Notes on Toulmin Argument

Claim: main point of the essay

Reason: statement that supports the claim. Usually appears in the same sentence

Warrant: inference that connects the claim and grounds

Backing: evidence that supports the warrant

Grounds: concrete evidence that a writer uses to support the claim, facts and observations that support the thesis.

Qualifiers: statements that limit the claim

Rebuttals: refutations of opposing arguments

The Case of Alfredo Aceves: Is Any Baseball Athlete Worth The Price Of A Ticket To See Them Play?

Angela Forte

ENGL 102-048

Rogerian Argumentative Essay

20 March 2013

The Case of Alfredo Aceves: Is Any Baseball Athlete Worth The Price Of A Ticket To See Them Play?

            Alfredo Aceves has been the most controversial issue with the Boston Red Sox lately. He has clashed with his managers, degraded team chemistry, and has sparked trade speculation from almost every beat writer. He has proven to be a valuable pitcher, available to pitch long innings for days on end, but how far can his versatility go? Is his rubber arm worth the headache he causes anymore? Is he even worth paying the high ticket prices to see him play? Is any baseball athlete worth the price of a ticket to see them play?

            Many tend to forget that Aceves was a godsend in his first year with the Red Sox. "In a year of multiple pitching disappointments, Aceves stood out as one of the very few members of the Red Sox staff that exceeded expectations" (Shapiro). He made 55 appearances, 4 starts, and posted an earned run average of 2.61 (Shapiro). Not to mention, he was made famous for his significant words after pitching four consecutive days and being asked to pitch for a fifth straight day. "As soon as I wake up tomorrow–if I wake up tomorrow–I'm good" ("Alfredo Aceves on Pitching Again Wednesday: ‘If I Wake Up Tomorrow, I’m Good'"). With an answer like this, he proved himself to be a dirt dog, a warrior, a rubber arm, something Boston could never let go of. He was one of the most valuable pitchers one could find, and a rare talent in the league.

            Like most good things, it came to an end in the following season. He posted ugly numbers for the 2012 season, although the numbers made his year look slightly worse than it was. He was a decent closer up until about the end of August when his role was being threatened to be taken away and the team was sinking faster than the Titanic. However, it was not just the mediocre statistics that were creating an uproar from the fans, demanding he be traded immediately, it was his antics. He started doing weird things that made people start to question his mental state. He was slamming doors, tearing his shirt off in the bullpen, circling around the mound to avoid his manager, interfering on a play with his catcher, and essentially losing his mind. It did not help matters any when he reported to Spring Training the year after and began his antics by lobbing the balls to the plate.

            Now why would people pay money to see that kind of behavior? If people were paying to see a comedy act, it would be a different story. The main reason people are upset with Aceves still being on the roster is not because he acts like a clown, it is because people pay all this money and expect to see winning records and good quality baseball. Aceves, when in his ridiculous form, is not the kind of player people would want to pay an arm and leg to see play. Then again, what player is worth the price of a ticket to see?

            There are certainly some players that are worth the ticket prices to see, but most of them are the legends: Ted Williams, Mickey Mantle, Carl Yastrzemski, Jackie Robinson, etc. These are the players that people paid good money to watch. However, baseball was different back then. Ticket prices were cheaper, probably more reasonable for people's salaries at the time, and baseball had a different meaning. Baseball forty years back was about the individuals, for example the home run hitters, the base stealers and the aces of the pitching staff. Most people went to see their favorite players.

            Nowadays, average people watch the team that they root for. These people normally do not go out of their way to watch a player on another team, even if they are a phenomenal player in the league. Usually if people want to see an individual that bad, they would wait until the individual player opposes their hometown team, or whatever team they watch occasionally. Baseball today is less about iconic players, because in all honesty, there are not too many of them left. The players now have been consumed by the steroid era. They rely on supplements to give them the talent that our greats decades ago had naturally. It really takes away from wanting to see an individual for their talent.

