways, this was original which shows that everything started somewhere which proves the theory of originality. 
• The definition of original is more cultural. 

Con Counter- Matthew Gottsaker

• People tend to see that the only things that original are things that have a large impact on society. 
• This is a misconception, as those developments aren't any different then sampling the words "Hit it". Even though it is unoriginal those people had a whole new creative intention, which is original. 

"Water Buffalo!"--Here Come The Affirmative Action Police

One of my favorite pastimes is to read articles from either the New York Times or The Atlantic. I believe that these media agencies publish some high quality, thought provoking, and insightful and educational reads (and sometimes the satirical, funny read!) that help further my growth and understanding as a person and the world around me. This is very important to me; I wish to be an informed and secular human being. This is one reason I am at college. One day, as I was perusing my readings, I discovered a great article. Upon discovering the article, "The Coddling of The American Mind--How Trigger Warnings Are Hurting Mental Health On Campus" published by The Atlantic and written by Greg Lukianoff and Jonathan Haidt, I began to read this rather long, but very accurate proposal. This article discusses how "in the name of emotional well-being, college students are increasingly demanding protection from words and ideas they don't like" (Lukianoff, Haidt, 1). The primary argument of the article can be found on page 22 under the heading "What Can We Do Now?" and says, "Attempts to shield students from words, ideas, and people that might cause them emotional discomfort are bad for the students" (Lukianoff, Haidt, 22). This article is surely right about current college students being too coddled because, as some individuals may not be aware, recent studies have shown that American culture is becoming increasingly politically polarized, which in turn affects how a child grows up and is sheltered from the opposing ideological perspective, thus entering college where it is desired that one be protected from anything that conflicts with their views (Graff, 62). 

When it comes to the topic of college, most of us will readily agree that college is worth attending to further one's education and obtain a ticket to the middle class. Where this agreement usually ends however, is on the question of what should be taught and what should be censored but still provide a furthering of an education. Whereas some are convinced that anything containing a trigger warning should be censored, others maintain that just because it is a trigger warning, does not mean it should be banned (26). In support of the latter, the article even says regarding trigger warnings, "According to the most-basic tenets of psychology, the very idea of helping people with anxiety disorders avoid the things they fear is misguided" (Lukianoff, Haidt, 16). I am thinking of the book by Mark Twain, "The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn." This book has received an inordinate amount of criticism solely because it features the word, "nigger" in its text. This has resulted in it being banned from reading list of several schools, because of people who take the word out of context and claim the book is racist based on their trigger warning. However, this is highly inappropriate. The book was banned due to people raised with a sense of vindictive protectiveness and use emotional reasoning as their source of generating opinions. This is to serve as an example of how coddled some college students are in the fact they have a problem reading a book published over 100 years ago that is considered a timeless classic, solely because it features n-word. How is one student supposed to develop a secular view and understanding of history if one of their english books is banned because it could potentially offense somebody whose psyche is as fragile as a piece of glass?

Another reason I have to agree that current college students are too pampered and that universities should put a stop to this behavior is that too many people are graduating college without critical thinking skills. In other words, what I'm trying to get at here is that too many people are developing emotional reasoning instead of critical thinking (Graff, 166). This distinction is important because one prepares you for the working world, one does not (166). College is not just about preparing for the real world, it involves growing both socially and mentally. But that is not to say that one reason college (as an institution) exists is to help train students how to think critically: a skill desired in the working world. Unfortunately, universities have been condoning such behavior (censoring what is being taught in the classrooms and teaching emotional reasoning--whether intentional or not) that negatively affects the students. Because these children coming from Baby Boomer parents have been more sheltered, they have been raised to look out for any sign of microaggression and tend to have a psyche made of thin glass. These children then grow up and become more polarized in their views and then attend college. At these colleges, these coddled children attend, they will make a mountain out of a mole-hill regarding any issues and when defending their viewpoints, use what on which they have been raised: emotional reasoning. The article put it quite nicely, "Emotional reasoning dominates many campus debates and discussions. A claim that someone's own words are 'offensive' is not just an expression of one's own subjective feeling of offendedness. It is, rather, a public charge that the speaker has done something objectively wrong. It is a demand that the speaker apologize or be punished by some authority for committing an offense" (Lukianoff, Haidt, 11). However, the real world demands logical, valid arguments when proving oneself. In a court of law, one does not use emotional reasoning to validate one's argument, that would be inanely childish. But this is what is being taught at our universities: that emotional reasoning is a good skill! When people use emotional reasoning in their arguments (which violates classicist argumentative ideology), they are not using the critical thinking skills that they should be learning in college, instead, they are becoming ill-prepared for the real world and influencing what universities teach in their classes. 

