American Dream revamped

Steven Cruz brings up some very interesting points that I enjoyed and agreed with. The one that hit me the hardest was the notion he made that the new American dream is to not lose. As Americans, I think that we have adopted this idea that it's ok if we don't do anything to progress ourselves further, as long as we don't lose. Our only drive is to do minimum to win. I think it's ridiculous how no one wants to become something greater than what they are. They just don't want to lose. It's what is really wrong with this society and the American Dream now a days. Where would we really be if no body wanted to maybe advance life a little bit?
Would Washington have crossed the Deleware? WOuld Peyton Manning have won the super bowl after years of shameful dissappointment. None of them settled for just "not losing", so why should anybody else? Some people just need to get a grip on life and realize that you cannot just go coasting through doing whatever you wish until it's too late to change anything. If that happens what will this country come to? If we all go the way of Cruz's revamped "American Dream", America might no exhist in the state if was meant to become.

Rich exploiting the poor

I don't think that the rich are really exploiting the poor. Even though the rich do under pay and seemingly take advantage of the poor, the poor voluntarily do it. While the rich do abuse how desperate those in lower class society. While at the same time the rich do use to poor for everything they don't want to do and lower their wages to the lowest amount possible. While this may sound a lot like exploiting, my personal definition of exploitation is when you abuse someone for your own amusement or benefit. What the rich do does not really fall into that category in my mind since they just use them by giving the least in return as possible.
By now I bet there is someone out there saying that just because that is my personal definition, doesn't mean that it is a good ground to base itself on. So now I will give the actual definition to exploit: "to make full use of and derive benefit from" (dictionary widget for iBook). TO those people I would just like to say "ha" because even though my definition is completely different from the dictionary one, they still have the same underline and they both fit into my argument. The rich do not exploit the poor merely because, even thought it's meager, the poor at least get something in return.

Ethos and Pathos in the government and state

Ethos and Pathos are powerful weapons in any argument. Ethos uses credibility to back up your argument. While Pathos uses feeling words to bring out the audience's emotions to help them make a decision either way. When you use these though there are some things that are expected of you. One of those is that you use the complete truth in your argument to back yourself up. It is just immoral to sit there and lie to somebody to get their vote. It is immoral as well as illogical. Why would you want to lie in your argument just to get people to side with you.
This is one of the ethical values that we expect our government and media to live up to. Unfortunately they don't always keep to their unwritten code. Whether it's for votes or ratings, these two groups will lie from time to time just to save their own asses. It is definitely wrong but so far nobody has stepped in to stop them.

Pseudo arguments

Pseudo arguments are argument that take place over a subject that can't be measured. An example would be something like whether cats are better than dogs or not. It is basically any argument that can really be argued till the end of time.
One pseudo argument that has come up in my life is whether movie are better than theater. It was a pretty heated argument. On one hand you have movie that can produce a more realistic picture and make you believe that you are actually in the story. But on the other you get a real life performance that could be different every night. You can also make a longer play than you can a movie. With movies, people expect to go to a theater and be out in less than three hours. On the other hand, with plays, as long as you have intermission, people can expect to spend their evening or night there. It's almost like a gathering place for people. While both have their distinct advantages, you can never really decide without a shred of doubt that one is better than the other. But they both do share something in common and that is what's most important of all. THey both are created to tell a story to the audience.

The use of Pathos

Pathos can be a great tool for using in an argument, that is if you know how to use it right. Pathos plays on the emotions of the people you are trying to sell your argument to. Whether it's those who support you or those who disagree with you, Pathos can help make them believe what you are arguing for. Pathos is when you use words that repersent feelings in your argument. This brings out people's emotions to help make theri decision about a certain topic. Whether it's pity or anger, the use of Pathos in an argument can be a very helpful tool. Many times, a person's emotions can get in the way of their logic and almost make a decision for them. If you can do this right, it will help you become better at arguing.

Sides in Torture

In the argument for using torture only in necessary situations, the writers make some very good points as well as some key mistakes. He uses human emotions to pull at you heart and make you feel guilt or pain to cloud your judgement. What i mean by this is that while these types of emtions can be very useful in certain situations, here they just get in the way of your clear thinking and can even force you into a decision you wouldn't be ofr otherwise. Now I'm not saying that this is a dirty trick or anything like that, but merely a well thought out strategy to get people to see his view of things.
While he does put out a lot of good points, the way in which he did it seemed rushed and very vulnerable. Because he was verbally pelting the reader with all of these ideas and arguments, it was suppose to not give the reader time to come up with a response or a counter arguement. This clearly shows that while he can make a good opening satement for his side, he is most likely not ready to continue on in a drawnout argument about this subject. In this case he is clearly either not through enough in his undestanding of the subject or that he just issint a good debater. By reading his paper I would be put to the side against it just because he uses more mental warfare to try and pursuade people than actaully giving him facts and clear convincing explnations, but I still have to side with him because what he said only enforced what I thought before reading this paper.

implicit vs. explicit

For as long as humans still have consciousness, and possibly even after, there will always be arguments between other humans. These arguments will be played out for either sides feeling towards a certain subject. Within these boundaries, there will be two distinct ways that people will argue. One way is through implicit argument, the other explicit.
Implicit argument is possibly the harder of the two to understand fully, it is using a subtle or non-direct way to state something. For example a picture. Say you have a picture like this
this would show that the argument that a great man just died and that he will be sorely missed. It is not directly said but when you look at it, the meaning should become fairly clear.
Explicit Argument would probably be an easier one to comprehend. It is pretty much somebody stating something like "The iPhone is evil. There is no way something could really be that perfect!" That would be an example of a more explicit argument.