Please comment on this blog post as your response. Do not simply post your opinions, but engage other students and their ideas, either adding to their points or refuting their claims.
You can access the debate here.
Wednesday, October 19, 2011
Juniors - Extra Credit
After today's brief sampling of the Intelligence Squared debate "Are Men Finished?", I encourage you, for extra credit, to note the ethos, pathos and logos of the four speakers, particularly in their opening statements. Additionally, I would ask you to challenge their arguments. Are these credible speakers? Do we trust their line of thinking?
Please comment on this blog post as your response. Do not simply post your opinions, but engage other students and their ideas, either adding to their points or refuting their claims.
You can access the debate here.
Please comment on this blog post as your response. Do not simply post your opinions, but engage other students and their ideas, either adding to their points or refuting their claims.
You can access the debate here.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I feel like the debaters are mainly using humor to convince the audience, or maybe its because the topic of the debate is just really awkward. David Zinczenko for example uses a lot of irony and humor in his speech, along with relevant facts. His tone is also much lighter than his opponents, which in my opinion, makes him more convincing.
ReplyDeleteWilliam Yu period 10
Hanna Rosens argument, in my opinion is very strong, except for the fact that she's lacking logos. She has really good points, that men have had more times to grow in politics and important jobs, than women did. Hearing her argument, it sounds very convincing, but when you realize that she doesn't have any actual sources to back up what she's saying, it makes you doubt whether or not what she said is true.
ReplyDeleteI agree with William, but I think the debaters' displays of logos are much more effective than their displays of humor.
ReplyDeleteThese quotes, in my opinion, sum up the whole debate:
"We are not a separate team competing for a trophy."
"Women are beginning to catch up to men."
Some of the generalizations put forth really get on my nerves.
To Daryl: Of course, they're using such provocative claims and statistics to get the audience either infuriated, or simply alerted to pay more attention to their argument.
ReplyDeleteHowever, they're only generalizations; they don't necessarily apply to every man.
They mention that women under the age of 30 usually make a higher salary than men on average, as well as point out the fact that most men aren't at the top of their careers.
What happens after 30? Much of the picture is missing.
Who's to say that most women are the elite? She mentions the ratio of women to men graduating from college is 3:2, however it's not mentioned where a majority of each gender graduates from, either elite colleges or community colleges. The ratio is not necessarily homogeneous for each college tier.
--Brian, 10th period.
I agree with Daryl in that the display of logos is most effective. An example of this is Christina Sommers' rebuttal to one of Hanna's points.
ReplyDeleteChristina Sommers said that even though women are now a majority in achieving college degrees and they hold most jobs in veterinary medicine, psychology, and biology, they have made no progress in math, technology, and engineering. She points at a specific statement made by Hanna (that men have had a longer time to achieve their dominance and that women simply need time to catch up) and then refutes it using actual evidence. She cites a study from the Commerce Department that reports a decline in the number of women in computer science in math in the last 10 years.
This is a good use of logos and is also a good rebuttal to a point made by an opposing debater.
Although each side's argument incorporated ethos in the form of studies conducted over samples of people, I felt that some of the studies were based purely on speculation, and not hard facts. For example, as Brian from period 10 had mentioned, she refers to the gender ratio of college graduates. However, this does not prove anything because of the plethora of factors that may have influenced that "study". Furthermore, I felt that as the debate dragged on, it turned into a battle of pathos rather than a bout of logos. Sommers mentioned that she "saw one story where women had better orgasms", which, in my opinion, was rather weak because of her failure to elicit a response from the audience -- she failed to appeal to the audience's sense of humor. We saw the "pro-men side's" argument weakened even further with his mention of how men posted pictures of their genitalia on Twitter, which did not elicit a response from the audience either. Therefore,that information was superfluous as well. However, we see the "anti-men side's" argument shine in their pathos with Rosin's reference to Anthony Weiner and Abram's reference to "God's will" : 82% of people hit by lightning were men.
