Studies have shown that allowing felons to vote would “help ensure against recidivism and continued antisocial behavior” which would bloom democracy (Faceoff 6). Here, felon enfranchisement supporters argue that eliminating felons from voting leads to lower rates of participation in government. Without a large amount of voter participation, The United States defies its founding Declaration of Independence that aimed to give Americans an equal voice in politics, economy, and government. Therefore, barring felons from voting leads to the direct destruction of the democratic principles of The United States. Additionally, Brennan Center, a non-partisan law institute that focuses on issues of democracy, found that allowing felons to vote would lead to an expansion of democracy (Bernd 5).
Leland teaches the reader what it means to be hip so they can walk away knowing about the consequences, results, and the actions that determined these cultural high points. Leland rebells against the norm that average americans are used to and establishes his own type of hip. To be hip is not to sit in a coffee shop, wearing flannel with every intention of going out hiking later. In the same sense, being hip is about sitting in a coffee shop, wearing a flannel, with every intention of going out hiking later if it counteracts a previous notion of not doing those exact events. Hip, in american society, is in a contstant state of flux.
Introduction The distinct purpose of the use of rhetoric is to persuade the audience. An excellent example of the use of rhetoric occurs in any politically charged situation, be it the presidential debate or the local municipality elections. In either context, the candidate must state their purpose in a manner that will bring the majority of people to their side. It is also a place where the opinions of members of the public can be heard and responded to. When a policy is brought to the public for feedback and support, two sides exist; for the policy or against it.
Between 1992 and 1993, Los Angeles county alone paid more than $30 million to citizens victimized by police brutality” (45). Explanation: This quote is important because it shows the devastating aftereffects of racial targeting and abuse by police officers. The money being spent isn 't really the problem here, but what is, is that African-Americans are usually the ones that the police never give the benefit of the doubt. If the police don 't spend more time investigating before quickly convicting an innocent person just based on their skin color nothing will
The democratic government in the past and until recently has been missing this key point and offer a simple minded, ineffective solution to a problem that is much bigger than just the use of guns. In America, the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution says that the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be broken. This poses a problem for the American democratic government as well because banning guns would conflict with the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution. This another a clear example of how flawed their ideology is and America should instead concentrate on the bigger picture of terrorism and restricting access to
Even though they are the audience he must address them as a key term to individualize them and be able to talk to them. Also, this key term is said in various ways such as friends, victims, we, our, and LGBT but can always be referred back to as an American. How does the rhetor use these key terms: the shooter, an act of terrorism and Americans, to address the audience
In Scott Russel’s response to an essay by Salam Rushdie, Russel makes an effort to show his audience that Rushdie’s thoughts and ideas on migration are not the entire population’s stance by referencing to the united states of America. By using devices and history, Russel is able to support his argument through the United State’s past, as well as using certain words and phrases to evoke emotion in the reader. Scott Russel relies on alluding to the past of America’s land to support his writing. For example, Russel alludes to the nation’s first heroes, using a comparison between them and the stripes that make up the flag. By setting this foundation of our nation’s morals and those who make them up, Russel has set the stage to continue his essay.
Some people believe books should not be banned in schools/libraries but just because you do not like it does not mean it should be taken away, that is the authors freedom of speech. Also, some say that you should not be exposing bad behavior or language to students but in reality they hear and see these things everyday, and by banning a book, that is not protecting them. Writers have the freedom to write whatever they want and that is a part of the First Amendment, so why banned their book? “The First Amendment allows individuals to speak, publish, read and view what they wish, worship (or not worship) as they wish, associate with
The general argument made by Paul Waldman in his work, “The Case For Banning Guns,” is that gun control should be put into effect and certain firearms should be banned. More specifically, Waldman argues that abandoning these guns could decrease mass shootings and make America a much safer environment. He writes, “Yes, I’d like to ban guns. Almost all of them, at least the ones in private hands.” In this passage, Paul is suggesting that the United States would be much better off abandoning these weapons that leave communities with so much blood and gore. He believes private gun ownership should be rare and strictly regulated, just like the gun laws in Europe and Asia.
C. Thesis Statement: Smoking should be banned in public places because it is harmful to non-smokers who visit public places. D. Credibility statement: And now what you are about to learn, based on what I have researched and from my personal experience, can be helpful to