Martin Luther King "I have a dram"

1. Summarize the thesis of the speech in one sentence. The thesis of the speech is to make coloured people look like equals and treated the same.
2. Mode of Persuasion? (it is ok to have more than one) Give examples to support your answer/answers. I think that it is a Pathos speech because he is trying to make the white people feel a bit guilty. It is also Logos as he is talking about Emancipation Proclamation. He is using facts when talking about the Constitution and Declaration of Independence.  Then he starts talking about Ethos talking about himself, saying what he wants.
3. Major techniques (highlight all examples) Repetition,metaphors and putting himself in the speech
4. What is the historical context of this speech? Gaining civil rights, treated equally.
5. Do you feel that this is an effective speech? (answer in a paragraph) I think that after using all the different techniques including repetition and metaphors this is a very effective speech and he uses pretty much every mode of persuasion (pathos, ethos, logos). This really reaches out to not only the black people who Martin Luther King is talking of but the white people as well as he talks to them about revolutions and revolts. He talks of major changes and uses a crescendo at the end of his speech which really gets people fired up.

I am happy to join with you today in what will go down in history as the greatest demonstration for freedom in the history of our nation.

Five score years ago, a great American, in whose symbolic shadow we stand today, signed the Emancipation Proclamation. This momentous decree came as a great beacon light of hope to millions of Negro slaves who had been seared in the flames of withering injustice. It came as a joyous daybreak to end the long night of their captivity.

But one hundred years later, the Negro still is not free. One hundred years later, the life of the Negro is still sadly crippled by the manacles of segregation and the chains of discrimination. One hundred years later, the Negro lives on a lonely island of poverty in the midst of a vast ocean of material prosperity. One hundred years later, the Negro is still languished in the corners of American society and finds himself an exile in his own land. And so we've come here today to dramatize a shameful condition.

In a sense we've come to our nation's capital to cash a check. When the architects of our republic wrote the magnificent words of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, they were signing a promissory note to which every American was to fall heir. This note was a promise that all men, yes, black men as well as white men, would be guaranteed the "unalienable Rights" of "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." It is obvious today that America has defaulted on this promissory note, insofar as her citizens of color are concerned. Instead of honoring this sacred obligation, America has given the Negro people a bad check, a check which has come back marked "insufficient funds."

But we refuse to believe that the bank of justice is bankrupt. We refuse to believe that there are insufficient funds in the great vaults of opportunity of this nation. And so, we've come to cash this check, a check that will give us upon demand the riches of freedom and the security of justice.

We have also come to this hallowed spot to remind America of the fierce urgency of Now. This is no time to engage in the luxury of cooling off or to take the tranquilizing drug of gradualism. Now is the time to make real the promises of democracy. Now is the time to rise from the dark and desolate valley of segregation to the sunlit path of racial justice. Now is the time to lift our nation from the quicksands of racial injustice to the solid rock of brotherhood. Now is the time to make justice a reality for all of God's children.

It would be fatal for the nation to overlook the urgency of the moment. This sweltering summer of the Negro's legitimate discontent will not pass until there is an invigorating autumn of freedom and equality. Nineteen sixty-three is not an end, but a beginning. And those who hope that the Negro needed to blow off steam and will now be content will have a rude awakening if the nation returns to business as usual. And there will be neither rest nor tranquility in America until the Negro is granted his citizenship rights. The whirlwinds of revolt will continue to shake the foundations of our nation until the bright day of justice emerges.

But there is something that I must say to my people, who stand on the warm threshold which leads into the palace of justice: In the process of gaining our rightful place, we must not be guilty of wrongful deeds. Let us not seek to satisfy our thirst for freedom by drinking from the cup of bitterness and hatred. We must forever conduct our struggle on the high plane of dignity and discipline. We must not allow our creative protest to degenerate into physical violence. Again and again, we must rise to the majestic heights of meeting physical force with soul force.

The marvelous new militancy which has engulfed the Negro community must not lead us to a distrust of all white people, for many of our white brothers, as evidenced by their presence here today, have come to realize that their destiny is tied up with our destiny. And they have come to realize that their freedom is inextricably bound to our freedom.

We cannot walk alone.

And as we walk, we must make the pledge that we shall always march ahead.

We cannot turn back.