ReplyDelete-Jason Period 7
correction: "pro-men side's" argument weakened further with David Zinczenko's mention of...
ReplyDeleteBefore anything I would like to say i view men and women as equals.
ReplyDeleteI think that Hannah's argument is flawed. At the beginning she starts out strong saying that men are finished and women are better. Her main point is that women have a drive that has not been proven. The evidence used is very very shaky (men under 30 make less than women under 30, what if men are starting a life long career that starts at lower pay and women are taking temporary, high salary jobs?). She says something along the lines of, men have been at power for 40,000 years, women have only been in power for 40. This not only contradicts her point that women have a drive that is not common in men, but it gives the opposition something to use against her. I am surprised they did not. I would have said," If what you are saying about women is true, why has it taken them over 39,000 years to BEGIN to catch up with men?" Also, she repeats the same thing over and over again, "women have this certain drive for success that is not as common in men..." Yeah, please elaborate on that instead of interrupting every few minutes to say it and then go dormant.
I really liked the point Brian from 10th period made, "Who's to say that most women are the elite? She mentions the ratio of women to men graduating from college is 3:2, however it's not mentioned where a majority of each gender graduates from, either elite colleges or community colleges. The ratio is not necessarily homogeneous for each college tier."
All to most of the evidence used to support women, could easily be proven misleading by further analysis.
I agree with William that David Zinczenko makes his points clearly. Although Hanna argues that the ratio of women to men in colleges is 3:2, Zinczenkko makes a right point that not everyone requires an education to be successful. Look at Bill Gates and Steve Jobs, these are billionaires who did not receive a proper education. Facebook, google, iPad are all invented by men. This was a good rebuttal to Hanna's point about receiving the "education".
ReplyDelete-Ying Chen period 10
As William already mentioned David Zinczenko was a very humorous person. He joke with the rolling over and falling asleep seemed to incite the crowd better than any of the other debaters. Almost all of the speakers lacked substantial logos, Hanah did provided some percentages but those were still shaky at best. All the debaters were very credible, all of them being authors or other writing professionals. One thing that I found interesting is how both of the teams had both a male and a female, was I think is definitely a poly to convince the audience
ReplyDeletebecause they are debating an issue about one sex, and if the opposite sex supports the claim it makes the argument more effective. Another thing is I believe these debates are won on opening statements, because after that it does get quite a bit hectic and you start to lose track of who is speaking, but that might be because we can not see their face and are only listening to voices. Overall in my opinion the best debater was David, and not because of what proof he provided but rather because he made me feel welcome and also throughout his statement kept reiterating, vote for his cause.
-MOHAMMED ISMAIL PERIOD 10
I noticed some very small details that some listeners might not realize as soon as they hear it. Hanna Rosin is probably in her 40s and the host mentioned that she was a debater at Stuyvesant High school. At the time she went to high school, it was probably male dominant (more than it is today). She then mentioned that her partner was a male. This made me think that she was equivalent in ability to the male, which helps defend her argument even though it didn't even start yet. However, she mentions that one in five men are unemployed but does not give any information about the unemployment statistics for women. Although it might not increase Rosin's credibility, Rosin also criticizes David Zinczenko, which decreases his credibility.
ReplyDeleteChristina Sommers sounds like she is choking on her words when she starts out her argument. Sommers also lists too many examples that she thinks of off the top of her head when she wants to give examples of jobs and types of majors such as "police man, detective, etc ... veterinary medicine, biology, etc. ... oil miner, lumberman, etc." I believe this decreases her credibility because she does not seem like she knows much about her side and is doing this just to stall time.
Dan Abrams uses pathos in his argument by mentioning that women are less corrupt and are favored by God (does this when mentioning lightening).
