A Closer Look: Violent Rhetoric and Arizona Politics

A Closer manifestation Violent Rhetoric and genus Arizona political science In Violent Rhetoric and Arizona Politics by Nathan Thornburgh, the author tries to carry the message across that rumors can trine to to a greater extent forcefulness, than what actu every(prenominal)y happens. In a time where there ar rumors flying, and passel getting killed and a representative putz because of them, Thornburgh is turn up there to prove his wind that perhaps rumors are laming to all of this violence in Arizona. up to now his argument would bugger off been more in effect(p) had he shown little slash, been a bit less uninterested and had provided more evidence and statistics to back up his newspaper. season not all bias is bad, also much can lead to an argument being less trenchant. Thornburghs bias can be seen in many aspects of the paper. In Thornburghs paper bias can be seen in his use of t angiotensin-converting enzyme and word choice. Thornburgh chooses, out of the man y names to call the shooter, Coward (Gooch 325. ) While it definitely shows Thornburghs anger, where does the bias come from? Simple. Thornburghs eulogy and protection of the congresswoman.It his small things, interchangeable his commenting on Gifford was one of few politicians offering concrete law enforcement steps and the particular that he later states numerous other features to cay her in a untroubled scant(p) (325). At the very end he goes on to introduce Giffords is a sensible politician who was likely piquancy because she dealt with Arizonas reality, not its rumors (Gooch 325). It is Thornburghs bias, as bias is expert now whichever way you lean towards in an argument, of the congresswoman that leads to him calling the shooter a coward. In anger or not, bias unflurried promoted this. While bias is not bad, too much of it clouds your argument.That is what bias did here, as the fact that Thornburgh supports the congresswoman pops out at you and is correctly in you r face at many points. It does not help Thornburghs argument either, as he becomes uninterested of certain things deep down his argument. Thornburgh can be seen as uninterested in approximately parts of his argument. He seems to not really expand on the topic and just lets it go with a simple statement. Earlier on in in his article, Thornburgh states that There were plenty of deaths there, just they were meek tragedies when talking well-nigh the kill that had been rumored to be going on in the desert (Gooch 325).What Thornburgh is talking rough is the fact that there are rumors going on about immigrants being beheaded in the desert, but in truth they are being abandoned by their guides. Thornburgh is attempting to say that the rumors of beheading are not authorized and that the rumors throw away led to more violence. However he comes off as dismissive towards the lives that were lost as unimportant, which would throw somebody off reading his paper if they disagreed with th at sentiment. Thornburgh is difficult to dismiss the idea of rumors, and in the same(p) sentence is also dismissing the event itself and paper it off as if it wasnt that abundant of a deal.This contradicts himself seeing as his safe and sound point within the argument seems to be about the fact that these rumors lead to the violence happening. The thing he is most dismissive about, however, is the need for statistics. One of the key points of an effective argument is to provide support, usually in the form of statistics, citations, and facts. While Thornburgh does give some citations from other sources, they are just quoting of events or what people had said about events. near of Thornburghs facts do lend bankers acceptance to his paper, such as when he quotes about the Congress on Your Corner (Gooch 325).Yet this isnt quite what makes a good argument. He could perhaps make a good argument without statistics but it still stands that statistics do help provide support to your argument. For instance, one of the best places to insert statistics would need been when he was talking about the fact that because the participation had been Living in such sedate for so long they were more miffed up about these things happening and rumors began to let down (Gooch 325). Such a statistic would be like something from Americanprogress. rg, in which they state that Violent crimes in Arizona are down by 15 percent since 2006 (Garcia). This would back up his statement on the fact that crimes had been grim for quite a while and that they overlay to drop. This would lend much help to the strength of his argument. The effectiveness of Thornburghs argument was not as strong as it could have been. If he had been less overt about his bias, and had been a bit more professional, that totally would have made it a more effective argument. The one point that would have made it even more effective was if he had provided tatistics that were from a credible and sure source. This article seemed to be more of a personal rant meant to persuade you to Thornburghs thinking than an actual well judgement out article. Thornburghs points are there, and they do have clarity, but the tone is just too informal or bleached to provide for an effective argument. Works Cited Garcia, Ann. position Sheet Setting the Record peachy on Border Crime. American Progress. N. P. , 14 June 2010. Web. Gooch, John, and Dorothy U. Seyler. Argument 2nd Ed. New York, NY McGraw-Hill, 2011. Print.