In light of my advocacy project focusing on making a short form video pushing for nuclear disarmament, I thought it would be fitting to find and analyze some videos that attempt to do the same. The video that got closest to my purpose was this video by USA Today, which provided viewers with a brief overview of the nuclear arsenals of the world and the treaties that have been successful in lowering the quantities of weapons in these arsenals.  

In contrast to my project, however, this video’s purpose is more to inform than persuade and motivate viewers to act on the issue. Still, the video does emphasize why nuclear weapons are a problem and the consequences that this issue poses. The video begins with shots of nuclear explosions, which instantly grab the attention of the viewer. To further draw the viewer in, the narrator cites statistics of the devastating effects of just one nuclear explosion, from environmental effects to human deaths. While thought provoking, I feel as though just listing statistics doesn’t make the issue feel very personal however, and the video could receive more engagement if it related this to a narrative of an individual in the midst of a nuclear war. If I have time in my project, I should include something like that. After emphasizing the threat, I also think that the video should have included a clear path to action, something else my project should include, however I guess this wasn’t the intention of the video.  

Since the primary intention of this video was to educate and not necessarily persuade, it did an effective job achieving this purpose. Directed towards an audience of everyday Americans without background knowledge of the history of nuclear weapons, the video breaks the issue into separate aspects, and devotes short portions of the video to each topic to fully explain the issue while retaining attention. To enhance ethos, the video includes verbal or visual attributions to the sources for statistics. Similarly, the video uses clean graphics and smooth transitions to further enhance its credibility and remain interesting to the viewer.  

Overall, the rhetoric used in this video efficiently captures the main issues and background information relevant to the nuclear weapon crisis and presents it in an appealing manner to the average American viewer. The short, fast paced layout of the video coupled with appealing visuals is a strategy that would be beneficial to mimic for my advocacy project to accomplish some of the same objectives as this video.

Although nuclear power is very clean and efficient, it still has its downsides: such as the fact that it is impossible to miniaturize enough to power individual transportation. This opinion article, published in the Nuclear News magazine, proposes using miniaturized hydrogen fuel systems powered by nuclear energy to establish carbon-neutral transportation networks in the future.  

The article begins by detailing the failures with current carbon-neutral transportation, such as the low implementation of electric vehicles and the current uneconomic expenses with large scale hydrogen production. Then, the article poses some “what if” framing questions to envision what things might make hydrogen production more cost-efficient, such as using existing gas pipelines and shrinking the size of hydrogen production plants. The article then presents a solution to these questions by describing a prototype hydrogen generator developed at PNNL, which takes less energy than current systems and is fueled from biogas waste products.  

Since this article was published in a magazine which requires a subscription, its audience is quite limited. While this means that the article is not likely to be read by members of the public who are not familiar with most aspects of nuclear energy, a limited audience also provides some benefits to the article’s message. First, since readers of the magazine are already onboard with the idea of nuclear, the article does not need to spend time explaining to readers the benefits of a nuclear-powered economy and is thus able to develop more space diving into the specific issue at hand. Similarly, since most readers come from a technical background, the article uses a technical and scientific vocabulary that allows the design ideas to be presented in more specificity but may have been hard to fully understand for a more general audience.  

The article’s overall purpose is to inform readers of the potential of hydrogen powered transportation and to persuade of its effectiveness. Since the readers of this article are likely to be involved in the clean energy field and be doing work in the field in the future, it serves the author to bring up the viability of this system such that it can receive more advocacy in the future. To persuade the audience of the merits of this system, the article incorporates both logos and ethos, by citing information from national labs and other reputable research organizations and synthesizing data from these sources. From my perspective, I found the rhetoric used in this article to be very effective at presenting this concept and it was interesting to hear about the technological solutions that are being innovated in fields adjacent to nuclear energy.  

Excerpt from the described article

While I was doomscrolling on YouTube shorts and procrastinating writing this blog, I came across an interesting discourse by an apparently quite popular youtuber and philosopher, Alex O’Conner, about how the concept of blind faith in theism, particularly Christianity, proves the fallibility of these beliefs. While I am personally a Christian and think there is significant evidence for God, I enjoy hearing other sides of the argument, and this speech was well worded and presented some interesting points.  

