Jacob Gornall GS 1001 Dr. Ferrell 01/12/2016 Destiny Review Rebuttal Destiny was one of the most anticipated games of 2014 and it was hyped up to be Bungie's next masterpiece. This was Bungie's take on borderlands, which I mean let's be real, Borderlands 2 was a knock out, especially compared to Destiny. "Graphically, Destiny is truly a beautiful and diverse looking game, especially when you explore the planets opposed to the downtrodden atmosphere of Earth. Whether it's the lush forests of Venus or the red deserts of Mars"(Impulse Gamer Admin, 2014). The graphics are amazing and the worlds are beautiful, but you are really given little reason to explore at all once you get the 5 chests on each planet you're done, there's really no reason
Get more content
The world has to end because it began. How the world will end has been the center of heated discussions. The topic of Doomsday has produced conferences, meetings, movies and books attempting to prophesy the end of age. With the emergence of Doomsday prophets have also emerged fallacies that preach propaganda to audiences of those seeking immunity from one sole apocalyptic day. One author in particular is Ronald Bailey. According to Forbes.com, Ronald Bailey has been a science writer for Forbes magazine and wrote an essay called Seven Doomsday Myths About The Environment. Bailey wrote this essay in response to fallacies concerning Doomsday. In his essay he attempts to identify fallacies that are present in seven of the most common...show more content...
Bailey does this by, illustrating theAd Hominemfallacy tactic. The Ad Hominem fallacy is committed when the "arguer ignores the merits of his /her opponent's argument, and rather makes some reference to the arguer himself/herself, and assumes that this somehow discredits the argument" (qtd. in Hurley 119) this is a way to discredit the opponent. Bailey debunks Doomsday Myths by repeatedly ignoring the merits of his opponent. For illustration Bailey stated, "the gloomy prognostications by the likes of Paul Ehrlich, Lester Brown, Al Gore, Stephen Schneider, andCarl Sagan . There is no scientific evidence to support the often heard claim that there is a global ecological crisis threatening humanity and life on the entire Planet Earth." (Bailey). He then follows up with more discredit by stating repeatedly in his rebuttal to his opponents claims by stating "False Doomsday Prediction" and "what really happened" (Bailey), as part of his oppositional statement. This tactic debunks the data that was presented by the Doomsday claimant as false, incorrect, and unfounded. Statements such as this are an attempt to insinuate to the reader that the claims that were made by the Doomsdayer's are false and Bailey's claims are true. In addition, Bailey himself circums to the use of Appeal to Unqualified Authority fallacy in his arguments to Doomsday fallacies. According to The Appeal To Unqualified Authority
Get more content
REBUTTAL FORM OF PERSUASION
The purpose of this paper is to argue against those perpetrators who are committing human rights violations against an oppressed group of people who are unable to defend themselves against the abuses. To defend the victims, you must know why and how the perpetrators are oppressing the group of victims and why these abuses are wrong. Your paper will be organized according to the rebuttal format for persuasion. This paper is organized the same way your persuasive paper last year was organized. Make sure you follow the form below for this paper. This format is required; it is not an option. Even though there are many forms of persuasion, we are learning the rebuttal format. I.Introduction a.Tell...show more content...
They support your position. This is where you make your strongest case. i.Present an argument in support of your position. Prove it by using
1.facts to show proof by induction
2.syllogisms for deduction 3.examples 4.reasons 5.quotes ii. Present an argument in support of your position. Prove it by using the above. iii. Present an argument in support of your position. Prove it by using the above. III.Conclusion a.Restate your position on the issue. b.Conclude with an emotional appeal for your position. What will happen if we don't listen to your suggestions? Predict the future for your victims. c.AND/OR give your readers a call to action. What should they be doing to resolve this issue? IV.Works cited a.Evidence should be cited in your text. See the MLA Stylebook for help. b.Follow MLA style for creating your works cited page. c.Don't forget to cite all Internet sources. V.Essay Parameters a.Essay Length: 1200–1600 words (not including work cited) b.Number of arguments: At least three rebuttal arguments and one defense. c.Number of CITED sources: At least three different kinds of credible sources (Example: a website, a magazine, a newspaper) d.Due Dates: See Angel Reminders Use the vocabulary of your topic. Choose words that have emotional connotation to help your cause. Create an interesting and original introduction and conclusion. Try to use rhetorical
Get more content
Objections and Rebuttals Whenever a customer has an objection to the offer or price, the problem is not that offer or the price it is actually that we as advocates have failed to build enough value in the product to justify the price. So in actuality the reason for the objection more often than not is that the customer is telling us that they are not willing to pay $19.95/$24.99 at this moment. The best way to combat this is to use an intelligent and informed rebuttal, do this by keeping the conversation going don't get flustered or aggravated Listen Think & Respond. Show empathy with the customer let them know you are here to solve their problem, remember we have to make the customers objections seem miniscule and offer a reasonable...show more content...
