introducing and arranging a thesis - 1133

Introducing and arranging a thesis

ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION

In the Jon Stewart clip, he questions the reasoning behind the U.S.’s participation in the Libyan war. It is curious that Stewart does not examine the moral reasoning behind entering the war at all. While most arguments surrounding out partaking in the Libyan civil war deal with the moral justifications behind it, Stewart simply remarks, “We’re at war? Again? I don’t want to be a pain in the ass, but don’t we already have two wars?” It is rather ironic because he follows this up by denouncing the comparison of wars to quantifiable objects and yet that is exactly the perspective he is occupying, thus creating a contradiction.

One has to wonder what the reasoning behind this position is. One of the most important aspects of rhetorical analysis is the relationship between speaker (rhetor) and audience. First off, it is important to keep in mind the purpose of his speech; he is a comedian and therefore has a slightly different target audience. With that in mind, he has transformed the general rhetorical exigence of “The Libyan Uprising” and transformed it into a matter of “excess of wars”. This altercation is interesting because it modifies the audience from that of a simple political speech. As a comedian, he is able to reach those that are not versed in politics (such as myself) and still send a message (thus keeping the rhetorical nature of the exigence). The question is whether we are considered a rhetorical audience. To a large extent, those that would be capable of making change would be those that have a greater understanding of political issues. Furthermore, Obama’s speech had the ability of being taken seriously by international viewers. The bottom line is, is a comedic discourse more or less effective than a strictly political discourse (such as Obama’s speech)?

REVISED INTRODUCTION

While most of the pundits debating America’s intervention in Libya have focused on the question of its moral justification, The Daily Show’s Jon Stewart asks a mathematical question: “We’re at war? Again? I don’t want to be a pain in the ass, but don’t we already have two wars?” The question is an ironic one. Stewart goes on to decry those who treat wars as stable, quantifiable objects, despite the fact that this is precisely what his mathematical question does. Of course, such apparent contradictions are Stewart’s stock in trade. As a comedian, Stewart continually revels in contradiction, paradox, and irony. And as a satirist, he continually exposes the logical contradictions of the supposedly “serious” government and media figures he comically criticizes. The question remains whether a comedic discourse such as Stewart’s is more rhetorically effective or less so than the “serious” political discourse practiced by the journalists and politicians he targets. Stewart’s riff on Libya shows the answer is both yes and no. On the one hand, by redefining the exigence of the debate from the question of the moral calculus behind this particular war to the problem of the incalculable, unquantifiable excess of war more generally, Stewart turns a deadly serious subject into comical (though still deadly) one. He thereby gathers the attention -- and perhaps changes the minds -- of an audience far wider than those of his colleagues on the “serious” political programs. On the other hand, however, to the extent that this wider audience treats Stewart’s criticisms as food for thought but not a spur to action, they cease to be a properly rhetorical audience, i.e., an audience of agents. To the extent, then, that Stewart promotes critical thinking over decisive action, he renders his discourse rhetorically ineffective in the end.

FEATURES OF A STRONG THESIS A strong thesis RESPONDS to the question; it doesn’t simply restate it.

If the question is “What is the rhetorical significance of the strangest, most surprising element of Beck’s or Stewart’s performances,” and the writer’s thesis is something like “Beck’s performance is full of surprises, many of which are rhetorically significant,” then s/he’s not actually responding to the question; s/he’s merely restating it.


A strong thesis offers a DEBATABLE response, not a statement of simple fact.

If the writer’s thesis is “Stewart’s use of satire appeals to his audience by tickling their collective funny bone,” then s/he’s not making a debatable claim (for who could disagree that Stewart’s humor appeals to his audience?); rather, s/he’s stating a fact.



A strong thesis not only makes a debatable claim but explains the REASONING behind it.

If the writer’s thesis is “By weaving together dramatic emotional appeals with demands that his audience exercise their capacity for reason, Beck’s performance resonates powerfully and persuasively with his core audience,” then s/he has indeed offered a debatable response to the question. But s/he hasn’t yet explained the reasoning behind that claim -- the “why” behind the “what” of the thesis.



A strong thesis not only makes a debatable claim but explains the REASONING behind it.

A strong thesis is SPECIFIC enough that readers understand precisely what argument they’re being asked to consider.

Consider this thesis:

Because it startles them into seeing the issue from an unfamiliar angle, Stewart’s sudden, surprising shift in ethos succeeds in changing the minds of the most important segment of his audience.

