British Accents

(http://brandchannel.com/2013/11/07/good-to-be-bad-jaguar-plays-up-british-bad-boy-side-for-super-bowl-debut/)

WATCH: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e7gR7EYjcP8

          In this commercial, the object is to sell cars; however, the method used is extremely entertaining and effective. The company enlisted the help of three very well-known movie villains- Sir Ben Kingsley, Mark Strong, and Tom Hiddleston- to discuss how villains are often British. There is nothing inherently superior about the British; however, the three villains assert that the superiority lies in how they sound. By nature of their accent, British villains seem more focused, precise, and just sound right, as Strong states. This commercial is particularly fun and effective because it plays up the appeal of the "bad boy" persona and then emphasizes that bad boys drive jaguars. This claim tells the audience that bad boys are intelligent and drive jaguars, appealing to any who would like that distinction as well.
          However, more importantly, the commercial highlights the importance of perception. The presentation of reasons why it may be that many villains speak with a British accent demonstrate that people's perceptions can be played upon and used to the advantage of others. Using a British accent creates a perception of intelligence and deviousness in the villain. Now, apply everything that Kingsley, Strong, and Hiddleston said about villains and British accents to argumentation. People perceive British accents as intelligent, focused, precise, and, ultimately, convincing and alluring. They sound infinitely more civilized while significantly more threatening as well. With this in mind, I submit that we should all begin to argue with British accents. Immediately, the arguer will sound more intelligent, focused, and convincing which will be intimidating to the one arguing against him. It will allow the arguer to hid behind a mask, keeping a stiff upper lip, as Hiddleston states, so as to avoid providing any encouragement to the opposition. While sounding more civilized, thereby avoiding unnecessary barbaric argumentation methods, the threatening nature of the accent only adds to the discomfort of the opposition. It is for these reasons that we should all argue in British accents for it can only strengthen our arguments and elevate our stature. Words are extremely powerful, but, ah....the way in which they are said...therein lies a completely different and unrealized power if we will but explore it. (You read that last line in a British accent, didn't you?)

Arguing and Cartoons

SCOOBY-DOO and all related characters and elements are trademarks of and © Hanna-Barbera.

       The best cartoon ever. Bestowing this title leads to quite the debate, but, for me, the answer is easy and undeniable. So what makes a good cartoon? Is it animation? Script? Content? Characters? I would argue that, for a critic, it is all of the above, but, for a kid, it is simply about "enjoy-ability". With these things in mind, the title clearly belongs Scooby Doo. Not only does this cartoon have a huge enjoyment factor, it is also entertaining for adults with intriguing content, animation, and a funny script. This cartoon, literally, has it all. It involves mystery, danger, action (but not violence), and comedy. Not only that, but each episode involves its own fantastic song accompanied by a chase scene. Scooby Doo is the only cartoon that I remember watching consistently and continued to enjoy as I grew older.
         Scooby Doo and all of its off-shoots make it one of the longest running cartoons on television. In fact, it won a Guinness World Record for having the most episodes of a cartoon comedy series in 2004 (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/3949579.stm). Scooby Doo's name apparently originated from a Frank Sinatra song called "Strangers in the Night" were his scat throughout the song included the phrase "scooby doo" (http://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2012/03/how-scooby-doo-and-9-other-cartoon-characters-got-their-names/254058/). In 2011, the Department of Health dubbed Scooby Doo as the healthiest cartoon due to their level of physical activity (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/news/8760387/Scooby-Doo-is-healthiest-cartoon-says-Department-of-Health.html). I remember loving this cartoon because, while it had its scary moments, it was filled with hilarity and adventure which I loved. It was also filled with mystery which promoted critical thinking as I watched it because I wanted to figure out the identity of the perpetrator and the answer to the mystery. Scooby Doo is a timeless cartoon. It's oldest installment, Scooby Doo, Where are you!, is just as intriguing as the newer ones such as What's New Scooby Doo and can highlight changes that happened over decades in music and dialogue. I remember the sound of the music that permeated the older episodes which showed me the style of the 70s as well as the more modern and vast different sounds that dominate the new episodes and movies. This exposure to differences in history helped me to appreciate different time periods. In any decade, Scooby Doo and his mystery gang are enjoyable to watch.   
          While some may say it is too scary for children or cheesy, It cannot be denied that Scooby Doo has brought decades of enjoyment for children, and it has more depth and thought than Looney Tunes or Tom and Jerry but not as much violence as the superhero cartoons. For me, Scooby Doo will always be the best cartoon ever. 

