Too naked

I came across this ad by PETA and was pretty shocked by it. I know that PETA is known for the shock value advertisements, but this one did not make much sense to me. Usually their advertisements with naked people on them are contributing to their anti-fur argument campaign which makes sense. However, this advertisement is making the argument that circuses should be boycotted and puts a naked lady on it. In small print above the main message it displays the grounds for the argument. It says, "As nature intended let elephants be free". I guess this makes sense but it is a bit of a stretch in my opinion. I had to think about it for a bit to make the connection. I feel like they were just looking for an excuse to put a naked person on their billboard to help their argument, but instead it made their argument weaker because it looks desperate.

Class Partner Debates

In class we have been doing our final partner debates. Last week, one group was debating whether or not college athletes should be able to use performance enhancing drugs. One side made the proposition that they should remain illegal with the grounds that they are unsafe and that it evens the playing field. Because these PEDs are expensive, not all college athletes who are paying for college and other expenses can afford them, giving them a huge disadvantage compared to those who can. Each side had great arguments, but at one point one side compared college sports to gladiator events and the slaughtering of Christians. Although this side had the most compelling arguments and this comparison was meant to provide the audience with an analogy of their point, this exaggeration, in my opinion, came off as a little bit desperate and took away some of the effectiveness of their argument. 

Final Blog Post

From the start of the semester, my views regarding argumentation and debate in our culture have completely transformed. I learned that there is an argument in almost everything that we encounter in life, and that some arguments are significantly stronger and more effective than others.

Personally, throughout this course I have found that minds can be changed most effectively by utilizing a Logos and Pathos appeal. Because humans are such emotional beings, adding emotional concerns to an argument can definitely sway most audiences. Facts and statistics in the Logos appeal is also extremely effective. It is hard for an audience to argue with facts. I have also found that our culture has transformed into a VERY visual culture. People like to see creative, pretty, and exciting images and it plays a ridiculous role in how we process messages. People focus more on the image rather than the importance of the message. Much of this can be attributed to the heavy use of social media and how it has opened many opportunities for various methods of arguing.

I also learned about the power dynamics behind argumentation. Giant corporations and other people of power tend to be experts in using argumentation as a tool to control others. In my opinion, it definitely has the capacity to change the world. For example, the Uncle Sam “I Want You to Join the U.S. Army” posters. This argument convinced so many young men to enlist and sacrifice their lives during a time of war.

The more I analyzed arguments throughout the semester, the more I developed by ability to dissect the arguments and determine their effectiveness and appeal with particular audiences. Now it is impossible for me to look at anything without over-analyzing the argument they are making, the strength of their argument, and what their target audience most likely is. It is definitely annoying (especially for my friends), but entertaining nonetheless. 

Alcohol=Fun?

I saw this image while spending time on Reddit and immediately noticed the argument that the creator was trying to make. In the picture, there is a bottle of vodka pouring onto a city. The area where the liquid is hitting the city looks like a party while the areas where there is no alcohol look dark and boring. The text says "Just Add Vodka", making the argument that one only has to drink vodka in order to have fun.

This ad bothered me because I completely disagree that alcohol is needed in order to have a good time. However, this is an effective argument because is appeals to everyone's desire to have a good time. There is this stigma that alcohol makes situations more fun and consumers will see that when viewing this ad for vodka. Although many could debate that alcohol is not required to have fun (I have been in multiple situations where too much vodka/liquor can make a situation WAY less fun), it is a very creative, interesting, and effective advertisement for this vodka brand. 

Thinner than ever

I saw this ad on the internet and it made me so sad. This ad contains a hand holding an iPad and a small malnourished boy reaching out for it. I found that this ad makes an interesting argument and uses many compelling and controversial aspects to make this argument compelling. I feel that the argument being made in this image is that people should be more concerned with bigger issues like world hunger than with popular material things. This image uses the phrase "thinner than ever" to link the newest slim iPad to people who are starving to death.

One thing I found interesting is that the hand holding the iPad in the image is white. This adds to the idea that white American people are rich and greedy while people of color are poor and hungry. I found that although this argument might make generalizations and stereotype, it was very strong. This uses the pathos appeal by including an image of a starving small child. So many people own iPads and other Apple products and get caught up in material things while forgetting the real concerns of the world around them.

Blog Post 9: Debate

I watched the democratic debate on October 13. Many candidates made many arguments throughout the debate. Bernie Sanders argued that America should learn from Denmark and Norway regarding healthcare and adjust its healthcare system to be more socialist. He said that because those systems worked for those countries why won't they work for the United States? O'Malley made the argument that more gun regulations should be passed and used the story of a family who's child was murdered by guns acquired illegally to create pathos for his argument. Although O'Malley made many valid points, he often resorted to the pathos appeal when logos or ethos might make his arguments more effective.

I noticed Hillary dodging the question in many situations. When she was asked a more uncomfortable question such as one about Bengazi and other situations, she twisted the discussion to a topic that she was more comfortable with, using the fallacy of obfuscation. This caused her arguments to be less effective and for her to be a weaker contender in the debate. She also made an unsubstantiated claim when she said that the economy is better when a Democrat is in office. This is an untrue statement and was said without any evidence or reason. This was an untrue assumption that was very misleading for the audience.

Snowden vs. John Oliver

In my COMM 340 class (Comm. and Popular Culture) this morning, we were discussing the topic of government surveillance. I found this interesting because our class just debated this issue. In class, we watched a video clip of John Oliver interviewing Snowden in Russia (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XEVlyP4_11M). Although it was mainly just a conversation between the two, John Oliver begins to discuss the implications of Snowden leaking information about NSA surveillance. Oliver makes the proposition that the information that Snowden leaked put American lives at risk. Snowden on the other hand defended himself by saying that he was justified in sharing that information with the grounds that no one is ever really free from risk and that the world deserved to know the truth. I then realized that it was interesting that no one in our class debate brought up Snowden and his leak.

Oliver was able to successfully debate with Snowden because he actually listened to Snowden while asking all the right questions. He remained level-headed and calm throughout the conversation, making his arguments even more effective for the audience. Sometimes, those arguing tend to get heated and portray frustration in their argument, causing them to lose their credibility (ethos). Using humor to appeal to the audience, John Oliver is able to make an effective argument against Snowden's actions while maintaining a civil, refreshing, and hilarious conversation.