09/24

For my argument of definition essay, I am using a middle style.  The middle style is best used when writing an essay which is being read by an educated audience.  The middle style allows the author to express their views in an educated manner without sounding pompous or unintelligent. 

The middle style would best be incorporated for this particular paper because the audience does not expect to read an essay authored for a scholarly journal.  Thus, it would be improper to use a high style.  Low style is meant for very informal scenarios and since this paper is graded that would also be inappropriate. 

My essay is dedicated to discussing conspiracy theory.  So, In my essay, the emotions I would like to convey would be: passion to inspire change and curiosity which could  then be used in search of a deeper understanding of events happening in the world around us. 

I attempt to use various methods of transitions, but not every one of my transitions fit to make my paper as seamless as possible.  I need to strengthen my transitional phrases in order to make my paper flow better.  I try to create a rhythm by introducing and detailing the background of each fact-based claim before displaying my supporting evidence.  I do not use much figurative speech, but it is a technique I should include in order to strengthen the argument of my paper.  Figurative language could help sway the reader to the point I am making by touching on issues the reader may be sensitive to.  If an author can find common ground with their readers they are inevitably more likely to produce an effective argument. 

Cult Films

Sayoh Mansaray's essay titled "The Offbeat Allure of Cult Films" is an interesting interpretation of the definition of the word cult film.  I always assumed cult films were called that because they had a large following for unusual reasons.  I never really thought of a cult film as being "so bad it's good." 

I also like the way she explained that a major component of cult films are "quotable dialog."

 Mansaray sticks to defining cult films by using recent movies in order to better relate to her audience.  It would be hard to describe a bad movie being good if your audience had never viewed the movie.  

 The point of her essay clearly defines how one could label a cult film.  The term prior to this article for me was very vague, but now I believe I have a better understanding when defining a cult film.  This essay would matter if you had no clear understanding of the term, which I think is a common problem for most people. 

Argument of Definition

For my paper I would like to define the term "conspiracy theorist."  Many times society labels conspiracy theorists  as someone who is extremely paranoid or unstable in order to discount what they are saying. I would like to argue that there is no doubt some very logical and very sane member of our society who believe in theories that everyone may not accept as truth.  Everyone has their own form of truth and everyone is allowed to believe in what they want, but anytime big business or the government tells the general public something it will mostly like be a version of the truth and not the whole truth.  Whether these entities keep secrets to protect the public or just to save face, I am glad there are good people who question the "truth" for the betterment of society.  

For my secondary source, I am using an essay written by Dr. Floyd Rudmin.  Dr, Rudmin is a member of the Psychology Department at the University of Tromso, in Tromso Norway.   Rudmin's background in psychology makes him a credible source in this discussion, but also he has a very succinct way of explaining why conspiracy theory has been given a negative connotation and why in so many ways it is wrong. Rudmin uses examples of many different publications to show why the negative views of conspiracy theory is given a bad rap.  Such as, a book written by Daniel Pipes called Conspiracy: How the Paranoid Style Flourishes and Where it Comes From.  Pipes' book, on title alone, discredits the conspiracy believer by labeling them as paranoid.  Rudmin refutes the presuppositions that goes along with conspiracy theory and explains why people should be given the chance to express doubt before being labeled a "nutcase."

I believe an essay such as this is a  great source because Rudmin uses over 30 references in his essay and he displays both sides of the argument for and against conspiracy theory.  His style of writing is very interesting and could compel more people to be less cynical of conspiracy. He is also avery credible because he is a professor who devotes his time to studying human behavior and how we interpret behavior.  So, he is indeed an expert.  Rudmin has been published in 15 scholarly journals all on the subject of psychology and human behavior.  His writings are primarily directed at an educated audience and he doesn't seem to have any real motive other than to arouse the interest of his readers and beg the question,  why does society deem conspiracy theory to false? 

Rudmin, Floyd W. "CONSPIRACY THEORY AS NAIVE DECONSTRUCTIVE HISTORY." New    Democracy World. N.p., Apr. 2003. Web. 10 Sept. 2012. <http://www.newdemocracyworld.org/old/conspiracy.htm>.

09/04/12

Classical Oration structure of an argument was a concept first used in early Greek and Romans societies.  It was used when making  a very formal argument.  Classical Oration is structured by using an introduction with a thesis, followed by 3 supporting and logical argument.  Then, the argument will be summed up by using a conclusion.  Many times Classical Oration will be used when writing a paper in an education setting, making an argument in a court of law or when making a formal speech, such as a Senator addressing the Senate.  This form of argument is used for persuasion and is designed to be used for an educated audience.  Classical Oration would serve well in formal setting, but in a more informal setting an audience may begin to tune it.  You definitely would not use this form of arguing when arguing a point with friends.   

Rogerian Argument, in my opinion, is the best structure for arguing a point.  The main emphasis for a Rogerian argument is to abstain from arguing until you fully understand the topic.  In the text, Everything's an Argument, A Rogerian argument follows the guidelines of first fully, fairly and sympathetically state the opposing position and why it may be valid before pushing forward with your agenda  (177).  Then, state your opinion with evidence supporting  your claim.  Finally, convey to the audience why it would benefit the reader to sway to your position.  In a  Rogerian argument, the person making a point wants to do so by first finding common ground, before attempting to convince an audience on a position.  This argument can be used in a very formal or informal setting, and in my opinion has the highest likelihood of success.  Whether speaking at a commencement ceremony or discussing an issue amongst friends, a person will likely receive greater success  in swaying opinions if they first establish common ground. 

Toulmin argument was developed by the British philospher Stephen Toulmin.  In this style of arguing, the main focus is persuading an audience in a real world setting.  Many times a Toulmin argument will be highly controversial, because  Toulmin believes there is no point in arguing a topic that everyone agrees with.  This style of arguing is all about sticking to the facts in order to prove your claims.  Theories do not hold as much weight in this form, because theories are subjective.  This is a great style of persuasion, if you have the evidence to prove your claims, but not all arguments are black and white.  Therefore, not every argument has the ability to be discussed in this nature.  This style of argument requires much preparation and research in order to fully support any of your claims.