Ethos in Argumentation

          As discussed before, ethos is a vital part of argumentation. How much credibility the arguer possesses with his or her audience can drastically affect the perceived legitimacy of the argument. For example, a doctor has much more ethos than a teacher when discussing health issues, but the teacher's words bear much more weight in regards to the educational field. Ethos can determine whether or not an audience is even willing to listen to and consider the argument.
           Ethos is the perceived credibility of the speaker. Too often, in arguments the arguer thinks he is qualified to discuss the subject when, in fact, he is not, as demonstrated by the humorously accurate meme. This completely discredits his ability to argue. It is key in argumentation that the speaker have credibility if he or she hopes to do any convincing. For example, a doctor arguing for new surgical tools is going to be much more effective and convincing than the cleaning staff. Ethos is vital in conversation and argumentation. It will determine if the debate is over even before it can begin.

Searching for a Job - Blog Post 3

BLOG POST 3 – Get a Job!
Find a job posting for a job you might be interested in (or one that is funny that you would not be interested in).  Write a letter to the search committee and post it on your blog arguing at least 3 main points why you are the best candidate for this position.  Make sure to provide evidence.

http://jobview.monster.com/Part-Time-Sales-Support-Representative-College-Station-TX-Texas-Ave-Job-College-Station-TX-US-157055048.aspx?mescoid=4100691001001

To whom it may concern:

           I am writing this letter regarding your posting for a part time sales support representative position at your AT&T store in College Station. As stated in the job posting, the position requires one who can stand for long periods of time, lift 25 pounds, have great communication skills, and knowledge of technology to provide a wonderful experience to your customers. As a long time AT&T customer, I feel I am uniquely qualified for this position in several ways. 

           Firstly, in the job description, the worker desired is a person with interpersonal communication skills. As a senior at Texas A&M getting a minor in English and Communication, I am certainly apt at communicating with others. I have studied interpersonal communication as well as leadership and communicating in conflict which could be particularly useful with a frustrated customer. My studies in leadership provide me with the necessary knowledge to be a diligent worker and to help the rest of the team to be hard working. 

            Secondly, regarding the job's physical requirements, I am in great health. Standing or lifting would present no problem for me. While I may seem small at only 100 pounds and 5'4", I am very able to lift at least 25 pounds. I have done my fair share of babysitting and have lifted far more than 25 pounds, including jumping on a trampoline while holding a four year old girl. 

            Thirdly, and most importantly, as an AT&T customer without previous extensive technological knowledge, I can sympathize with the plight of customers providing them, not only with the solution to their problem but also an understanding ear to listen to the frustrations and confusion that often comes from dealing with AT&T. I can translate the company and its maze-like policies for the unsuspecting customer to save them money and keep the company in good standing with them. Having once been one of them with the same problems and irritations, I could easily assuage their troubles while also solving their problems, epitomizing the customer-centered workplace you desire to perpetuate. 

              With these in mind, I hope you will consider me as a potential applicant for the part-time position as a sale representative. I am always willing to work diligently, with dedication and a willingness to learn. Thank you for your consideration. 

Sincerely,

the Critical Communicator   

             

Argumentation and Generalizations

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ben-carsons-ill-advised-religious-test/2015/09/21/2d045268-608b-11e5-9757-e49273f05f65_story.html

                   In this article, the author, Michael Gerson, presents an examination of some inflammatory remarks regarding religion and the Presidency made by republican Presidential candidate Ben Carson.  Carson stated that he did not believe a Muslim should led America, an opinion about which, Gerson asserts, the Constitution begs to differ when it states that no religious test would be required in order to qualify for any office in Article six.