David Zinczenko makes a few jokes in the beginning that the audience laugh. But I noticed that he used the same word, "preposterous," as Hanna Rosin. It makes him lose credibility because it makes him seem like he is copying Rosin and does not know what he is doing. He starts to crack too many jokes in his speech and is less funny, which also effects our vote. He also speaks very slow and repeats the idea "This is why you should vote for us." This is much like his partner Christina Sommers, who was trying to stall time. Zinczenko uses pathos by mentioning the "firemen" at the World Trade Center on 9/11. This effects the audience greatly because the audience is New Yorkers, which is the location of the WTC.
-Victoria Yuan Period 10
I agree with Ying's point that education is not necessary and with Brian with the missing data with the 3:2 ratio. If all or most men graduated from higher leveled colleges and most women from lower level colleges, it would make that piece of data invalid for the argument.
ReplyDeleteFor pathos, I think Sommers does well with appealing to both genders of the audience rather than one unlike Abrams and Rosin, stating that men and women are dance partners who need one another
To Brian: Even if they are general trends that is all the debaters need. Because the argument is that men in general are going to lose their dominance in society, there is no need for statistics to count every man. The statistics just need to count most men.
ReplyDeleteTonny Huang Period 2
I feel like Hanna Rosin supports her statement with logos, but we do not know how she retrieves these facts. She speaks clearly and connects to the audience, as we hear them laugh a couple of times.
ReplyDeleteChristina Hoff Sommers argues against the view that men are finished. However, like Victoria said, she seems to be choking on her own words, providing a weak logos. I agree with Sommers point though, how women and men work together as partners.
Dam Abrams, on the order hand, spoke clearly with strong logos. He states that women are less corrupt then men, whether it is in politics or finance. He ends up with the studies of lightning strikes on men, as he humorous engages the audience.
David Zinczenko starts off by engaging the audience with jokes but does not have strong logos. For example, when he says "Women perform two thirds of the worlds work, but only earn a fraction of the worlds income". Furthermore, he ends up saying, " you have to vote against this RIDICULOUS proposition".
to: 37045e9e-faae-11e0-b964-000bcdcb5194
ReplyDeleteI disagree that the debaters were using pathos more than logos. In my opinion, they were using way more logos than pathos. For example, Dan Abrams said that only 9.6% of women lost money while buying and selling as opposed to the 19% of men that had lost money. I think David Zinczenko brings up a great point that according to the UN survey, even though women occupy two-thirds of the worlds occupations, they only own a mere fraction of the income overall. Also, 99% of property and 92% of sovereign countries are owned by men.
However, all the debaters also used pathos pretty effectively. David Zinczenko brought up the fact that over 300 MEN lost their lives at the World Trade Center, which emotionally reaches out to the audience and shows them how many men gave up their lives. Following that, he states that 90% of the dangerous jobs are occupied by men. Elizabeth also brings up the point that most of the dangerous jobs such as oil rigs, police officers, construction workers, are occupied by men, and that without them, our everyday life would be much harder.
All of these speakers have a respectable reputation. Hanna Rosin wrote the 2010 cover story “the End of Men.” Elizabeth was the author of “War Against Boys.” Dan Abrams was the author of “Man Down” and was also an analyst for ABC news. David Zinczenko is the VP and chief editor of Mens Health and is also a best-selling author. I believe that people would give them way less attention if they weren’t introduced in the way they were. Also, I believe all the speakers were confident and was well prepared for this debate by their tone and logos. You were also able to tell that these people were extremely well educated by just their range of vocabulary.
Even though I am not the best write or debater, I agree with Sarzina Easmin and I am sure Hanna Rosin’s argument was the weakest. Even though she provided lots of evidence, she didn’t state a single source of where she was getting it from. That type of evidence is unreliable and can show that she was unprepared or was making up information as she went along. The best type of logos, in my opinion, came from David Zinczenko, who gave me the impression that he had researched a lot about his topic. All his statistics were gathered from the UN which is a very reliable source and were all relevant to his argument.
