Clinton vs. Trump

It's presidential election season, and the two nominees just had their first debate. While neither candidate had a particularly good performance in the debate, one candidate has to have outdone the other. In this case, Hillary Clinton is the clear winner.

While it was clear that bother candidates tried to appeal to the audience's logic, Hillary took the win in her rhetoric. She used terms like "common sense gun laws" and  argued that she knew more about politics than Donald Trump. Trump, on the other hand, struggled in this aspect. He didn't back up his ideas and political views with solid plans on how he would implement his changes as president, and thus his argument was lacking.

Hillary also won in convincing her audience of her credibility. Although Hillary's track record on her truthfulness isn't as clean as she would like it to be, Hillary does have more experience in politics than the Donald. Hillary didn't forget to remind the audience of this fact, and the audience seemed pleased with the evidence. Donald, on the other hand, basically told the audience to trust him because he was a smart guy who knew what he was talking about.

Trump did, however, win the audience's emotions over. While both Hillary and Donald made the audience laugh or clap on several occasions, it was clear that Trump knew what he was doing. Trump knew when to say what to get a reaction out of the crowd, but Clinton simply sputtered out in this subject. Hillary would occasionally try to get the audience to show some emotion towards her "jokes," (this was evident by the way she would smile and wait for a cheer/laugh/clap, then frown and move on after not receiving one) but her excessive attempts essentially handed Donald the win.

Because the two candidates were debating on a more serious topic to a more serious audience, there was no real need to win over the audience's emotions. Therefore, Hillary was the clear winner in the debate. However, after Trump's sputter in this debate, it will be interesting to see how he returns in the future.

Sources:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZEHPrYUcoi0

Sweatshops: A Critical Review of Nicholas Kristof's Argument

Nicholas Kristof (pictured below) is a 57-year-old opinion journalist for the New York Times who is generally seen as a staunch liberal in his opinions. However, Kristof has one opinion that differs greatly from the average left-winger; Kristof thinks sweatshops are great. While most people assume that sweatshops are terribly cruel to the workers who are employed there, Kristof plays the devil's advocate and says that sweatshops may be the best thing that ever happened to poor countries.

Nicholas Kristof

Kristof argues that if it were not for sweatshops, the poorest people in the poorest countries could never escape poverty. The main problems Americans have with sweatshops are that the pay is too low, the work is unsafe, and the labor is unfair. This may be true... from an American's point of view. From those living in poverty in the poorest countries in the world's point of view, however, a job in a sweatshop is like a dream come true. Kristof emphasizes this point by asking Cambodian peasants who work in sweatshops how they feel about the situation. One lower class 13-year-old girl states, "It's dirty, hot, and smelly here; a factory is better."

Another point that Kristof uses is that, no matter how hard unions may try, improving conditions for workers is nearly impossible, and usually not beneficial. United States non-profit organizations love trying to improve working conditions for those in sweatshops. If these organizations are successful in making new laws that change things or make the companies who provide sweatshop workers their jobs lose money, the companies will simply pull out of the country, and go set up shop somewhere else without the laws. While their hearts are in the right place, all these organizations do is cause millions of poor people who were on their way out of poverty to return to the bottom of their class.

Overall, Kristof presents a strong argument for a sad cause. His general argument is that no matter how terrible sweatshops may be, they are better than the alternative jobs for the peasants of the poorest countries in the world.

Sources:
http://www.nytimes.com/ref/opinion/KRISTOF-BIO.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/15/opinion/15kristof.html

Are Graphic Video Games Really an Issue?

A visual on the site mediaviolence.org depicts a young boy enveloped in his video game overlaid with text stating the top games of 2011. This visual makes a powerful statement about how realistic and lifelike people can think video games are. The central image is merely a child playing video games, but after listing the top games of 2011, all with violent titles, the image suggests that children are being directly affected by this form of entertainment.

This visual is effective because, for those with little background knowledge of video games, the message might be easily perceived to establish a direct relationship between playing violent video games and the likelihood of children growing up with a violent mindset. Too many people are easily convinced that the truth is that more violent media corresponds with more violent mass shootings. However, these speculations can easily be refuted by facts.

 As demonstrated in the graph above, the amount of violent crime per capita decreases even with the larger amount of violent video games available for consumption. Often times, people make the point that becoming desensitized to violence is a bad thing. I would argue against that point. Desensitization to violence is critical to survival in the real world, because violence happens all around us, every day. If we all live in a make-believe, fairy-tale land, then the first time we would be introduced to any real-life violence, we wouldn't know how to react and everything would fall apart.

For further reading:
mediaviolence.org
ojp.usdoj.gov