                   I completely agree with Gerson. A man should be deemed fit for office on his own merits and at the selection of the voters. Carson's words were disrespectful to Muslims and fueled by the terrorist actions of a few. Similarly, I agree with Gerson's highlighting of the hypocrisy in denying one religion freedom while clamoring for the freedoms of another. Religious freedom should be extended to all, except when it involves bodily harm towards others, of course, and when we marginalize groups and refuse their freedoms based on their beliefs, we defeat our own cause. This juxtaposition can be seen in the movement towards equal rights for the LGBTQ community. The groups that are seeking for freedoms in public places and among businesses for the community are willing to secure their beliefs in society at the expense of others. For example, why is it acceptable for a lesbian couple to destroy a business because the owners cannot deny their beliefs in order to make them a wedding cake. Asking the religious couple to deny their beliefs for the sake of the lesbian couples' right to a wedding cake is no different than denying the lesbian couple the right to be married. The lesbian couple can easily find another bakery that would happily make their cake. Why is it acceptable to force your beliefs onto someone else at the expense of their own beliefs? Would it be acceptable to force a Jewish family who owned a restaurant to cater to an anti-Semitic group's rally? Absolutely not! We must, as Gerson demonstrates, beware of double standards within ourselves for that will only lead to great disunity and hate.

                 However, there is one section of Gerson's argument that I was disappointed to read. He did, at the end of his article, exactly what he accused Carson of doing-unfairly generalizing. Generalizations are a dangerous trap in argumentation. A generalization is "reasoning that what is true of certain members of a class will also be true of other members of the same class or the class as a whole" (Inch & Tudor 173). Within an argument, it is easy to paint a group with a broad brush, as the adage goes, and assume everyone in the group is the same when, usually, they are, in fact, not. Gerson, using Carson as his example, suggests that all republicans believe as Carson does regarding Muslims in office. This generalization is easily disproved. Rand Paul and Ted Cruz both acknowledged that the Constitution protects against religious tests, and Bobby Jindal, from Louisiana, stated that he would vote for a Muslim candidate if he agreed with his or her platform ( http://www.latinpost.com/articles/80723/20150921/ben-carson-muslim-president-comment-democrats-fellow-gop-candidates-react.htm). Marco Rubio, republican Presidential Candidate and senator from Florida, stated that he does not "believe anybody should be disqualified from the presidency because of their denomination or because of their faith", and Jeb Bush, former governor of Florida, and George Pataki, both republican presidential nominees opposed Carson's comments (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/09/22/ben-carson-muslim-president-absolutely-stand-by-comments/). Rather than applaud these republicans for opposing Carson's words, the media is largely ignoring their dissents, choosing rather, like Gerson, to generalize the entire party. These generalizations are exactly what Gerson is arguing against in his whole article. He does not want Muslims to be generalized and marginalized because of a small sect of violent terrorists within the religion. Similarly, the republican party has no desire to be generalized and marginalized by the foolish and disrespectful statements of one of its members. The democratic party would not want such treatment either. It is important in argumentation that arguments be made on their own merits with evidence, reasoning, and logic. Arguments that consist of generalizations, red herrings, and ad hominem attacks are unproductive and destructive for all involved, especially in the political arena. Continued attacks such as these from both sides are only going to further divide the people of this country and lead to worse situations for all involved. Rather, we should approach the fate of our country with mutual respect for each others' freedoms and the principles our country is founded one.

Claims in Advertising

http://www.frederiksamuel.com/blog/2007/12/heinz-ketchup.html

In America and the world, we are bombarded with advertisements every day. Buy this now! Go here! Wear this! Only the bold drive this....It seems as if the whole world is shouting at us trying to tell us the things that are vital to be happy, healthy, protected, and popular. We even have ads that are tailored to the items that we search so that our "shopping experience" can be optimized. Especially in America, we live in a sea of consumerism with thousands of items, brands, and services vying for our attention. Advertising is everywhere, and it is very tricky. Each advertisement seeks to persuade its audience that their particular product or service is the best choice.