By itself, the thesis is a debatable, reasoned response to the question, but it’s not sufficiently specific. Unless the writer has answered these questions earlier in the paragraph, we don’t know specifically what “shift in ethos” the writer’s talking about, nor who the “most important segment of the audience” is.

FEATURES OF A STRONG THESIS A strong thesis RESPONDS to the question; it doesn’t simply restate it. A strong thesis offers a DEBATABLE response, not a statement of simple fact. A strong thesis not only makes a debatable claim but explains the REASONING behind it.

A strong thesis is SPECIFIC enough that readers understand precisely what argument they’re being asked to consider. A strong thesis LOGICALLY CONNECTS all of its key ideas

Here’s the thesis I revised, but with all of the logical connectors taken out. Notice how difficult to interpret it is.

By redefining the exigence of the debate from the question of the moral calculus behind this particular war to the problem of the incalculable, unquantifiable excess of war more generally, Stewart turns a deadly serious subject into comical (though still deadly) one. He gathers the attention -- and perhaps changes the minds -- of an audience far wider than those of his colleagues on the “serious” political programs. To the extent that this wider audience treats Stewart’s criticisms as food for thought but not a spur to action, they cease to be a properly rhetorical audience, i.e., an audience of agents. Stewart promotes critical thinking over decisive action, and he renders his discourse rhetorically ineffective in the end.

FEATURES OF A STRONG THESIS A strong thesis RESPONDS to the question; it doesn’t simply restate it. A strong thesis offers a DEBATABLE response, not a statement of simple fact. A strong thesis not only makes a debatable claim but explains the REASONING behind it.

A strong thesis is SPECIFIC enough that readers understand precisely what argument they’re being asked to consider. A strong thesis LOGICALLY CONNECTS all of its key ideas

Finally, a strong thesis is FRESH, ORIGINAL, and THOUGHT-PROVOKING.

Emma’s thesis is a fine example!

FEATURES OF A STRONG THESIS A strong thesis RESPONDS to the question; it doesn’t simply restate it. A strong thesis offers a DEBATABLE response, not a statement of simple fact. A strong thesis not only makes a debatable claim but explains the REASONING behind it. A strong thesis is SPECIFIC enough that readers understand precisely what argument they’re being asked to consider.

A strong thesis LOGICALLY CONNECTS all of its key ideas

Finally, a strong thesis is FRESH, ORIGINAL, and THOUGHT-PROVOKING.

FEATURES OF A WELL CRAFTED BODY It SUPPORTS the thesis statement by ANALYZING EVIDENCE.

It DEVELOPS the thesis statement by fleshing out each of its KEY IDEAS.

It organizes the key ideas in a LOGICALLY PROGRESSIVE, PURPOSEFULLY ORDERED SEQUENCE.

It devotes the MOST SPACE to the most original, interesting, and/or controversial aspects of the thesis, and less space to the least original, interesting, and/or controversial aspects of the thesis.

It DOESN’T STRAY from the thesis.

While most of the pundits debating America’s intervention in Libya have focused on the question of its moral justification, The Daily Show’s Jon Stewart asks a mathematical question: “We’re at war? Again? I don’t want to be a pain in the ass, but don’t we already have two wars?” The question is an ironic one. Stewart goes on to decry those who treat wars as stable, quantifiable objects, despite the fact that this is precisely what his mathematical question does. Of course, such apparent contradictions are Stewart’s stock in trade. As a comedian, Stewart continually revels in contradiction, paradox, and irony. And as a satirist, he continually exposes the logical contradictions of the supposedly “serious” government and media figures he comically criticizes. The question remains whether a comedic discourse such as Stewart’s is more rhetorically effective or less so than the “serious” political discourse practiced by the journalists and politicians he targets. Stewart’s riff on Libya shows the answer is both yes and no. On the one hand, by redefining the exigence of the debate from the question of the moral calculus behind this particular war to the problem of the incalculable, unquantifiable excess of war more generally, Stewart turns a deadly serious subject into comical (though still deadly) one. He thereby gathers the attention -- and perhaps changes the minds -- of an audience far wider than those of his colleagues on the “serious” political programs. On the other hand, however, to the extent that this wider audience treats Stewart’s criticisms as food for thought but not a spur to action, they cease to be a properly rhetorical audience, i.e., an audience of agents. To the extent, then, that Stewart promotes critical thinking over decisive action, he renders his discourse rhetorically ineffective in the end.