There are those who are asking the devotees of civil rights, "When will you be satisfied?" We can never be satisfied as long as the Negro is the victim of the unspeakable horrors of police brutality. We can never be satisfied as long as our bodies, heavy with the fatigue of travel, cannot gain lodging in the motels of the highways and the hotels of the cities. We cannot be satisfied as long as the negro's basic mobility is from a smaller ghetto to a larger one. We can never be satisfied as long as our children are stripped of their self-hood and robbed of their dignity by signs stating: "For Whites Only." We cannot be satisfied as long as a Negro in Mississippi cannot vote and a Negro in New York believes he has nothing for which to vote. No, no, we are not satisfied, and we will not be satisfied until "justice rolls down like waters, and righteousness like a mighty stream."¹

I am not unmindful that some of you have come here out of great trials and tribulations. Some of you have come fresh from narrow jail cells. And some of you have come from areas where your quest -- quest for freedom left you battered by the storms of persecution and staggered by the winds of police brutality. You have been the veterans of creative suffering. Continue to work with the faith that unearned suffering is redemptive. Go back to Mississippi, go back to Alabama, go back to South Carolina, go back to Georgia, go back to Louisiana, go back to the slums and ghettos of our northern cities, knowing that somehow this situation can and will be changed.

Let us not wallow in the valley of despair, I say to you today, my friends.

And so even though we face the difficulties of today and tomorrow, I still have a dream. It is a dream deeply rooted in the American dream.

I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal."

I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia, the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave owners will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood.

I have a dream that one day even the state of Mississippi, a state sweltering with the heat of injustice, sweltering with the heat of oppression, will be transformed into an oasis of freedom and justice.

I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.

I have a dream today!

I have a dream that one day, down in Alabama, with its vicious racists, with its governor having his lips dripping with the words of "interposition" and "nullification" -- one day right there in Alabama little black boys and black girls will be able to join hands with little white boys and white girls as sisters and brothers.

I have a dream today!

I have a dream that one day every valley shall be exalted, and every hill and mountain shall be made low, the rough places will be made plain, and the crooked places will be made straight; "and the glory of the Lord shall be revealed and all flesh shall see it together."²

This is our hope, and this is the faith that I go back to the South with.

With this faith, we will be able to hew out of the mountain of despair a stone of hope. With this faith, we will be able to transform the jangling discords of our nation into a beautiful symphony of brotherhood. With this faith, we will be able to work together, to pray together, to struggle together, to go to jail together, to stand up for freedom together, knowing that we will be free one day.

And this will be the day -- this will be the day when all of God's children will be able to sing with new meaning:

My country 'tis of thee, sweet land of liberty, of thee I sing.

Land where my fathers died, land of the Pilgrim's pride,

From every mountainside, let freedom ring!

And if America is to be a great nation, this must become true.

And so let freedom ring from the prodigious hilltops of New Hampshire.

Let freedom ring from the mighty mountains of New York.

Let freedom ring from the heightening Alleghenies of Pennsylvania.

Let freedom ring from the snow-capped Rockies of Colorado.

Let freedom ring from the curvaceous slopes of California.

But not only that:

Let freedom ring from Stone Mountain of Georgia.

Let freedom ring from Lookout Mountain of Tennessee.

Let freedom ring from every hill and molehill of Mississippi.

From every mountainside, let freedom ring.

And when this happens, when we allow freedom ring, when we let it ring from every village and every hamlet, from every state and every city, we will be able to speed up that day when all of God's children, black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics, will be able to join hands and sing in the words of the old Negro spiritual:

                Free at last! Free at last!

                Thank God Almighty, we are free at last!³

Do you think that all the attention paid to models at something like NY's fashion week is undue in comparison to the other events around the world?

Personally I do not think that this is undue compared to the other things going on around the world. The reason for this is that the thing that these models are doing is modelling and that is their professional job. They do not do it as a pass time but as a profession and job. Is it fair that people are still able to go to work and work at a desk? Well to me this is exactly the same as modelling. If the models wanted to make a difference then they would donate to the cause, but just like everyone else trying to make a living, models need to work. So no I do not think it is undue. If they are not allowed to model, then people should not be allowed to work because it is exactly the same.

