Political Debate and Find the Rhetoric

This is the first time I watch a presidential debate. You could say I am not really that into politics but this debate was watched on a more rhetorical quest. Get it? Over the past few lessons we have been discussing topics that revolve around rhetoric, the art of persuasion.  What better way to play "Find the Rhetoric" than with the last presidential debate?

Throughout the whole debate the easiest things to identify was pathos. Every time there was an uplifting moment of "America is…" it is to raise a sentiment of nationalism among the American people. Any talk of peace was a way to uplift the viewer and playing with their emotions. While discussing the question about U.S polices in Syria, Romney made a clear use of pathos when he mentioned the refugees and the dead offering condolences. Then when discussing if an attack on Israel would be considered an attack to the U.S, Romney mentions obamas alleged apology tour but Obama has got some pathos in his back pocket. He rebuttals by saying that when he was just a candidate and went to Israel, he visited the Holocaust museum and was showed where missiles landed close to children's bedrooms. Needles to say, pathos was present in all the discussions in the debate in one way or another.

The debate had lots of talks of the future. Lots of verbs in future tense were used to illustrate what each person would do if elected president. This is where lots of the future plans were discussed and where the choices were discussed. Basically anything involving the future used a deliberative way of speaking so it was not that hard to pick up. It was also no surprise that the forensic way of speaking was also evident. Whenever the candidates got candid with each other and accusatory, forensic was there. An example of this (among many) was in the first question when Obama accused Romney of inconsistencies in things he had said or pointing out things he had said. Romney also accused Obama of making countries in the Middle East think that America is not that strong when he went on an apology tour, making negative comments about America.

Logos is not that hard to miss. Every time a candidate stated any sort of facts or explanations about what was going on, they were using logic to explain it in their advantage. Figures were not used as much but when discussing testing in Massachusetts Romney gives fact about how 4th graders and 8th graders performed. Obama wasn't far behind. He presented facts about his administration and when discussing the deficit. It was not just about presenting these facts. By combining logos with forensic, a key point could be made against the opponents. Whenever any logos of figures was used it was usually followed by accusation.

The only two rhetorical topics that were a little harder to spot for me were ethos and demonstrative. Demonstrative, I assumed was mostly when there was talks about what was being done and any sort of inclination toward values. When the words "We are" were used I assumed there was a demonstrative verb involved in what followed these words. This was pretty challenging but Obama showed more of this since he could actually talk about the present and say what was being done. Ethos was also pretty challenging but I found one or two examples. When the character was put into question, ethos showed through. Obama pointed out Romney's strategies and decisions, and while it could also be forensic, it was an attack on the person Romney is. Whenever an accusation was made towards the reputation of the other was made, ethos was part of the debate.

All in all, the debate was really interesting and clearly showed what it is like to control an audience and peoples opinions. The rhetoric used in this debate can make someone want to vote for one person or make someone completely hate that person. Oh politics...

Getting A Toy And A Little Sheldon Cooper

Arguing involves logos, pathos, and ethos. Aristotle said that by combining these  three skills,  we "appeal to the brain, gut, and heart." Of the audience. The brain takes care of organizing ideas, the gut dictates whether the person is trustworthy, and the heart gives us a longing to want to participate.

In the book Thank You For Arguing, the author gives an example of the use of logos, pathos, and ethos, when he mentions an argument with his son. These three skills evened out the playing field since the author knew what he was doing while the boy just did it. This makes me realize we all have an ability to use logos, pathos, and ethos to our advantage.

When a child is trying to convince her parents to buy her a toy, Aristotles big three can come into play so that the toy will actually be bought. The child can pick up the toy and ask her parents to get it for her. If the response is a denial followed by a reason, the child can use what the audience says to work in favor of their argument using logic. Ethos comes into play when the essence of the child is annalized. How can a little kid not be trustworthy and deserving of a toy? The child can observe in her parents eyes that they are about to crack and can now work in some pathos so that seeming to "struggle for self control" (41) and a genuine emotion, will guarantee the buying of the toy.

Pathos adds a little more to the argument because by using sympathy, you understand what the audiences emotion is and you can change it to work in your advantage. The other two skills are as important but emotion always has a lasting effect on others. People remember when you gave them advice from the heart rather than simply pointed out why their problem occurs.

Think of ethos and logos as Sheldon Cooper. His reputation is well known and his logic is outstanding but he always fails in social situations because of his lack of tact. He is missing pathos and is a clear example of how pathos is a key component. If Sheldon life was an argument, he would outshine anyone in the first two skills but would always fail in the end because he lacks the ability to be sympathetic  and can't read other peoples emotions. When he does, its creepy.

Fighting Versus Arguing

In chapter 2 of Thank You For Arguing, the main topic of discussion is how fighting and arguing are different. The author explains that rhetoric is all about arguing and not fighting. When a person fights they use aggression, but when they argue the goal is to change another persons mid set. Fighting will not get you anywhere since its primary tool is not even relate to persuasion. By arguing you can manipulate the other person to agree with you and "want to do what you want."
An example given in the text is arguing with a police officer. There is a clear difference between going all rude on the guy and assuring you will get a ticket, and conceding. This is a clear point in this part of the chapter. By conceding to your opponents view, you can get what you want. By avoiding the fight with the officer and respecting his authority, you will probably leave ticketless. even an officer admits that they don't want you to fight with them. Click here and keep in mind that the officer should be saying fight and not argue.
 The other technique used for this case was having an excuse. Once, my mom got pulled over by an officer because it was pico y placa. I was dead asleep on the copilot chair and not sleeping in the most attractive position (mouth open kind of look). My mother decided to start telling the policeman that I was sick and that she was taking me to the hospital. It was not true but it did let us leave, ticketless.
The chapter continues with three main points to seduce:
Changing the mood
Deciding what you want
Get it act
When you change the audiences mood, you make them more willing to listen ergo easier to manipulate. Then when the mood is right you can manipulate them to want what you want them to want. The last step involves more emotion since you are about to make someone do something without them thinking it is a big deal.