Consider this Heinz Ketchup ad.

It serves as a perfect example of clever advertising and the power of persuasion. Let's critique their argument advocating for their product using the Toulmin Model of argumentation. As defined by Inch and Tudor's book, Critical Thinking and Communication,the Toulmin Model has six parts: Data, a claim, a warrant, backing, a qualifier, and reservation (52). Not every argument has each part, but most contain the majority.

First, what is a claim? A claim, as discussed in another post is "the expressed opinion or conclusion that the arguer wants accepted" (52). So what is the claim in this Heinz ad? It is clearly stated- no one grows ketchup like Heinz. Simple enough, but what is their proof to back up their bold claim?

Second we have data. Data is evidence or "facts or conditions that are objectively observable beliefs or premises accepted as true by the audience, or conclusions previously established" (52). Observable facts that all agree on regarding ketchup include the following: 1) ketchup is a product that can be made from tomatoes 2) Heinz sells ketchup. However, these two accepted facts do not support their claim. More evidence is needed.

Third part of the model is the warrant or the "reasoning used to link the data to the claim" (52). So what is Heinz's warrant? Warrants are usually rules or principles that can be applied to the situation (52) so in relation to Heinz's ad, a warrant that they seem to suggest is that if the ketchup is not Heinz, then it is inferior.

Fourth is the backing which supports the principle put forth in the argument's warrant (53). So what is the backing for Heinz's assertion that their ketchup is superior? It lies in their assertion that no one "grows" ketchup like Heinz coupled with their ketchup bottle formed with tomatoes. This is meant to convince audiences that Heinz ketchup is superior because its ketchup comes directly from tomatoes. Ketchup has a bad reputation of consisting of corn syrup and other processed chemicals so by stating that their ketchup is grown with the imagery of the tomatoes, Heinz suggests that their ketchup is more natural which all would agree is more favorable.

The fifth part to the Toulmin Model is the qualifier. The qualifier is the "colloquial adverb or adverbial phrase that modifies the claim and indicates the rational strength the arguer attributes to it" such as strongly, always, probably, or certainly (53). Though a qualifier is not directly stated, because the words "no one" is used, the advertisement suggests that a qualifier such as always is most accurate.

The sixth and final part to the argument is the reservation or the "circumstances or conditions that undermine the argument" (53). There are no reservations presented in this advertisement; however, one that many could bring up is the fact that, in order to make ketchup, tomatoes must be processed.

All in all, this advertisement is very effective but easily questioned; however, to people who only see it in passing it could be very convincing or at least intriguing.

Argumentation vs Contradiction

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hnTmBjk-M0c
transcript from: http://www.montypython.net/scripts/argument.php

In this humorous video, Michael Palin enters John Cleese's room seeking an argument for which he pays to argue for five minutes. However, over the course of the five minutes, Palin becomes agitated because Cleese is doing nothing but simply contradicting everything he says which Palin asserts is, "not an argument" to which Cleese responds that, in order to argue, he must take up a contrary position. However, Palin notes that taking a contrary position is not simply saying "No it isn't" or "Yes it is". Palin defines an argument in this exchange as a "connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition". Later, he also states that an argument is "an intellectual process", not merely contradiction which is the "the automatic gainsaying of anything the other person says". Are his definitions accurate? What constitutes a good argument?