Convincing Parents for a Party

Pathos:
This Party that I am now begging for now Mum and Dad is the party that could set my popularity at a higher level for the rest of my days in High School. At the moment I am not very certain where I stand, I have many friends, but you know me I always want more. My life is miserable at the moment as I would like to be noticed by the 'cool kids' but unfortunately I am a geek. Many boys in my year have had parties that have made them popular. Mum, Dad you literally have the power to make my life finally happy and fun. I am sick of being an outsider, I just want to fit in! Guys I'm begging you don't make me more of a freak than I already am. Please I'm begging you... I leave you now with the question of, "Do you want me to be miserable for the rest of my life?"
Thank you

'Convincing my Parents for a party'

Choose a topic to convince your parents of and write a very short speech that can be delivered in 1 min. Write 3 versions of the speech using each mode of persuasion.
This year I would really allowed to have a big party that I might be able to split with one of my friends. But the problem is I had a party last year and my parents won't let me have another this year.
Pathos: If I have a party then I believe that my popularity will go up and people at my school have said that if I don't have this party then it will be really uncool. Mum Dad if you want to make my life miserable at school then sure don't let me have this party.
Logos: I have been doing the research for the drinks, food and decorations for the party and I would be able to pay for almost half of it. Considering that the money will be halved by the other person (my friend) then technically you will only be paying for 1/4 of the party which I think is a pretty good deal! You will be paying for no where near what you thought you would be doing!
Ethos: A kid at my school named Louis Longhi was nowhere near as popular as he is to this day. But after his legendary and awesome party he is now one of the most popular kids in our year and gets along with everyone and everyone gets along with him as his party was so good!
This is why I believe that I should have another party this year. It will not only make me more popular in an area I spend everyday at but it will also boost my self esteem.
Thank you

2. Make sure your post on Patrick Henry's 'Give Me Liberty of Give me Death' speech are all ready and posted.
HW: Look at the speech by Abraham Lincoln at the bottom of this post. Answer the following questions about it in another post titled 'Abraham Lincoln: The Gettysburg Address'

1. What do you notice about the length of the speech? I don't think that It's as long as many other speeches but I think that is because he has put across all the points that he would like to put across.
2. What do you notice about the organisation? As i said above it really cut to the chase and the intro, body and conclusion are quite obvious in the speech.
3. What do you think is the thesis of the speech? He is trying to put across that they are going against what they said that long ago about "all men are equal". They are treating black people a lot different that white people and it has brought on a war, which Patrick Henry is trying to prevent.
4. Name two techniques (with quotes) which you feel are successfully employed and discuss why you feel they are so effective. He uses Pathos which uses emotion which really catches the audiences emotions and gets them listening and paying attention.
5. Why do you think that the concluding statement is considered so important and powerful by many Americans to this day? He is talking about the people that have died on the battle field and how they shouldn't have died. This is again using Pathos as he is referring to dead men who he thinks died in vain for a war that could have been prevented.

Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.

Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battlefield of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.

But in a larger sense, we cannot dedicate - we cannot consecrate - we cannot hallow - this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember, what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us - that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion - that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain - that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom - and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.

President Abraham Lincoln - November 19, 1863

'Give me liberty or give me death'

1. Mark Antony Speech
    3 parts
        Mode of Persuasion

                    Thesis, Techniques

                

      HW: Analyse the Patrick Henry Speech 'Give Me Liberty or Give me Death'

                  Identify the important technique he employs to win over his audience. 

                  Create a blog post titled 'Patrick Henry - Give Me Liberty Or Give Me Death' paste in the speech (and video if you can figure it out) and highlight the technique in the text that you think is successfully employed. At the end of the speech name the technique and discuss how it is effective.

         

      Patrick Henry took, like Mark Antony, a crowd of people against his view of going to war against Britain in 1775 and transformed them into a unified group willing to immediately go to war.

       

       What technique does Patrick Henry do to address an audience with a negative view of his argument? (There is one that really stands out.)

H

Give Me Liberty Or Give Me Death

Patrick Henry, March 23, 1775.

