Paper 3 Plan

Issue: Network neutrality is the idea of Internet service providers acting simply as providers of Internet connections, without the ability to vary what degree of access their users have to the Internet. Currently, the FCC is pushing toward a more net neutral situation than is presently in effect, since at this time ISPs have the ability to monitor and then limit connection speed or access for certain users.

Sources: I will be using sources that relate to technology, such as Wired and CNET, as well as various websites that are proponents of net neutrality. Through the technology periodicals, I will gain information about the network providers’ stance on net neutrality.

Database Structure: My database will be structured around the stakeholders for this issue, analyzing their arguments and looking at the impact of net neutrality on each of the stakeholders.

Relevance/Significance: This issue is relevant because the restriction of Internet access is in conflict with freedom of speech, and has also been a policy issue in recent times.

Rhetorical Situation: The rhetorical situation that this issue would best fit would most likely be a letter to legislators who are involved in the policy making related to this issue, or as a letter to the editor of a technology periodical.

Delicious username: bryanburr

Google Docs username: burr.bryan@gmail.com

T. Boone Pickens TV Commercial

This commercial uses the appeals of ethos, logos, and pathos in order to strengthen its argument. It uses each of the appeals in different segments of the video, beginning with logos, followed by pathos, and finally appealing to ethos.

In the beginning of the video, many facts are given about the growth of America’s dependence on foreign oil importation, thus appealing to logos. The facts are used to show how the foreign oil dependence of the US has grown since 1970, and this is later seen as useful as the argument the commercial is posing is developed. These facts support the argument by showing how the foreign oil dependency of the US should be lowered.

The commercial then appeals to pathos by using certain words that stand out, such as “emergency”, “stranglehold”, and at the end, “our crisis”, among others. These words work to evoke a certain amount of shock from the viewer and thus appeal to one’s emotions in order to support the argument of the commercial. These words are used to show how dependence on foreign oil is an issue that the makers of this commercial and supporters of the Pickens Plan feel should be addressed.

Finally, by establishing the primary proponent of this commercial, T. Boone Pickens, and his credibility as an “oil man”, the commercial utilizes ethos. It creates this credibility by having him displayed and shortly describing his background, then having him re-emphasize the argument of the commercial. By showing him, the commercial garners more support for its argument.

Pathos and Logos within the Unmanned vs Manned Aircraft Debate

With the introduction of unmanned aircraft into the militaries of countries around the world, there comes some debate about their use. There are both pros and cons of using unmanned aerial vehicles, or UAVs, rather than manned aircraft, which had been the only resource until recent technological advancements allowed the military to essentially use improved remote control planes in order to carry out missions.

The side for UAVs invokes pathos by saying that the use of UAVs reduces the potential for loss of life. Since UAVs are, of course, unmanned, if one of them crashes, there is no pilot in it that would possibly be killed or captured as there could be with a manned aircraft incident. Because many people would agree that taking more people out of potential danger is agreeable, this pathos is quite an effective argument for this side of the debate.

Additionally, UAVs are able to perform front-line reconnaissance missions that assist units on the ground, giving them a better “view” of the battlefield. This gives these infantrymen a one-up on their enemy, because they have expanded intel on the situation before rushing into it and thus have a better chance of survival than they would without the information being relayed to them by the UAVs.

The UAV side of the debate presents another facet their issue via the rhetorical strategy of logos. This comes out of the issue of money. Unmanned aerial vehicles have considerably less cost when it comes to the infrastructure required to support them, as they can typically take off and land, as well as be housed, in smaller facilities than can a manned aircraft; the development of new technologies for them, as the research is not needed on as large of a scale and so the materials used during research cost less; the procurement of the aircraft, since they require less money overall to produce; the training required in order for a pilot to be able to control one, since less fuel, etc. is utilized during training; and finally, the maintenance required to keep them in working order, since there are much fewer parts involved in a UAV.

Another interesting aspect of the debate is that of artificial intelligence. As the technology in UAVs improves, eventually they will start to become more and more autonomous in their functionality. While some will embrace this, many will have issues with it. There is of course the ever-present role of science fiction in everyone’s minds that creates an image of the uncontrollable AI that eventually destroys humanity, and for this reason there will be reluctance to develop such powerful artificial intelligence and especially so to deploy it within a military setting. Additionally, there is the fear that once a job can be fulfilled completely by an artificial intelligence construct, it will no longer require any human interaction and thus the person that had previously been in charge of that duty would be out of a job. With the way the economy is in these times, this would definitely be an unfavorable change to the way that the military is organized.

Thus, both sides of this debate utilize logos and pathos in order to add credibility to their argument.

-Bryan Burr