23 October 2013
Analysis of Public Arguments Concerning Video Game Addiction (XXROUGH DRAFTXX) Whether we debate over who gets to pick the movie for the night, or what deal has to be made in order to vanquish the government shutdown, arguments are undoubtedly most influential in modern society. Public arguments, to be exact, are the foundations for today’s functional groups. Education, religion, and business affairs are all affected by the persuasive effect made in public arguments and are needed in order for the public to take a stance on particular aspects of their lives.
Without such, we would be living in a dreary utopia wherein we have little to no opinions or beliefs, which is why the concept of public arguments is relevant and highly crucial. Regarding the notions of video game addiction, one controversial concern is the theory of “video game addiction”. On the one hand, some argue that conceptualizing an addiction for “video games” is psychologically incorrect, while on the other hand, some argue that it is the most accurate term in terms of labeling a behavior such as this. Because of this, I have investigated this problem and ultimately found three articles that each present a valid public argument on video game addiction. The three articles argue the same topic but differ in their use of evidence-type, ethos, and stases. The way each article utilizes each tool sets them apart from each other, which make them purposeful and persuasive.
In the first article, the author evidence-type in different portions of the text. In order to provide hard facts, he incorporates the case studies as part of his argument. Here is an example of one of his justifications for the case studies: “……”. In order to gain approval from their reader, the author uses ethos in order to imprint their argument. In paragraphs 10, 11, 13, specifically when he says “……” shows how persuasive he is in terms of credibility. The author also touches on ethos in the early stages of his article in order to let readers know that the following argument is backed by credible analysis. He does so in paragraphs 1-3, especially when he says “……”.What is interesting about this article is how much of the article is spent on the case studies. This unique placement of his stases clearly defines his purpose in that he has an introduction explaining his background and purpose, lengthy case studies acting as hard evidence, and a conclusion that recaps the issue and the current actions being made in order to bring changes.
The second article utilizes many of the first article’s techniques in that it uses case studies to justify its argument. However, there are subtle differences that make the second article actually unique. In many ways, the author in the second article mimics the style of the first author. For example…. “......” exemplifies their similarity in stylistics but you can tell that their aspects differ just by the subtle change in