| 
  • If you are citizen of an European Union member nation, you may not use this service unless you are at least 16 years old.

  • Whenever you search in PBworks, Dokkio Sidebar (from the makers of PBworks) will run the same search in your Drive, Dropbox, OneDrive, Gmail, and Slack. Now you can find what you're looking for wherever it lives. Try Dokkio Sidebar for free.

View
 

response six

Page history last edited by Ahmed Alshaibani 11 years, 1 month ago

 is 

 

This is a two part response:

First, in preparation for Thursday's Thunderdome, answer the following questions for two of the three readings:

  1. What word/term/concept/idea is the author defining?
  2. What do they offer in defining this idea that has not been (well) covered elsewhere? What is their unique perspective?
  3. What is the audience for this piece (be as specific as possible)?
  4. How is their audience likely to feel about this issue/concept before they read the piece?
  5. What is their purpose in arguing this definition? (I.e, what's their point?)
  6. What strategies (pathos appeals, resemblance arguments, etc.) do you they use in making this argument?

 

Then, Before 9 AM, 10/20, provide the following details about your plans for Project Three

  1. What word/term/concept/idea will you be defining?
  2. What do you offer in defining this idea that has not been (well) covered elsewhere? What is your unique perspective?
  3. What is the audience for this piece (be as specific as possible)?
  4. How is your audience likely to feel about this issue/concept before they read your project?
  5. What is your purpose in arguing this definition? (I.e, what's your point?)
  6. What strategies (pathos appeals, resemblance arguments, etc.) do you plan to use in making this argument?

 

 

Post your responses on this page (not in the comment boxes):

-- 

 

Paul Elden's- (Yes I did mine already, I have no friends and a long section of free time :/ Also, not sure if this is the format you wanted, but it's worth a try)

 

Dobson-

1)      Dobson tries to define the concept of marriage

2)      Dobson offers his views as one of the most prominent Christian figures of the last century.

3)      His audience would be voters, specifically Christians (and most likely Republicans).

4)      His audience, if it is indeed the audience I just assumed, would already feel similarly. This is merely an attempt to get them fired up about the “destruction” that gay marriage would cause to our culture.

5)      Dobson’s purpose is an attempt at continuing the ban on gay marriage, because he feels it would be detrimental to society.

6)      Dobson definitely plays up the God ethos, and also tries to get a family-based logos going as well. He appeals to the audience’s image of a perfect nuclear family, and goes on about how that will be destroyed.

Bidstrup-

1)      Bidstrup defines gay marriage.

2)      Bidstrup is a well-known political activist, who has written many political essays, and knows how to analyze an argument.

3)      Bidstrup’s audience would be anyone who disagrees with same-sex marriage.

4)      His audience is supposed to disagree before they read his piece. His argument was made to change people’s minds.

5)      Bidstrup is trying to clear any fear or reservations people have on gay marriage, in order for gays to be more widely accepted and have equal rights.

6)      Bidstrup’s whole argument is based in logos, giving many examples and logical viewpoints on the topic. Additionally, he compares it to straight marriage by saying it is exactly the same as straight marriage.

My topic-

1)      I will define “memes” and “memetics” in my essay.

2)      I offer a viewpoint as an easily malleable mind (i.e. a teenager).

3)      My audience is anyone who is interested in learning about social or cultural behavior, peer pressure, etc.

4)      My audience will assumedly not take into consideration how similar genetics and memetics are, which is what I will be relating.

5)      My purpose is to educate people about social behavior, and why memes are just as important as genes, if not more important, in shaping our lifestyles and behaviors.

6)      I’m going to be focusing on logos and resemblance, as stated, (hopefully) in my essay.

 

 

 

Marielle Frattaroli

Dobson is defining gay marriage.  He defines gay marriage by using many arguments that I have never even heard or thought of before. (Because their stupid) For example, he argues that gay marriage will lead to polygamy and cause society to become anti-Christian.  He is obviously against gay marriage.  The audience of the piece is for people who are for gay marriage to try and get them to change their minds.  The point that he is trying to make is that gay marriage is bad and will only lead to bad things.  Dobson uses pathos in his arguments.  For example, he says that children will be taught perversion.  Although this really has nothing to do with gay marriage, he’s trying to appeal to the readers emotions by bringing children into the picture.  No one wants their child to be taught perversion.  He also uses many resemblance arguments when saying gay marriage is like something bad.

