Month: October 2019

The video I chose for my Youtube Video Analysis post is John Quincy Adams’ monologue in the movie “The Amistad” (1:18-2:00). If the movie is accurate since it is based on a true story, Adams’ does a good job of captivating the entire audience even though his direct target is the judge at the hearing of the case. Even though his back is turned to the intended audience, the tone in which he speaks in still grabs their attention and keys them into what he has to say. Adams also utilizes an effective strategy in contrasting what John C. Calhoun believes is the “natural state of mankind” vs what the founding fathers have written as to what the “natural state of mankind is”, and uses their ethos to trump that of the modern beliefs. Finally, he emphasizes freedom in an appeal to pathos by citing that freedom is the natural state of mankind because any man denied his freedom naturally wishes to do whatever in his power to win it back.

Historically, the speech must have been effective, because the slaves that were wrongly captured and were being represented in this case by Adams were freed after the trial. His delivery was effective and persuasive and captured the attention and the hearts of not only the audience but the judge as well.

I think the author makes a valid point when it comes to debunked research. It is important to look into the validity of a study before utilizing it as the basis of an argument. As the author relays, there are so many popular studies that we commonly accept as fact because of their social success such as Malcolm Gladwell’s research in his book Outliers. However, we cannot become prisoners of someone’s success and allow that to trap us into thinking that everything is true.

Debunked research is important to address when working on our projects because it serves as a sort of counter-point to the argument we are trying to support. I don’t think you have to necessarily accept someone reporting another’s research as false, unless they are debunking it with facts. I do think though, it is important to consider why the argument you are supporting is wrong.

The focus for my paradigm shift project will be NCAA athletes and whether or not they should be paid athletes. While certainly not a new conversation, I think I can bring an interesting argument coming from an NCAA athlete who also plays a non-revenue generating sport. Considering this issue has made progress over the last few weeks in that it is being pushed to become law, I think it is a fitting topic to look into.

The paradigm shift comes in that in the 20th century for the longest time, college athletes were solely viewed as amateurs versus many are now talked about as professionals well before they reach that level. Before, you went to school for four years, got your degree, and then had the option to go the professional route. Now, the conversation has changed as guys are good enough to play professional right out of high school and only go to college because of rules; they are also marketed while in college like never before, and yet are not allowed a dime of the money a school makes off of their image.

For me, this issue is interesting because it encapsulates more than just mens basketball and football players, but all NCAA athletes from schools as small as Delaware to as large as Penn State. How do you go about distributing money fairly while not creating a power vacuum where guys and girls are only looking to go to schools in certain states for certain teams.