https://www.ted.com/talks/margaret_heffernan_dare_to_disagree?language=en
Watch this TedTalk. What is her argument? Name a few rhetorical devices she uses in order to establish her main points.
Now, the hard part. Make a statment about something that you think is a problem. Be brave. Be prepared to defend it. And make this statement in the spirit of what Margaret Heffernan says in regards to disagreement.
When you are commenting on a classmates statement, make sure to be kind, but honest. Try and comment on at least 2 statements, but be sure that all of the statements are addressed. And try and comment on a statement about which you disagree.
Once someone has posted a comment about your statement, you need to repond.
Like I said, mind your manners!
Margaret Heffernan's TedTalk discussing the issue of "Dare to Disagree" has given me some key aspects to reflect upon. I'm the type of person who does not like controversy, but will stand my ground when something/someone disagrees with me for a general example. Heffernan's Argument begins with a fantastic doctor named Alice Stewart. She chose to find a hard problem and solve it. She chose to study childhood cancer; what caused it, are certain foods a trigger, do environmental conditions have an affect? It was like "finding a needle in a haystack" as was stated. This rhetorical device represents the figurative treatment of one subject under the appearance of another. It was proven through statistical clarity stating a rate of 2:1 children who died had mothers who were X-rayed during pregnancy. Alice and her partner saw conflict as thinking. We prefer people who are like us because it's simpler, it's not as conflicting or challenging than to have someone who is a polar opposite of ourselves. We have to reach out to people who have different backgrounds and experiences and find ways to engage upon them. Alice's daughter had once said, "my mother didn't enjoy fights, but she was really good at them." We need to be able to argue with someone. We need to be able to be bold. We need to be able to speak he truth. We need to be able to trust ourselves. One aspect I disagree upon is the supremacy of younger, fresh athletes over older, experienced athletes. I strongly agree that every athlete deserves a chance. However, there should not be a reason why a younger, first year athlete has more playing time than a returning older athlete. The position shouldn't simply be given to the younger athlete because the one flaw from the older athlete when the young one doesn't even desire to be in that position. The coaches didn't even have the decency to talk to the older athlete about the incident. They pretended like it wasn't important, or relevant to converse upon. The older athlete was at every open gym to every practice which was approximately 6 months. The older athlete put in further, personal time with professional coaches to advance at a higher rate. It was one game, one day where the older athlete began to struggle and the coaches based it on hat one day where he/she would never start in that position ever again. The older athlete was an exceptional position player, and he/she conveyed great improvement. But they put their trust in a very young, inexperienced athlete of the position to carry the new, inexperienced team. Although the coaches basically through the older athlete to the curb, they still expected he/she to be the team leader, the one to carry the team; get them hyped up when things aren't going good. There is no reason why coaches should take preference of younger inexperienced athletes over the older, more invested athlete due to one bad day when the older athlete actually wants that position. The chance of redemption was never given, an explanation was never spoken of or anything, and the younger took the season in that position he/she didn't even want and complains about. It was not the younger athletes fault, but rather the coaches inability to take into consideration the time and effort the older athlete takes to play the position. It is in my strong opinion that coaches should take preference of their older, invested athletes before their first year, younger athletes. It's the same aspect of putting an intern as the CEO of the company who runs the organization and determines the outcome, rather than a veteran worker who has been their for many years. In this instance, age 100% matters.
ReplyDeleteAs a disclaimer: the younger athlete did do well throughout the season. He/she did the best they could being thrown into the position.
Emily, I couldn't agree more with you on your argument. I really dislike when coaches do that, although I can't speak from experience because WeeJ is fair to all and you can't do that in XC anyways. Nice blog!
DeleteAbby, I'm happy you agree with my statement. I could never see WeeJ doing that for he is a fair coach! 😊
DeleteThe lady's argument is that we should use conflicts to better ourselves rather than avoid them altogether. To help persuade her audience, she uses a story of a woman in the 1950s. The woman strengthened her argument that x-rays on pregnant women can cause the child to get cancer by having a person that was completely different from her fight her argument. This is an example of "Devil's advocate" where as one side fights the other to help strengthen the overall argument. The lady in the TED talk later says how being open alone won't drive change, and that truthfulness won't set us free if we don't have the courage or morals to stand up for it. Another example of her argument about conflicts is the USA government. There is a reason why one party isn't suppose to control all of the government. It's to block bad ideas and polices from one party by the other. The ability to have one party fight the other and come to a compromise is one of the reasons we have checks-and-balances in the first place.