Bidstrup, in essence, is defining people against gay marriages.  He defines this by using some of the same arguments that Dobson did, but then goes on to say the ‘real reasons’ people are against gay marriage.  He is for gay marriage.  The audience for this piece is the people who believe that arguments against gay marriage make perfect sense. (Because they don’t)  The audience is likely to be against gay marriage.  The purpose of this piece is to shoot down every argument against gay marriage and explain why they just don’t make sense and are not very strong all together.  Bidstrup uses pathos in his arguments when he tells the real reasons that people are against gay marriage.  He connects to peoples secrets because those are the things they would never admit to thinking.

 

I will be defining body modification. 

I have views on body modification that most people do not.  I have seen many documentaries on it and know a lot about the subject. My perspective is that body modification is a form of beauty and art.

The audience for this paper is anyone against body modification and thinks of it as mutation or anyone who wants to learn more about the subject.

The audience is likely to think of modification as mutation before they read the paper.

My point is to show that body modification is a form of individuality, art, self expression and beauty.

I plan on using pathos, resemblance arguments, my own life experiences, and examples from documentaries/articles/books.

 

Perrin Atisha

 

Dr. James Dobson is defining that Gay Marriage is wrong. The unique perspective he uses is he argues about how gay marriage is going to affect people. We don’t hear this very often, because when someone says gay marriage is wrong they just focus on the fact that gay marriage is wrong because God doesn’t allow it. He does use several biblical references but he explains how gay marriage will affect families and children. I like how he argues that it will be taught, books will be changed, history will be changed. It will spread to other countries. The audience for this piece is generally geared towards Christian families who have children. I would not say I agree with the biblical references he uses. It seems like he puts down homosexuals which the bible does not do, it only is against the act of the homosexuals not the person themselves. Dobson’s purpose is to show that gay marriage is wrong and that this can be changed if the family gears their attention towards God. He uses pathos to show that families will be affected as well as children through school and their learning.

 

Scott Bidstrup is defining gay marriage. The purpose of this essay is to clear up a few of these misunderstandings and discuss some of facts surrounding gay relationships and marriage, gay and straight. I feel he takes the same approach as Dobson yet slightly different. He talks about the various arguments about gay marriage he never really says THIS IS WRONG! The audience for this piece is anyone who is against gay marriage and anyone who is confused about this issue. He actually made me more confused. One thing that struck me was, “If gay people really want to get married, all they have to do is to become straight and marry someone of the opposite sex.” That isn’t true and is extremely bias; obviously Bidstrup isn’t gay, so how could he say this for himself. His purpose is to clear up the confusion, or at least try to. He uses several logical and data based strategies. Someone reading this piece would most likely be more confused after reading his article. 

 

In the Article Gay Marriage: Why Would It Effect Me Dobson talks about how gay marriage effects families with children, polygamy, states, children in same sex households, government and religion. The article suggests gay relationships are destroying families. More and more children are being born out of wedlock. And if gay marriage is legalized everywhere next multiple people will want to get married. Where do we draw the line? Gay marriage is believed to be responsible for many things, as Dobson has pointed out. But some beliefs are more crazier than others. I see a connection between religion and gay marriage because God said marriage is between a man and a woman and many people believe marriage is evil. But I don’t see a connection between gay marriage and polygamy. Polygamy is men having more than one wife and gays just want to marry one spouse that happens to be the same gender as them. Dobson wants his audience to see the different ways gay marriage effects society. Bidstrups Article Gay Marriage: The Arguments and Motives is about the misunderstandings and stereotypes of gay marriage. Many people believe gays relationships are different from heterosexual relationships all about sex and that they can’t handle long term relationships. But Bidstrups article says gay relationships are no different than heterosexual relationships. Gay relationship have the same arguments, problems, and motives and shouldn’t be treated as being any different. In Essig and Owens’s Article What If Marriage Is Bad For Us instead of talking about how gay marriage is considered to be so wrong they talk about all marriage being wrong. What is the purpose of marriage? and why should marriage be celebrated? I think all forms of marriage should be legalized and celebrated. If you love someone and want to spend the rest of your life with them why should it be so much judgment. Marriage deserves to be celebrated simply because it makes you happy no matter the race, age or gender.

