Group items tagged

Speling error.

Good quote.

everyday is missing an e

I like how you introduced each candidate. It makes the paper flow much better.

This paragraph is very short. It's a good point, but I think you can go into it further. You could do this by possibly giving another example.

This paragraph's length makes it one of the weaker points of the essay. It starts off with a good transition, but there is no evidence to support that what he stands for on issues.

I see where you're going with this paragraph, but I'm not sure if it's effective. I think that you need to explain individually in the paragraphs exactly what is an example of pathos, what is an example of ethos, and so on. Otherwise, I think it would be hard for people, especially people who don't completely understand rhetoric, to be able to figure out what is an example of which one.

Organization-Your organization was good and clear. With the exception of the conclusion, I wouldn't change anything.

Your organization between candidates is good, but I would probably discuss the rhetoric each candidate uses within the paragraphs in which you discuss the candidates. It would help the paper flow a little better and possibly help improve your transitions between candidates even stronger.

And I agree with Angela, you should most definitely have evidence to backup what rhetoric method each uses. Also there are very little references in this paper to sources, which you definitely need to make sure you use. This is a really good paper and I would hate to see you lose points due to possible plagarism. Even when you paraphrase you need to cite your source.

Assignment parameters- I thnk your main idea is conveyed effectively. I feel that your purpose is clear and easy to understand.

I could be wrong but I think this is misspelled.

Try finding another word besides different, it has popped up quite a few times within the first paragraph, and it's a little overload. Usually you don't want to use a specific word more than two times within a paragraph (three if it's a very large paragraph, definitely no more than that)

Election doesn't need to be capitalized

This first sentence seems a little awkwardly worded.

1) Written doesn't need to be capitlized. 2) This paragraph seems like it stops short. It feels there should be more depth to it. One example is easily to manipulate into saying that "well that's just a one time thing, he did this some other time." The more examples you have, the stronger your argument will be. =)

Same thing applies here as the paragraph above. The more examples you have, the stronger your argument. Make sure you have reputable sources as well.

I like how the author responded to this concern by citing examples from other childrens books and also giving logical reasons why these issues are addressed in childrens books.

In this sentence we see that the defender has a clear understanding about what the argument is

The author makes a good arguement here and supports his point very well. The fact that he wrote a book on the subject makes you believe that he knows alot about the topic and that his views about preserving our individual liberties are correct.

Basically saying "I know more, if not as much as you do. So I'm probably right." Haha

Yes i agree with Cybil, he basically just said that he knows his stuff in this subject matter.

This small statement is a way of persuading the reader. Without this piece of information, the reader may not trust the Board of Trustees or care about them.

I agree, this statement provides an understanding of the authority of the Board of Trustees.

This statement shows the reader that they will make an informed decision and not a biased one.

After stating that children's books deal with many different things, she went on to provide examples. This is important in persuading the reader to believe what she is saying.

I like the way Mr. Larue stated that children's books can deal with anything and everything, even things that may be inappropriate because it is relevant to the situation that those books are allowed at the library.

By showing that other children's books deal with issues about anything and everything it shows that all childrens books aren't always happy.

I dont think that this paragraph is defended well at all. I am absolutely not convinced in this paragraph. Just because there are many disturbing childrens books does not make them right.

Again, she's providing specific examples--very effective. I thought it was interesting that she used an exclamation point instead of a simple period to end this statement. I think the point of it is to persuade the reader even more to listen to her. It's kind of like saying "hey, listen to this statement, it's important, and I'm completely right!"

I love the part about the children's stories, it's so true! A great reminder to the reader to help get their point across.

I agree with Angela. By stating these examples, he is more likely to persuade.

This is important in persuading the reader. She is going on further to prove her point.

Whoops, I mean he!

Yes i agree, this was a good way to further persuade the reader.

Nice comment!

This is good that they explained what actually defines the children's book since earlier on in the piece they said that the topic wasn't what defined it.

Ethos! He wrote a book on the topic, making the reader think that he knows what he's talking about and that he is trustworthy.

Wow! I bet that response was a bit of a sock. I would hate to strike an argument with someone who was a professional on the subject, especially if I didn't know they were beforehand.

