To Logan

Dear Logan,

I feel you have a good start to your essay, however, I feel that you left out talking about Romney's use of pathos, a very important part of his rhetoric in my opinion. I feel that if you plan on focusing on kairos as a main element, you may have a tough time writing a paper on it. I think the kairos definitely helped, but I wouldn't call it a main element in his rhetoric. I think if you are able to talk about pathos and ethos together you can make a great paper. I would try and find some articles that oppose your view point and argue against it to further strengthen your argument. Overall I feel you have a strong focus on Romney's speech, but you may need to adjust it to address the stronger points of his rhetorical elements.

Sincerely,
Bryan

Blog 3-- Response to Ryan Kiefer

Dear Ryan,

Thank you for your kind words and useful criticisms with regard to my proposal. You were quite correct in that my thesis lacked definition, and if nothing else, our dialogue and these posts are helping me achieve clarity in my writing. This letter will aspire to be as valuable as yours and hopefully be successful in that endeavor.

First of all, I learned a new word today: syllogism. It’s a form of reasoning in which a conclusion is drawn from two or more propositions e.g. lions are cats and cats are mammals, therefore one concludes lions are mammals. Syllogistic arguments are handy but not compelling because the propositions are not linked. My example is a demonstration of a valid argument, but if there is nothing more to infer about lions, who really gives a crap?

Your thesis is “Romney’s use of rhetorical techniques is…sound and valid, however there are a few fallacies in both ethos and pathos that nevertheless add to the effectiveness of the speech,” and you have laid out an efficient way to prove this. Your argument follows that Romney uses ethos, Romney uses pathos, Romney’s logos is not always correct, but this does not detract from the argument; and finally Romney’s use of kairos is strong. These premises support your conclusion; however, they are not linked together logically, and therefore your argument becomes syllogistic. The best way to combat this—I feel—would be to expand your thesis.

While I do realize the assignment revolves around analysis, your paper should not be limited to Romney’s speech is effective. It should be that Romney’s speech effectively communicates a certain idea or effectively draws us to a certain conclusion. Thus, your road map would not come across as a collection of disparate ideas but a display of interwoven harmonies. Furthermore this would make your paper more interesting.

I hope this helps and best of luck.

Sincerely,

Conner Wareing

Blog 3 - Dear Bryan

Dear Bryan,

While you had done a great job making sure to touch on all forms of rhetoric, I believe that ethos should have been more heavily focused on in your topic proposal.  Obama had done a great job trying to rally Americans, while still expressing his plans if elected, but I think that he had not done a very good job of trying to reestablish his credibility as our president.  Over the last four years, many people have been unhappy with his accomplishments as president.  In my opinion, he would have been in a better position if he tried to revive the faith Americans had in him, rather than just trying to deliver an energetic speech concerning what he would do with a second term.  Although this is all just my opinion, I believe that ethos should also be elaborated on in your essay as a possible weak point of Obama’s speech.

Respectfully,

Logan Haman

Blog 3 Ryan Kiefer. Letter to Conner about topic proposal

Dear Conner,

      First, allow me say it was a pleasure reading your topic proposal. I too plan to write about Mitt Romney's speech, as I'm sure you know by now. Anyway, as I was looking over your proposal, I thought about some aspects that might be beneficial for you to adjust in order to write a more refined paper. 

At first, your paper made no sense to me at all, but after rereading it and discussing it with you, my comprehension grew and I understood. Perhaps to facilitate the conception of your topic you should create a strong thesis that clearly states your intentions for the paper. As I understood and we discussed, your thesis would be something like this: While Obama had complaints from one source, Romney successfully addressed allegations coming from many areas by his use of Kairyos and Pathos. Preceding this statement with coherent and systematic ideas and observations about both speeches would aid to the understanding of the topic as well as provide necessary background information of the speeches and perhaps increase your authority and improve ethos. 

Your audience is a good one for your thesis, but I would like to put forward the idea that you could expand your audience from opponents of Mitt Romney to both Supporters of Mitt Romney and people on the fence about him as president. As you are targeting people who are against Romney and are trying to show them that he is not what he appears from various complaints, it would not be too difficult to incorporate people who are not opponents because they would be easier to sway to your view. For supporters, your evidence could be used to reinforce their notions that Romney would be a great president. So, if you would like to try that, it would open up your audience and increase the amount of people you could have the potential to affect. 

You said you were planning on using pathos and kairos primarily, but you may want to add logos, citing the fact that he directly addressed some of the issues that he was facing (his stance on women) in his speech. It might give your essay extra depth.

I feel overall you have a good handle on this assignment and you should do well.