I read this article and rejoiced; I said to myself, "Finally! this issue is being realized!" I am a person who tends to think critically and having grown up and been exposed to this sense of vindictive protectiveness, bothers me because it does not sponsor quality, high level thought. The fact that colleges are having to play the political game and instead of teaching students to think in a Socratic manner, to avoid getting in trouble, they are encouraging their students to be shielded from discomforting ideas and use emotional reasoning which poorly prepares these students for what is expected of them upon graduation. Maybe one day, people will wake up and this attitude of being sheltered will go away for the betterment of society and university students. 

Graff, Gerald, Cathy Birkenstein, and Russel Durst. They Say / I Say. 3rd ed. New York: W.W. Norton, 2015. Print.

Lukianoff, Greg, and Jonathon Haidt. "The Coddling of the American Mind." The Atlantic. Atlantic Media Company, 10 Aug. 2015. Web. 10 Oct. 2015.

John Lennon Versus Ozzy Osbourne: In My Life

The song "In My Life" by The Beatles is one of the world's most famous, and recognizable songs to have ever been produced. As such, many people have covered the song. One famous individual (and my personal favorite singer) is Ozzy Osbourne. Ozzy is not all hard rock and roll, he enjoys some more sentimental songs as well (and loves The Beatles). However, between each version of the song, while the meaning of the song stays the same, the context of the song is different and each song conveys the message of the song in a different manner. 

When comparing the original version of the song to the cover by Ozzy Osbourne, the main message is the same but the differences between the two serve to convey the meaning to different situations. These circumstantial differences can be seen by analyzing the lyrics and sound of each version. To start, I'd like to talk about some of the differences between the sounds of each version (since the lyrics are the control variable). In the original version of the song, the key of the song is in A major (a bright, romantic key) with a moderato tempo of roughly 108 bpm. These factors make the song a more lively and bright song that somebody could dance to. Regardless of the lyrics, the song will carry this kind of connotation due to these musical factors. This is especially true for the solo in the bridge of the song; the solo carries a very baroque tone of something resembling a courante due to the sound of the triple meter accents the solo carries that people in the baroque era would dance to. 

Ozzy Osbourne's cover takes this bright, royal, baroque sounding piece of music and transforms it into something (still highly worth listening to) slightly different, still conveying the same message (more on that later), but for a different circumstance due to the tonal differences from the original. To begin, Ozzy Osbourne's cover takes the original song and modulates the key from A major to a less bright, more sentimental key of G flat major (typically, keys that have more flats in them are more sentimental in nature) and slows the song to an adagio tempo. This makes the song (again, regardless of lyrics) more sentimental and relaxing--not upbeat and something one could lively dance to. The solo in the bridge still maintains a sense of baroque styling, but more so resembling an allemande, instead of a lively courante. 

Now that the musical aspects of the song have been discussed, before I establish the contextual part that differentiates the two versions, I will touch upon the meaning of the song that is universal regardless of which version one listens to. The song is about somebody very dear and special to the singer and thus the song is devoted to that person. This is established by the comparison between the first and second verse. The singer demonstrates his love for this person the song is devoted to by comparing his past (the first verse) with the present (second verse). The first verse establishes the singer has many memories and has traveled to many places and experienced a lot of change, and there is love in all of this. This is supported by the lyrics which include "There are places I remember/All my life, though some have changed/Some forever not for better/Some are dead and some are living/In my life I've loved them all." These lyrics then lead way to the second verse which says that the singer places his love for this individual person above all the love he has had for the memories, experience, and change stated in the first verse. Specifically, if one looks at these lyrics (taken from the second verse of the song), "But of all these friends and lovers/there is no one compares with you/I know I'll often stop and think about them/In my life I love you more." Now that this has been established, we can begin to investigate the contextual differences and how each meaning is conveyed through each version by looking at the lyrics and musical aspects in duo. 