No man thinks more highly than I do of the patriotism, as well as abilities, of the very worthy gentlemen who have just addressed the House. But different men often see the same subject in different lights; and, therefore, I hope it will not be thought disrespectful to those gentlemen if, entertaining as I do opinions of a character very opposite to theirs, I shall speak forth my sentiments freely and without reserve. This is no time for ceremony. The questing before the House is one of awful moment to this country. For my own part, I consider it as nothing less than a question of freedom or slavery; and in proportion to the magnitude of the subject ought to be the freedom of the debate. It is only in this way that we can hope to arrive at truth, and fulfill the great responsibility which we hold to God and our country. Should I keep back my opinions at such a time, through fear of giving offense, I should consider myself as guilty of treason towards my country, and of an act of disloyalty toward the Majesty of Heaven, which I revere above all earthly kings.

Mr. President, it is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the number of those who, having eyes, see not, and, having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation? For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst, and to provide for it.

I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided, and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging of the future but by the past. And judging by the past, I wish to know what there has been in the conduct of the British ministry for the last ten years to justify those hopes with which gentlemen have been pleased to solace themselves and the House. Is it that insidious smile with which our petition has been lately received? Trust it not, sir; it will prove a snare to your feet. Suffer not yourselves to be betrayed with a kiss. Ask yourselves how this gracious reception of our petition comports with those warlike preparations which cover our waters and darken our land. Are fleets and armies necessary to a work of love and reconciliation? Have we shown ourselves so unwilling to be reconciled that force must be called in to win back our love? Let us not deceive ourselves, sir. These are the implements of war and subjugation; the last arguments to which kings resort. I ask gentlemen, sir, what means this martial array, if its purpose be not to force us to submission? Can gentlemen assign any other possible motive for it? Has Great Britain any enemy, in this quarter of the world, to call for all this accumulation of navies and armies? No, sir, she has none. They are meant for us: they can be meant for no other. They are sent over to bind and rivet upon us those chains which the British ministry have been so long forging. And what have we to oppose to them? Shall we try argument? Sir, we have been trying that for the last ten years. Have we anything new to offer upon the subject? Nothing. We have held the subject up in every light of which it is capable; but it has been all in vain. Shall we resort to entreaty and humble supplication? What terms shall we find which have not been already exhausted? Let us not, I beseech you, sir, deceive ourselves. Sir, we have done everything that could be done to avert the storm which is now coming on. We have petitioned; we have remonstrated; we have supplicated; we have prostrated ourselves before the throne, and have implored its interposition to arrest the tyrannical hands of the ministry and Parliament. Our petitions have been slighted; our remonstrances have produced additional violence and insult; our supplications have been disregarded; and we have been spurned, with contempt, from the foot of the throne! In vain, after these things, may we indulge the fond hope of peace and reconciliation. There is no longer any room for hope. If we wish to be free-- if we mean to preserve inviolate those inestimable privileges for which we have been so long contending--if we mean not basely to abandon the noble struggle in which we have been so long engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon until the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained--we must fight! I repeat it, sir, we must fight! An appeal to arms and to the God of hosts is all that is left us!

They tell us, sir, that we are weak; unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house? Shall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance by lying supinely on our backs and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot? Sir, we are not weak if we make a proper use of those means which the God of nature hath placed in our power. The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us. Besides, sir, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations, and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us. The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave. Besides, sir, we have no election. If we were base enough to desire it, it is now too late to retire from the contest. There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! Our chains are forged! Their clanking may be heard on the plains of Boston! The war is inevitable--and let it come! I repeat it, sir, let it come.

It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace-- but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!

He is trying to get them to think if it is right or wrong to go to war against England for their independence. He is being Rhetorical, they are all leading questions. He is basically asking if the want to be slaves which is Rhetorical to lead the audience to the same point as him. Using Rhetorical leads people to come to a conclusion leading them your way. He is basically saying do you want to be slaves to Britain or do you want to go to war?! He is quite obviously giving them the clear answer.

He is using Pathos, he is trying to unite and trying to relate with the crowd. He using emotion about saying how he doesn't want to be a slave and this quite obviously catching the crowds emotions. He uses Pathos to get the crowd rowdy and get them to do things now! It is an emotional call the action!

Julius Caesar III

1. Read the following speech and determine what form reasoning (from Aristotle) he is using in his argument. Give quotes to support your decision.
2. What is the 'thesis' (main point) of his speech. Give the sentence you feel serves as the thesis.
3. Divide the speech into three parts: Intro, Body, Conclusion
4. 
   