While most of the pundits debating America’s intervention in Libya have focused on the question of its moral justification, The Daily Show’s Jon Stewart asks a mathematical question: “We’re at war? Again? I don’t want to be a pain in the ass, but don’t we already have two wars?” The question is an ironic one. Stewart goes on to decry those who treat wars as stable, quantifiable objects, despite the fact that this is precisely what his mathematical question does. Of course, such apparent contradictions are Stewart’s stock in trade. As a comedian, Stewart continually revels in contradiction, paradox, and irony. And as a satirist, he continually exposes the logical contradictions of the supposedly “serious” government and media figures he comically criticizes.

The question remains whether a comedic discourse such as Stewart’s is more rhetorically effective or less so than the “serious” political discourse practiced by the journalists and politicians he targets. Stewart’s riff on Libya shows the answer is both yes and no. On the one hand, by redefining the exigence of the debate from the question of the moral calculus behind this particular war to the problem of the incalculable, unquantifiable excess of war more generally, Stewart turns a deadly serious subject into comical (though still deadly) one. He thereby gathers the attention -- and perhaps changes the minds -- of an audience far wider than those of his colleagues on the “serious” political programs. On the other hand, however, to the extent that this wider audience treats Stewart’s criticisms as food for thought but not a spur to action, they cease to be a properly rhetorical audience, i.e., an audience of agents. To the extent, then, that Stewart promotes critical thinking over decisive action, he renders his discourse rhetorically ineffective in the end.

specific

general


The question remains whether a comedic discourse such as Stewart’s is more rhetorically effective or less so than the “serious” political discourse practiced by the journalists and politicians he targets. Stewart’s riff on Libya shows the answer is both yes and no.

On the one hand, by redefining the exigence of the debate from the question of the moral calculus behind this particular war to the problem of the incalculable, unquantifiable excess of war more generally, Stewart turns a deadly serious subject into comical (though still deadly) one. He thereby gathers the attention -- and perhaps changes the minds -- of an audience far wider than those of his colleagues on the “serious” political programs.

On the other hand, however, to the extent that this wider audience treats Stewart’s criticisms as food for thought but not a spur to action, they cease to be a properly rhetorical audience, i.e., an audience of agents. To the extent, then, that Stewart promotes critical thinking over decisive action, he renders his discourse rhetorically ineffective in the end.

specific

general

another stepone step


The question remains whether a comedic discourse such as Stewart’s is more rhetorically effective or less so than the “serious” political discourse practiced by the journalists and politicians he targets. Stewart’s riff on Libya shows the answer is both yes and no.

On the one hand, by redefining the exigence of the debate from the question of the moral calculus behind this particular war to the problem of the incalculable, unquantifiable excess of war more generally, Stewart turns a deadly serious subject into comical (though still deadly) one.

On the other hand, however, to the extent that this wider audience treats Stewart’s criticisms as food for thought but not a spur to action, they cease to be a properly rhetorical audience, i.e., an audience of agents.

specific

general

another stepone step

He thereby gathers the attention -- and perhaps changes the minds -- of an audience far wider than those of his colleagues on the “serious” political programs.

To the extent, then, that Stewart promotes critical thinking over decisive action, he renders his discourse rhetorically ineffective in the end.

I. Introduction of thesis

II. Step 1: Changing minds through comedy

III. Step 2: Spurring action – or not? (From the least action-oriented joke to the most.)

IV. Conclusion: The rhetorical power of irony more generally: What are its strengths and limitations? (One paragraph)

outline

I. Introduction of thesis

II. Step 1: Changing minds through comedy

A. A paragraph in which I briefly explicate, say, three examples of Stewart’s jokes: How do they expose the contradictions in the logic of American foreign policy?

B. A paragraph of audience analysis: Who is Stewart’s audience, and how do these jokes serve to provoke this particular audience to think critically?

III. Step 2: Spurring action – or not? (From the least action-oriented joke to the most.)

A. Transition paragraph: Explain the idea of a rhetorical audience (audience with power to take action) and why Stewart’s discourse, though it ay encourage critical thinking in his audience, may forestall action.

B. Return to the first joke: How does (or doesn’t it) spur action in addition to thought? (One paragraph)

C. Return to the second joke: How does (or doesn’t it) spur action in addition to thought? (One paragraph)

D. Return to the third joke: How does (or doesn’t it) spur action in addition to thought? (One paragraph)

IV. Conclusion: The rhetorical power of irony more generally: What are its strengths and limitations? (One paragraph)

outline

introducing and arranging a thesis - 1133

Education