The original has a different context to it because it was written by John Lennon and was intended for his wife he had at the time. He conveys his happiness, satisfaction, and love for his wife by keeping the song upbeat and in a bright, happy key of A major. This then in turn affects how he sings the lyrics of the song. Specifically, in the second verse, when he sings, "But of all these friends and lovers/there is no one compares with you," there is a light, airy tone to his voice that is accentuated by the upbeat rhythm to the song. Through this, Lennon conveys the meaning of the song to his audience's ears. 

However, when Ozzy Osbourne sings these lyrics from "In My Life," considering the different musical aspects discussed earlier, this meaning (though the same) is conveyed differently and is devoted for a different audience. Because Ozzy is covering the song, the song cannot be inherently about his wife, Sharon, instead, for Ozzy, the song is devoted to his loving and supporting fans who have helped him experience the myriad of success he has had despite some of the slip-ups he's had in life. Taking the same line from the second verse, ("But of all these friends and lovers/there is no one compares with you") Ozzy conveys his gratitude towards his fan (the meaning of the song, but applied to his fans) with a different tonal character. Ozzy sings these lyrics with a much deeper sounding, slower, more powerful tone that in turn roots and embeds the meaning of the song into the audience's ears. 

Both versions of the song are quite beautiful in their own regard. They share the same meaning but the contextual difference between them is for whom the song is intended. With John Lennon singing it, the song is meant for his wife. With Ozzy Osbourne singing the song, it is for his fans. At the same time, the meaning is conveyed and interpreted by the musical aspects of the song. One is more lively and upbeat, while the other is more sentimental and adagio in nature. The message is conveyed effectively through the musical aspects and is clear to the audience as a result, despite the differences between each version.

Personally, I prefer the cover by Ozzy Osbourne because I am a huge fan of his music and really like the key of the song combined with the allemande baroque feel. I highly encourage anybody reading this to listen to each because both are wonderful and convey the same meaning, but in different contexts, which makes each version interesting in their own light. 

The Quarrelsome Queen City

When I think of an argument culture, my hometown of Cincinnati immediately comes to mind. People in this city argue (for the most part) over some pretty trivial things. Native Cincinnati dwellers will argue over whether the west side or east side of the city is better, who has the best high school football team, whether gold star chili or skyline chili is better, or somehow get involved in an argument over the crappy sports that has plagued the city (The Reds did have a good streak a few years back but in general the Reds and Bengals are not the greatest of teams). For the most part, these arguments take place between friends and family. In the end though, these arguments do not accomplish anything but staunchly establish a viewpoint. 

Also, Cincinnati is a very political city; and at the same time, is a very traditional city. This city is rooted in family and catholic values which shapes many of the political views of its residents. If you are not catholic or have traditional views, even if facts are on your side, you will not win an argument (if you decide to waste energy on an argument with somebody of the opposing party) because it just turns into a heated dispute that ends with both sides not coming to any solution-- basically a political argument between a leftist and a rightist in Cincinnati very accurately portrays today's staggering political divide amongst the government and people as a whole. These arguments are not helpful, but rather detrimental. 

Despite living in a very argumentative city, I have never had a class or teacher that encourages discussing opposing points as a central theme of the class. Occasionally there would be a small opportunity as a part of the lesson plan, but that was quite rare. I had a class my freshman year of high school that involved researching a topic and having to support it against another group that was there to challenge my proposal, but other than those examples, I have never had a professor or class that actively encouraged challenging one's beliefs through dispute. This will change relatively soon though, as being a math major, I will begin to move into more abstract and proof based math (I can already hear the math of real analysis walking up to my doorstep). In these fields of math, I will be legitimately proving mathematical phenomena. From this, in an abstract sense, I will be encouraged by my professors to argue but not in the sense that is mostly thought of when somebody says "argue." I can see why professors might not encourage an argument in class, but I believe that part of growing involves stepping into unfamiliar territory and delving into something that makes one uncomfortable. Arguments can accomplish this and make us better as a whole, but sadly, a lot of times arguments turn hurtful and become fights, which accomplish nothing except inflicting pain and causing injury.