   
   Mark Antony:
   
   Friends, Romans, countrymen, lend me your ears;
   I come to bury Caesar, not to praise him;
   The evil that men do lives after them,
   The good is oft interred with their bones,
   So let it be with Caesar ... The noble Brutus
   Hath told you Caesar was ambitious:
   If it were so, it was a grievous fault,
   And grievously hath Caesar answered it ...
   Here, under leave of Brutus and the rest,
   (For Brutus is an honourable man;
   So are they all; all honourable men)
   Come I to speak in Caesar's funeral ...
   He was my friend, faithful and just to me:
   But Brutus says he was ambitious;
   And Brutus is an honourable man….
   He hath brought many captives home to Rome,
   Whose ransoms did the general coffers fill:
   Did this in Caesar seem ambitious?
   When that the poor have cried, Caesar hath wept:
   Ambition should be made of sterner stuff:
   Yet Brutus says he was ambitious;
   And Brutus is an honourable man.
   You all did see that on the Lupercal
   I thrice presented him a kingly crown,
   Which he did thrice refuse: was this ambition?
   Yet Brutus says he was ambitious;
   And, sure, he is an honourable man.
   I speak not to disprove what Brutus spoke,
   But here I am to speak what I do know.
   You all did love him once, not without cause:
   What cause withholds you then to mourn for him?
   O judgement! thou art fled to brutish beasts,
   And men have lost their reason…. Bear with me;
   My heart is in the coffin there with Caesar,
   And I must pause till it come back to me.
   
   
   1. I think that he is using Ethos. He says "he was my friend, faithful and just to me", this shows that they knew each other well. He is trying to describe to the crowd that he knew him better than they did and thus knows how to classify him unlike them.
   2. He is trying to ask all the slaves and towns people to tell him why the loved him. He is trying to put across that he has not treating him well and is trying to find out why the still love him.
   3. Intro= yellow Body=green Conclusion= red

Anthony and Women's rights to vote.

In the 1800s, women in the United States had few legal rights and did not have the right to vote. This speech was given by Susan B. Anthony after her arrest for casting an illegal vote in the presidential election of 1872. She was tried and then fined $100 but refused to pay.

1. Read the following speech and determine what form of logical reasoning (from Aristotle) she is using in her argument. Give quotes to support your decision.
2. What is the 'thesis' (main point) of her speech. Give the sentence you feel serves as the thesis.
3. Divide the speech into three parts: Intro, Body, Conclusion

Friends and fellow citizens: I stand before you tonight under indictment for the alleged crime of having voted at the last presidential election, without having a lawful right to vote. It shall be my work this evening to prove to you that in thus voting, I not only committed no crime, but, instead, simply exercised my citizen's rights, guaranteed to me and all United States citizens by the National Constitution, beyond the power of any state to deny.
The preamble of the Federal Constitution says:
"We, the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
It was we, the people; not we, the white male citizens; nor yet we, the male citizens; but we, the whole people, who formed the Union. And we formed it, not to give the blessings of liberty, but to secure them; not to the half of ourselves and the half of our posterity, but to the whole people - women as well as men. And it is a downright mockery to talk to women of their enjoyment of the blessings of liberty while they are denied the use of the only means of securing them provided by this democratic-republican government - the ballot.
For any state to make sex a qualification that must ever result in the disfranchisement of one entire half of the people, is to pass a bill of attainder, or, an ex post facto law, and is therefore a violation of the supreme law of the land. By it the blessings of liberty are forever withheld from women and their female posterity.
To them this government has no just powers derived from the consent of the governed. To them this government is not a democracy. It is not a republic. It is an odious aristocracy; a hateful oligarchy of sex; the most hateful aristocracy ever established on the face of the globe; an oligarchy of wealth, where the rich govern the poor. An oligarchy of learning, where the educated govern the ignorant, or even an oligarchy of race, where the Saxon rules the African, might be endured; but this oligarchy of sex, which makes father, brothers, husband, sons, the oligarchs over the mother and sisters, the wife and daughters, of every household - which ordains all men sovereigns, all women subjects, carries dissension, discord, and rebellion into every home of the nation.
Webster, Worcester, and Bouvier all define a citizen to be a person in the United States, entitled to vote and hold office.
The only question left to be settled now is: Are women persons? And I hardly believe any of our opponents will have the hardihood to say they are not. Being persons, then, women are citizens; and no state has a right to make any law, or to enforce any old law, that shall abridge their privileges or immunities. Hence, every discrimination against women in the constitutions and laws of the several states is today null and void, precisely as is every one against Negroes.