ReplyDeleteThe statement I am willing to defend is:
Modern day recycling isn't helping our environment moreso than being just a placebo to make us feel less guilty about being wasteful.
DeleteTimmy, I'm going to have to disagree with your statement. When we recycle, we are eliminating waste that is sent to landfills. The wastes that sit in lanfills can be there for decades at a time. The waste can contaminate the groundwater underground which can contaminate surrounding soil. The effects of this can spread to all surrounding areas of the landfill.
I'm going to have to agree with Bobbi on this one Tim because our society recycles the plastic and other materials into other objects that we can use everyday
DeleteEither way, they are still going to end up in a landfill in the end. A product can only be recycled so many times. The mindset that people get from being able to recycle is unhealthy to the environment. People may feel good about recycling plastic bottles and bags, but no more than 5% percent of them are actually recycled. How much better would the environment be if instead of people buying these disposable commodities with the idea of recycling them (for example plastic water bottles), they would purchase reusable items instead. The problem with recycling is it gives us a false sense of doing good for the environment by buying recycled products. It is really effective when we are still producing 250 millions tons of garbage every year?
DeleteMaybe that's the issue then. Humans need to be mindful of a wasteful attitude. The should buy more reusable products. But if there was no recycling at all, the problems would be much worse than they are.
DeleteYes without recycling batteries and tires, it would be much worse. But recycling the more used items does nothing more than waste money, time, and energy. It's easier to throw something into the recycling bin than it is to change a "throwaway" mindset to a "use it up, wear it out, make it do, or do without" mindset.
DeleteTim, while recycling does make us feel better about ourselves, it really does work. We're able to create new idptems from the old ones without anything going to waste and rotting in a landfill. How does that not help the world?
DeleteThe problem is that you're having to recreate items such as water bottles which wouldn't have to be recreated in the first place if we used reusable bottles. Recycling isn't free. It requires money, time, and effort. Zero waste is better than feeding the recycling bin. Recycling isn't helping the world because it isn't stopping the products from eventually ending up in the landfill.
DeleteThe speaker this week in the TED talk does not show their argument until later in their speech. She establishes a ethos talking about a female scientist who struggles with getting her work published or even looked at. Another rhetorical device used is logos, which is shown in the way that the audience is able to understand what is going on in scientific terms. Halfway through the speech she starts talking about the scientist and how her partner has a different outlook on the way she is doing her work which leads to many arguments, however in the end they still care for each other and are partners. This shows that even if someone is wildly different than yourself and you need to work for their trust and friendship that they can still be friends even if the way you view the world is different and the arguments are common. Her argument is that people need to be willing to defend their work and or their friendships and should not be afraid to speak their concerns about something that is weighing heavily on their mind. Silence is louder than words and can be quite smuggling to an individual. Margarett stresses that students should be taught at younger ages to speak their minds of things that bother them and be able to intelligently argue with another person or peer about these topics they believe is harming society.
ReplyDeleteMy statement: The teenagers of this generation are slowly but surely getting farther and farther away from literature. I have come across many many different people who have said they loathe reading books. I know there are teenagers who enjoy reading and can spend hours in a book store just enjoying the company of other book readers and the books. Our society though has taken away the joys of reading to those who can be easily swayed by the guides society set for teenagers and young adults.
Nichole, I agree with your statement that teenagers are parting from literature. I rarely see people in the library looking for books to read. The problem with our society is the fact that there is so much competition for teenagers' attention such as videos games, sports, jobs, or social media. People rather spend their time doing something active than passive.
DeleteThis is a very interesting statement; one I never have really thought about. I'm not sure I agree 100% because in this day and age, we have technology that gives us access to just about any form of literature we could possibly want. It may seem as if people aren't ready, instead are distracted by their electronics. However, I'm one of those types of people who prefers an iBook to a paperback. So, while this maybe true, you also have to consider those who read on their electronically devices. Nice blog though!
DeleteThat may be true however there are those people who only use the electronics for playing games or social media and not every literature available on iBooks is trust worthy and can overprice the books and not give the accurate version of the book wanted.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteSorry Nichole! I commenting on the wrong one. 😂😂P.s. I agree with your statement
DeleteIt's alright XD don't worry bout it! I'm glad you agree!