I agree with William Yu in the sense that all the debaters used some humor to try to convince the listeners to join their side. Some of the rather funny arguments I thought were from David Zinczenko and Dan Abrams. Dan Abrams informed us that in the past year, 82% of lightning strikes were on men, and this is gods choice. David Zinczenko’s argument was that men will never be finished because once they are, they will just rollover and go to sleep. I think that even though both these comments are rather irrelevant, they help lighten the audiences mood which might just help them get the vote.
David Jiang
Period 7
to: 37045e9e-faae-11e0-b964-000bcdcb5194
ReplyDeleteI disagree that the debaters were using pathos more than logos. In my opinion, they were using way more logos than pathos. For example, Dan Abrams said that only 9.6% of women lost money while buying and selling as opposed to the 19% of men that had lost money. I think David Zinczenko brings up a great point that according to the UN survey, even though women occupy two-thirds of the worlds occupations, they only own a mere fraction of the income overall. Also, 99% of property and 92% of sovereign countries are owned by men.
However, all the debaters also used pathos pretty effectively. David Zinczenko brought up the fact that over 300 MEN lost their lives at the World Trade Center, which emotionally reaches out to the audience and shows them how many men gave up their lives. Following that, he states that 90% of the dangerous jobs are occupied by men. Elizabeth also brings up the point that most of the dangerous jobs such as oil rigs, police officers, construction workers, are occupied by men, and that without them, our everyday life would be much harder.
All of these speakers have a respectable reputation. Hanna Rosin wrote the 2010 cover story “the End of Men.” Elizabeth was the author of “War Against Boys.” Dan Abrams was the author of “Man Down” and was also an analyst for ABC news. David Zinczenko is the VP and chief editor of Mens Health and is also a best-selling author. I believe that people would give them way less attention if they weren’t introduced in the way they were. Also, I believe all the speakers were confident and was well prepared for this debate by their tone and logos. You were also able to tell that these people were extremely well educated by just their range of vocabulary.
Even though I am not the best write or debater, I agree with Sarzina Easmin and I am sure Hanna Rosin’s argument was the weakest. Even though she provided lots of evidence, she didn’t state a single source of where she was getting it from. That type of evidence is unreliable and can show that she was unprepared or was making up information as she went along. The best type of logos, in my opinion, came from David Zinczenko, who gave me the impression that he had researched a lot about his topic. All his statistics were gathered from the UN which is a very reliable source and were all relevant to his argument.
I agree with William Yu in the sense that all the debaters used some humor to try to convince the listeners to join their side. Some of the rather funny arguments I thought were from David Zinczenko and Dan Abrams. Dan Abrams informed us that in the past year, 82% of lightning strikes were on men, and this is gods choice. David Zinczenko’s argument was that men will never be finished because once they are, they will just rollover and go to sleep. I think that even though both these comments are rather irrelevant, they help lighten the audiences mood which might just help them get the vote.
David Jiang
Period 7
To Everyone who commented on how many of the debaters didn't have solid logos, I would like to state that, you were probably only listening to the opening statement. For the opening statement, one needs to bring the audience to his/her side. By being funny like David Zinzenko, he was able to catch the audience’s attention. His constant repetition throughout the debate makes one remember what he is debating for and his charm kept me interested in what he was saying. However his partner Christina is nervous throughout the debate and she did not keep me interested. Hannah started off strong, with humor and semi-logos, which she backs up further into the debate. Dan seemed very knowledgeable as well and supported Hannah throughout the debate.
ReplyDeleteDavid has shown up in countless famous shows and has spoken in them, which gives him the upper hand. If one looks at the other debaters background, it shows their lack in public speech.
The one problem with David and Christina’s argument is that first, throughout the debate they didn’t have as much information as the other team. Dan and Hanna definitely had the most viable and diverse source of information. They were able to support each other well, unlike the other team which was very separate. In the end it was quite obvious that the Debaters for the statement Men are Finished would win (spoiler).
