A Futuristic Argument?

     The above video is meant to give the viewer a "shock-and-awe" feeling over how the world has changed and is changing in terms of population, education, and technology. The video is bases around facts meant to surprise the viewer as many do not know how quickly the world is changing or at least do not know the mathematical statistics presented here. The video is arguing that people across the world are slowly losing touch with their past and present in order to accelerate into an unknown future. It is arguing that people as a whole are moving towards a face pace style of life: instead of looking for a consistent job or using what they have they are leaving to try and find the "next big thing", a thing that may not even be in existence. The "Did You Know?" logo is repeated throughout the video alongside the suspenseful yet tense music in order to remind the viewer that most likely they did not know many if any of the facts generated here. An interesting point to make also is that the video is not from a credible source: although I was inclined to believe all the facts presented here at first, predictions can be made by anyone and anyone can throw together "facts" to make one question where society is going: a well-crafted video just helps to make one think. Overall the argument is a fair one even IF one cannot fully rely on the source of the information: people are moving towards an uncertain future rather than working with what they know is in the present.
     As already stated above the video's use of music is one way in which the creator or author of the video conveys their argument: it is tense at first, making one curious until more facts have been revealed and the view is interested. To ensure that the viewer remains comfortable the music becomes excited: does the creator want the viewer to leap onto the futuristic idealism it describes? It also uses common topics to either provide one with a sense of worry or curiosity. An example of this is when the video begins speaking of education at 0:38. "Researchers predict that 65% of today's grade schoolers will hold jobs that don't yet exist"; those children could be your children. Moments later the video says that "We" are preparing students for jobs that don't exist with technology that doesn't exist for problems that don't exist yet. It makes those with children of their own and even those without children wonder if they want that for their child or for children: in a sense children are being taught to deal with problems for a later time instead of helping to make what is in existence today better. As teenagers we (or at least I) am pushed to find a part-time job and soon a job to help build responsibility and earn my own income: yet another scenario to relate to. However the video presents the "fact" that the same students mentioned before will have between 10-14 jobs by the time they reach the age of 38: does this mean that our ability to be content with what we have is fading, or that we are prepared to embrace the future as we should be? This is yet

again an argument. Populations are huge, be it in a country such as China or on a mass-media website such as Facebook. Using technology such as Vine we again push our ability to maintain focus, as it is a sight that only requires our attention for six seconds at a time. People search for questions on Google that, at one point in time, were asked to grandmothers and grandfathers instead of a non-living technology. The number if internet devices has more than doubled since 1984, and the same can be said about the number of words in the English Language.
      Authors such as Shakespeare were able to write magnificent works with far less than what we have today, so I believe that the core of the video is trying to hit the point of this: we study people of our past because of the great feats they have achieved throughout history: each historical figure, Lincoln, Gandhi, da Vinci, were without a great deal of the things we have today. Although they fought and prepared for the future, they also were sure to exploit what they had to work with for the time being. Without this we as a race lose touch with what surrounds us mentally and physically: family, dreams, love: instead we focus on tomorrow when in fact, we never know what tomorrow will bring. Certain ideas within the video excite me, but some also worry me greatly. There are benefits in being ahead and preparing for the future as long as we do not lose touch of ourselves: of what it means to be the only creatures with our capacity for thought, expression, and emotion. For such things that help us to do this, I am excited. However I fear the thought that we are bound to rush to quickly into things, that we are not fixing what global problems are happening now and that we are not enjoying what we have now. I worry that we will not have time to do anything but work towards the thought of "better" when our best may be what's right in front of us. A super-computer able to handle more than the human mind or even the human race is beautiful but also tragic. It is beautiful that we are able to create such a thing, but the question is not if we are able, but if we should. Because I know how to lift an axe, should I cut a tree down simply because I can? I believe it depends on how the tree is used in the end.
     Overall there are many arguments to be made from this video and I have described how they are portrayed above: some involve the video's color and style, the music, while others involve a psychological method meant to relate to the viewer while forcing them to question themselves and their future, such as with schooling for their children or possible careers/jobs. Although both hopeful and worrying, the future is a thing we must all wait for, prepare for, and anticipate. However for the time being I plan on focusing most on what is now and what I can do now, rather than dwelling on the future v.s. the past.