The Author shows much credibility on the subject, with this sentence.

This is definitely a great way to persuade the reader. He's throwing out facts from the dictionary to prove his point. And the fact that he states that definitions and legal rights change is very true. Also, stating that gay marriage is legal in some parts of the country is great. I think he did a really good job in this particular paragraph.

I think the first definition sort of weakened his argument about gay marriage, seeing as how the first definition says "relation between husband and wife." I would have also added an updated version of Webster's definition of marriage to see if the wording has changed. He goes on to say that word definitions change, but just because you have a 1960s definition of "dog," and say that word definitions change, does not mean that that specific word's meaning will be the one that changes.

I feel that definitions from the dictionary are a great way to prove yourself. He is telling her the facts, you can't argue with that. But I do agree with Dena. The first definition does weaken his argument.

The fact that he states that gay marriage is legal in some parts of the country, is a good point in explaining to the reader that if something is legal, they can't say that writing a book about it is inappropriate.

This is a very good point also.

He brings up a good point by explaining that not everyone shares the same opinions and a good bit of the material present will recieve mixed feelings.

I think it also helps that he earlier showed that he was opened to multiple views not just his own.

Great point. The purpose of a library is to educate people. Many people go to the library for a general knowledge of many different topics. If someone personally wants to censor what they or there children read, that should be a personal decision.

I agree with all of them, this is a great point.

He brings up a good point that he objects to certain books, but it doesn't mean that other people and cultures don't enjoy them. I also like the fact that he states that the library doesn't endorse any of the books people may deem innapropriate but they are there for people who want them.

I think that this a good point. There are many things that are disagreeable and should be disagreeable

He is being very respectful about the whole issue.

You do not find that to often.

Jamie does a good job explaining his decision, while still being respectful of the womans views. I personally think this shows a reflection of his character.

this was good very persuasive.. ( it's like the old saying " kill people with kindness) she cannot get mad at the way he ended this.

That was very reputable of Jamie to respond to the fact that the woman does care about her family and this is why she raised the issue. It shows how respectful of others he is.

I like the way he ended this on a positive note even though he didn't give the decision that the patron wanted.

I really like how he said this. It shows that he is very respectful. I also agree with Alex, this does show the a reflection of his character.

I like how the author even looks into the sources provided by the individual filing the complaint. This shows that he has truly looked over the claims and is taking the issue seriously.

Yes, i agree with Garrett on this one. I like how the author looked over the source to let it be known that the author know's what he is talking about.

The usage of specific examples to show that not all children's stories have happy endings is very effective.

This statement shows that while some may find certain things inappropriate, the same things may be hepful to others. And in this case, a similar book proved to be a helpful tool for a different mother.

This is a valid statement. Different personal circumstances allow for different interpretations of things. What may be helpful to one person, may be innapropriate to another.

Assures the reader that their feelings have been considered. Very persuasive.

Here, we assume that the laws and regulations have been thought over and agreed upon by a credible authority. The last sentance in this paragraph is very important. When running a public service there is always going to be someone that is unhappy. Utilitarianism is important in making these decisions, "the greatest good for the greatest number".

I agree with Cybil here. As I start reading this article I become more and more convinced that the Board of Trustees are a credible source.

Jamie describes the rules and regulations of public libraries here. He is building his case with firm evidence that will help the woman understand his decision.

I agree with you completely. By him bring up the rules states that he is bringing up facts. With facts behind the decision that he is making the lady can't really say that he is wrong she can only have a opinion since he has a fact.

I agree with the both of you. You two said it all.

This is very persuasive because the person defending the piece seems to be well educated. A good education is one of the most credibe factors concerning a person.

He shows that he is making his own decisions, and researching the topic. Jamie wants to understand why there is an issue and gain supportive evidence why he makes the decision that he does.

In making a constructive argument for a position, the sympathy of the woman is needed. Obviously she thinks strongly about her opinion, and swaying her mind is not going to be easy. Clarifying the situation in a non assertive manner is a step forward in making his case.

In an argument it is extremely important to be able to understand the position of the other person. The Author does a great job portraying this in this paragraph.