 

My Project on Racism: 

  1. In my project I will be talking about racism and focusing on how it is started and influenced in the home.
  2. my unique perspetive is looking at how children do what their parents do. In the home, if the parents talks about a bad experience at work with an African American and bashes their name and race then the child will take that with them to school and to the playground
  3. The audience for this piece are parents of children, to show these parents that children will do what they do
  4. The audience will not know much about racism in the home and that is why I will show the importance of it
  5. My purpose is really to "Watch what you say!" and merely be an example to your children
  6. I will use statistics and pathos to show that racism is important and still occurs in our society today, sometimes without even realizing that it does 

Sasha Haynes 

Gay marriage… Why it affects me…

  1. This article is defining the gay marriages effect on society.
  2. The unique perspective of this paper is identifying all the reasons that gay marriage will affect each individual, and therefore the country.
  3. I think the main audience for this article is Christians, because it exposes Christian ideals and applies it to society.
  4. The audience is likely to have already agreed with the opinions in this article, perhaps this article will strengthen their views.
  5. The purpose in defining gay marriages effect on society is to stress the view that gay marriages will allow our way of life to plunder
  6. Some emotional appeal as well as reference to historical events were some persuasive appeals used in this article

 

Gay marriage… the Argument and the motives

  1. This article sheds light on what gay marriage is.
  2. This perspective is different in that it reveals the real reasons people tend to oppose gay marriages.
  3. The main audience of this article is the homophobic lobbyists.
  4. The audience is likely to disagree with this because some of the reasons stated are surely taken on a tangent that seems unrealistic.
  5. The purpose in defining what gay marriage is in this essay seems to be to bring realization, and appreciation for homosexual marriage.
  6. Pathos was very evident in this paper, it seems to be more of an emotional plea to realize that homosexual marriage is not going to end the world.

Part Two 

  1. Adultery is the word I would like to define.
  2. The perspective I would like to take here is to look at how Christians, and comparatively non-Christians look at adultery.
  3. The audience for this paper will be married people in general.
  4. My audience will most likely agree with most of my propositions but also disagree on some of them.
  5. The main reason for writing about adultery is that many spouses disagree on the borderline, so I would like to shed light on the history of adultery and the twists and turns it has taken to reach its modern meaning.
  6. I will use pathos, ethos, and irony as my appeals.

 

 

Adam Klaser

Dobson

  1. Dobson is trying to define gay marriage.
  2. The unique perspective that he uses is how gay marriage will affect everyone else in society.
  3. The audience for this topic would be those that are mainly against gay marriage, specifically Christians.
  4. The audience is more than likely to already agree with what is going to be said in the article.
  5. The point of this article is to show just how bad gay marriage would be to society.
  6. Dobson uses pathos to appeal to the emotions of the readers, the ethos of God, and many resemblances.

Scott Bidstrup

  1. Bidstrup clearly defines what gay marriage is.
  2. The unique perspective that he uses is the real reasons why people tend to oppose gay marriage.
  3. The audience for this article is anyone who opposes gay marriage.
  4. The audience is likely to against gay marriage before they read this article.
  5. The purpose of this argument is to show people that are against gay marriage that they are the ones that are wrong and to try and convince them that gay marriage is perfectly fine.
  6. Bidstrup uses mostly logos to get his point across that the arguments against gay marriage are wrong.

My topic

  1. I will be trying to define globalization.
  2. My unique perspective is how globalization has benefited only the rich countries and made it more difficult for poorer countries.
  3. The audience for this paper is economists and activists.
  4. The audience is going to agree with my argument on some problems but also disagree on others.
  5. The purpose of my argument is to show that globalization isn’t as great as it is made out to seem and to show all of the negative side effects that come from it.
  6. I plan on using mostly logos such as statistics and models and possibly ethos of economists that show how globalization has had more of a negative effect than a positive one.

 

Derek Blanton

 

Dobson

1.)    Dobson is attempting to define the concept of gay marriage.

2.)    Dobson offers his perspective on the subject by arguing how gay marriage will affect people. He states that gay marriage will lead to polygamy and also uses a few biblical references to back up his claims.

3.)    His audience would mainly be anyone that is opposed to gay marriage.

4.)    His audience is meant to have all their thoughts and arguments against gay marriage reinforced after reading the article.

5.)    The author’s purpose is to attempt to sway readers to see how gay marriage is wrong from his point of view.

6.)    Dobson uses pathos in his readings by saying how much children will be affected by gay marriages. He also plays the God ethos card.

Bidstrup

1.)    Bidstrup defines gay marriage.

2.)    Bidstrup analyzes the concept of gay relationships and clears up some misunderstandings of what homosexuality truly is.

3.)    Bidstrup’s audience would be anyone who opposes same-sex relationships.

4.)    His audience is supposed to see gay marriage in a different light after reading the article.

5.)    The purpose of the argument is to enlighten readers on gay marriage and make them re-think any doubts or reservations they may have.

6.)    The entire argument is mostly based around the logos of the situation.

My Topic

1.)    I will attempt to define the concept of  terrorist/terrorism

2.)    I will offer a viewpoint on exactly what a terrorist can be and what can be considered a terrorist.

3.)    My audience will be anyone that is opposed to terrorism.

4.)    My audience is supposed to be anti-terrorist and have a basic concept on what a terrorist is.