Law or Loyalty? Lincoln's Narrative To Enforce The 13th Amendment.

     The following is an analysis for an AP Literature class concerning how President Lincoln's use of a narrative in the movie Lincoln helped to effect the overall argument he was making to his advisers concerning the 13th Amendments. The narrative tells of Lincoln's encounter with Melissa Goings. For reference, see the movie Lincoln.

   

     While in a conference with his Cabinet concerning war-strategies against the South, President Lincoln is confronted by a member who questions why Lincoln has his intentions set on the 13th Amendment rather than effective war-strategies. In response Lincoln first jokes with the Cabinet, allowing them to relax before beginning a short narrative about his encounter with a defendant named Melissa Goings. Lincoln goes on to explain that he was representing Goings in a trial in which Goings had been accused of murdering her husband while being choked by him. It ends with Lincoln explaining that he had called for a short conference with Goings while in a courthouse: during this conference Goings had asked where to find a good drink of water, and Lincoln had answered with "Tennessee". Lincoln emerged from the room without Goings; a window was found open and when Goings was not found, her chargers were dropped. Although the Cabinet is at first unsure as to how the narrative relates to the pressing matter of slavery, Lincoln is able to relate the story with his actions concerning both the Emancipation Proclamation and the upcoming 13th Amendment. 

   

     The use of Lincoln's anecdote/narrative effects the entirety of his speech by letting his audience (his Cabinet) know that he holds morality above law. Although he does not verbally admit it, it is suggested that Lincoln allowed Goings to escape the courthouse: furthermore it can be assumed that Lincoln would allow this because Goings had only committed the crime in order to save herself and would not do something of that nature again. Therefore, the narrative relates to Lincoln in the sense that although it may not be in his legal powers to press so thoroughly towards abolitionism, he continues to push the boundaries because it is the morally correct thing to do. Goings protected herself from her husband because she was attacked: because her freedom and life were in danger. Lincoln in a sense is replacing Melissa Goings with slavery. Slavery, or slaves, are in the same situation as Goings was during Lincoln's narrative: they are being attacked, with their freedom and lives being taken away and just like Goings, they are trying to save themselves. Lincoln uses the narrative to portray why he has taken such a strong sense towards the 13th Amendment instead of war and the firm legal processes. If Lincoln had followed the firm legal processes and the sense of "war monger" when dealing with the case of Goings, Goings might have spent her life in jail or even paid with her life when she was just defending herself. Overall Lincoln knows that he could possibly have limited time to get the 13th Amendment approved or even on the table: the 13th Amendment is Goings' window. Without it there may not be an escape.  

     The use of Lincoln's narrative while addressing his advisers in the Cabinet gives the members a scenario where they can possibly look inwards at what they would do themselves in the scenario of having to choose: give the innocent (or quite possibly innocent in Going's case) a fighting chance to stand for themselves, or continue to focus on war and what the law "restricts" the President from doing? The narrative opens the Cabinets ideas about what is quite possibly most important in the battle against slavery: even if the Amendment isn't carried through, it gives people hope and a chance to fight their own battle. The quote in the image to the right is closest to President Lincoln's view on the matter. By passing the 13th Amendment with success, others will be able to achieve success.