The speech starts with the observation of that in many conversions of atheists to theism, common reasons for conversion are often based on emotional or ethical reasons, and seldom on hard, logical evidence of a god. O’Conner then poses the example of evolution and natural selection, a system which relies upon suffering and extinction, and explains that by Ockham’s Razor this process can be best explained through an amoral, atheistic universe rather than one with a benevolent creator. The majority of the video then goes on to give the argument that throughout the history of the church, violence has been substituted for valid evidence in arguments about beliefs, with blind faith and adherence to ancient texts as justification.  

O’Conner demonstrates a strong argument, and very effectively uses the techniques of ethos and logos to communicate his viewpoints. As a graduate of philosophy and theology from Oxford University, O’Conner brings years of research and thought to the topic. This is also evident in his manner of speech; his phrases are thought-out, clear, and use an intellectual vocabulary. He is also very respectful of others who hold differing perspectives, which enhances his ability to be perceived as a rational speaker by those who may oppose his views.  

Additionally, O’Conner’s arguments are structured very logically, presenting a question, hard historic evidence, and then walking through the steps of how to use that evidence to form a conclusion and answer the initial question. An interesting thing I noticed however was that O’Conner stayed away from using pathos and emotional persuasion in his presentation, perhaps because most of his argument centered on the fallibility of emotions when used as proof for theism.  

The purpose of the speech is to persuade its audience that the idea of a god is a delusion, and it is quite effective at that. However, the video does not provide an unbiased viewpoint, and only features O’Conner’s speech without inclusion of the other side of the debate. Similarly, O’Conner centers on the ways that Christians believe in some aspects of their religion through pure faith, without referencing any of the prominent Christian theologians and philosophers who believe in God through empirical observations and logical constructions. In the same manner, O’Conner gives no mention to the ways that atheists themselves rely on blind faith, such as believing in consequences of morality if there is no universal governor. All in all, I found O’Conner’s speech to offer an interesting perspective on the issue of relying on blind faith, yet it did not present a complete picture of all sides of the argument.

This opinion article, recently published in the New York Times, examines a dangerous outcome of the Israel-Hamas war which the conflict seems to be tending towards – a humanitarian crisis in Gaza, where after Hamas control is overthrown, no sound governing body takes its place. The article details how Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and its extremist government are sending soldiers into the Gaza strip without any plan for control or governance, yet they refuse to enlist Palestinian Authority to help take control of the situation. The article then compares this to how the US never established a strong democracy in Iraq after liberating it and asserts the claim that it is the responsibility of invading countries to provide aid and structure for the invaded countries in the aftermath of a conflict.  

Since the article was published in the New York Times, it reaches a broad audience, of various political views, but perhaps with a slightly liberal bias. The title, though slightly misleading, is good at grabbing the attention of readers and drawing interest — I initially read the article thinking it would relate to nuclear science, but it was just about geopolitics. However, the word “radioactive” in the title ends up serving as an apt metaphor in the article, since the unlivable landscape of a post-war Gaza is comparable to one ravaged by radiation.  

The purpose of the article is to draw attention to the responsibility of Israel to provide support Gaza to prevent the humanitarian crisis from escalating. To that effect, the article is mostly informative, but also slightly persuasive. The article seems to be mostly unbiased, as it abstains from taking extreme political views and acknowledges fault in both Hamas and Israel for the escalation of the crisis.  

The author demonstrates the use of ethos in the article, since he lists his experience traveling to Israel during the conflict, as well as his experiences in post-war Iraq, and connects his observations of the unfortunate circumstances to his narrative. Similarly, the author’s history of covering topics related to this current conflict adds to his credibility. The article is also persuasive through its use of logos; it connects the historical conditions in Iraq to the current conditions in Gaza, and it presents scientific data showing how a mismanaged Gaza will end up negatively impacting citizens in Israel, too.  

Overall, I found the article to be interesting and informative, even if it wasn’t about nuclear radioactivity. The article gave me a new perspective of what is at stake in this war, and in the actions following this war. 

In our group’s discussion on deliberation, we opened the floor to hear community members’ perspectives on the issue of illegal immigration, particularly at the southern border. Out of our three pre-established approaches, none came out as a clear winner, however the deliberation was still very successful in sharing ideas and experiences and broadening participants’ knowledge of the issue.  

One aspect of the deliberation that contributed to our success was creating a solid information base. Our introduction video included factual information introducing our three approaches, and we (accidentally) went around to every participant to get each of their personal stakes. Although many participants did not really have a stake in the issue, quite a few had loose personal interests such as friends being immigrants, and still others spoke about the issues faced by their legal and/or illegal immigrant relatives.  