Sincerely, Ryan

PS, I was confused about the length, when a blog entry should be at least 300, but the paper said 150-200. I went with the blog requirements to be safe. If I was wrong, please disregard the third paragraph when determining word count. Thank you.

Blog 2- Opinion Piece: Romney and Logos

While in elementary school, I went to a weekly Bible study. There were lots of parables and Christian boys, and each week we would memorize some verses and get candy when we said them correctly. I would usually memorize my verse in the car ride there and forget it by the end of the evening. The group was called LOGOS, Love Of God Our Savior. I went there more for the dodge ball and the monthly pizza nights.

Logos in the Aristotelian sense refers to one's rhetorical conclusion and the premises that support it.  Mitt Romney's Republican National Convention acceptance speech did not emphasize this part of the rhetorical triangle. Facts were often replaced by sweeping generalizations--descriptions of the expectations and actions of "everyone", "people", and "Americans"--and the majority of the speech was about being relatable, epitomized by the iPod comment early on.  Mitt Romney was like you. He grew up in Michigan. He fell in love. He raised a family, and he learned from his parents, whose pivotal tale of loss is probably the most compelling part of the speech. There was a surplus of dodge ball and pizza, but other than the obvious, what are we the casual viewer supposed to take away?

One point I found fascinating pertains to Romney's comparison of Obama to Jimmy Carter. Every president since the Great Depression can say "'you are better off today than you were four years ago.'" except these two men. While it is dangerous to bring up Jimmy Carter in an ill light, he is widely regarded as a humanitarian, those who remember his presidency would respond to this association. With this in mind, Romney's largely factual accusations against Obama have some additional sting.  Romney says of Obama's term," Family income has fallen by $4,000, but health insurance premiums are higher, food prices are higher, utility bills are higher, and gasoline prices have doubled," all things that were also true during Jimmy Carter's. No doubt Baby Boomers and members of Generation X can still recall having to wait in line at the gas station.

Romney's pathos when coupled with these recollections point to a man of wisdom from a bygone age. He is not going to reinvent the wheel. There was a simpler time when that wheel was perfect--it was made in America by Chevrolet. There was a time when families were our greatest asset. Romney's parents were married for 64 years. Where did those nuclear families go? Romney is a man who was shaped by these values. He thinks he can bring them back. 

Blog 2: Bryan - Opinion

I believe Obama's DNC speech was a well written and persuasive speech and delivered exactly what wanted it to. I think the strongest rhetoric is his use of logos throughout. Obama is constantly discussing facts about his presidency and policies for the next four years and does not dwell too much on trying to improve his character since he already had to when he ran for office in 2008. I feel that because Romney is a relatively new person in the spotlight he had to use more story telling and pathos based claims to build his character which has already come under fire and could not focus about his plan for America while Obama made his points very clear. I feel that because Obama was able to focus on his ideas, this gives the American people a better look about not who he is, but what he wants to do for America and how he plans on doing it. I also liked how Obama admitted to some shortcomings while in office, be they his fault or not, and was able to move the conversation from the past and into the future of the U.S. I don't feel Romney focused a lot about what his party will do probably due to the fact that it is unpopular among the middle class, but was able to attack Obama about the state of the country since taking office many times. I personally believe a lot of things like the economy was not Obama's fault since by the time he was elected, the economy was doomed to crash. Obama did have his attacks on the republicans too, but they were more criticisms of their economic policy especially in times of a weak economy. I feel these attacks helped Obama's argument while Romney's did not add much to his argument why he is the better candidate, but rather why the other guy is the worse. From the point of view from a person who just wants the best candidate regardless of party, I believe Obama had the stronger argument because he focused more on the logic of his case and the accomplishments he made in office and less about his character as a down-to-earth ordinary folk which we know is something neither of these candidates are.

Blog 2 - The Power of Ethos

While both candidates used entirely different techniques of addressing their respective parties, Romney was more heavily focused on the ethos portion of his speech.  In my opinion, this was an incredibly intelligent move by the republican nominee.  Unlike Obama, who has been in the political spotlight for the last four years, Romney was a brand new presidential candidate.  A large portion of Americans, unfortunately, vote from their personal feelings towards the candidates, rather than about their views on the issues.  By allowing America to get a view into his personal life, Romney is greatly appealing to the voters that are still undecided in this upcoming election.  He knows he has secured the votes from the delegates of his party, so by presenting an ethos-based speech, he is able to target a whole new audience.  My personal belief is that his speech, while presented at the Republican National Convention, is wholly targeting voters that have yet to decide for whom to cast their vote.  He was able to do a great job of soliciting votes from people questioning Obama’s leadership, whether they supported him in 2008 or not.  Republicans are historically known for ‘having a backbone’ and, although Obama has tried to instill that quality in his campaign, I believe that Romney had shown that he is still the much tougher candidate.  He is purposely taking blatant jabs at Obama, which is only going to support people’s idea of the ‘tough republican’, and hopefully help people lean towards electing someone that can make the difficult decisions.  Overall, I think that Romney’s speech was well delivered and was able to help instill confidence in him as a leader.  Obama is very well known as an orator, but I believe that Romney did a far better job at attracting a specific target audience.