5.)    My purpose is to enlighten the reader that not every act of rebellion is considered terrorism.

6.)    I’m going to be focusing on ethos and pathos mainly…..

 

 


Toma' Blue 

 

Dobson

 

 1) What word/term/concept/idea is the author defining?

 

Dobson tries to defining Gay Marriage on his own turf.

 

2) What do they offer in defining this idea that has not been (well) covered elsewhere? What is their unique perspective?

 

From Dobson’s perspective he gives many reasons on how gay marriage will affect everyone, well the country.

 

3 )What is the audience for this piece (be as specific as possible)?

 

I think Dobson’s audience is mainly people who despise Gay Marriage (Christians) mainly because he wants his argument to be heard by the same people who believe in what he does.

 

4 )How is their audience likely to feel about this issue/concept before they read the piece?

 

I feel that the audiences will agree with the issue because they already don’t agree with Gay Marriage. Dobson is just helping them see more into the matter. This will grab them and make them agree.

 

5 )What is their purpose in arguing this definition? (I.e., what's their point?)

 

The purpose of this argument is to show that Gay marriage should not be accepted or made out to be fine in society.

 

6) What strategies (pathos appeals, resemblance arguments, etc.) do you they use in making this argument?

 

Dobson’s is very emotional and excited about this topic. He feels that something needs to be done or many people will be affected. He uses some scriptures and his own thoughts. (Pathos) He uses some history as well. (Ethos)

 

Bidstrup

 

1)What word/term/concept/idea is the author defining?

 

Bidstrup is simply breaking down gay marriage.

 

2)What do they offer in defining this idea that has not been (well) covered elsewhere? What is their unique perspective?

 

He is basically giving out reasons on why people are generally against Gay Marriage all together.

 

3)What is the audience for this piece (be as specific as possible)?

 

The audience for Bidstrup’s argument is anyone who disagrees with Gay Marriage.

 

4)How is their audience likely to feel about this issue/concept before they read the piece?

 

I think people are still going to automatically disagree with this issue because it’s looked down on. It’s in the news and all in the media; they may still read on this argument.

 

5)What is their purpose in arguing this definition? (I.e., what's their point?)

 

The purpose is to show reasons on why people don’t like Gay Marriage and he’s trying to make the topic open.

 

6)What strategies (pathos appeals, resemblance arguments, etc.) do you they use in making this argument?

 

Bidstrup uses logos in his argument. He gives a lot of examples like Civil Rights and he adds his own logics to the matter.

 

 

Polygamy

 

My Topic 

 

1) I will be defining Polygamy.

2) I will use my own perspectives, laws, history and polygamy stories.

3) My audience will be anyone who is interested in knowing about what polygamy is how it affects the people involved and how dangerous it can be.

4) My audience will more than likely agree but I know that some people will disagree as well.

5) My purpose for this argument is to show that Polygamy is wrong and can hurt many people that practice it or even the people who are caught in it (Children). I want society to understand that it’s not right.

6) I will use pathos, ethos and logos to show that polygamy has its negative outcomes. No for Polygamy. It just shouldnt be practiced at all.

 

 

 

-------Anisa Bezhani

Dobson

-Dobson is trying to define gay marriages.

-The unique perspective that Dobson is portraying is that he feels that gay marriages will affect the society and children in a negative way.

-The audience is Christians…

-This audience will most likely disagree with this argument.

-The purpose in arguing this definition is that gay marriages has risen many controversial issues ,and it does have a bad effect on our society and generation.

-Dobson definitely is using the God ethos ..Ex- “Malachi 2:15”

 

Bidstrup

-Bidstrup is defying gay marriages.

-He is using real life facts why people oppose same sex marriages.

-Audience-people that are against/oppose gay marriages.

-The audience will hopefully be having a different view after reading this article.

-His purpose is to make readers look thoroughly and really look at gay marriages. Try to make exceptions and be understanding.

-LOGOS.

 

My topic

-Defying-  Discrimination

-I want to point out how people are being discriminated.

-Audience- Our generation.

-My audience will be agreeing with this argument.

-The point of this will show how discrimination is having a negative on us.

- I want to use Logos, backed up with facts, statics etc…

 


Farah Sheikh

Bidstrup

1)      Gives a definition of gay marriage

2)      Why people don’t approve of gay marriage

3)      Who think gay marriage is wrong

4)      I feel like the audience might change their minds on thinking gay marriage is wrong but others will still oppose it

5)      The purpose of the article is so people could get a better understanding of what gay marriage is and make readers rethink if gay marriage is wrong.

6)      Bidstrup uses a lot of logos because he uses civil rights in the examples.