DeleteMargaret Heffernan's TedTalk is probably one of my favorite so far. Her argument explains how standing up for and making known something you believe in with a strong block of evidence is not something to be ashamed of, but is helpful and should be done by more people. She uses rhetorical strategies, such as the story of the women who spent her life researching childhood cancers causes and deaths and the man who almost quit his job because he wasn't sure if he should voice his concerns in front of his colleagues. She is really able to put the listener in the position of the man and women in the true stories to appeal to our emotions. These stories are excellent real world examples of how we should stick to what we believe in and never give up on those ideas. If you do give up on something you are passionate about, the doctor wouldn't have discovered the x-rays on pregnant women that saved many children's lives and the man who was working on his invention wouldn't have fixed the device issues that could have effected future users. The stories make me think of how sometimes I am to afraid to voice my opinion in class or in everyday life for whatever reason and I only find myself regretting it after. If i would have said my idea or concern, the class or people around me could have discussed together and may have learned something unexpected in the process. That is what Margaret Heffernan is stressing. If we don't remain open, we will never know what 'could have been'. To me, the feeling of regret that comes from 'could have been thoughts', is much harder to deal with than the conversation that could come up discussing an idea you wanted to talk about.
ReplyDelete(Did the speaker have an accent or not??)
My statement that I am willing to defend is:
Smoking should be banned worldwide because not only are you harming yourself but you are harming the innocent people around you.
Bobbi, I agree that smoking is detrimental to human health, but it's impractical to ban it throughout the world. Back in the early 1900s, the US alone tried to ban drinking alcohol, and that backfired.
DeleteI see your point, but maybe instead there should be some sort of regulations or price increase to force people to realize what their decisions are doing to themselves and others.
DeleteI'm glad you do not know how much a pack of cigarettes cost, but the federal government is already raising the tobacco tax 12.5% a year for the next four years.
DeleteI agree with your statement that smoking is very detrimental to health of yourself and those around you seeing as my family has some people who smoke which I do not take kindly to because of second hand smoke, however totally banning smoking will only lead to more backhand ways of getting cigarettes because the people are addicted to them. If they are banned then the subject will become something like the drug problem we are experiencing today.
DeleteBobbi, you can't make people's choices for them. The price they pay is health problems, and financially, they suffer a huge loss annual. All that can be done has been done.
DeleteI'm not going to lie, I really disliked this TedTalk. Sorry, Bobbi! This however is besides the point. The argument made by Margaret Heffernan was the issue of constructive conflict. Constructive conflict is described by Heffernan in the lives of Alice Stewart and George Neil. Alice was a very warm, bubbly, social kind of woman scientist. George was the exact opposite, as he preferred numbers to people. Now, the two though very different, had a similar job and that was to prove that women getting x-rays durning pregnancy were more likely to have children with cancer. While both of them were trying to prove this, Alice would find a new theory and George would do everything in his power to prove her wrong. When he could not, they both knew she was right which gave her the confidence she needed in that day and era. Constructive conflict is like that of the relationship of Alice and George. They worked together, daring to face the conflict that was bound to arise between them.
ReplyDeleteHeffernan challenged the listeners saying, "How many of us dare to have a collaborator like that?" She offered a few tips on how to do so. Find people very different from ourselves. If we only seek out those just like us, we'll never improve or explained our ideas. We have to learn to engage in the differences instead of avoiding them. Along with that come the ability and willingness to change our minds. "Openness alone can't drive change," as Heffernan said.
One issue it really believe is a problem is the issue of pro-choice clinics. There is no way that someone can work there and actually believe what they're doing is right and not murder. They see the little parts and the devastating affects on those whom have had the operation. I think if I were to speak out about this, I'd want someone who maybe previously worked at such a clinic to be my constructive conflictor. Of course, most of us propbablt agree with me on my argument, but I'm sure some people don't. That's they're choice. However, in the spirit of Margaret Heffernan, "he became more afraid of the silence" so too should we become afraid of the silence and embrace the conflict and differences.