Henry Chen PD 7
Hanna Rosin's voice is confident and strong, and has a strong ethos. However, if you take apart her debate, there is no specific logos. She is humorous; however, her debate consists mostly of pathos as she strongly connects with her female audience in her debate. This gives the entire argument less credibility.
ReplyDeleteChristina Hoff Sommers starts her argument by stuttering. This weakened her argument. She gives effective logos in her argument, however, by referencing different statistics to specific sources. She also has effective pathos, questioning her audience almost as "food for thought."
Dam Abrams is funny and strong. He has a good ethos, with a strong and smooth arguments. He head-on addresses the issues animatedly, and all the points he brings up are backed up with many specific sources first. However, his tone of voice and how the argument's syntax itself is pathos, without taking humor into consideration.
David Zinczenko is confident, and calm. His ethos is effective; however, his argument is basically all pathos. Although he makes a good point, Zinczenko puts forth too much of his own input in the situation without citing many sources. 90% of his argument is basically a struggle to connect with the audience's hearts, rather than make a solid argument filled with sources that give the argument a good standing.
I noticed that Hanna Rosin is sort of desperate in her situation. She states that men have had 40,000 years while women have had 40; this statement just confused me, it seems to arouse pathos of self-satisfaction or superiority. It seems irrelevant to the current day progress, the past was a lot different! Her background information doesn't have much support behind her, for example she says "Socialagists all support blah blah"
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, I prefer Christina Sommers argument. She has a more non-chauvinistic view as compared to Hanna. Although, her voice was a bit shaky at the beginning (Showing her lack of confidence). She continually pushes on about how men and women hold hand to hand, and they are both required. This may gain votes from both women and men.
On the other hand Dan Abrams uses ethos very well stating the statistics from polls about women and men in politics. Then he states a newspaper article. His tone is very humorous but strong and sturdy too.
David Zinczenko seems to have a terrible introduction. He seems more fit to be on Comedy Central in my personal opinion. He has little to no logos in his speech and continuously pushes on about men's deeds in the past rather than the progression of women. I personally do not like his conversation, most of his audience are laughing rather than just clapping.
Wow this post actually got a couple comments.
ReplyDeleteJust another side note, the guys are really defending their sex.
I'd rather analyze the contents of the debate and the points argued rather than toss my biased opinion.
Let's start with Hanna Rosin. She comes off strong with very good pathos giving the audience nice claims and statistics. My fellow classmates argue that her claims are not backed up with citations or real logos, and thus not credible. However, I believe her claims are credible and should be noted. She starts with establishing her ethos, which is important when youre not going to back up your claims with logos, as a Stuyvesant debater with a male partner, and a best selling author on such a specific topic. Just because her claims are not backed up with specific citations does not mean they are unwarranted or not true. These speeches are timed and giving exact citations only kills time. We have to understand that the viewers of this debate dont get to hear this 2-5 times like we do, they hear it once. They're not analyzing this debate as much as we are. As long the debater sounds qualified to the audience, her claims should be valid regardless of how much logos they have. Not to mention, no one is going to argue any of these points in the debate. As a policy debater, I pull a lot of sh*t out of my a** and have never been called out. This is because with five minutes of my time, I can search for an article that will support my statement as absurd as it might be. Each of these debaters, (even if they have logos) are using very biased evidence that doesn't analyze the whole situation. Some state evidence for women and men under 30, how about over 30? How can one judge college completion rates when some of the most successful men haven't completed college like the creative genius that just passed away? My point is regardless of how much logos they have, this topic requires evidence that is biased in order to win the debate. There will always be stats that favor men and stats that favor women, all from reputable organizations with different viewpoints of course. Therefore, logos should play no role in this debate.
This whole point of humor convincing people is ridiculous. If you’re gonna trash qualified debaters for not having logos, please back that statement up. At most, humor is just used to lightly entertain the audience and bring a little attention to their statements.