 

Dobson

  1.  Defining gay marriage in his own way
  2. He basically defines gay marriage as a domino effect to everything negative such as it will affect everyone in the world , when some people really just don’t care.
  3. People opposed to gay marriage
  4. The audience might be people who totally agree with Dobson
  5. The purpose to this is to tell people gay marriage is simply wrong and everything is negative around them
  6.  Dobson uses pathos to describe the emotions and ethos of God.

 

 

My topic

My topic will be on Pain

I will focus on what pain is and different kinds and how it affects people in different ways

My audience will be anyone going through some type of pain.

My audience will get a clear picture on what pain is and understand what different people are going through around the world to give everyone a chance

This will show how everyone is not perfect so don’t judge people around you all the time

Focus on pathos , and logos.

 

 

Hannah Livernois:

Dobson:

  1. Dobson is against Gay Marriage
  2. Dobson feels that not only is society not ready to accept gay marriage, but the government cannot afford, yet leave many open doors to explain to our young children why this is acceptable.
  3. Dobson has a general audience but particularly ones considering gay marriage.  
  4. Generally, people would be indifferent towards this topic but this piece in particular is suppose to persuade the audience to be against gay marriage.
  5. Dobson purpose is to show the obscurity of gay marriages and how society is not ready to accept it yet.
  6. Dobson is using logical appeal and many “What-if” situations.

 

Bidstrup's

  1. The author is defining why many should support gay rights.
  2. This particular author, not only gives the reasons individuals typically use as wrong and disprove them, the author also gives the “real” reasons why 70% are against gay marriage.
  3. Individuals confused on gay marriage.
  4. The individuals are suppose to be confused and unaware of the actual concept of gay marriage.
  5. The purpose is that gay marriage is a good thing and can only benefit society.
  6. The author uses logical appeal and pathos.

 

 

Project Three: 

  1.  Hipsterism
  2. Hipsters are unique individuals, they come from privileged backgrounds and are in a constant search to change the world.
  3. Young Adults, Late Teens to Early twenties.
  4.  They will hopefully see it as an eye-opener for this hidden culture, which the majority of the world seems to pass-by.
  5. Introduce the lifestyle of hipsters and show how their way of thinking could potentially change the world.
  6.  I plan to use, logical appeals, examples, resemblance arguments, and irony

 

 

Colton Dale

 

Dobson

1. Same-sex marriage

2. Why same-sex marriage will effect everyone and not just those getting married

3. Anti-same-sex marriage people, or anyone on the fence about the topic

4. Most likely already agrees with his views

5. Purpose is to show the negative effects gay marriage would have on society

6. Ethos, definitely not logos... 

 

Bidstrup

1. Same-sex marriage

2. Factual statistics, a more reasonable argument.

3. People that are anti-same-sex marriage

4. Maybe confused or not sure about how they feel about same-sex marriage

5. That the audience will be cleared up of any indifferent feelings they have about this topic

6. Logos, and ethos because of his use of statistics

 

Project Three - Liberal 

1. Liberal

2. A perspective from a young liberal/democrat that isn’t seen too much because of the media and how some main networks like FOX are against and cover up the ideas of liberalism

3. young democrats, democrats, young americans overall, anyone looking to broaden there political ideologies

4. Some may have strong opinions already or some may feel indifferent about it, and i may be able to change their minds

5. To lean people towards liberalism and progressivism and being a democrat

6. building up of my ethos and use of quality logos mostly

 

----------------------------------------------------

 

Yashvir Riar

Seems everyone's doing it this way, BANDWAGON!
Dobson:
1. Defines gay marriage with a negative connotation
2. Dobson explains the possible future effects of gay marriage on society.
3. Audience for this piece would be anyone looking to get information on gay marriage, specifically those who are against it.
4. The audience would more than likely agree as he is already attracting attraction from people who hold that belief, and this article would more than likely reinforce that belief.
5. Dobson strongly opposes gay marriage and pretty much just tries to demonize the effects gay marriage will have.
6. Mainly pathos to outline the effects gay marriage will have on children and society, but also uses ethos by portraying himself as an authority in matters of religion and God.

Bidstrup:
1. He basically just defines what gay marriage is.
2. Bidstrup uses the viewpoint of the audience to portray why they are against gay marriage.
3. Similar to Dobson's article, the audience for this article is also those looking to gain insight on gay marriage and already hold a belief that it is wrong or "bad".
4. Bidstrup attempts to disillusion many people about gay marriage, but will likely fall flat due to the article opposing the initial beliefs by the audience.
5. The purpose here is to outline the controversy surrounding gay marriage and why it shouldn't be as bad as it really is in society.
6. Bidstrup uses a strong sense of logos to really appeal to the logic of the situation along with ethos by relating to it personally and providing hard statistics.