Making sense of the world is not an easy thing. Intorducing children to very real circumstances when they are young gives them an advantage in dealing with issues that will undoubtedly face them in their lifetime. I dont think it is how long someone can sugar coat that shapes personal opinions, but experience and informed decision making.

Once again I am absolutely not convinced by this. This is just one mans opinion. My opinion is that children's books are supposed to be entertaining. I dont think a five year old needs to understand the world.

Censorship has long been banned and for good reason. Everyone wants freedom of speech for themself, but not necesarily for others. Parents are there to give guidence, and support. Not to censor their childrens lives and introduce them to a non-existent world.

I agree with Alex on that. Even though the books involve parental guidence, it isn't the parents job to formulate their opinions by themselves. I completely agree that people want everyone else censored, but at the same time want to be able to say whatever they want. It can't work both ways.

I agree with Alex, people want censorship, but only when its not them being censored. It can't work both ways.

Why else would children books be used. They are stories that most times use fantasy and fiction to teach a lesson.

It is a good point that not all parents are looking for the same thing. One parent may want to teach their kids to accept gay people and another may teach them that its wrong and to not accept them.

This also portrays that the Author is credible. In this paragraph the author makes clear that he understands the womens arguments about the piece. By this paragraph the lady arguing against the piece can better understand what the author has to say.

This is much more convincing. There are examples where some disturbing children books can be good.

This is convincing. The women can look this up to see if it is a credible source.

I defenitely agree that a book about homosexuality is innaproprite for a child.

This is true. People should have rights. I dont think homosexuality is wrong. I do think it is wrong though when it is put into Children's books. I think this abnormal psyche could harm youth.

How can a child make such a decision?

This is a good way to look at rhetoric. It gives me a new perspective on it.

I think this is one of the best explanations of rhetoric i have seen so far.

Using rhetoric to persuade each other is an excellent idea because it helps make an answer to a question more objective and it reduces any biases.

I never thought of rhetoric being used by animals but now that is explained to me, I guess I could see where it is possible!

I would have never thought about animals using rhetoric. I found it very interesting that they would use it in such a simple way. They convey what they need throught their sounds and actions.

Wow, i never thought of an animal using rhetoric to make sense. My dog will get his leashe when he has to go out or when hes hungry he will put his head on my leg while i am sitting down. Also he eats around the same time everyday and he will start following me around and pacing back and forth till i get him his food.

My dog does many of the same things. So really, rhetoric is communication. If we did not have a need to express different ideas we would not need language.

When I read the line above that states "rhetoric is manifext in all animal life..." I thought that sounded ridiculous. But by reading this line, I now understand what they are talking about and, in fact, it seems very true.

Thinking about this comment, I reflect back to when I speak to my friends and pretty much anyone and I realize that in some way or another I am always trying to persuade them of something. Even when I don't realize it!

Yes. And I'd like you to carry this idea to the papers you write for this class. You'll want to pay careful attention to whom the intended audience is, and then make your own rhetorical writing decisions based on what you know about that audience's expectations.

This is so true! If you are trying to persuade someone to be on your team, but they are already on your team, then why are you trying to persaude them?

This statement solidifies the importance of the audience when it comes to rhetoric. You could have the best argument in the world, but without the right audience it could be meaningless.

I never knew this. Interesting fact!

I had no idea. Must be tough!

you don't really think of rhetoric as being any different from any other language or culture. I guess it's all relative.

I couldn't imagine going to study in China and having to write like that. Hats off to the students over here.

This is an awesome paragraph and really helps to describe what its like being immersed in something you don't know and how we still use what we learn after we are not involved in it anymore!

These two paragraphs help me with understanding alot about rhetoric and how to use it!

This entire section of the work makes it more clear how everyone uses rhetoric. When I think of rhetoric, I just think of advertisers and authors who use it to persuade their audiences, but I really didn't realize how much we use rhetoric until you see an example like the dog and cat example in the sixth paragraph.

It's kind of exhausting when we think about all the rhetoric we see on a daily basis. Especially in advertisiing!!!

This is an excellent title for a section because, while most of us do not realize it, we all do practice rhetoric on a daily basis. Because its such a broad topic, people dont realize how often it is used.

I like this metaphor. It makes the story a little bit more interesting. I don't feel like I'm just reading something out of a textbook when I read this. It makes me want to read further to understand exactly what they are trying to say.