YYYYEEESSSS PRO-LIFE!!! I fully agree with your statement. I honestly can't see how people think they are doing the right thing. I mean I have heard all of the excuses, but it DOES NOT justify the action of an abortion. Nice work👍🏻
DeleteMargaret Heffernan gave a TedTalk about how conflict isn't a bad thing. Conflict and questioning is purely thinking; trying to dig deeper into a problem. One should not be saddened by someone else's questioning their work, but they should rejoice that someone cares to dig deeper into the case. Heffernan uses rhetorical devices such as logos, pathos, and ethos to explain her talk. She was well researched and made it apparent to the audience that she knew what she was talking about. She used pathos by talking about about a story of an underestimated woman. Heffernan was able to portray the frustrations of the women in the story during the TedTalk. When Heffernan told her story about the underestimated women, it made me think about how feminism has been a huge conflict in the 21st century. I personally can not agree with everything this revolution stands for. Many supporters of feminism have turned it into something that isn't moral, chaste, and over all not lady like. For example, many woman say that they can wear anything they want, but they are disgusted when they see a men looking at them in a sexual manner. They claim that men should control themselves and not look at women like that. This is just one example of how this feminism movement has ruined modesty. Yes, men should not look at women in a sexual manner, but it is the women's probing of those looks. To be seen with respect, a women should dress in a respectful manner of their own dignity. This is why I believe that modesty has been ruined by the feminism movement.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with your standpoint on the feminist movement. They're purely seeking attention and making no real contribution to society. Very well written.
DeleteNick, I don't think all of the feminists are purely seeking attention. There are good people in every organization that have good intentions, but they sometimes get skewed by the few radicals ones.
DeleteThere's a difference between a feminist and a feminazi, I'm focusing on idiotic feminazis that believe they're superior people and that anyone else is a useless pig.
DeleteMarcy, I can agree with your claim more than I can disagree. Anything could be said by that to agree and to disagree upon.
DeleteNick, saying they are making no real contribution to society I do not think is necessary. Yes, girls do dress very immodest for a sole reason to get attention. I'm not defending the little dressers, but SOME dress a certain way for self esteem issues. It doesn't mean they have no meaning, or contribution to society, mostly they don't know how to present themselves.
Yes, thank you for clarifying Emily. SOME feminist seem to think that being a proud independent woman means to not feel ashamed with their bodies. These women think that being proud of their bodies means to show it off. This not only proves that these women do not respect themselves, but they will find that others will also stop respecting them. If these women truly loved their bodies they would think, "Hey, God gave me my body and my health as a gift. I should protect it as a sign of gratitude." It's like a preset to you receive for Christmas from one of your grandparents. You're going to show your gift with care because you know it would break your grandparents heart if they saw the present destroyed. The same goes for your body. We must care and respect our bodies because they are a gift.
Delete"He was afraid of conflict until finally he became afraid of silence," says Margaret Heffernan in supporting her main argument that people are too afraid of conflict to stand up for what they believe, voice their concerns, or raise questions on the particular subject. We have a human drive that draws us toward people who are like us, but in good research, we need thinking partners and not echoes. The theory of X-rays in pregnant mothers causing childhood cancer was released for 25 years until it was reopened or considered because people are too afraid of controversies and/or conflicts to state something like this. George Neil, the cancer researchers partner, should be our model for partners in our debates. They are not people that just agree, but rather people disagree. They are not people that make you think you're right, but rather people who make you think your wrong. They make you think of the possibilities of how it could go wrong, so you know what to do if it does.
ReplyDeleteIt's very easy to be silent about the problem, but what is the point? I personally struggle with running away from my problems. It's easier to go home, do my homework, and go to bed then to talk to my family about my feelings or what happened throughout the day. I never want to ruffle feathers because it's easier not to. Trust me, problems can be avoided as long as you want them to. We can run and run from the real issues but when we die, we spent our while life running instead of fixing our problems. This just keeps happening. It's the reason that abortion is still happening. Generations before us were too afraid of raising questions about it. Then when they die, the problem is still there, and left to us.
Margaret used antithesis while appealing to pathos using the cancer-causing story. Logos was revealed through her examples, and ethos was shown by her biography under the video and the titles of people within the story.
Statement I'm willing to defend: Everyone deserves the benefit of the doubt.
Morgan, do you really think that EVERYONE deserves the benefit of the doubt? What about the people with have killed more that than can be counted on your fingers? I am very interested in this argument.