P3!
1. Defining 'Addiction'
2. I will be focusing on the underlying addictions in society that aren't fully known or dealt with because of the infamous drug addictions that everyone knows about.
3. Audience will most likely be younger adults such as university/college kids as it concerns us directly.
4. I hope the audience recognizes the dangers of daily addictions to things like fame and screen-based activities (Facebook, television, games, etc.)
5. The purpose here is to show the negative effects of these not-so-heard of addictions and how they affect us daily.
6. I will be using a strong sense of ethos along with pathos to hopefully be able to draw an emotional appeal.

 

------------------------------------------------------------

 

Travis Rodery

 

Bidstrup

  1.  Bidstrup is defining what gay marriage is.
  2.  The perspective used is why people are generally opposed to gay marriage within our society.
  3.  The audience are those who our opposed to same sex marriage.
  4.  The audience is going to disagree with the subject and that would be the point of reading the article.
  5.  The purpose of the argument is to show those who oppose same sex marriage are wrong in doing so and everyone has the same rights given to them to do what they want.
  6.  Logos is mostly used in this argument because it is an opinion and deals a lot with religious issues.

Dobson

  1.  Dobson is defining the effect that gay marriage has on our society.
  2.  The perspective he uses is how same sex marriage will have an impact on each individual in our society.
  3.  The audience is the Christian religious group that makes up our country.
  4.  The audience most likely agrees that gay marriage has an effect on all of us.
  5.  The purpose of this argument is to show the bad effects that gay marriage has on society.
  6.  Dobson uses ethos through religion and god.

My project

  1.  I’ll be defining racism and its understanding.
  2.  Focus on how racism gets started and carried out.
  3.  Audience will be those teenagers and youths.
  4.  Audience will most likely hear the term racism and think bad but not know completely what it is.
  5.  Show how racism affects everyone, not just the people getting the things done to them.
  6.  Focus on logos, with its general logic and reason.

 

 

John Malinowski

 

  1. Dobson is defining gay marriage.
  2. He says that gay marriage will affect everyone.
  3. The audience is everyone because clearly, if we don’t listen and act upon it, gay marriage is going to affect each and every one of us… but mostly Christians and people against gay marriage.
  4. The audience choosing to read (anti gay marriage agree-ers) will probably already agree with him.
  5. To avoid gay marriage
  6. Dobson uses pathos to affect emotions and ethos through the use of Christianity.

 

  1. Bidstrup is defining gay marriage.
  2. Bidstrup attempts to explain and discuss some misunderstandings and analyze gay marriage.
  3. The audience is people against same sex relations
  4. Against gays but maybe doesn’t get it.
  5. To get the actual truth out and show some misinterpretations
  6. All logos

 

  1. Prejudice in law enforcement.
  2. I will be showing stats and cold hard facts to show how prejudice has and still is an issue in law enforcement in the United States.
  3. Anyone interested in something cool! Also, maybe minorities.
  4. Curious, intrigued, and eventually mesmerized.  
  5. To show that it is wrong and it should be changed
  6. I will be using logos, pathos, and ethos

 


Mike said:

 

Climate Change (My chosen issue)

  1. I will be defining climate change, the cataclysm formerly known as Global Warming.
  2. What average students(17-26) can do to make a difference.
  3. Students(17-26) who are knowledgeable on the subject of Climate Change, but aren’t certain how to make a change.
  4. A reader might feel inquisitive and emotional about the issue.
  5. My point: The earth is in danger. We need to protect it from ourselves.
  6. I will use logos, pathos, and other stasis tools.

 

Dobson

  1. Dobson is defining same-sex marriage with a negative bias.
  2. The unique perspective is that Dobson describes how the depravity of same-sex marriage will pervert America and the world.
  3. Anyone who is already opposed to the idea of same-sex marriage, especially evangelicals.
  4. The article will reinforce and add to the opposition that the audience has. The audience is likely to agree with the article.
  5. Dobson’s point is that same-sex unions are immoral and will corrupt the world and every person associated with it.
  6. Dobson uses ethos when he cites dogma and logos when he speaks of the twisted fate the world will face and pathos when he speaks about what children will have to face growing up in such an environment.

 

Bidstrup

  1. Bidstrup is defining wha same-sex marriage is with a positive bias.
  2. He gives reasons why people say the things they say and act the way they do toward the subject of same-sex marriage.
  3. The audience is anyone who is in opposition to, in doubt of, or curious about same-sex marriage.
  4. They might feel skeptical about the issue.
  5. The purpose of the article is to reveal that the claims against same-sex marriage are unrealistic.
  6. Logos, logos, logos! 

