Daily Writes

I’ve learned that crafting arguments takes a lot of research and you actually need to educate yourself on the topic that you chose. I also enjoy looking at both sides of an argument to give myself a better perspective on how I choose to word it. Conducting academic research involves much reading. You must find the truth and not just the opinions. I always look at the statistics to prove my stance. I chose the controversial topic of why marijuana should be legal and have learned the many positive effects it can have on illnesses like cancer. It also is the most commonly used illegal drug in the US with over 22 million users each month. The only problem I have in writing this paper would be finding the correct information in a sea full of opinionated articles.

In this enlightening video, Daniel H. Cohen’s main claim is that war in argument misses out on the real benefits of engaging in active disagreement. He is claiming that there should be new types of arguments that are positive. He supports this claim by explaining that the “loser” in the argument is really the one who gains knowledge so why is he portrayed as the loser. He also explains that war in argument prevents compromise, collaboration, negotiation, and deliberation which all should be things we seek in a good arguments, but war in argument doesn’t allow for this. He says that the only outcome in this type of environment is great triumph or shameful defeat, and this is polarizing. Nothing good can come out of this type of argument, and he rightfully wants to change that.

There were many new ideas that I heard in this Ted Talk. I always believed that the winner in the argument was the one who got the opponent to believe his or her point, but now I see that the opponent or adversary is really the “winner”. They are the winner because they now have gained knowledge and new insight into something they previously did not know. Knowledge is power. I also learned that there are different types of arguments. I never really thought about arguments as performance as a type of discourse, but now that makes a lot of sense for there to be different types of arguments depending on the situation.

I do not have any counterarguments for Cohen, but I do have one question. How would you successfully have an argument without offending someone’s personal beliefs? Because it seems like in many arguments or debates, it is  very difficult to have civil discourse with a person who is not willing to even try to believe or listen to anything you are saying. It is especially difficult to argue if they have certain religious or strict beliefs that they have grown up believing.

Ideas from this video certainly have made me think about how to word my argument in my paper so that it does not come off as a “I’m right and you’re wrong” situation. I want it to be a paper that gives new information and knowledge to the person reading who may or may not agree with the topic.

In Casey Neistat’s opinion documentary, he reveals some interesting finds about the amount of calories people are actually consuming. Although the New York City health code requires chain restaurants to display the amount of calories in each item on the menu, Neistat wonders if those numbers are genuine. He performs an experiment with certified food scientists to uncover the truth behind these numbers and wants to show his audience the true accuracy of the calories that he or she is consuming. He does this because there may be people who do not know how much they are actually eating or drinking, and this can be concerning for people who are trying to lose weight or become healthier. In this documentary, Neistat’s audience are the people who are counting calories for health reasons. We know this because he himself is doing this in the documentary and is going out of his way to show this audience the extra calories consumed that are equivalent to foods like the unhealthy Big Mac burger. He appeals to the audience in a variety of ways. He is logical. He does this by providing his audience with assurance by working alongside qualified food scientists who are experts at what they do. He is ethical. He does this by showing honest results throughout the documentary and showing himself buying the actual foods used in the experiments. Lastly, he also appeals to the audience’s emotion through humor and honesty. Light, fun music plays throughout the documentary, creative drawings that incorporate junk foods are used in the introduction, and his light-hearted personality brightens the mood of the film. Even fun blooper clips were spread throughout the documentary. If serious music was playing, and no creative effects were added, the film would have come off as more depressing and dark. This could have made his audience feel bad or insecure about what they were eating, but he took the opposite approach. Neistat’s opinion documentary was the complete opposite of Berends’ “Toys of War.” Whereas Neistat’s film was light-hearted and full of humor, Berends’ film consisted of an upsetting emotional appeal. He uses melancholy music which makes the film sad to watch. He wants his audience to understand the pain of the children and families in the Yida Refugee Camp and Nuba Mountains. There is no humor whatsoever in this film and for good reason. He wants his audience to sympathize with the refugees and feel their pain. He even films himself hiding under caves with the Nuba villagers as they are bombed by airplanes. Another difference is that he uses interviews in his film. These interviews show the children’s point of view and allow the audience to make a connection with them. Both documentaries are amazing and show great examples of logos, pathos, and ethos. Although very different, they both established their purpose.

These are 5 minute or less quick writes that we’ll complete in class most days. This will also include any in-class writing about the readings that we do. If you don’t bring your tablet/laptop to class every day or if you prefer writing on paper during class, you’ll need to type up and post these after class.