I agree with Angela about liking this metaphor. So many people think that rhetoric is a "trick..meant to decieve" but really they probably use it all the time without even noticing.

Yeah i really like this metaphor also, and i agree with the second comment i dont think alot of people realize how often they use it.

I think this comment is very accurate. Sure, people may not realize how often they use this technique, but when in use, rhetoric helps to steer the listeners opinions in the speakers direction.

I really like the way this was put-it makes me think further into what he means.

I love this. It's such a huge statement on the basis of the world, and in philosophy. Talking about energy and the way it comes through people is another subject altogether.

I like the way that he put this-it really makes me tihnk further into what he's saying.

It would be nice if that could always work and we could avoid wars and other conflicts!

Yeah i agree, wouldn't it be nice to bring some troops home or had a couple of wars and such avoided?

Wow. If we could work stuff out by just using words, wouldn't the world be quite a different place!! There's only one requirement though, everyone would have to be educated and intelligent. So until then, if we're gonna be dumb we gotta be tough.

I wish the world would work like this. I feel that people today are so concerned with being "right" that they forget to try look at all of the angles my self included. Many of are just so stubburn that we will never be able to think this way.

I think this is very true because we use rhetoric in papers we right in school to convince the readers of what we are discussing. Faculty uses rhetoric to persuade their colleagues and students almost every day.

I think at some point everyone uses rhetoric probably once a day if not once a week to try and get something across.

Again, I have to agree with this statement. As college students, we use rhetoric everyday to try and prove ourselves. More specifically, logos is used almost everyday at the university level.

I liked this paragraph because I think it is very true, when we practice rhetoric we are making a decision about what we want to convince our audience of and how to do it. At the same time the audience makes the desision of how to take the information and accept it or not. This is really evident in a debate, because you as the speaker make the decision of how to convince your audience and they in return decide how they will respond to it.

Hitler was indeed a truly evil person with a hidden agenda who exterminated over 6 million people. Unfortuantely, as many people realized he was a very skilled public speaker. He was popular for a reason. He was extremely good at persuasion and making people think what he was accomplishing was good for the nation as a whole. This is where the danger lies. One always has to think critically and see beyond the rhetoric.

I agree with Cybil. Rhetoric is, as Hitler has proven, a powerful form of persuasion. We must always remember, however, that it is just that--a method of persuasion.

A mind-set that many people should change. It's never about being right or winning for the sake of winning.

So philosophical and deep. I could debate on this for hours!

This is a very interesting statement. It seems very possible that it could, in fact be true. If we accepted everything we were told, there would be no reason to respond when spoken to, except for a gesture of acceptance.

Because i often confuse ethos, pathos and logos, these questions are great examples to distinguish one from the others. It is especially useful because these are questions we (the students) constantly ask ourselves.

I agree that these examples of the types of rhetoric helped me distinguish between the three! Every time I write a paper or just an informal writing assignment I ask myself many of these same questions.

Yes i also often get the three confused but these examples helped out big time!

very good quote. Sad but true. Just because your speaking the truth doesn't mean there isn't someone else with a better argument.

This is important because rhetoric is only as trustworthy as the speaker.

I think that this is looking at rhetoric from one perspective, however I think that rhetoric can also be used as a good thing. Helping people make the right decisions, not necesarilly a "trick with mirrors"

very true, rhetoric can be used to just inform. It's not always used to just trick or persuade. Its a good way to pass on information.

This is a good observation applying the notion of rhetoric not only to humans but to all living things. Wolves for example have a very strict hierarchy that is strictly regulated. The leaders in these poeitions utilize body language and strength, along with experience. Which is all a part of rhetoric.

Great comparison, Alex. Thanks.

This statement clarifies that rhetoric can and does get used in situations when the authors not necessarily right. As stated before with the hitler reference, someone with a good understanding of their audience and rhetoric can do some harmful things.