 

 

 


Ahmed Alshaibani

Dobson

  1. Dobson is attempting to define the wrongness (if that’s a word) of gay marriage.
  2. His prospective is how gay marriage will affect the fabric of society. He explains the what will happen in particular to life as we know it
  3. The audience for this piece is anti-gay marriage supporters and religious people.
  4. Before reading the piece, the target audience is opposing the issue of gay marriage
  5. Dobson’s purpose of arguing this point is to bring to realization the negative affects gay marriage will have on society.
  6. I think Dobson uses resemblance appeals and ethos when he refers to stories of the bible. He also uses logos and pathos in the way he describes how gay marriage will lead to the crumbling of society.

Bidstrub

  1. Bidstrub breaksdown the real reasons people oppose gay marriage
  2. He explains the “real reasons” people oppose gay marriage in contrats to the stated reasons.
  3. The target audience for this piece is for people who oppose gay marriage
  4. They are likely to feel completely against the idea of gay marriage
  5. The purpose of explaining the definition is to persuade people that those who oppose gay marriage oppose it for the wrong reason.
  6. He uses pathos by referring to himself and resemblance in that he refers to historical events.

My topic

  1. Defining= “Chivalry”
  2. Explain chivalry, and what it means to be chivalrous (17th century vs modern meaning)
  3. My audience will be young adults. (20-35 years)
  4. They will likely think chivalry is dead
  5. The purpose of arguing this definition is t persuade what the word means, and to persuade the "comback" of the acts.
  6. I plan to use examples form history and present day, ethos, and pathos.

 

 

 

 

> Nour Ghamrawi < 

Bidstrup
1) He is defining gay marriage.
2) He attempts to provide reasons why people are against gay marriage.
3) His audience is anyone that is against gay marriage.
4) The majority of the audience will probably not care about it or be against it.
5) Bidstrup is informing the readers so that people are less ignorant about this situation and can be more considerate towards making claims about it.
6) Bidstrup uses a lot of logic while conveying his message.

Dobson
1) He is defining gay marriage.
2) Dobsom claims that gay marriage will affect the entire society and change many of the social norms we currently have today.
3) Dobson’s audience includes anyone who is against gay marriage, specifically Christians and parents.
 4) The audience will probably feel the same way the author does.
5) Dobson is telling readers that gay marriage isn’t right and it should still be banned and eliminated.
6) Dobson mainly focuses on pathos, however he still does use some ethos.

Part Two:

1)      I will be defining the term “greed.”

2)      I just finished reading a book about corporations and how there major interest is profit, which is very greedy and has a lot of negative effects on society.

3)      The audience for my article are people that work with, for, and invest in large corporations that are unethical and have no moral concerns.

4)      My classmates will most likely agree with me and many other activists such as people involved on occupancy on wall street, however the people part of wall street and in corporations will most probably disagree.

5)      My purpose is to show how greedy people can be and how easy it is to change that and still make profits.

6)      I plan to use pathos because I can incorporate many emotional stories, as well as use logos so that I can build up to certain points I would like to make.

 

 

Dillon Fitzgerald

 

Dobson

-Dobson defines the concept of marriage as well as gay marriage.

-Dobson offers a unique perspective predicting what will happen in the future if gay marriage is legalized.

-I would say his primary target is Christians, but really anyone against gay marriage.

-Christians and others against gay marriage will feel similar to Dobson and believe that legalizing gay marriage will have negative affects on society.

-His point is to protect the common Christian belief that marriage should be held between a man and a woman.

-Dobson uses pathos when he discusses the affects that legalizing gay marriage will have on children, saying that many children will be raised without a mother or father.

 

Bidstrup

-Bidstrup clearly defines homosexuality, and discusses the concept of gay marriage.

-He states typical reasons for people’s opposition of gay marriage as well as clearing up common misconceptions of these reasons.

-I believe the primary audience would be homophobes and people against gay marriage to persuade them into becoming more neutral about the situation.

-They would be against gay marriage and homosexuality in general.

-To clear up misunderstandings about homosexuality, and make people more aware and accepting of it.

-Bidstrup uses logos using his own knowledge and views as well as referring to documents such as the Civil Rights.

 

My Project

-I will be defining perception and exploring how reality (as well as everything) is perception.

-Will be arguing that people may experience the same things differently depending on the way they perceive it, providing unique views and examples.

-No specific audience, just those who are interested in the matter, and will attract an audience interested in the thinking, learning, and perceiving process.

-Most would believe that everybody lives the same reality.

-Questioning reality, and exploring perception in different mind states, such as tiredness, illness, or under the influence.