Blog 2 Ryan Kiefer- Opinion piece.

The major differences between the speeches of Obama and Romney were the methods of rhetoric. Of course they both used all methods, but Romney was much more focused on the ethos and pathos while Obama was more focused on logos. I believe that this is because Romney is a new candidate and people outside of his state don’t know much about him and won’t trust him as well, so he needs to build credibility and win the hearts of voters. As Obama has been president for almost four years already and most people are familiar with him, he can focus more on a logic based speech and talk about what his plans are in depth.

                It was important for Romney to establish a connection with his audience at the beginning of his acceptance speech. With his anecdotes and slow pace, he worked into his own ideas after his lengthy introduction. The main idea behind his speech was to get to the emotions of people, rather than their brains. His speech was very effective at causing a strong reaction in his audience because he was able to customize his speech for his rather small target audience. And that could be a flaw in his speech, only addressing the average Republican while Obama was addressing a much larger audience- the whole nation. Romney also had several rhetorical fallacies in his speech. He had a straw man when addressing women’s rights, he attacked Obama with the claim that he can’t be a good president without being a good business man, and he used fallacies in associating himself with prominent female politicians that didn’t really relate to him. Despite these fallacies, however, the majority of his speech was sound and valid, such as when he was discussing his support of faith, family, and community, backing up his statements with support from his own family and church life. Even the fallacies helped, as most people in his audience wouldn’t be able to spot them anyway and they did increase the pathos and ethos. Overall, I think Romney’s speech was better and better delivered than Obama’s because Romney reached to the hearts of voters and gained their trust, while Obama simply repeated what he did last year and stated the good and bad aspects of his presidency to the people that voted for him last election.

Blog 1. Ryan Kiefer Introductory Blog

Hello, this is Ryan Kiefer, here to introduce myself. I am a freshman here at Arizona State University at Barrett, the Honors College and currently I am studying Architecture and Biology. I haven’t quite figured out what I want to do, but my original plan was environmental building and green design. I am both a creative person and an innovator that likes to problem solve and do a lot of thinking. If thinking and pondering was a profession, I would certainly be doing that. Some things that I enjoy doing that affect my character are backpacking/ camping, music (piano and choir), photography, and learning languages. All of these are fairly different areas that make me well-rounded, so I am very open to new things and ideas. I like to think of myself as a global person, thinking of ways that people can make the world as a whole a better place, and I have many friends from other countries, giving me insight and understanding of other cultures.  I do have firm beliefs on some things, however, and it would take an argument with some pretty powerful logos in it to sway my views. Out of all the rhetorical techniques, logos is the most influential in my eyes, as nothing can stand up forever against hard facts. I am very practical and logical, but the creative side of me appreciates and can construct appropriate pathos arguments as well. As far as integrity is concerned, that is one of the most important aspects of any person, and I am glad that I can say I can meet even the highest of integrity standards. In all my life I have never cheated on any work, from a test to vocabulary exercises. I am responsible and honest, and I take pride in the fact that all my work is my own. As an Eagle Scout, morality is of the most vital importance to me, and in my opinion the highest aspect of the law is Loyalty, which leads me to stand behind the people and ideas that I believe in.

Introduction and Reflection

Dear Reader,

I am going to begin my foray into public writing with my take on integrity. I had originally approached this introduction by coming up with different tall tales: how I was incredibly ugly, how you should take me seriously due to how sad writing makes me feel, or how I—a simple blogger--would fill a void where media-made talking heads had let you down, but these stories were disrespectful to you as a reader.I only wanted to make you laugh. Everything’s an Argument, our annoyingly titled textbook, describes humor as relaxing, surprising, naughty, misdirecting, and satirical; however, these only superficially suggest its power as a means of control. When I strive to make you laugh, you laugh on my terms; not without purpose and not at me. I seek control when I am afraid, and regrettably, dear reader, I am afraid of you.