Facebook Google and iPad were not all invented my males. I’m sure there’s a large number of females on Apple’s, Facebook and Google’s staff that played a large part in the innovation behind these successful “items”
And the whole interrupting with "women have this certain drive for success that is not as common in men..." is to emphasize that statement. Success in being able to
Oh and guys, I’m not supporting Hanna Rosin at all. I think that her strategy attack the other side’s POSSIBLE attacks is a complete waste of time when her speech isn’t well explained.
At end, I feel like in this debate there wasn’t much to judge on because any forms of logos used leave out an important factor. The debaters had to trash the opposite sex in order to win, and I feel like whoever did that the best probably succeeded. This really sucks because to have to alienate a large part of the audience in order to win is nonsensical.
Christina Hoff Sommers starts off her argument not as strong as she should have. She seems uncertain of what she is saying compared to her opponent Hanna Rosin. However, later on in her argument she seems much more confident. She also seems very calm, where as Hanna Rosin seemed like she was yelling at the people in the audience, which adds to her ethos.
ReplyDeleteAndrew Yu Pd10
The ethos in the sense of their reputations is obviously strong in all four debaters; they are all editors of well known magazines and publishers of highly acclaimed pieces. Logos in the debaters were pretty even out as well; they both have their fair share of times when they mention their source as well as when they blatantly claim something without any indication of where they are getting the information from. In this debate, I found pathos to be the most effective in winning me over. I completely agree with Henry Chin from Period 7, humor kept me interested in what they were saying. Also, their tone and way of speaking plays a huge part. Rosin comes off as strong and very sure of herself, she sounds like she's in control at all times. Sommers lacks Rosin's confidence. She could be saying an extremely effective argument but performance and the way she executes her statements is just as important, and she was weak in those areas. Zinzenko also has strong ethos in the sense that he appealed to the audience. He is charming and funny; he makes us want to like him and agree with him.
ReplyDeleteThe most powerful piece of the debate is in Hanna Rosin's closing statement, she brings up quotes that are effective in breaking down her opponents. "Women have gained in the past century while men
have fallen behind" published in USA in 2009 and said by Zinzenko. Zinzenko kept saying how "men being finished" is preposterous but just two years ago, he believed the same exact thing. Also, Rosin also attacks Sommers, “It is boys who are the second sex. It’s a bad time to
be a boy in America. The research” -- listen to this closely -- “commonly cited to support
claims of male privilege and male sinfulness is riddled with errors.” Again, Rosin saving these quotes for her closing statement is effective and powerful. She shows that her opponents are contradicting and hypocritical. She kills their credibility.
From the start, the side against the motion has most of the men's support. On the other hand, maybe many of the women of the audience have not even considered the motion at all and have assumed that men still dominate positions of influence.
ReplyDeleteRosin's opening argument spoke more to me when I listened at home than the first time in class. Though I still have reason to believe that the statistics she gave were warped to appear to favor her side, I found her statements to be largely valid. However, her ethos diminished when she used the strange sounding, uncommon word "preposterous" twice.
I liked how Sommers countered Rosin's argument by saying that even if men are slowly declining from their top-of-the-pyramid position, women aren't necessarily replacing them.
I think that in the end, success depends on an individual's will to do well in school, which everyone has in relative amounts.
-Eric, period 2
P.S. I'll mention it because the issue was brought up in class today: the Numbers section of an issue of the Spectator last year stated that males comprised 58% of our student body.
As to Victoria's post, I analyzed Hanna Rosin' debate in a different light. I agree that she must have went to Stuy when it was heavily male-orientated, but her spiteful tone when just mentioning men makes me feel that she has a particular bias against men. This discredits her as a debater and made me question the validity of the facts that she said in such detail. I also felt that the personal remarks against David Zinczenko did not decrease his credibility; but rather decreased her own credibility. I understand that humor is useful to grab attention in opening sentences, as Nayeem said, however, directly attacking an opponent seems like a cheap shot and makes her stand sound less professional and more of a callow fight.
