Nicholas Kristof, a columnist for the New York Times, is very straightforward in his expression of his opinions in his writing. Kristof's awareness of his audience and his connection with them allows him to present his ideas and opinions in a way that is compelling and understandable. Kristof is sure to tie in every detail and end his arguments by addressing his audience specifically. Although Nicholas Kristof creates many effective arguments through his use of witness accounts and real-life situations, his over employment of pathos leads his audience to question his objectivity due to his emotional connection to his argument. Kristof is most interested in moral and social issues on which he can speak of personally in order to appeal to the pathos of his reader, including women's rights and sexual harassment, drug use and control, and public health. Kristof specifically states in his article How to Win a War on Drugs, “This …show more content…
Kristof often employs rhetorical questions to stir emotions in his audience, such as, “We honored you and fought for your freedom — and now you use that freedom to condone the butchery of your own people?” (Kristof, “A Nobel Peace Prize”). Another way that Kristof varies his syntax is through the use of colons to break-up his thoughts for emphasis. For example, in his article How to Win a War on Drugs, Kristof writes, “So how effective are the methadone vans and prevention campaigns? I thought I’d ask some real experts: drug dealers.”, further illustrating his use of rhetorical questions and colons to highlight his ideas and to provide
Eugene V. Debs, the United State’s most influential union leader and avid socialist gives light to many issues including presidency, systems of society, and most importantly the unemployed in his speech “The Issue”. Debs was imprisoned in the 1890s for illegally encouraging a railroad strike, he also was sentenced to 10 years for his discouragement to the United States’ involvement in World War I. Debs has been a remarkable figure in the socialist party and had influenced so many. In Eugene Debs’ speech, Debs’ uses rhetorical appeal to relate to and convince his audience of the “issues” in the United
In 102 Minutes, Chapter 7, authors Dwyer and Flynn use ethos, logos, and pathos to appeal to the readers’ consciences, minds and hearts regarding what happened to the people inside the Twin Towers on 9/11. Of particular interest are the following uses of the three appeals.
Heinrichs had previously worked as a journalist before becoming a full time writer and advocate for rhetoric. He utilizes illustrative examples to convey rhetorical concepts. Furthermore, chapter four reveals the most valuable logos and pathos tactic. Lastly, this book’s use should be continued in this course.
In the “180” movie Ray Comfort outstandingly used rhetorical appeal throughout his argument in a thorough way to further grasp his audience’s attention. He used pathos, ethos, and logos during the course of his dispute of abortion and the Holocaust. Comfort uses pathos more frequently than the other two appeals, to plea to the audience’s heart strings. An example of when pathos was used was when
Rhetorical analysis is often quite broad. One rhetorical artifact can frequently exhibit traits of all occasions, modes of appeal and numerous elements of argument. This paper will analyze those that are most prevalent in Hastings’ blog. Consequently, this arti...
Americans have embraced debate since before we were a country. The idea that we would provide reasoned support for any position that we took is what made us different from the English king. Our love of debate came from the old country, and embedded itself in our culture as a defining value. Thus, it should not come as a surprise that the affinity for debate is still strong, and finds itself as a regular feature of the mainstream media. However, if Deborah Tannen of the New York Times is correct, our understanding of what it means to argue may be very different from what it once was; a “culture of critique” has developed within our media, and it relies on the exclusive opposition of two conflicting positions (Tannen). In her 1994 editorial, titled “The Triumph of the Yell”, Tannen claims that journalists, politicians and academics treat public discourse as an argument. Furthermore, she attempts to persuade her readers that this posturing of argument as a conflict leads to a battle, not a debate, and that we would be able to communicate the truth if this culture were not interfering. This paper will discuss the rhetorical strategies that Tannen utilizes, outline the support given in her editorial, and why her argument is less convincing than it should be.
Douglas N. Husak's A Moral Right to Use Drugs In Douglas N. Husak’s A Moral Right to Use Drugs he attempts to look at drug use from an impartial standpoint in order to determine what is the best legal status for currently illegal drugs. Husak first describes the current legal situation concerning drugs in America, citing figures that show how drug crimes now make up a large percentage of crimes in our country. Husak explains the disruption which this causes within the judicial system and it is made clear that he is not content with the current way drugs are treated. The figures that Husak offers up, such as the fact that up to one third of all felony charges involve drugs, are startling, but more evidence is needed than the fact that a law is frequently broken to justify it’s repeal.