An argument is defined as "a set of statements in which a claim is made, support is offered for it, and there is an attempt to influence someone in a context of disagreement" (13) in Critical Thinking and Communication: the Use of Reasoning in Argument by Inch and Tudor. Based on this definition which is a more complete definition than Palin's, a vital piece of an argument that has been discussed in a previous post is critical thinking which highlights Palin's point that a good argument is not merely contradiction. True argumentation is a process which specific characteristics- a claim, evidence, and reasoning to reach a specific conclusion (13-15). As demonstrated by the Toumlin and Co-orientational argument methods, a good argument is usually made up of a number of things, including an assertion backed up by specific data as well as a stated or unstated assumption (called a warrant). In the video, Palin's unstated assumption was that the five minutes argument that he paid for would be a good one and not simply filled with contrary statements which is more commonly categorized as bickering. Additionally, an argument usually has additional evidence to back it up and a qualifier, usually words like strongly, absolutely, somewhat, to demonstrate how confident the arguer is in his supposition. While Palin never uses a word such as this specifically, he does indeed insist vehemently that his position is correct. Within arguments, there are different types of claims. There are value claims which analyze the value  of something based on a standard determined by the arguer (122). A policy claim is one that "calls for a specific course of action and focus on whether a change in policy or behavior should take place" (123). Also, a claim can be factual which is one that "makes inferences about past, present, or future conditions or relationships" (120). It seems that Palin's is a value claim because he is judging the quality of their argument on his standards of a good argument. Claims can also be explicit or implicit. Palin's is explicit for he insists that their argument is not good but rather simply contradictory statements.    Evidence is a vital part of argumentation as well, but neither Palin nor Cleese provide evidence to support their assertions beyond "yes you did" or "no you didn't" which does not count as evidence. While evidence is not just facts or observable behavior, it does have to involve logical reasoning, observable, and/or a generally accepted truth (137-138).

So, while Palin does indeed provide a narrow but accurate definition of an argument, he and Cleese certainly do not carry it out for their exchange involves no evidence or critical thinking. At its base, it is simply bickering. Arguments involve some contradictions but certainly not simply the irritating response of "no it isn't" or "yes it is" repeatedly.

You are what you eat : Blog Post 2

What do you eat in a day? Are you a healthy eater? A junk food consumer? Our food selections say something about us, and advertisement agencies strive to speak alongside whatever our food says about us. For example, organic foods. The labels seek to persuade their audience that a particular food selection is organic, therefore, healthier and safer. Each food item makes a specific claim, orchestrated to target the audience most likely to notice them. For example, candy often uses bright colors and fun shapes. Why? Because their target is children and adults who are young at heart (like myself).

Take, for example, this Hormel Natural ham that I bought from HEB here in College Station. Just on the package of this ham, several claims are made such as the ham being fully cooked. The most prevalent and significant claim is that the meat is 100% natural with no added hormones or nitrates. This is the most significant claim as it is the one that will set this ham apart from other hams and is directed towards people who want to eat more healthily. After inspecting the ingredients list, it does indeed appear to be that Hormel is speaking truthfully about their natural meats because only a few ingredients are listed, and they are all pronounceable, to say the least, and not chemicals. This truthfulness adds to their ethos or credibility about their brand. Similarly, by saying that "Wouldn't it be great if all lunchmeat didn't contain preservatives? We think so..." They are appealing to a sense of camaraderie and the common good, a desire for everyone's health being improved together. This use of pathos is also an example of logos in an argument because it appeals to the logic behind eating more healthfully. Therein lies their warrant-the unstated assumption made on the package is that natural meat is better than artificial. The warrant is, seemingly, true and is supported by the fact that federal regulations prohibit the use of hormones in meat. However, after some research, it seems that their wording is colorful and, ultimately, somewhat deceptive because they use hormones on their animals and wait for the hormones to be out of their system before processing them and nitrates still exist in the meat, they just occur in other ingredients used in the meat. With that being said, their natural meats are much healthier than other deli meats.

Hormel Natural Meat is a prime example of the power of advertising and the dangers that lurk in clever phraseology which demonstrates the importance of being an educated consumer. Advertising agencies are sneaky and extremely persuasive in the audiences that they target and the language that they use, highlighting the power of argumentation in advertising and the importance of being informed.

Tiny Interventions: Blog Post 1

        We have all heard the old adage, "Sticks and stones will break my bones, but words will never harm me". However, we all know that, in a world plagued by bullying and intolerance, the rhyme sounds hallow. Words are powerful. With a single sentence, a speaker can provide encouragement or dismay to another and can change the course of someone's day. If harsh words can drive a person to the very edge of sorrow, how much more could saying something positive do to bring them back and uplift them?  

