Skateboarding

David Langley uses similar arguing techniques as Michael Levin. He provides sitations in which most people would have to aggree with him, but also makes some assumptions that others may not share.

In the first line of paragraph 9, Langley writes, "Of course, most adults probably don't think skateboarders deserve to be treated fairly." Although there may be some adults who believe this, for most that wouldn't be a conscious opinion. The primary concern on the adults' minds would probably be saftey, for both the skater and other pedestrians. Langley does not once acknowledge safety outside of his descriptions of skate parks. Something that weakens his argument is the fact that he has made the assumption that the only reason adults object to skateboarding is because they think all skaters are "half-criminals."

When describing the benefits that skating brings to society, he writes based on the assumption that all skaters will use their boards as foremost main form of transportation. Yes, skateboarding is cleaner than driving a car, but perhaps the person will only use his skateboard when practicing. If he uses his car at all other times, he's not done any good for the enviornment.

Like Levin, Langley twists the argument to show how the only bad guy is the person who disaggrees with him. In the last paragraph, he writes, "Here's how cities can treat us fairly." This implies that the cities are the only ones who need to improve. He completely ignores the fact that skaters can be responsible for damage, too. What makes his argument stronger than Levin's is that he used a real, personal situation rather than a hypothetical one. He was able to reason that the cities have a need to change now, where Levin writes that there may be a future sitution in which torture may be a feasible course of action.

Pseudo-Arguments

The book describes multiple forms of pseudo-arguments, and I have to say I've had experience with all of them. In particular, I have intentionally put myself into the position of fanatical skeptic on multiple occations. For three years in middle school, I argued with a friend about whether or not a tree falling in the middle of the woods would make a sound if there were no one there to hear it. Cliche? Yup. Pointless? I guess. We didn't really have anything else worth talking about. With another friend, I argued whether or not I existed. I'm pretty sure that I do exist, but there's really no way of proving it. I find watching other people trying to prove what cannot be proven entertaining.

Because I do this so often, it's hard for me to imagine a fanatical skeptic who truly believes in what he is arguing. However, I have encountered many honest fanatical believers. Unfortunately, I think that I draw the fanatical believer out of people when I'm being the obnoxious skeptic. Typically, a fanatical believer does not expose himself as such until the other arguer makes a point that the believer can't find or doesn't want to think of a point against. Parental arguments that climax with, "Because I said so," are good examples of this. The most common one I deal with is when it's 7:30 pm and homework is done.
"Mom, can **name** come over tonight?"
"No."
"Why?"
"Because I said so."

Pseudo-arguments are probably more common than real arguments in the teenage world.

Pathos

Pathos is a powerful rhetorical device because emotions can often be far stronger than facts. If you were to hear on the news, "There was a fatal car crash on 86th Street caused by a drunk driver," it would probably not induce the same feelings as, "A wife and mother of two was killed in a crash because of a drunk driver." The latter would make you feel the need to prevent drunk driving more strongly because it has caught your sympathies.

Most people see raw facts as boring and will often skim over them. By connecting to pathos, the person presenting the argument draws the reader in and allows him to be more deeply engaged in the argument. The reader has a reason to become involved with the writer because he feels a connection. Connecting to pathos encourages the reader to think more deeply about what is being said in the argument, which is more effective in cooperative inquiry. The reader will form his or her own opinions based of what he has read. It also is beneficial if trying to pursuade the reader to seeing your side of the argument because he will sympathize with your views.

Torture

Torture should not be legal under any circumstances. Although Michael Levin writes a convincing argument, he was able to do so by over-simplifying situations and results. Capturing someone who is known to have all information about the attacks is highly unlikely, and if (s)he did, he would probably be important enough to the operation to either withstand the torture or lie. The entire argument is writen under the assumption that everything will work according to plan.

Even if a line is drawn on where torture is no longer an option, to torture one person will set a precedent. It has been proven that when a society first allows something like this, everyone follows prodedure, but over time the line begins to stretch. Eventually there is little to no discretion when it comes to utilizing brutal and unconstitutional methods of extracting information.

There isn't a guaruntee of catching the right person. It's unlikely that we'd even be able to narrow it down to ten people. So what do we do with those extra nine? Personally, I'd rather die than live knowing that my survival is directly the cause of the suffering of nine innocents at the hands of my government.

Levin describes not being willing to "dirty their hands" as cowardice, but I disagree. Only a coward has the guts to torture a defenseless person, no matter how evil the victim is.