From this information base, we identified a range of solutions. These entailed increasing border security, streamlining legal immigration, or opening the borders. However, I think one of the drawbacks to this selection of approaches was that they were all different, so it was hard to compare all of them equally and select one best solution. Although I know this wasn’t the point of the deliberation, it still felt like we were singularly evaluating each solution and not evaluating comparatively. With the other deliberations I attended – student debt, third spaces, college admissions – this played out similarly, where limited time was spent considering which solution or combination of solutions would be the best overall.  

However, in the deliberation we moderated and the ones we attended, questions were appropriately established to weigh the pros, cons, and tradeoffs within each solution. For our deliberation, we would typically only ask 1-2 deep questions for each approach, such as “how to we balance the negatives of migrant deaths from increased border security against the deaths from drugs imported with decreased border security,” and the participants were able to debate among themselves the pros and cons to the issue.  

In that sense, speaking opportunities were adequately distributed; many people were able to give input on the issue. However, I do think that since the members of my group had done background research and had a larger information base, we took a larger percentage of the talking time, but I think it was necessary to grow to group information base. With other groups, I did not see the moderators taking extra time, but I also sometimes felt in those discussions that it would be helpful to hear from more researched sources.  

Still, in each deliberation the moderators were able to ensure mutual comprehension. Whether it was just from the moderators talking a lot, like in our deliberation, or from the moderators being able to clarify questions and background information, like in the rest of the deliberations, information was understandable by the general participants.  

Finally, each deliberation group and group of participants did a great job at considering other ideas and experiences. A lot of times in our deliberation, we would ask a question such as, “is it a human right to be able to go anywhere in the world,” and the participants in our group would respond with ideas that were beyond what we were expecting, leading to ideas about our general society beyond just immigration.

Recently, I came across a video by one of my favorite online science educators, Kyle Hill, which featured a thumbnail of him kissing a cask of nuclear waste. In the video, Hill visited the Dresden Nuclear Power plant in Illinois, showing viewers the facility, particularly the spent fuel pool and the dry cask storage of nuclear waste, to inform about how nuclear waste is really stored and why people shouldn’t be worried about it. The video definitely has a pro-nuclear view to it, however this is supported by sound evidence, as Hill states that he wants viewers to be informed enough to form their own opinions on the matter. 

Hill uses his credibility as a well-known science educator to assure his audience that the facts he is using are based on evidence and research; with over 2 million subscribers his channel has a reputation for sharing accurate information. However, Hill’s ethos does conflict slightly with his persuasion in this video, since his channel is also known for being pro-nuclear. This slightly discredits his claims of the safety of nuclear waste, since he has a known bias.  

However, Hill is still able to use logic to promote the idea of the safety of nuclear waste. He uses objective evidence in the video, such as dosimetry (radiation detection readings) to show that the radiation near spent fuel or dry storage casks is less than the radiation received when flying at high altitude. Similarly, Hill also, in a manner conducive to clickbait, gets close enough to a dry storage cask to kiss it, showing the objective fact that our radioactive waste storage methods don’t cause any harmful effects. Additionally, this action also appeals to pathos in a way, since it invokes a slight fear and unease in the viewer for Hill to be so close to nuclear waste, however this tension is resolved once it is shown that there are no negative health effects. Highlighting this tension and resolution helps viewers acknowledge their own apprehensions of nuclear waste and reveal that these fears are rooted in false knowledge.  

However, the point of Hill’s video isn’t just to prove that nuclear waste is safe, it’s to prove that it’s safer than the waste from other forms of electricity generation too. One of the most powerful statements in the video was when Hill quotes, “Where is the waste from a nuclear power plant? It’s in the spent fuel pool; it’s right here (points at fuel storage cask). Where is the waste from a fossil fuel plant? It’s in there (points to lungs), it’s in the air, it’s in the water.” By using strong rhetoric based in factual evidence and logic, Hill is able to effectively communicate the misinformation around nuclear waste storage and promote a better understanding of our current safety. 

In blog post 1, I wrote about the rhetorical strategies used by Jesus during the sermon on the mount to reach a rhetorical audience of the people from the countryside who came to hear him speak. However, as much as the Book of Matthew is a documentation of this spoken rhetoric, Matthew’s writing is also its own piece of rhetoric, directed at a different rhetorical audience.  