Like I said, Cincinnati is also a very religious city. I can say that from personal experience, people on the west side of the city can get very emotional and engaged in heated discussions about church related matters. I myself am not catholic (which means I either hide this identity or stick out like a sore thumb in the city) but know many people that are. Here is an example of a heated discussion I had to encounter when I was with my ex-girlfriend at one of her family's gargantuan family reunions (another thing for which Cincinnati is known: the entirety of one's family has a 513 area code). Some of her family (including her parents) were arguing about the history and current state of the church and asked me for an opinion to support one of them and I had to awkwardly say "oh, I am not catholic, I do not go to church." It was at that moment where it really hit me that I had said the wrong thing because I have never felt more judged by anybody ever than I did then. I'm pretty sure it was because I said this that my ex-girlfriend's mom hated me. This made me realize how intense some people are about political and church related matters in the city. I don't have any shame in the fact I am not catholic, but I believe that if one is so caught up in one's own beliefs and think poorly of others if they don't share those beliefs, that crosses the line. This argument I had to encounter was one that resulted (as far as I could tell) in nothing positive and only left me feeling annoyed that I was being judged because I don't go to church every Sunday. 

My immediate family only argues once in a blue moon, but some of the arguments that have taken place in my nuclear family lately have been about what is best for me regarding college and life. I am a very independent and forward thinking person who does not need the help of others often. I did the entire college application process on my own, managed my high school grades and time well, and I don't think I need the advice from my parents about careers. I know this can sound very arrogant but I am interested in the applications of mathematics and computer science in the world of banking--which my parents have no experience in, they're medical professionals. I realize my parents want what is only best for me, but lately we have been arguing over me dropping my finance major to be a math and computer science major with a minor in economics. I have tried to present facts and tell (it's mainly my mom, my dad just plays along to avoid conflict) my parents the myriad of reasons why I should study these fields but they don't want to have it. I am saving this battle for another day because they are paying for my college and many other things which I am incredibly grateful for, I realize I am a very fortunate kid and owe my parents more than a lifetime of repayment could offer. It is just frustrating when my mom ignores my rational argument for why I should study math and computer science. I also love math and it is slightly upsetting that they are hesitant to let me study what I truly enjoy doing. I want to use the skills I will learn from studying math, computer science, and economics to help me change lives (what my proposal is about) but I think this is something my parents have a hard time seeing; they can't see how I could use these skills to help improve people's lives. I'm sure everything in the end will turn out alright, but this is just another example/insight into the argumentative culture I am surrounded by. 

Fight Club 9/24: Against Meat

Pro: He should be a vegetarian

- He should be a vegetarian because he thinks it is a ethical choice for him to make and that it is also the right choice. 

- The grandma has her ethical beliefs as well. For example when the Russian butcher offered her meat she didn't take it because it was pork and thats against her religion. 

- Although he has good memories eating meat with his family he can create just as many good memories with a different type of food group.

- He will still be able to attend the tradition of going out for chicken and soup on Shabbat without eating then chicken because soup is also a part of the tradition. 

- Although he has gone all his life eating meat that doesn't mean its to late to stop. As for getting protein in your diet there are many different ways to do so. 

Con: He should not be a vegetarian

- Although the grandma believes eating all food that is offered is important because of her past. She is able to limits herself to not eating pork due to her religion but limiting yourself to all types of meat is a large range of food you would have to deny. 

- He has a lot of good memories revolving around meat and his family.

- They have a tradition of going to get chicken on Shabbat if he became a vegetarian he would not be able to eat the chicken as he normally would.

- He has gone all his life eating meat and receiving protein and has been well off.

Some Rhetorical Thought on The Life of Bobby Fischer: Pawn Sacrifice

When doing a rhetorical analysis on something, as stated in "Compose, Design, Advocate," one must first ask thyself "What is your initial sense of the text's purpse, audience, and context? That is, what do you think of its maker's statement of purpose is?"(316). This means that one of the first things a person must do upon performing a rhetorical analysis is think of the big picture, and question what the original purpose of the object was. Upon coming up with this "hypothesis" of inferred purpose, as said on the website of the writing center from Texas A&M University, one must go about testing one's hypothesis of purpose by conducting an "Artistic" or "Inartistic Proof" where one "encompasses the appeals [pathetic, ethical, and logical], canons . . . " While doing these proofs, aside from using appeals and canons, one must keep in mind certain questions like "What is the historical occasion that would give rise to the composition of this text?", "Who make up the audience?", and "Does the message/speech/text succeed in fulfilling the author's or speaker's intentions?" (Burton, BYU). I'll provide an example relating to popular hobby and a corresponding movie. 