Susan B. Anthony - 1873
Highlight the text where you see the techniques below being used in the speech. When highlighting the text in the speech where one of these techniques is used.
• Repetition
• Exaggeration/Hyperbole
• Generalizations
• Clichés
• Statistics/Distortion of facts
• Imperatives
• Emotive words
• Use of imagery/symbolism
• Puns
• Use of endorsements/testimonials
• Rhetorical questions
• Inclusive language
• Euphemism 
HOMEWORK: Due Monday 21/2
Go to the post with the video and text of for the important speech in Julius Ceasar.
Determine the thesis or goal of the speaker (what is he trying to persuade of the audience?)
What mode of persuasion is used?
Highlight the techniques he uses using the list (with colours) below.
1. I think that this speech is definitely a Logos persuasion.  I think this because she is using hard facts that have been stated in the Federal Constitution. She reads that 'in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice and insure domestic tranquility.' This means that she believes to create a better union, women and men must be given the same rights to create this 'perfect union.'
2. The main point of the speech is to get across to the American citizens that women's rights are just as important as men's and that she wants women to be able to vote. She wants to persuade the government and show facts about what she is talking about that what she is saying is right.
3.  Yellow= into, green= body, red=conclusion 

Logos, Pathos and Ethos

Logos: This is a reasoned discourse
factual information
academic situation, political, business, medical
Objective- the absence of emotion
Pathos: emotional
persuading by the use of emotion
Subjective
experience that may happen
Ethos: relates to expertise and knowledge in a speech
Speaker-credibility-experience (own)

Books or TV

1. Compose a persuasive piece using the prompt below. Publish your piece on your blog.
2. Make sure you have all the work regarding Aristotle's 3 Modes of Persuasion complete

I can see why people would have trouble deciding whether books is better than TV, but honestly I think they both have their ups and their downs. They both help towards children's learning in different aspects and in some subjects one is better than the other.

Books: I think that you can find books for any subject if you look which is definitely an upside of books. In the library all you need to do is to look for your certain subject and you can learn. The books range from learning a language to learning about the solar system. This is very good for students that need to fill in on certain area's of school. Reading books are also very good for widening your vocabulary and learning new words. Reading books can also be very fun and you can really get stuck into a book. It also slows your mind down so that you will get to sleep easily. The only problem is not everyone likes reading and it is very time consuming.

TV: TV can also be very good for learning different subjects, there are whole channels for different subjects like History, Geography and Science. People tend to remember things better after watching the TV because it is almost all visual which a lot of people learn well off. TV shows often use examples and show you how things work and why different thing happen or have happened. The only problems are it races your brain making it hard to get to sleep, and to much of it is not good for you. 

After looking at the pro's and con's for both Books and TV, I think in my opinion that reading books is better for learning and for recreational reading. It can also be very fun if you are reading a book that you really enjoy.

Aristotle's 3 modes of pursuasion

1. 
Pathos: An appeal to the audience’s emotions

Logos: The logical appeal or the simulation of it

Ethos: An appeal to the authority or honesty of the speak


2. Samwise Gamgee's speech to Frodo:
I know. It's all wrong. By rights we shouldn't even be here. But we are. It's like in the great stories, Mr. Frodo. The ones that really mattered. Full of darkness and danger, they were. And sometimes you didn't want to know the end. Because how could the end be happy? How could the world go back to the way it was when so much bad had happened? But in the end, it's only a passing thing, this shadow. Even darkness must pass. A new day will come. And when the sun shines it will shine out the clearer. Those were the stories that stayed with you. That meant something, even if you were too small to understand why. But I think, Mr. Frodo, I do understand. I know now. Folk in those stories had lots of chances of turning back, only they didn't. They kept going. Because they were holding on to something.


I think that this speech is Pathos because he is trying to get Frodo to remember the stories that really mattered. These stories talked of happiness, joy and peace. The world that these Hobbits grew up in. This is toying with Frodo's emotions, he is trying to put hope and happiness back into Frodo's thoughts after having it very hard for a long time. After being very down and upset this speech brings Frodo to his knees and he is ready for what is yet to come... this is why I think it is a Pathos speech.