ReplyDeleteI agree with many of the above posters who felt that Christina Sommers' opening statement lacked ethos and logos. She does a good job in listing examples and such, but does little to explain her stand. Her opening statement was also not planned out well because she was not done with her argument when her time limit was up, which greatly decreased her ethos. I felt her choice of wording when she said "the idea that men are finished is crazy" was not a good way to end her point with the two 'if' statements. 'Crazy' is not a strong, specific word.
The first thing I noticed in Dan Abram's opening statement was his voice. He has a strong, compelling voice, but simultaneously, sounds overtly arrogant and kept referencing his book. It sounded like shameless advertisement for the audience of young college students with money in their wallets and the open-mindedness all kinds of books; one of which that could be his book.
David Zinczenko's opening statements were chock full of jokes and light teasing of well-known current events and people, and this played to the pathos of his argument because, as Nayeem said, the audience would have only listened to this once and would not critically think about what Zinczenko was really saying. A joke is a joke and everybody would love a funny guy. However, I felt his mention of 9/11 conflicted with his light-hearted approach to the debate. It was too much of a stretch to connect with his audience.
Hanna Rosin provides a strong yet somewhat bias argument. She has a lot of logos, such as statistical facts to back up what she is saying. Humor works for Hanna because she gets the audience's attention. As for ethos, I think she loses a bit of her credibility when she uses words like "very very badly", it almost seems like filler words in her argument. She seems like she is screaminng at one point about men, and it makes me question how bias she might be towards men. Rosin talks about how sociologists are relating the success of women to "social intelligence, some special formula that is required for success these days." But she doesn't really elaborate on this statement, and it makes it seem like she doesn't know much about it. One thing, that I liked about her argument is that she states what the other side might say and then counters it with her own statement. There is some pathos in her debate. By joking around, she shows that she is confident and believes in what she is saying, which is something I find appealing.
ReplyDeleteChristina Hoff Sommers has some credibility. As author of "Who Stole Feminism", she has background knowledge on the topic and has done a lot of research. Her first line, "first of all, men are not finished", is straight to the point and clearly states her argument. Sommers takes points from Hanna's argument and argues against them, which is something I really liked. She provides her own insight on the topic and at the same time makes the other side's argument weaker. She doesn't have as much logos as Rosin. By using the words,"ask yourself", she engages the audience and makes them a big part of the debate. By speaking directly to the audience she is getting their attention. I loved the last couple of sentences of Sommers's argument: "Men and women compliment each other. We are not seperate teams competing for a trophy, we are dance partners. If one is in trouble, so is the other." By repeating the words "we", she is getting the audience to see her side of the argument and be able to relate to it.
-Jahwa Hossain (Period 10)
You can tell that Hanna Rosin is very, very strong on her ideas. She uses strong ethos, to the point that she was personally attacking her competitors like Andrew said. She also uses many words that immediately either create supporters of her or non-supporters of her. For example, "Men are doing very, very badly," and "completely prepostorous that women flame out after college," and "Duhh men have been at this for 40,000 years and women have been at this for 40 years."
ReplyDeleteThomas Cui period 2
When listening to this debate, I found that it was a battle logos, but not in a good way. The way that data presented by one side was argued against was by conflicting data by the other side. This makes the argument choppy, as if the sides aren't actually talking to each other. That's why pathos can be so effective in arguments like these, because if I'm sure none of us actually mentally retained any of the statistics thrown around throughout the debate. I felt the side arguing for the motion of "men are finished" used aggressive pathos which might appeal to some audiences and alienate others. To me, this topic is a bit to "fuzzy" to have a yes/no answer to it, and so the fact of it taking place in NYU could have easily tipped the scales to the tema arguing for the motion "men are finished."
ReplyDeletei agree with Sarzina Easmin. i feel like hanna rosen sounded really confident and such in her argument and gave what seemed like logos to support her argument but there were no actual sources and evidence. plus when she said women weren't smarter than men but women had that "something" sounded really………not intelligent and empty.
ReplyDelete