-I will use logos in explaining brain functions and provide unique views on perception making the reader think, and pathos.

 


 

Comments (4)

Travis Rodery said

at 7:14 pm on Oct 19, 2011

Bidstrup
1. Bidstrup is defining what gay marriage is.
2. The perspective used is why people are generally opposed to gay marriage within our society.
3. The audience are those who our opposed to same sex marriage.
4. The audience is going to disagree with the subject and that would be the point of reading the article.
5. The purpose of the argument is to show those who oppose same sex marriage are wrong in doing so and everyone has the same rights given to them to do what they want.
6. Logos is mostly used in this argument because it is an opinion and deals a lot with religious issues.
Dobson
1. Dobson is defining the effect that gay marriage has on our society.
2. The perspective he uses is how same sex marriage will have an impact on each individual in our society.
3. The audience is the Christian religious group that makes up our country.
4. The audience most likely agrees that gay marriage has an effect on all of us.
5. The purpose of this argument is to show the bad effects that gay marriage has on society.
6. Dobson uses ethos through religion and god.
My project
1. I’ll be defining racism and its understanding.
2. Focus on how racism gets started and carried out.
3. Audience will be those teenagers and youths.
4. Audience will most likely hear the term racism and think bad but not know completely what it is.
5. Show how racism affects everyone, not just the people getting the things done to them.
6. Focus on logos, with its general logic and reason.

Farah Sheikh said

at 9:54 pm on Oct 19, 2011

amy.schneider85 said

at 11:48 pm on Oct 19, 2011

What word/term/concept/idea is the author defining?
Owens explains the idea of marriage and how it is stupid.

What do they offer in defining this idea that has not been (well) covered elsewhere? What is their unique perspective?
I've done a lot and I mean a shit ton of research on gay marriage but I havent heard this argument before.

What is the audience for this piece (be as specific as possible)?
I think that audience is people opposing gay marriage. It really shows them thst even straight heterosexual marriage doesn't really have meaning.
How is their audience likely to feel about this issue/concept before they read the piece? They feel that marriage is sacred.
What is their purpose in arguing this definition? (I.e, what's their point?) the point is that marriage isn't that big of a deal
What strategies (pathos appeals, resemblance arguments, etc.) do you they use in making this argument? I think that the author uses pathos in her argument.

The next article I read was by bidstup.
The idea was that homosexual marriage is pointless compared to straight marriage.
His argument was just like every other stupid right winged opinions. Nothing was special than everything else. It's still really stupid.
The audience is the people that are for same sex marriage. He wants them to agree with him. I mean apperanly 70% of Americans don't believe in gay marriage. So he doesn't have a huge audience.
The audience doesn't agree with him before and if they have sense not after either.
The author uses ethos with society to convey his point.

I'll be defining religion and it's relation to cults.
I will focus on th use of religion in the government in relation to jonestown and Waco
The audience would be extreme religious groups
The religious people won't consider them self a cult but the government will.
I will show how the freedom of religion doesn't always exist.
I will uses ethos and pathos.

Samey Abdulrub said

at 10:47 am on Oct 20, 2011

Dobson:
1. He tries to define the effects of gay marriage on the society.
2. The unique perspective Dobson uses is the bad effect on the society that gay marriage would cause.
3. His audience would be anyone that is interested in the topic of gay marriage and to those who oppose it or believe that it’s not harmful.
4. The audience would agree with Dobson because his audience is mostly those who already oppose gay marriage.
5. His purpose of arguing this is to show people how gay marriage should not be accepted and how it would have a bad influence on society.
6. Dobson uses pathos with his strong emotions and uses ethos I think with the authority of religion or culture.


Bidstrup:
1. Bidstrup defines what gay marriage actually is.
2. The unique perspective he states why many people are generally against gay marriage and what they assume about it.
3. The audience is those who are against gay marriage or believe it is bad for society.
4. The audience I think would be convinced that gay marriage isn’t a bad thing because he counter-argues all the arguments made by others who oppose gay marriage.
5. The purpose is to show those who oppose gay marriage that there is no real reason to be against gay marriage and there is nothing wrong with it.
6. Bidstrup uses logos and logical appeal.

Project 3:
1. The word I will hopefully define is terrorism.
2. I want to focus on how terrorism is being viewed as and how it negatively affects the society.
3. The audience is those who see terrorism being Muslims trying to terrorize America.
4. My audience would really think of what terrorism actually is and how it is viewed today.
5. The purpose is to show people that terrorism isn’t just foreigners trying to terrorize America.
6. I’m planning on using ethos, and logos to support my argument.

You don't have permission to comment on this page.