DeleteI agree with Nichole, not every person deserves that chance. Some actions are not justifiable, but in a general, well lived life style, people do deserve the benefit of the doubt.
DeleteRomans 14:1-13. That is the basis of my argument, Nichole and Emily. Thank you for your interest/concern.
DeleteMargaret Heffernan preaches in her TED Talk something that I have fought for since these blogs began. People have become sheep and can't think for themselves for fear of ridicule or being wrong. People live in fear of being wrong or pushing people's buttons because it creates controversy and they could be on the other end of everyone's hate or criticism. People have become sheep and go along with everything the media says, rather than doing the real research and forming their own opinions. That's how we got to the state we're in. In the election, people voted abused on what the news told them. They repeatedly mention Clinton's scandals over the past few months and very few things were the center of focus with Donald Trump. The news made her appear more evil than him, and that's how he won. We see this everyday, not just in the election. Heffernan uses very powerful terminology and tone to help deliver her message. She challenges people to think for themselves rather than assume that silence is the best policy. This is a challenge that we all need to accept if we want to progress forward as a society in a world where people constantly choose between two sides.
ReplyDeleteStatement I'm willing to fight for: Organized religion is he root of all of society's violence, discrimination, hate, war and controversy. Every evil stems from a religious statement that has no place in society. Not only Catholicism, but all the major religions.
Nick, I'm going to have to disagree with your statement. Isn't it possible that evil is rooted from people not believing? I believe, as well as many others, the the only good left is the good within religion.
DeleteIf that were true, the Westboro Baptist Church wouldn't protest "God Hates Gays," Radical Islamic terrorists wouldn't kill for a reward of 72 virgins in paradise, Kim Davis wouldn't have denied a gay couple a marriage license, the Crusades would have never happened, and Hitler wouldn't have killed to please God with a master race.
DeleteIs it the religion itself that's promoting all the things within it? Or is it assumptions that people practicing that religion have made? Catholicism does NOT promote those things. That's a fact.
DeleteYes, I agree with Morgan.
DeleteCatholicism is a religion of love. I can only defend Cathilosm when I say this because I only really know about the Catholic faith, but we do not promote evil one bit. The only people fighting about religion are the people against it. You never see two Catholic parishes fighting against each other. You never see this because we TRULY follow God's plan. The only violent people are the ones who don't believe and are fighting against the ones who do. Isis does not follow the Commandments of the REAL God because God NEVER wants that kind of violence. God is good! I can't defend the other religions that you stated in your comment because those churches are not following God's will, but I can defend the Catholic Church. God loves everyone, even YOU.
First of all, never single out the Catholic Church. And Marcy, your standpoint is completely flawed. When you say that you can't defend other religions because they don't follow your god's will, you become a part of the problem. You believe your religion is right and others aren't believing your belief aren't right. This isn't about your twisted theological reality that won't accept these truths, it's about the twisted reality that uses religion to justify their actions. Also, the Bibel has statements that these people use to defend their actions. If Catholicism doesn't defend these actions, why are they justified in the Bible?
DeleteMargaret Heffernan make some very good points in her TedTalk. She uses logic to describe that conflict is a good thing because you can't think by yourself. She tells a story about a girl in the 1950s named Alice and a guy named George. She starts by telling that it was so rare to see a women doing what Alice did. Alice was trying to find a hard problem and then solve it. She found that pregnant women that get X-rays are causing harm to their baby and she fought to prove herself right. George on the other had said "my job is to prove Dr. Stewart wrong". Alice didn't let this put her down. She decided that since George couldn't prove her wrong, that she was right. She wanted to be just like her mom "my mother didn't enjoy a fight, but she was good at them". The min point in this TedTalk is that you shouldn't be afraid of conflict and someone disagreeing with you shouldn't put you down but it should make you fight harder for your argument. It should encourage you to backpack up what you believe. After listening to this talk I thought to myself about conflict in many different ways. In my opinion, Margaret only looked at conflict in one view. She saw it in a scientific way and a way to discover new things. Margaret states that conflict is good and it encourages thinking together. What happens when you look at conflict in a different way?
ReplyDeleteMy statement that I can and will argue:
Conflict is the reason for war. Not only does conflict start war but it kills many people fighting for the same thing. If conflict encourages "thinking together" why does this happen? Isn't conflict fighting for different things? In war people are fighting for the same thing.