Written around 30-40 AD, the transcription of the sermon on the mount, and Book of Matthew as a whole, was written as an eyewitness account of Jesus’ life and teachings specifically for a Jewish audience. The exigent situation for documenting this account was that many people of the Jewish faith, particularly those in power through Jewish religious institutions, were reluctant to accept Jesus’ teachings either because of a lack of belief or a lack of information. The Book of Matthew responds to this exigence by informing its audience about who Jesus was and what he taught, and it specifically attempts to convince its audience of Jesus’ identity by referencing scripture from the Old Testament – Matthew cites the Jewish prophesies such as Isaiah 50 and Micah 5 in connection with Jesus’ birth and life.  

In order to best inform his audience about the character of Jesus, Matthew uses a deliberate structure for his rhetoric. This can be seen throughout the whole book, as it is divided into 7 (conventionally considered a holy number) sections, with each section showing a segment of Jesus’ life, and then a portion of his teaching that were exemplified through his way of life. Within these sections there is structure too, and this is perhaps most pronounced in the section of the sermon on the mount. Given over multiple days, the sermon on the mount contained a lot of information in its teachings. Matthew organizes these teachings into one clear and flowing passage, which helps readers better understand the sermon’s meaning. He breaks the sermon down into 3 parts – Jesus’ explanation of God’s kingdom, his main teachings about how his followers should act, and a conclusion. The main teachings are then further sorted into 3 main parts, and each of these parts have 3 subsections to record the necessary detail to Jesus’ teachings while still presenting each theme in a straightforward and easily understandable manner.  

Overall, I personally find the rhetoric used to structure this book of the Bible makes it particularly informative and persuasive one, as it incorporates a strong logos through its logical organization, and it is based on the ethos of an eyewitness to the events transcribed.

“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them” (Matthew 5:17, NIV). In one of his most famous recorded sermons, Jesus attempts provide clarity on the meaning of moral law and encourage listeners to change their perception of God’s kingdom and righteousness.  

Leading up to this sermon, Jesus preached throughout the Middle East and crowds began to follow him – an audience of rich and poor, natives to the land and foreign roman soldiers, Jews and gentiles. Jesus led the crowds up to a mountainside near Capernaum, where over the course of several days he delivered his sermons now collectively referred to as “The Sermon on the Mount.” The first part of these sermons consisted of the beatitudes, a code of ethics for how to be, in contrast the old law’s commandments of what not to do, two parables on how one should apply these beatitudes, and then examples of a deeper interpretation of the old law.  

None of these sermon’s claims would still be so prevalent in modern society were it not for Jesus’ strong appeals to ethos and logos. First, Jesus relies on his established credibility from interacting with the lowly people throughout the surrounding territories. By this time, word spread of his Jesus’ of unconventional teaching and healing, causing interest in his message. Additionally, Jesus’ references to Jewish law throughout his sermons help his message resonate with his mostly Jewish audience. The sermon’s setting of the mount also plays a role, as in Jewish society and history mountains were associated with a closeness to God, which further enhances the audience’s reception of a sermon on God’s will.  

Furthermore, Jesus uses metaphors and repetitive examples to construct logical arguments for his message. He compares his followers to “The salt of the Earth” (Matthew 5:13, NIV), and describes that salt becomes useless should it lose its saltiness. Salt was a very significant part of ancient society, as it was used both to flavor food but also as the only method of preservation. With this metaphor, Jesus provides his followers with a way to understand that he is calling them to preserve goodness in the world while also “flavoring,” or spreading goodness, to the world around them. Clearly this proved to be effective rhetoric in persuading Jesus’ followers to spread his message throughout the world.  

Similarly, towards the end of this section of the sermon, Jesus constructs repetitive arguments to emphasize his interpretation of the true meaning of the old moral law. Five times Jesus gives an example of a commandment, such as “Do not murder” or “Do not commit adultery,” and then provides a deeper interpretation of the commandment: do not look upon another with anger or lust, respectfully. In this way, Jesus creates the context for his listeners to logically extract the principle that the principles of moral law should be followed not only physically, but mentally and spiritually as well.  

Overall, Jesus’ rhetorical techniques make this section of the Sermon on the Mount very persuasive. He speaks in a manner that connected to people of Middle Eastern society 2000 years ago, yet still connects to readers of his sermon today. As a Christian, I also consider the passage to be informative in providing the true way to navigate life, since Jesus is very clear in his description of how to live a life that honors God, however one’s belief in the informative aspect of the rhetoric largely depends on one’s belief in the divinity of Jesus.