A Closer Look: Violent Rhetoric and Arizona Politics

A Closer Look Violent Rhetoric and Arizona political science In Violent Rhetoric and Arizona Politics by Nathan Thornburgh, the compose tries to get the message across that rumors hind end reach out to more madness, than what rattling happens. In a time where there argon rumors flying, and pack get killed and a congresswoman shot because of them, Thornburgh is out there to prove his fountainhead that perhaps rumors argon leading to all of this violence in Arizona.However his leaning would have been more effective had he shown less crook, been a small-arm less uninterested and had provided more evidence and statistics to back up his paper. charm not all bias is bad, too practically can lead to an argument being less effective. Thornburghs bias can be seen in many a(prenominal) aspects of the paper. In Thornburghs paper bias can be seen in his use of tone and word choice. Thornburgh chooses, out of the many names to call the shaft, Coward (Gooch 325. ) small-arm it de finitely shows Thornburghs anger, where does the bias come from? Simple. Thornburghs plaudit and protection of the congresswoman.It his small things, like his commenting on Gifford was one of few politicians offering concrete law enforcement steps and the blot that he later states many other positions to paint her in a good light (325). At the very end he goes on to say Giffords is a sensible politician who was likely shot because she dealt with Arizonas reality, not its rumors (Gooch 325). It is Thornburghs bias, as bias is simply whichever way you lean towards in an argument, of the congresswoman that leads to him calling the shooter a coward. In anger or not, bias still promoted this. time bias is not bad, too much of it clouds your argument.That is what bias did here, as the fact that Thornburgh supports the congresswoman pops out at you and is right in your face at some points. It does not protagonist Thornburghs argument either, as he becomes dismissive of certain thin gs within his argument. Thornburgh can be seen as dismissive in some parts of his argument. He seems to not really expand on the topic and just lets it go with a simple statement. Earlier on in in his article, Thornburgh states that There were plenty of deaths there, but they were meek tragedies when public lecture some the beheading that had been rumored to be going on in the depopulate (Gooch 325).What Thornburgh is talking near is the fact that there are rumors going on about immigrants being beheaded in the desert, but in justice they are being abandoned by their guides. Thornburgh is attempting to say that the rumors of beheading are not true and that the rumors have led to more violence. However he comes off as dismissive towards the lives that were lost as unimportant, which would throw person off reading his paper if they disagreed with that sentiment. Thornburgh is trying to dismiss the idea of rumors, and in the same sentence is also dismissing the eventidet itself and writing it off as if it wasnt that big of a deal.This contradicts himself seeing as his whole point within the argument seems to be about the fact that these rumors lead to the violence happening. The thing he is most dismissive about, however, is the need for statistics. One of the bring out points of an effective argument is to provide support, usually in the form of statistics, citations, and facts. While Thornburgh does give some citations from other sources, they are just quoting of events or what people had said about events. Some of Thornburghs facts do lend confidence to his paper, such as when he quotes about the Congress on Your niche (Gooch 325).Yet this isnt quite what use ups a good argument. He could perhaps make a good argument without statistics but it still stands that statistics do help provide support to your argument. For instance, one of the best places to insert statistics would have been when he was talking about the fact that because the community had been Living in such calm for so long they were more riled up about these things happening and rumors began to start (Gooch 325). Such a statistic would be like something from Americanprogress. rg, in which they state that Violent crimes in Arizona are down by 15 percent since 2006 (Garcia). This would back up his statement on the fact that crimes had been low for quite a while and that they continue to drop. This would lend much help to the effectiveness of his argument. The effectiveness of Thornburghs argument was not as strong as it could have been. If he had been less overt about his bias, and had been a bit more professional, that alone would have made it a more effective argument. The one point that would have made it even more effective was if he had provided tatistics that were from a credible and reliable source. This article seemed to be more of a personal rant meant to persuade you to Thornburghs thinking than an actual well thought out article. Thornburghs points are there, and they do have clarity, but the tone is just too sluttish or biased to provide for an effective argument. Works Cited Garcia, Ann. Fact tacking Setting the Record Straight on Border Crime. American Progress. N. P. , 14 June 2010. Web. Gooch, John, and Dorothy U. Seyler. Argument 2nd Ed. New York, NY McGraw-Hill, 2011. Print.