Chess is my favorite game of all time. There are many reasons for this, but I believe there is a reason it has survived for more than 1500 years; it is a fun, yet intense game. Just like any other game or sport, there are famous names affiliated with chess. One of these is the name, "Bobby Fischer." Born in America, Bobby Fischer became the Muhammed Ali of chess during the 20th century. In the new theatrical release (directed by Edward Zwick and starring Tobey Maguire) "Pawn Sacrifice", the purpose is to inform viewers about the true story and life of Bobby Fischer and is shown by displaying Bobby's initial sense of passion and nationalism affiliated with the game that later turns into a career that derails his life. 

To begin, the first point to keep in mind is the purpose. As mentioned above, the purpose of this movie is to inform viewers of the life of Bobby Fischer. Also, one should brush up on some of the historical context pertaining to the film. This movie takes place during the cold war. At this time, chess was considered one way that rival countries could prove their superiority. For America, the heavyweight boxing champ of chess that fought all of its matches was Bobby Fischer. The cold war was a dark, and scary time in global history; this and the intensity affiliated with the game of chess and some aspects of Bobby's life bleed into the movie. This feeling of intensity can first be heard at the very beginning of the trailer with the dissonant, minor sounding music being played (0:14) and when the narrator describes the game of chess as "a rabbit hole" (0:17). However, after this part of the trailer ends, it picks up a lighter atmosphere and tone with new, lively swing music being played and demonstrating a young Bobby and his love and prodigal style of chess (0:31). The young chess god later states on an interview, "I want to play the Russians; they're the best in the world and I want to beat them all" (0:49). However, rather quickly, this sense of pride and love for the game quickly takes a 180 degree turn south and nosedives into a sense of despair, paranoia, and darkness. This is seen when a priest says "Bobby has problems" supported by intense, dreadful music (1:32). At 1:37, Bobby is seen walking through a crowd of people with a bag over his head; the stress of the game for the standing of american superiority is starting to take its visible toll on Bobby. His delusional thinking is even more outstanding at 1:54 when he says "They're all out to screw me! The Russians, the jews!" This sense of intensity that is building through the whole trailer climaxes when somebody says "Bobby won't crack, he'll explode" (2:22). The trailer then proceeds to end on a dramatic tone playing to the viewer's pathetic appeal making the viewer want to see the movie. 

Being a huge fan of the game, I am biased because upon hearing this movie coming out (and with an actor like Tobey Maguire) I was already planning on seeing it, but this trailer wants to make me see it even more. This trailer not only reaches out to chess fans though, it reaches to a larger audience. From a logical appeal, it has to do so in order for it to make enough profit but aside from this, the overall theme of this movie appeals to more than just chess fans, but anybody with a sense of competition. It carries very much an underdog storyline to it and if anybody is a fan of such a storyline, they will desire to see this movie. The only way the last question of "Does the message/speech/text succeed in fulfilling the author's or speaker's intentions?"can be answered is by paying some money to see a fantastic movie. 

Burton, Gideon. "Basic Questions for Rhetorical Analysis." Basic Questions for Rhetorical Analysis. BYU. Web. 19 Sept. 2015.

"Pawn Sacrifice." IMDb. IMDb.com, 18 Sept. 2015. Web. 18 Sept. 2015. 

"University Writing Center - Rhetorical Analysis." University Writing Center - Rhetorical Analysis. Texas A&M University, n.d. Web. 18 Sept. 2015. <http://writingcenter.tamu.edu/Students/Handouts-Guides/Guides-(What-Are-You-Writing-)/Academic-Writing/Analysis/Rhetorical-Analysis>.


Wysocki, Anne Frances, and Dennis A. Lynch. Compose, Design, Advocate: A Rhetoric for Integrating Written, Visual, and Oral Communication. New York: Longman, 2007. Print.