This is undoubtedly true. To give another example like the one listed below here. Being a sign language interpreting major, here is a cultural barrier problem I have seen. In Deaf culture, Deaf and hard of hearing individuals value directness and being blunt about subjects. If you have put on a little weight, it is nothing for a Deaf person to sign HEY YOU LOOK DIFFERENT, BEFORE THIN NOW FAT HAPPEN? (cultural note, that is ASL syntax, i couldn't really add the facial grammar glosses- but that would be the basic sign order. Prepositions and conjuctions are usually implied) This may be very difficult to accept for a person who is not associated or well-versed with the Deaf community because one may think they are being rude, when really that is how the cultural as a whole is. I have noticed sometimes Deaf and hard of hearing people get frustrated sometimes with people who beat around the bush because they feel that the person that they are communicating with is trying to hide something. This sometimes causes problems, especially if the interpreter forgets to interpret the cultural differences (which happens upon occassion).

An absolutely fascinating comment, Dena. Those of us who are not hearing impaired know that without body language it is often difficult to communicate clearly. For people who depend wholly on body language, it is even more important. Thanks for sharing.

I think you made a really good point with your example. When I think of different cultures, I think of someone who maybe lives in Europe compared to the United States, but your example opened my eyes to a differnt way in looking at cultures. :)

This is a very true statement. Culture affects many different aspects of our lives, so I can definitely see that it would affect how rhetoric is viewed. Even someone from a different culture today may not see the same rhetoric as we see.

I find it interesting how this statement suggests our form of rhetoric is different from the Greek and Roman forms, when we still classify rhetoric based on Aristotle's three appeals.

I really like this phrase and it's explaination, a lot. I've learned about culture shock in many of my classes, but seeing it in this way makes it so much more clear to me how difficult it must be for a person coming from one culture to enter into a competely different culture and have to adjust to the customs of the new culture without knowing basically anything about the culture ahead of time. One of the things they have to adjust to is the rhetoric of the culture.

This really is an interesting way of puting that cultural barrier into perspective for those of us who have never been forced to experiance is.

This part, to me, goes with the fact that culture changes all the time. When the person enters the conversation, it is impossible for them to catch up in every single bit of the discussion, and when they leave, the discussion is still going on, making it impossible to know the entire rest of the conversation. It is, in a way, saying that it's impossible to know every single bit of a culture because it is ever-changing.

Such is life.

Before reading this sentence, I only thought of a person being entered into a new culture from a differnt country, but now I know that it can mean many different tihngs.

I also interpreted it as say going to a new country for the first time but it is now easy to understand how it can mean different things.

This is another example of how rhetoric can be used in every day life.

I think we are rhetoricians all the time; when we speak to someone else that is. I don't think we can be rhetorical to ourselves.

I said it earlier and this makes sense to me also, i think people especially teenagers use rhetoric everday.

rhetoric is definatley everywhere. It's used from trying to decide where to eat dinner to matters of national security. Rhetoric is a skill set that can help anyone in life.

This is definatly something that has happened to me before! Whether it's a new subject in school or just something I happen to be interested in, the first few times I look into it I have no idea what they are talking about but later on it seems so easy!

I could be completely misinterpreting this, but I think that it would be the content of what is being discussed that causes the confusion, not rhetoric. I understand that there are many forms of rhetoric, but don't they all have the same purpose? In some way or another, rhetoric persuades and informs. Again, I could be looking at this the wrong way. I'm interested in seeing other thoughts on this topic.

When someone thinks to hard about anything they make it more complicated that it is. Creativity and clarity usually comes when you least expect it, or when you are not thinking, and this should be applied to everything. Quietness of mind.

This is interesting to think about. Instead of us being able to write and re-write something to make it more rhetorically sound, ancient Greeks only had one opportunity, while speaking, to get it right.

This is interesting, as I discussed last week anything that stays around for a while has to evolve, and adapt to the times.

I've learned that this is very true. It goes back to the old saying that not everything is in black and white. We often find ourselves in the gray area.

This line caught my eye because many of these stories, such as Zeus, Odysseus and Achilles, were taught to us when we were younger and, at the time, we never knew that rhetoric was being used.

I think this assumption is often made because it is such a broad topic that most people do not understand what is considered rhetoric.

This is a good example of how the simplest writing, such as a list, uses rhetoric.

I don't know why but some things seem to get alot more complicated when you start thinking rhetorically.