Biotechnology Foods

Genetically modifying foods is neither healthy nor necessary, and all genetically modified foods should be labeled. Natural selection has allowed the plants we eat today to survive for as long as humans have; there's a reason that they are the way that they are. Today, we pump hundreds of unnatural chemicals into our bodies every day, but for the most part, these chemicals are listed on the labels. Although it is said that these are tested for safety, none of the arguments specify in what amounts and for how long. It is also unclear whether or not they tested for adverse effects in pregnant mothers and new babies. Hormones in cows were said to be harmless, but in young girls particularly, drinking the milk has been proven to cause rapid growth and development, as well as early menstration.

The "Focusing Debate" argument on page 42 brings up the fact that there are many starving people in the world. Right now, we use up more of agricultural industry in maintaining the meat industry than we do in feeding ourselves. It takes more energy to produce half a pound of beef than it does to feed a family of five a full vegetarian meal. If feeding the starving people of the world were really a priority, reducing the meat industry would be far more effective than using biotechnology foods.

That biotechnology should be used to increase health values of foods is a sad statement for American society. If people ate healthy, blanced diets, there would be no need for increased vitamins or decreased saturated fat. Besides, biotechnology being used to decrease things like saturated fats is actually less healthy than eating the saturated fats. A saturated fat is a hydrocarbon chain with its maximum amount of hydrogen, which is what allows it to retain a solid form at room temperature. An unsaturated fat is also a hydrocarbon chain, but it is missing some hydrogens. To reduce saturated fat, hydrogen is added to unsaturated fat, indroducing trans fats.

The very fact that people are worried about people not wanting to buy products that have a biotechnoloy label on them indicates that there is a reason to be worried. This sounds like an argument used by big business to avoid a decrease in sales. As consumers, we have the right to know what we are buying and into whose pockets the profits are going into.

Argument Genre Comparison

The cartoon on page 1 and the ad on page 24 depict two very different points of view. Both are effective, but how effective they are depends on the audience.

The cartoon shows a fat man telling a starving man not to consume the genetically modified food. To a glancing reader, this would probably have more impact than the advertisement. It makes the point in a very concise manner, and it is designed to pull on the heartstrings of the sympathetic. Regardless of my own opinions of genetically modified food, this certainly caught my attention. In trying to pusuade an audience, the chosen genre is excellent if targeting the fast-paced American. However, the argument is also hurt by the genre. It fails to acknowledge the gray area in the argument, using exclusively pursuasive arguments, rather than truth seeking. When faced with a situation of giving a man genetically altered food or letting him starve, no one would even stop to think about it. It's not a practical way to end world hunger, but that's an entirely new argument. A person who would pause to think about the cartoon would realize this, and it would suddenly lose much of its meaning.

The ad also suffers from the problem the cartoon has; its content is rooted exclusively in a sinle opinion. However, it does give more evidence to its cause than the cartoon does. The photo draws attention from passer-bys, and the brief article beneath it succinctly summarizes the agenda of whoever posted the ad.

Although both genres are primarily pursuasive arguments, the ad is more pursuasive because it presents the information in a way that makes it appear as though it has more truthful evidence. Whether it is more truthful is debatable, but it is more likely to alter peoples' opinions because of how the information is presented.

Implicit and Explicit Arguments

I would argue that implicit arguments are more powerful than explicit arguments. An explicit argument blatantly says, "It is bad to die for your country," or "It is good to die for your country." Although its point is clear, it lacks the subtlety and emotion that can be portrayed in an implicit argument.

The poem on pages 5 and 6 shows the audience how wretched it is to be in war. The audience is allowed a glimse of how similar being sent to war is to being sent to the slaughterhouse by your country. In the photo on page 5, the audience feels pride in their country and sees the glory and dignity of a uniform.

What these have in common is that they both draw on peoples' emotions. Although the saying is that knowledge is power, I believe that emotions are far more powerful than understanding. When recruiting fresh blood to go to war, the army doesn't use facts; they use images of honor and prestige. Whether the actions are noble or not is irrelevent if the young perceive them to be.

In psychology, we discussed the power of the subconcious. Both men and women are more likely to buy a car if the advertisement shows a pretty girl in it. For the most part, both genders will deny it, but it's true. Implicit arguments work the same way. People will be drawn to a photo depicting the honor of patriotism, and they will feel pain when reading a poem depicting the horrors of war. However, if you were simply told, "There is glory to be had in fighting for one's country," a normal response would probably be, "Why?" If you showed that same person the photo on page 5, there would be no question. The photo says all that needs to be said.