It's a win win situation you can't loose with this offer." If the customer still says they don't have a card we have to give them every option available such as "Is there someone there that understands what your going through that could let you use their card and you could give them the cash?" or "Is there someone that you can call to help you out with this I don't mind holding while we figure this out?" This particular objection can seem tough at first again DONT GET FRUSTRATED display your dedication in finding a solution for the customer. Objection: "I'm going to think about it" this particular objection should make our blood boil. What's to think about after talking to a knowledgeable advocate such as yourself, Right? Rebuttal: " I totally understand but don't you agree that the best way to think about this product is to actually use it in your home and get real time results, because that is exactly what this Risk–Free promotion is about" or "I totally understand but let's be honest with ourselves are you really going to go home and think about having clear skin? We all know life is hectic and putting this off will only make that clear and healthy skin be further out of your reach we are halfway there its time to take control" remember some of these customers are very indecisive we need to be the deciding factor in the phone call and we do this by displaying confidence in our rebuttals. Objection: "I need to talk to" this is usually just the Get more content
APA Format:
Article Rebuttal
Lori M. Slack
BCOM/275
February 17, 2014
Rod Klein
Article Rebuttal
Marriage is not about a piece of paper, a ring, or sexual preference. It has never been about any of these matters, and should not be considered so. Marriage is the commitment between two people who love each other unconditionally. According to Psychology Today, "marriage is the process by which two people who love each other make their relationship public, official, and permanent" (Psychology Today, 2002) . Anyone can get married, but it takes dedication and work to make a marriage last and be successful. This paper will specifically discuss an article written by Jan LaRue, Why Homosexual "Marriage" Is Wrong and what...show more content...
In saying this she is being selective to support her argument, and in doing so is being confirmation biased. Who is to say thathomosexuality is more unholy, or wrong, than divorce, adultery, and lying? Logical Fallacies
The fallacy that was used in this article is false attribution because of the biased attributes in the argument. For example, saying that marriage has to be limited to only a man and a woman is not discriminating, yet it clearly is because of the biased feelings of homosexual relationships. Another type of fallacy that was used is the fallacy of ambiguity; when an abstract belief is treated as if it were concrete evidence. Religion is not based on scientific concrete evidence, but merely a belief in something. The Bible has been written and rewritten by man, and has lack of evidence supporting that there is a God.
Conclusion
Many base their idea of right and wrong on biased conclusions and/or religion. This makes the issue hard to decipher between who is right and wrong. Biased conclusions do not make the idea correct. The idea that only a man and a woman can fall in love with each other, and not a man and a man or a woman and a woman, is based on favoritisms in how someone feels about the issue. Articles, such as the one above, have the intentions of sharing their beliefs in the hope of others adopting that particular belief. The question that should be presented is,
Get more content
Article Rebuttal Maybelline Torres University of Phoenix BCOM/275 April 17, 2012 Prof. Lourdes LebrГіn BayrГіn Article Rebuttal In this article rebuttal an analysis will take place on the authors, reliability, credibility, and validity on the account of Noah's flood. The rebuttal will give emphasis on the claims young earth creationist have on the earth's existence period. Additionally, address old earth and young earth theories. Finally identify any fallacies in the argument. For centuries creation theorists have given emphasis to Noah's flood as enough evidence to a universal deluge. Nevertheless, it is understood the ark presented in the Bible had a higher credibility to a local flood. According...show more content...
The following claim states that it can give evidence that all animals and humans originated from occupants of the ark. The people could have descended from the ark inhabitants, but scientist lack evidence on the animals descending from the ark. Finding the ark does not give evidence of the ancestry of all creatures. One way to refute this is consider the Koala in Australia. How did this earthly animal travel to Australia once the ark settled? Traveling this distance would be impossible nevertheless because the flood was local Koalas did not need to be on the ark. Furthermore, the author asserts that locating ark remains forces paleontologists to re–decipher fossils as an effect of the flood, not of many years buildup. Old–earth creationists relates fully with the geological proof of the arks old age existence. There are no findings of the ark, although several informants alleged to have seen it. In reality the ark will never be located, most likely it no longer exists. Noah maybe used the ark wood for rebuilding the society. God declared to Noah never again would He destroy the world with water. Noah was clear he had no use for the ark maybe he dismantled it for constructing material. Moreover, creation theorists Baumgardner, and Barnett claim after the flood the land would have resembled a lifeless wilderness deprived of trees and plants. If the plant and tree seeds floated after the flood it would still take many years Get more content
I was part of the rebuttal for the Negative Team. My part of the argument was to rebut the Affirmative Team's point that the First Amendment rendered the school rule unconstitutional. However, I argued that the school rule was not unconstitutional, as it had not broken any part of the First Amendment by only asking the students to be quiet while the anthem played. Additionally, I turned the argument on them during the rebuttal, by proving why Philip was being a disturbance, and the First Amendment's freedom of speech could not protect him, as freedom of speech is defined as the legal right to express one's opinion freely. The three main points introduced by the other team included that Narwin was unjust and biased, Philip has the right to freedom...show more content...
I projected by voice to be louder, and I believe that I spoke at a fairly moderate pace and emphasized when necessary. In my rebuttal, I also used the book and also used a dictionary to help support the arguments that I made. I also used a real–world example in our classroom, when I discussed how Ms. Breault was not violating our rights to the First Amendment when she tells us to quiet down. However, I could have improved on certain aspects of my argument. I feel like my argument did not completely address their argument, and there were still aspects of their argument that were left unrebutted. The Supreme Court case was a point I did not specifically address, but it was still a very powerful part of that argument. Additionally, I believe that I could have used some more analysis in my rebuttal. I was very brief about commentary on why the rule did not violate the First Amendment, and I could have directed the rebuttal more on Philip and blamed him even more, making our case stronger and their case weaker. Overall, I felt that this debate was quite interesting, as the Affirmative Team still put up a fight and introduced some very excellent points and evidence I would have never thought of, although I am certain most, if not all, of us agreed with the Negative side before this debate started. By this debate, I learned several aspects of a debate and how a debate is structured overall. I also learned what makes a strong argument in a debate: powerful evidence, convincing evidence, and no holes. I had a great experience doing this debate, and I find it unfortunate we will not have time to do another one this school