          Two of my close friends and I taught a young ladies' bible class regarding the importance of their faith, attitude, and treatment of others as they enter college. We asked them to remember that others are more important than themselves, and, in a world where that no longer seems to be true to most people, it is so important to remember so that we can make a difference. My two friends did an excellent job talking to these incoming college students so I wanted to show them how much I appreciated their words of encouragement and help. I wrote them a note which I left their house when I was over there for another study. In the note, I thanked them for their words and for their hearts that always seek to love other people. I told them how much of an encouragement they are to everyone around them. I think (or hope) at least that it made a difference in their world. They told me that they really appreciated it. By reminding and, hopefully, persuading them that their actions had an impact, I hope to motivate them to keep encouraging and helping others. Actions such as this could even start something of a pay-it-forward chain as their actions inspire others who then go on to do the same. 

         Things as small as a smile, a visit to a sick friend, flowers to a sad one, or a listening ear can make a huge difference in individual lives. We need people who impact the world, but we also need everyday individuals who are always making a difference because those daily encouragements truly can change someone's world. By persuading people that they are valuable and that life is worth living when you help other people, we can change hearts to love other people more rather than focusing on physical differences like skin color. We are all people, and we need a value change to remind people of that.  A value change is described by Inch and Tudor in Critical Thinking and Communication as a "process in which a value becomes more and more widely diffused throughout a society until virtually all its members adhere to it" (93). Wouldn't it be beautiful if everyone in the United States adhered to a value that deemed other people as more important than themselves? Small acts of persuasion can start such a process that disseminates the value of love and benevolence throughout society and the world. Though such a change will never be realized in this dark and selfish world, it can certainly improve the world of the individuals that it touches which can motivate people to dream bigger, smile wider, love deeper, and work harder. It all begins with individuals and the power to persuade.  

Idiotic Arguing or Intellectual Debate

 http://www.buzzquotes.com/debate-quotes

                To be perfectly honest, I don't know Dani Reynolds. However, I think they bring up an interesting idea regarding the nature of communication in disagreements. Reynolds' claim, a vital piece in any debate, is that smart people debate while idiots just engage in a shouting match. While the choice of words could be considered a bit crass and, therefore, not particularly effective argumentation, Reynolds succinctly summarizes a key difference between true communication and simple noise during disagreements. All too common is the stereotypical argument depicted by Hollywood with screaming and flying objects as a result of extreme emotion and an acute lack of self-control. Such fights certainly do not lead to an intelligent discussion or beneficial solution.  "Idiot" is a derogatory term, generally branding someone as a fool or lacking mental ingenuity. Reynolds clearly associates "idiots" with arguing, perpetuating the idea that arguing is simply loud yelling and irrationality. For its purpose, Reynolds' pointed choice of words is effective as it draws from the audience's preconceived definition of arguing and debating.
                The word "argue" clearly bears the connotation of a bad disagreement that may involve yelling and other displays of anger and irrationality. However, experts in communication may assert that the word or action of "arguing" is not, by nature, bad but rather has been assigned such a definition by people. At its basic level, true argumentation is more historically and accurately described as a process that attempts to validate beliefs, perspectives, or values, according to Critical Thinking and Communication by Inch and Tudor. In truth, proper argumentation is what most would describe as debate-rational, calm, intellectual discussion. As Inch and Tudor assert, it requires a claim or assertion to be presented, a context that defines and clarifies both sides, and standards or rules that guide the discussion. Perhaps one of the most important aspects of effective argumentation and healthy debate is the use of critical thinking. This key function within argumentation is precisely why Reynolds asserts that intellectuals can debate-they utilize critical thinking and include evidence to support their assertions. Intellectual automatically brings with it the assumption of heightened intelligence and reasoning skills.  While Reynolds' wording might be considered hostile, the vocabulary chosen bears with it connotations that effectively drive home the point that there is a vast difference between what we often define as arguing and calm, logical debate. In doing so, Reynolds also draws a distinction between the parties that engage in these two different types of conflict-the intellectual versus the idiot-and, therefore, calls each person to examine how they approach communication during disagreements. No one wants to be an idiot.