This is all about being able to use persuasion to your advantage without fighting. Instead of punching someone, think about making them do something you want without them even realizing it. That will actually get you something rather than cause physical pain.

Amazon Simplicity and Change

The book Gringo by Chesa Boudin, keeps making me learn and understand South America every time. I just finished the chapter in which he goes into the Amazon and everything he encounters there. What I most enjoy about this memoir is that even though it is told by a gringo, it is very open minded. I have talked with gringos that think that their country needs to come into South America and take over so that "something good will happen." This mentality wears me out. It is refreshing to know that there are Americans that have grown up knowing that there is more than meets the eye to South America.

Boudin mentions the "gringo wild card" in every country he is in. From this, one can infer that he understands the position he has and doesn't try to disguise who he is but he attempts to go beyond it. In the chapter about the Amazon, Boudin travels in an uncomfortable cargo ship and when he reaches his destination, stays in a cramped little apartment with fifteen other people. Not once is there any complain about the uncomforted of the boat or any criticism of how the people live. This just makes it clear that Boudins memoir was not written to criticizes latin america but to understand it just as it is. This, once again, demonstrates his informal register when he describes what is around him and how he reacts to it.

An example of this is his description of the small apartment he stayed in:
"Lara shared a simple two- bedroom apartment above a minimart up a flight of cement stairs with peeling paint and behind a rusty steel gate... Seven children shared one bed and others alternated between the big bed in the second room, thin mattresses on the floor, the couch and hammocks." (page 91)
What I think stands out about this description and shows Boudins neutral tone towards the realities of South America, is how he describes it. I am sure that not many Americans would take in this scene with such calmness but would rather take to criticize the way of living. They would bust out the always famous phrase of: "In America ladidadida".

Boudin understands what it means to be American in Latin America. He knows that at times, human connections with those around him might only involve what latinos think he could offer them. A job in the US or just giving them money but Boudin goes beyond this. He writes that  he can't separate his personality from his nationality and this is why he doesn't bust out his money while he traveling. The subtitle of this book is "A coming-of-age in Latin America" and when Boudin reflects on issues like this, he demonstrates how he is growing and learning because of the experiences here. By understanding this, the memoir is so much more than what it seems because as you see change in the countries he passes, you see a change within him.

Smart Gringo

One thing that is amazing about this memoir, is the change in setting. More than that, it is how the author adjusts his attitude towards things every time he encounters something new. It can be intimidating to be a foreigner in latin america, especially an american. Chase Boudin is open to anything and through his travel, he encounters new situations that not only shape him as a person, but give an interesting dynamic to his memoir.

Boudin has a way of writing that is understandable for anyone to relate to the text. To achieve this, He uses an informal register. By writing in an informal register, he is able to add spanish words, give his own opinion, and fully explain latin America. Giving his own thaoughts and opinions is crucial since this is how a foreigner is viewing things as opposed to a latino.

A clear example of this is the protest  in chapter two. Here, Boudin narrates what he sees through his foreginers eyes. This means he takes in more details than someone who is used to these protests and only gives an over view. Some details he gives are the molotov cocktails " assembled from beer bottles filled with gasoline" (page 33) or the appearance of the police " dressed in Olive green, with body shields and gas cannons." (Page 33) It is details like these that keep the reader hooked and interested in the text.

Boudins word choice is very simple and I haven't come across any words that I would consider challenging. Boudin also uses the original spanish he hears and then translates it into english. it is more powerful for the text to be there "raw" before it is translated since, the anger is felt more passionately or the mocking tone. I believe that is what Boudin was trying to show by leaving the text in spanish first. For example in page 57 when Boudin only uses the words "gracias hermanos" and "muy importante" when he talks with professor Vitale, you get the sensation of how much it meant for Boudin and how there is a reason he picked those words. He wanted to highlight that even though rude things were said in spanish there were others with a deeper meaning for him.

As I continue reading, I hope to have a better understanding of latin america. It is hard not becoming enveloped in this memoir that explains south america so clearly even to a latina.

Debating the Usage

Reading the debate from the New York Times, I agree with Lane. He uses various examples in his writing to prove his point like The Elements of Style and the Bible. Both writers presented their points clearly but his point seemed stronger.

To further understand what is going on here there are two kinds of language "teams". There are the descriptivist who try to describe language as it is used, and the prescriptivist who focus on the usage of language as it is expected. Personally I believe language never stays the same and these rules that are applied, are a good tool but shouldn't dictate how a person uses language. This is why Lanes view on the subject appealed to me more. 

lane submits a meta rule that would let language grow while still applying some rules to it. In this meta rule he proposes that "When a proposed rule and actual usage conflict, the proposed rule is false, and actual usage should be our guide."Even though the other writer does not agree with his meta rule, I think its a good way to work from an error in something to the usage of it. This way it can be applied in a way that in a sense is mainstream and anyone can understand.

What really got me to take this side was when Lane wrote: "I glory in the real-world mess of dialects and slang, and think that some popular prescriptivists have imposed some bogus nonrules on too many schoolchildren.". It is true that most of the times what I write is not really how I talk with my friends but it all depends on the register. Still, wouldn't it be pretty interesting to see how slang could come into writing without the rules dictating how it should and shouldn't?

CNG Diction/ary

Here is the link to our book.

CNG Diction/ary