American's are very to the point when looking at accomplishing goals. Sometimes a little bit to much and it hurts us. However this also why we are number 1. Rhetoric is definitely a clutural aspect as it fluctuates. Rhetoric really is devided into many different ways, depending on who is trying to be convinced. Rhetoric is constantly changing and must be in order to be used effectively.

This is a great example. Teachers are people that we look up to, and expect to understand the topic at hand. We put our faith in their history, and knowledge in that specific topic to help us understand better.

This is exactly what rhetoric is compacted in one sentance. Very good brief description I think.

I agree, great wording. It helps cement the face that rhetoric isn't just some overblown academic technique, but a instinctual ability that you've been honing since childhood.

I think it is interesting to see how how writing and speech have been viewed throughout history. From the Ancients to current day Rhetoric has been looked at in many ways. I dont agree with most rhetoricians today who argue that most speech today is Rhetorical. The main purpose of a speech in my opinion is not to persuade but to motivate.

If a person wants to be good at anything the key word is practice. The student referred to in this paragraph was completely lost in the beginning but soon the tasks ahead of him became simple. This is because of his dedication and practice. The same can be applied to rhetoric. In order to give a good persuasive speech one must practice practice and practice some more. Rhetoric is more than just language its a art.

practice is definatley important. The more you practice rhetoric no matter how foreign it may seem at first, the better you become. And the better you become the more persuasive or informative your argument can be.

Once again I dont think all writing should be looked at as rhetoric. Most writing should not be rhetoric in my opinion.

It is interesting to see how the view of rhetoric changes with the changing of culture.

This is very true (I accidentally read too far last week so now I'm switching since I wrote on the latter half last assignment). Rhetoric is about choices for both parties. The speaker/writer chooses the direction they wish to persuade their audience to feel, and hope that they choose to accept that direction. This is seen everywhere, but as the Presidential Debates are going on as I write this in the background, we will use this an example. McCain and Obama are both posing their choices tonight. They are posing their strategies which choices should be made about our country. Each of them discuss their point of view, and why it is important to them why do carry things out in such a way. We, as the audience, whether watching on TV or at the debates- will make a choice after the are finished (or maybe even before they are finished). Those choices could be to support Obama, McCain, or we can choose to support neither and simply not vote as neither, one may feel, is truly qualified. Even if you don't want to make a choice, eventually you will. And the beauty of this great country is that you're free to choose any of these options. In countries where freedom of speech or choice of how you will place your vote is obsolete- there really is no use for rhetoric, because you lack the power to respond to the messages they give. We might as well put the two names in a hat and draw for President without the power to respond. This is why I'm glad I live in America. We have the choice to respond to rhetoric. We still have most of our liberties that allow us a voice, a number of countries in the world don't have as they under communist rule.

I'm guessing you mean "African"

Overall, fairly well written. There are several grammatical errors, and words that are capitalized that don't need to be. I thought we were only supposed to write about one online community, not a variety- so I'm a little confused on that end. Maybe you could center your focus to a couple of sites and list them, that way it seems a little more credible and people who may become interested in can have a starting point as to where they get involved.

Maybe try and combine these two sentances here.

where did this fact come from and is it a reliable source.

doesnt really make sense. of course they are doing something to help the situation. Maybe reword this to make it sound not so contradicting.

good analogy

You can use this when you revise your paper. You could briefly talk about what torture is, then go on to explain what rhetoric is.

This seems like it's your opinion. The assignment says to try to keep our opinions separate from the paper.

Assignment Parameters-Your paper definitely maintains a main idea, but it is not the idea that the assignment was intended to create.

Style-Your sentence structure varies and I understand what points you are trying to get across, but once again, they are not the points that need to be made in this particular paper. Your point of view, for the most part, is appropriate because you are stating facts, but as far as your opinion, you need to try to keep your opinion out of the paper completely, even though that is sometimes very hard to do.

Development-Your details do develop your main idea, but once again, your main idea wasn't what was assigned for this paper. The paper was mostly supposd to be about rhetoric and its effects on particular pieces of work. I can tell you took time to work on your paper, and if it followed the directions, I think it would be a pretty good paper, but as far as following directions, you did not. I would suggest you go back and look through the directions for the assignment again.