For Argument's Sake By Daniel H. Cohen

Your honor, as I evaluated Gene Forrester, he was exceedingly suspicious, although that doesn’t mean anything quite yet. I didn’t want him to feel uncomfortable, so we talked until I got to know Gene a little better than before. We went where he was most comfortable to talk about the incident. I started off with simple questions to keep him from getting nervous. I asked him about his friendship with Phineas.

John Colter and Tom Murphy, where two men who had the same dream. The dream of exploring Yellowstone park. Yellowstone park is in Wyoming Both men had packs Johns weighing thirty pounds and Toms weighing around 70/80 pounds with every thing he need to live including... food, A portable stove, camera gear, down jacket, huge warm mittens, a small emergency kit, a headlamp, two water bottles, and a three pound sleeping bag, john on the other hand had a thirty pound pack, some ammunition and his gun John Colter's shelter was much different from Tom Murphy's . For John Colter's shelter he had a trading fort. Tom Murphy however had only a tarp tied onto a stick frame with rope.

Thank You for Arguing, written by Jay Heinrichs is a novel written for the purpose of understanding, and employing rhetoric in one’s writing, speeches, and everyday life. Heinrich introduces different types of rhetoric used to persuade people, Heinrich cites examples of these to further explain his the different types of rhetoric. Throughout the introduction and first part Heinrich analyzes different types of rhetorical arguments, and further explains them by providing real life examples, Jay heinrichs establishes the importance of rhetoric in the introduction of Thank You for Arguing by exposing its rich history. heinrichs then goes on to explain how vital rhetoric is in everyday life by giving examples stemming from his own life. The uses

The titles I enjoyed most in the past year that were required included "How to Read Literature Like a Professor" by Thomas Foster, which analyzed how to go beyond the surface of literature.  "Mythology: Timeless Tales of Gods and Heroes" by Edith Hamilton condensed the majority of mythology into one piece, aiding in the identification of allusions in other works that I have read. Another piece I surprisingly enjoyed to read was the piece "Everything's an Argument" by Andrea Lunsford, which explained the different fundamental pieces of arguments and how an effective argument is developed. I enjoyed these three readings the most during the past year because they went beyond the usual school reading assignment. Each of these provide a new tool

There are no two words in the sports dictionary that make me cringe more than “franchise tag”. So, when Denver Broncos outside linebacker Von Miller posted on his Instagram Thursday that there is “No Chance” he’d play under the franchise tag next season, I was filled with smug satisfaction — and reminded how ridiculous the concept of the franchise tag really is. To an outsider, myself included, Miller’s rejection of the Broncos’ offer was baffling, at first. A six-year, $114.5 million contract (reported by ESPN’s Adam Schefter) would have me whipping out my pen and asking where to sign.

In the article There was no Offensive-Defensive Confederate Strategy Donald Stroker wanted to prove that Vandiver, a celebrated historian and professor was wrong about the strategy used in the Confederacy during the civil war. Stroker brought up points such as “The biggest problem is Vandiver’s first words: “His strategy was the offensive-defensive.” At no point does Vandiver present any evidence that Davis ever decided to prosecute such a strategy.” (Stroker, pg. 8) Stroker had jumped from explaining how the offensive-defensive could have possibly been a strategy in the Confederacy, to proving how it was not an option, and how there was no evidence to show that it was an option.

Jonathan Edwards version of God was very aggressive and unforgiving. Insult after continuing insult, this does not seem like the Jesus Christ with the wonderful forgiving spirit. With the words, “God hates you,” repeated multiple times throughout the sermon, it is truly hypocritical that the God described as forgiving and loving of all would say “I hate you,” every five minutes. I personally feel like this is not the way God would like to be described, and that God would much rather liked to be showed as a forging and gentle spirit.

This is evident in any war, whether over religion, political views, or just wanting to show why you’re the strongest. Humans want to be right, and in every scenario,

People rebel when no justice being served. It is understandable why people act a certain way. Have you ever loved someone more than yourself? A person is your biggest pride and joy to be safe? Can you imagine how it feels to no longer have your pride and joy with in a split second, due to the way they look?

In today’s society, we have former National Football League(NFL) quarterback Collin Kapernick who’s no longer in the NFL because of his protest against racial inequality. However, many people believe he is no longer in the NFL because of his talent. Kapernick led the 49ers to Super Bowl 47. Although they didn’t win, he threw for 302 yards with a touchdown and rushed for 62 yards. Therefore, he didn’t get kicked out of the league because he wasn’t good enough, but for sitting down during the national anthem.

It is extremely ironic that in his writings, Zhuangzi often employs language and logical argument to undermine the usefulness of language and logical argument. Setting aside the problem of this possible inconsistency, here I will explain Zhuangzi’s argument regarding truth and human capacity–or lack thereof–to understand it. Zhuangzi begins by describing a familiar situation: You and I have opposing views on a topic and argue to figure out who is right and who is wrong. Suppose one of us “wins” the debate–that is to say, one of us makes an argument to which the other can give no satisfactory response. Now, Zhuangzi poses the rhetorical question: Is the winner necessarily right and the loser necessarily wrong?

Chris McCandless was in his early 20’s, he was the kind of that guy that wanted to learn and experience life without all of the material things. He wanted to be independent from his parents and friends so Chris did something that would be insane for most of us humans but to him, it wasn’t. He went into the wild of Alaska for months, in fact, McCandless even thought he could make it out alive at the end of his journey. As a matter of fact, he was known as being a risk taker and enjoyed being out and about in the nature side of the world. Many would believe that Chris McCandless went into the wild to purposely kill himself; however, I myself believe that McCandless did not do it purposely.

With the year-round pressure pertaining to college applications on high school seniors follows the impending decision of choosing an appropriate college major. Generally, the decision-making process involves prioritizing one field of interest over another, however, due to globalization and constant innovation in technology determining a college major has increasingly become the modern day equivalent of the metaphorical line between life and death. Even so, the obvious choice would be the prestigious STEM fields over liberal arts due to the instant job opportunities which are seemingly ludicrous to a recent graduate. Nevertheless, liberal arts education should be encouraged to be pursued at higher education institutions in USA because it helps

Everyone has made an argument. It could be as little as argueing so you can to your friend’s house to as big as why you should be president. Whenever you make an argument you’re trying to persuade the person to listen to you. The points you make are ethos (appeals to credibility), logos (logic), or pathos (emotion). You do it without knowing.

It took just forty five days for United States citizens to acquiesce their rights to freedom and privacy for the sake of safety following the events of September 11, 2001. Forty five days is how long it took the United States Congress to pass a law that gave up the very concept of liberty upon which this country is founded. The morning sky was a brilliant shade of blue with not a cloud in sight in New York on that fateful day of September. That all changed at 8:45 AM when a Boeing 767 jet plane tore into the north tower of the World Trade Center. Eighteen minutes later, a second Boeing 767 bit into the sixtieth floor of the south tower.