The 18th century philosopher, Immanuel Kant, believed that enlightenment meant "to have courage to use your own intelligence" and not be ruled by what others thought or how it might aid you or improve your situation. One should act with a moral code, simply put: doing what is right, because it is right to do so. This is the obligation of integrity, and its place in the blogosphere is a byproduct of the civic responsibility we have been granted in an era of technological opportunity. My ability to communicate with you or anyone else who Bings or Googles this page comes with tacit obligations that I want to explicitly follow. I must work to improve myself over this project. I must treat opponents’ points objectively. I must conduct myself with decorum rather than hide behind a level anonymity, and I must not allow my actions to be dictated by such things as fear.

My topics will undoubtedly deal with conflict, but these can easily be opportunities for resolution and growth. One must be willing to listen to the enemy and to acknowledge one's own imperfections in the name of civil discourse. Like Sisyphus’s rock, these efforts may never achieve a peak, but by necessity the world community must keep meeting this challenge of enlightenment. As an individual I want to take a step in that direction.

Happy Blogging,

Conner

Blog 1: Hello

Hello, my name is Bryan Smith. I grew up in a small town in Arkansas before moving to Chandler in 2001 where I have been ever since. Ever since a young age I was able to excel at my schoolwork and perform at a level above my age. This required my mother to work with my elementary teachers to challenge me enough to keep me interested in school. This extra push from my teachers and parents is why I was able to do well in honors and AP classes in high school and secure a spot at Barrett with an intended major in chemical engineering. Growing up I exhibited exceptional skills in math and science which is a major reason why I chose engineering and to become a problem solver. I am analytical when it comes to thinking of solutions to a problem and approach it in a very practical way. With heavy influence from my older brother and sister and my strict, yet fair, mother, I grew up to treat everyone with respect regardless of creed or background. I also learned to be my own individual and to not be too heavily influenced by the actions and words of others. I hold myself to the highest integrity and to never lie, cheat, or steal. I am always respectful of rules and do not con people for a personal betterment. I feel that I am a genuinely kind person to everyone I meet and I am never disrespectful to anyone unless I feel they do not deserve my respect. I also feel that I am morally sound, as I grew up a Boy Scout and a brother to a Boy Scout. I still believe in many of the points to the Boy Scout law and oath which I feel made me a more tolerant and kind person.

Blog 1 - Introduction

Hello, my name is Logan Haman and I am an Industrial Engineering major.  Growing up, I have always been somewhat of a problem solver so, upon learning of Industrial Engineering, it seemed like the perfect fit.  I have a very logical mentality and typically never tend to make irrational decisions.  I am a very opinionated individual, but will always listen and respect other’s opinions as well.  I believe that to argue something, you must know more about your opponent’s argument than even your own.  By understanding the complete point of the opposition, you are able to use your knowledge to refute the argument in your favor and persuade the other person of your beliefs.  Many beliefs people hold tend to come from the foundation of their morals.  I consider myself to be a very morally sound individual and will often not budge in an argument attempting to uproot some of my firmer beliefs.  With that being said, I am not one-sided when it comes to my personal views.  As a human being, I understand many of my personal beliefs are flawed and the logic I use to back those views is skewed, but they are still beliefs I hold onto and cherish. I also consider myself to be a very reasonable person.  I am able to effectively weigh the opinions of both sides of a disagreement and present a reasonable compromise or formulate an opinion of my own that may also be argued.

Overall, I believe myself to be very sensible.  I love anything to do with the outdoors and have pretty much grown up on the lake.  I come from a very down to earth family and have always been incredibly involved in family activity.  Through all the trials and tribulations, I know that my family will always be there for me.  My parents are great examples of the person I would love to grow up to be, and I wouldn’t have it any other way.

Mitt Romney Pathos analysis

Overall, the acceptance speech of Mitt Romney at the Republican convention contained strong pathos by relating to his audience and imagining a common future that everyone would want. He started out uniting everyone across the country as a whole, by referring to the way the country grew with immigrants and bringing the audience back to their common roots, where everyone started off in the country the same. A common criticism that faces candidates is that everyone is divided into groups and factions that have nothing in common, but he successfully united everyone and said "We are a good and generous people and we are united by so much more than what divides us". He also addressed how Americans are "optimistic", "resilient", "Good and generous", "positive and confident in the future", and that "to be an American was to assume that all things were possible" and in describing the high qualities of America he inspired his audience and united them in their stance behind him as a presidential candidate. He also united us against other countries and anything non-American as he talked about how people were "kissing the shores" of America after they had escaped  "Castro's tyranny". He moved into another section of his speech addressing what Americans deserved that they had not received from Obama, and by enumerating all the things that Americans are doing that makes them deserve these things he lead the audience to feel good and proud of themselves. So Mitt Romney successfully brought about a strong unity and support in his audience with his effective use of pathos.

First

I have arrived.