By appealing so much to pathos, his letter focuses more on emotionally convincing and persuading the reader to accept his claim, rather than providing facts and logic to his argument. His combined use of logos and ethos also adds an aspect of logic and reason to his argument, as well as further showing his credibility and connection to the subject as the author. His use of the three rhetorical devices helps to bolster and support his claim, while also personalizing and connecting with the
An important application is how tipping points and trend lines apply to the present status and future course of the war on drugs. According to Webster’s dictionary, a war is the “organized effort by a government or other large organization to stop or defeat something that is viewed as dangerous or bad” (Merriam-Weber’s online dictionary, n.d.). Most people will unanimously agree that drugs and alcohol are bad and at least potentially dangerous, especially in the case substance abuse. Alcohol, drugs, and synthetic substances are associated with crime, violence, moral decay, brain damage, higher high school dropout rates, a multitude of health issues, and a myriad of other societal issues. As a society, Americans actually pay a high toll for substance abuse. The bill for tobacco, alcohol, and illicit drug abuse costs Americans more than $600 billion annually in areas such as crime, unemployment, loss of productivity, and health care cost ( National Institute on Drug Abuse, n.d.). Based upon these facts, it ma...
The War on Drugs is believed to help with many problems in today’s society such as realizing the rise of crime rates and the uprooting of violent offenders and drug kingpin. Michelle Alexander explains that the War on Drugs is a new way to control society much like how Jim Crow did after the Civil War. There are many misconceptions about the War on Drugs; commonly people believe that it’s helping society with getting rid of those who are dangerous to the general public. The War on Drugs is similar to Jim Crow by hiding the real intention behind Mass Incarceration of people of color. The War on Drugs is used to take away rights of those who get incarcerated. When they plead guilty, they will lose their right to vote and have to check application
Kids start being introduced to drugs at a very young age because the first interaction with them is being told not to do any of them. Most kids have no idea what drugs are until this program is introduced in elementary schools telling kids not to do drugs. In “There’s No Justice in the War on Drugs”, Milton Friedman talks about the injustice of drugs and the harsh reality of being addicted to drugs, and the causes or side effects that come along with them. The author clearly argues the “war on drugs” and uses analysis and data to prove his argument. The author agrees that the use of government to keep kids away from drugs should be enforced, but the use of government to keep adults away from drugs, should not be enforced. The author has a clear side of his argument and the audience can clearly see that. He argues against the “war on drugs” claim that President Richard M. Nixon made twenty-five years ago, he adds ethos, logos, and pathos to defend his argument, and uses a toulmin
The author begins his argument by retelling the story of his youth to build his ethos but the results are poor as it presents more questions on how he is a credible source on this argument as his only evidence is his own story. However, through the same means his pathos is built as his anecdote conveys feelings in the audience, making them more willing to listen. Graff finally, gives a call to action to schools to use students’ interests to develop their skills in rhetoric and analysis, which reveals the logic behind his argument. The topic about how students are taught rhetoric and analysis brings interest but with an average argument only built on pathos, a low amount of logos, and questionable ethos it can fall on deaf
In this paper I am going to discuss the rhetorical appeals, as well as the argumentative structure, audience and purpose set forth by George W. Bush in his September 27 speech in Flagstaff, Arizona. More specifically I will refer to the rhetorical appeals of ethos, pathos and logos, and explain how they are used to gain the support and attention of the audience and further the further the purpose of the speech. As I explain these appeals I will also give an insight into the argumentative structure and why it is apparent in this particular speech.
Wolf, M. (2011, June 4). We should declare an end to our disastrous war on drugs. Financial Times. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com.proxy.consortiumlibrary.org/docview/870200965?accountid=14473
“Getting tough on drugs inevitably translates into getting soft on nondrug crime,” they write. “When a decision is made to wage a ‘war on drugs,’ other things that criminal justice resources might do have to be sacrificed.”