Rocketing Into the Future

     The above video is a commercial filled with clever propaganda that is packed with the aim of convincing the viewer that rockets skates are the new style. The video begins with calm relaxing music, slowly panning down to reveal that an older male is wearing a strange pair of shoes. A skateboarder passing by even slows and turns his head to examine them before continuing; the viewer now knows that they are not the only one interested in this technology. Seconds later the slowly building music picks up and the gentlemen wearing the rocket skates begins showcasing his wardrobe, gliding smoothly along the pavement with a look of confidence about him (his open shirt suggests confidence as well). By adding this list of small elements together the video captures the viewer's interest through music and by saying "if this older man in his casual clothing, in this open street-setting can wear these rocket skates and have confidence, why can't you?".
     After capturing the viewer's interest the video tosses about random facts, such as the weight of the skates and their design to further ensure that the possible buyer is interested while refraining from giving too much away at such an early stage. Yet again the settings for each display are in open streets, large common areas in which several people visit each day; this appeals to the viewer on another level by exampling how "normal" it would be to wear the rocket skates to and from day-to-day activities. Even the people shown wearing the skates are every-day people wearing every-day clothing, as if inviting the viewer to join the bandwagon.
     With the product introduced and interest captured the video moves to provide the facts behind the technology by introducing Peter Treadway, the Co-founder and CTO of ACTON and allowing him to further appeal to the audience. His tone is calm and he remains happy throughout his speech, ensuring that the mood is kept upbeat and explaining that the future is on its way with this new development, even comparing it to things such as flying cars and jet-packs, attempting to excite the viewer with the thought of new and improved products. To back up the company's claims Treadway explains the science behind the company, such as the "talented engineers and designers" working to create the first rocket skates known to man; he is also sure to use many adjectives to describe anything to do with the company: "talented engineers", "light weight", "long range", "fun, smart rocket skates". By doing so Treadway gives emphasis to both the company and the rocket skates, making them a more desirable product. During the time of this emphasis the video also cuts to images of several "average-Joe's" who are skating, and Treadway pulls the thought of this far away future back to something that can be grasped with the phrase "...but just remember what it was like to learn how to ride a bike, or roller-blade; just stick with it and you'll get it". How hard can it be?
     The video ends with Treadway himself narrating off-screen with camera following him as he speeds down the sidewalk, his narration tempting the reader once more with the idea of usefulness and comfort that the skates can provide by saying that they can be used anywhere, be it a veranda, college campus, or even indoors. To add something special to try and lock in the viewer's fondness of the product Treadway explains that those who purchase the rocket skates are also able to have an app on their phone which allows them to create games and compare their mileage with that of other skaters; this in a way is the cherry on the cake. By now Treadway and the company video have explained how and why the rocket skates are a good product; by adding something like the available app they hope to make the viewer feel as if they are getting a good deal; with a bonus.
    Overall the company and Treadway find several ways to lure the viewers of the video into purchasing or at least considering their product; it is sure to grab attention and stand out simply due to the fact that much like Treadway exposed, rocket skates are thought to be a technology of the future. The use of neutral settings, people, clothing and word-choice provide a person with the sense that he or she can own this product themselves, and the explanation of science behind such a futuristic machine is meant to persuade an individual into thinking "I need to be a part of the future like these people; they dress like me, go to the same places I do. I want to be a part of it, a part of the future", further inducing bandwagon, pride and comfort all in a relatively successful campaign for ACTON's RocketSkates.

Oh, you're a year older than me?

 

     The argument presented in the above meme is as follows: The older generation, even if the age is separated by only a year, feels superior to the younger generation because the older generation has more experience. Memes generally express their ideals in a humorous or sarcastic manner; the above image is an example of that sarcasm being used to propose an argument. It is an argument because it is able to be argued over; a person could take a side arguing for the opinion that being a year older than another person gives the older person more experience in life, or he/she could take the opposing stance. Each side is able to find support and grounds to back up their claims, thus enveloping the definition of an argument: "a reason or set of reasons given with the aim of persuading others that an action or idea is right or wrong".

     The meme is conveyed as an argument because of the character depicted within the image as well as what has been stated in the text. The character is Willy Wonka from the film: Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory, and is known for his sarcastic wit throughout the film, insulting other characters in a way that they cannot understand but that the viewer is able to enjoy. His appearance within this meme suggests that the comment made here is meant to be sarcastic, humorous, and perhaps insulting. Text following the image is worded so that the stance of a younger generation is taken, speaking to an individual who is a year older than the given person. The younger person speaks in a disdainful manner, mocking the second person by implying that because they are a year older, they must know a great deal more about life than the first. To reinforce that the given statement is meant to condescend the older person, the line "Tell me what life was like back then" is also provided, implying that the given year spoken of was enough time for the world to overcome drastic changes and that enough time had passed for the older generation to be able to claim itself more experienced than those a year younger.

     Overall the argument stands: The older generation feels superior to the younger generation because they have gathered more experience, while the younger generation feels that a year in age difference is not enough for a person to feel more experienced. Through the use sarcasm, imagery, text, and mockery the creator of this meme has presented an argument for its viewers.