My persuasive essay topic is definitely arguing against the use of animals for entertainment in zoos, circuses, and rodeos. However, I am really not sure how I could turn this into an advocacy project. I think I might see if anyone else in the class is working on a topic involving animal rights and maybe team up with them.

One of my friends gave me the idea of creating a petition arguing against the use, mistreatment, and abuse of animals. I know people can easily create petitions online, and I could simply type one up on my computer and print it out for people to sign, but I really don’t think this idea is a strong form of advocacy. A petition can be very effective, but I do not think that it would enact change in regards to my topic.

Right now, the best idea that I have is to give some sort of presentation or create a poster or other visual display. I feel that a lot of persuasion and advocacy involves education – my topic especially. My persuasive essay is going to be effective because most of my arguments are disproofs of commonly held beliefs or startling statistics and facts about the use of animals for entertainment. I feel that the best way to advocate against this practice is to inform people what really goes on at zoos, circuses, and rodeos in regards to animal treatment and protection. During my conference with Dr. Bryant, she suggested that I could use a clip from the movie Madagascar where some of the animals feel liberated to be free from the confines of their zoo. I think this would be a good audience attention-grabber in an oral presentation. I am sure that I could find lots of pictures, statistics, and facts that would make for a great visual display as well.

I’ll have to keep thinking about my advocacy project ideas over the weekend! Any suggestions you all have would be very much appreciated!

I have finally decided on a topic for my persuasive essay and advocacy project: arguing against the use of animals for entertainment. I figured that people have written multiple papers about animals used in television and movies, so I am choosing to write about three less common uses of animal entertainment: zoos, circuses, and rodeos. I have found many arguments that support these ideas, but I have also found a lot of research that disproves some of these arguments. I plan to organize my paper by topic. First I will talk about zoos because I found the most information about them. Then I will switch to circuses and finally end with a discussion on rodeos. I think this will be an interesting topic because most people are under the impression that zoos help protect endangered species, circuses treat animals completely humanely, and rodeo events are totally ethical. I hope to prove these theories wrong!

Here is my intro paragraph….

Animals have been used as a means of human entertainment for thousands of years. Ancient civilizations showed a large interest in wild animals and displayed them as symbols of power, strength, and wealth. Eventually the population began entertaining themselves with animal violence. People forced animals to fight to the death, and some cultures’ violent practices, such as Spain’s bullfighting, became traditions that still take place today. Nowadays, animals amuse humans in more civilized settings like zoos, circuses, and rodeos. Although these forums of entertainment seem far more humane than do some ancient customs, many people fail to realize that using animals for entertainment is completely unethical. Children love peering into the cages of lions and tigers at zoos, and people young and old take pleasure in watching a trainer work with circus elephants or a cowboy lasso a steer. However, people who attend these events oftentimes do not think about the lives of these entertainment animals. They have been taken out of their natural habitats, stripped of any rights or dignity, and forced to comply with the demands of humans. Keeping animals within the confines of zoos, circuses, and rodeos is not as humanitarian as some would like to think.

I have absolutely no idea what topic I am going to choose for my persuasive essay and advocacy project. I am thinking about doing something similar to my Civic Issues Blog topic of animal rights. I have had at least five pets at once throughout my entire life, so I was born and raised an animal lover. At first I was thinking of writing an essay arguing against hunting for sport, but I am not a huge believer in that and therefore would probably not write a very convincing essay. I feel more passionately about animal testing and the treatment of animal actors (which I wrote about in my first Civic Issues Blog post). While I agree that medicines and other human necessities should be treated on animals first, I hate when companies test beauty products and other unnecessary things on animals. As far as animal actors, I do not think that movies should include real animal actors because often these actors are abused and mistreated. Nowadays people can create completely believable computer-generated animal images, so I do not see the need for actual animals.

Another idea that I had in class the other day was texting while driving. I know that this issue is becoming a bigger and bigger problem in today’s world, where people are addicted to technology. However, I am not sure that I could write a persuasive essay about it because it is a problem, not a controversy. No one argues that texting while driving is a good thing. However, I do find it interesting that everyone says that they are against texting and driving but still do it. I think many people are guilty of it, and the psychology behind it is pretty cool. People feel invincible when they are driving if they have never experienced an accident before. They think, “I’ll just answer this one text. No one else is on the road so it shouldn’t be a problem!” I’ve seen people who are the age of my parents texting and driving, and these same people probably go home and tell their own teens not to do it.

I’m not really thrilled with either idea, so I’ll keep thinking about it over the weekend.

Here is the final draft of my moderating philosophy statement! Hope you enjoy.

Moderators ensure that discussions proceed smoothly and effectively and keep participants civil and focused. Since moderators do not actively participate in the deliberation, they assess the quality of the conversation and create an environment where deliberation and expression thrive. Many strategies for moderating a deliberation exist, but strong moderators should maintain control of the flow of the conversation and motivate participants to solve problems and make suggestions.

Moderating a deliberation requires a fine balance between exercising control over the discussion and allowing all participants to offer their opinions and thoughts. Successful moderators ensure that participants only discuss matters that relate, at least in part, to the issue at hand. By allowing the discussion to drift to irrelevant issues, moderators tangentially lose authority and legitimacy. Oftentimes in deliberation, participants direct the conversation away from the main point. During my group’s in-class deliberation about the environment, a group member brought up a movie that reminded him of the environment, which led to a discussion about movies rather than one about the environment. In this situation, a good moderator refocuses the discussion without offending anyone or appearing to place blame on anyone discussing off-topic issues. I discovered from experience that one way to do this is to ask the group how the unrelated topic could relate back to the main focus of the deliberation. During the movie discussion, the moderator asked the group if the movie addressed any possible solutions to the environmental issue under discussion. Moderators must decide when to interject into discussions, as interrupting too often will make participants hesitant to speak during the rest of the deliberation.

Effective moderators not only ensure that the participants stay on topic but also push the participants toward solving problems and making informed decisions. Many deliberations reach points of awkward silence after everyone has stated his or her opinion. During the group deliberation, I discovered that the moderator must have as much knowledge about the deliberation topic as do the participants in order to restart the conversation with a thought-provoking question about the topic. Moderators can also elicit responses from discussants through statements contrary to some of the discussants’ beliefs. Although a moderator should remain unbiased, he or she can rekindle conversation by saying that “some people” believe a certain thing and asking whether the group agrees with “these people.” Using this method is one of my strengths as a moderator; I played the “devil’s advocate” while moderating in order to keep the conversation dynamic. By introducing the group to new opinions, the moderator motivates the participants to deliberate solutions to problems, not just the essence of the problems themselves. Debating solutions to issues is the foundation of successful deliberation.

Although moderators should behave as the participants’ equal, they must possess a degree of authority in order to fruitfully manage the discussion. They must maintain control of the conversation while simultaneously allowing participants to direct the flow of thoughts and to openly express ideas and opinions. Moderators must also aid the participants in reaching conclusions, devising plans and solutions to problems, and, in some cases, agreeing to disagree. Without moderators, effective and organized public deliberation is not possible.