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.

Extra: The most emotional gum on the planet

I'm sure you have seen the new Extra gum commercial that was released about a month ago (If not, here is the link https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XLpDiIVX0Wo).  The commercial consists of a young couple in high school and depicts the journey of their relationship as they mature. They experience arguments, sweet moments, and moments when distance separates them, and each scene involves a piece of Extra gum. The boyfriend doodles memories on each gum wrapper and at the end of the commercial, the girlfriend comes home to each wrapper framed on the wall, each depicting a phase of their relationship and the boyfriend is at the end of this hall on one knee. Adorable right? And to top it off, the song in the commercial is "Can't Help Falling in Love" by Haley Reinhart. This song is perfect to set the mood and tone for telling this story. Although I've seen this ad multiple times, I recently realized that it contained an argument. The creators of this advertisement utilize the ethos appeal to attract the audience (especially a female audience) when they use the song and love story in order to make the argument that consumers should buy Extra gum. They argue that this gum was a key player in their romantic relationship. The appeals used in this commercial are a huge play for Extra. They are getting more publicity than they have in a while because they were able to make an effective argument in a commercial that makes almost everyone in the audience cry.

Too scary?

I found this ad on the internet this morning that has been used in New Zealand. Looks normal right? At first I was extremely confused because it just contains an image of a little boy and a message warning drivers to be cautious when the roads are wet. After I read more about the advertisement, I was a little terrified to find that when it rains, the image turns red so that it looks like blood. This advertisement makes the argument that drivers must accommodate their driving tactics to the weather on the grounds that rain changes the road conditions. They use the bloody image of this little boy to convey the pathos in order to convince the drivers to adjust their behavior. Car accidents cause thousands of deaths each year, and I believe that this is a realistic argument. Many times things that the public is exposed to are sugar-coated and censored, and having an advertisement that stresses the danger of driving in the rain is effective, even if it might be a little on the violent side.

Sex Sells

When we did our ethical argument regarding advertisements, a lot of students in the classroom brought up the point that sex sells. Many of the advertisements that were discussed had some sort of sexual aspect to it. A week or so after the assignment, I saw this billboard put up by Subway. it reads "SEX!!" in all capital letters at the top, then below in small letters it says "Now that we have our attention, eat at subway". This advertisement confirms all the discussions we had in class. As I glanced around, the word sex absolutely stood out to me and caught my attention. As a result, I was thinking about Subway all day and how they were using the word sex to sell sandwiches. Even though it is not a very appropriate advertisement, it contains that shock factor that causes it to be an effective advertisement.

Blog Post #8: Film Viewing

For this blog post, I decided to watch Super Size Me. I had seen the film before, but decided to watch it again so I could be more aware of the arguments in the film. It makes the argument that people should not eat at unhealthy fast food chains based on the grounds that it has a negative effect on physical and mental health. Spurlock also makes the claim that Fast food chains are heavily influenced by corporate entities and encourage poor nutrition for its own profit. They make this argument through experimental methods. In Super Size Me, a man named Morgan Spurlock follows a 30 day period during which he eats only McDonald's food. During this time he gains 24 pounds, experienced a 13% BMI increase, his cholesterol increases to 230 mg/dL, and suffers mentally with mood swings and other experiences.

The creators of this film use a heavy logos appeal with hard evidence and statistics to support their argument that people should refrain from eating unhealthy fast food restaurants. He also uses a strong Ethos appeal (credibility) because he does the experiment himself and portrays the consequences on video, giving him a lot of credibility in the eyes of the viewer.

One fallacy that could be seen in this film's argument is that Spurlock did not exercise and that eating three reasonable fast-food meals a day could not add up to 5,000 calories like Spurlock claimed. Some have argued that anyone who does not exercise is bound to suffer the consequences that he experienced.

In my opinion, This movie was effective in making this argument. It showed the audience the effect that fast food can have on ones body and encourages healthier lifestyles. Although some people claim that this film was exaggerated, there is no arguing against the fact that fast food is not healthy.

Cancer Cures Smoking

I saw this photo posted on Facebook and thought that it made a very interesting argument regarding tobacco use and cancer. Instead of stating the typical "smoking causes cancer" claim, the person who created the advertisement took a different approach by saying that "cancer cures smoking". This was very interesting because it argues that smoking is a disease that needs to be cured and cancer is the one fixing the problem. It is also a very effective claim because the topic of cancer conveys a pathos appeal for the audience. Cancer is such a widespread illness that almost everyone can relate to. Instead of saying "stop smoking because it causes cancer", they take a more creative and convicting approach insinuating that people only quit smoking once it is too late and that smoking is worse than cancer. It makes the argument that smokers should be proactive in breaking their habit instead of being reactive and quitting after the damage is done. I though this was a very thought provoking and smart argument to make and has a strong impact on the viewer.

Burrito Smackdown...

Last night I watched as two of my friends got into a heated debate about which restaurant is the best: Freebirds or Chipotle? I found their argument very different from the arguments that we have to make in class. They used claims like ______ is better because "the people are cooler" and "it just tastes better" and I found the grounds for their argument to be very weak. They could have strengthened their argument substantially if they would have said something like "Chipotle is healthier than Freebirds", "Freebirds is cheaper in cost", or "Chipotle is more environmentally friendly than Freebirds". They could have also incorporated a statistic Because of what I have learned in class this semester, I was able to recognize their weak arguments and claims and when I find myself in a situation I will remember to use strong/relevant support for my arguments.

Where is the best place to live?

I was reading an article in USA Today titled "50 Best Cities to Live In" (link below). The author made the value claim that Meridian, Idaho is the best place to live. Who on earth has ever heard of Meridian, Idaho?? I continued reading and the article made the claim that it was the best with the warrants that included that it was safe and there were many jobs available. This was extremely effective because everyone wants to live in a safe city and everyone wants to live somewhere where job opportunities are available. The author also supported this claim by providing a strong logos appeal with statistics regarding violent crime and employment statistics in the city. Although I was skeptical at first, the more I read the more I tossed around the idea that Meridian might be a good place to live (but I could never leave Texas). Due to the effective warrants and use of logos in this argument, the author was effective in convincing me that Meridian, Idaho is the best city to live in.

In case you were wondering... Here is a picture of Meridian, Idaho.

                      

Article Link:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2015/11/05/24-7-wall-st-best-cities-to-live-in/75177096/

Deport This

Drudge Report (drudgereport.com) is a website I check daily for the news. It has a very clear layout and the top stories/breaking news are always displayed at the top. Today when I went to the site, the main story was titled "Video: Potty Mouthed Kids Trash Trump". The link on the website took my to Youtube where I spent 2 minutes watching Latino children argue that Trump's stances on immigration are racist and will have devastating consequences. Although these kids are probably right in what they are saying, their method of arguing that was very interesting and somewhat shocking to me. The kids in the video make the claim that Trump will not be able to win the election unless he has the support of the Latino population. They also make the argument that Americans should not vote for or support him because of his discriminating perspectives (warrant). This is totally fine, but they decided to insert the shock value of  kids yelling at the camera and dropping f-bombs for the audience to hear. I believe -and I also think most American families might too- that it is very inappropriate for children to use that type of language. To me, it distracted from the point of the argument and destroyed any credibility (ethos) that the video could have had. In my opinion, they could have strengthened their argument by allowing the kids to calmly and sincerely stress their concerns regarding this nominee instead of yelling profanities and include more logos and pathos to appeal to their audience.