            What makes a player worth paying money to see? Sports players are measured by their name and image awareness, appeal and personality attributes such as sincerity, approachability, experience and influence, both at the national and local levels, in terms of endorsement potential ("Yankee Players Dominate Baseball Marketability "). In simpler terms, these measures of an athlete is what attracts fans to a player, whether they know it or not. To be worth paying to see, a player should be well known in the leagues and have superior statistics with a great public image. People want to see the good guy, the one that signs autographs for people, not the pitcher for the Red Sox who throws tantrums and tears his shirt off in the bullpen.

             However, these factors that make a player worth paying to see combined with talent is not always easy to find. In some cases, there are players like Alfredo Aceves who have true, natural talent without the use of supplements, but he lacks the characteristics to attract a crowd. It is safe to say that no one will pay to see him pitch unless he starts acting more like the ideal baseball player. A little bit of eccentricity in an athlete is often admired by the fans, but sometimes players take it too far and let their passion take over their performance.

            A baseball player worth paying money to see is Carl Yastrzemski. He, like others in his era, had raw talent and is no doubt one of the best baseball players in the game.

Carl Yastrzemski played 23 years with the Boston Red Sox. He is a member of the Baseball Hall of Fame, elected in 1989. Yastrzemski was selected to 17 All Star Games, won 7 Gold Gloves, achieved 3,419 Hits and 452 Home Runs and won the Triple Crown in 1967. His famous #8 has been retired by the Boston Red Sox and sits on top of Fenway Park ("Carl Yastrzemski Biography").

He was one of the best in the league and a member of the historic 1967 Impossible Dream team. He was a seventeen time all-star, one of the very few to win the Triple Crown, a seven time Gold Glove winner, and eventually, a Hall of Famer. He is considered one of the finest defensive left fielders of all-time ("Carl Yastrzemski Biography"). His statistics were remarkable, he has a resume that cannot be topped by baseball players today, but his statistics are not the only assets making Carl Yastrzemski a player worth paying the price of a ticket to see. Yastrzemski was highly a fan favorite in Boston and attracted people to the park with his golden personality and his love and passion for the game, something some players these days lack. Yastrzemski himself said, "I think about baseball when I wake up in the morning. I think about it all day and I dream about it at night. The only time I don't think about it is when I'm playing it" (Baseball Hall of Fame). His attitude and love for baseball was adored by fans and that is why people watched him. He was beyond talented and motivated. He played the game because he loved to, not because he was being paid to, making him an ideal athlete. This is what made him worth paying money to see. He brought love and passion to the park, unlike Aceves who sends Fenway into a frenzy for all the wrong reasons.

            Alex Rodriguez, the overrated third baseman for the New York Yankees, stands for the majority of athletes today that are not worth the price of a ticket to see them play. His career statistics are admirable but Rodriguez happens to be the most hated baseball player of today, and not just by Red Sox fans. He is considered a jerk and a phony by most of Major League Baseball ("The Rise and Fall of A-Rod"). "In 2009, Sports Illustrated broke the story that Alex Rodriguez tested positive for steroids in 2003. Rodriguez soon came out and, in a shaky voice, admitted to using steroids the three years he played for Texas" ("The Rise and Fall of A-Rod"). The use of performance enhancing drugs and a vulgar sore-losing attitude make Rodriguez the kind of player that people do not pay money to see. He is the exact opposite of everything that makes an athlete worth ticket prices.

            "He is a very versatile pitcher who can start a game or pitch to just one batter in a critical spot. He has a very good fastball and throws a variety of other pitches" (Abraham). To say that Aceves completely is not worth the price of a ticket is a poor assumption. He can be worth watching when he is in his dominant form. He is very versatile and can fill in any role, something people like to see in a baseball player. "Here's hoping the Red Sox keep Ace around. He's endlessly entertaining" (Abraham). Aceves is entertaining, which can attract a crowd as easily as it can drive them away. He has been known to have some of the best stuff on the pitching staff (Carrabis). If Aceves shows more strength as a pitcher and provides wins, then his antics could be overlooked and would be nothing more than pure entertainment for the fans. If he could balance both dominant pitching and an eccentric personality, he could very well be an ideal baseball player that people would pay to see.

            Since some players are worth the price of a ticket and some are not, it becomes difficult to settle the dispute on whether or not a single athlete is worth paying to see them play. However, baseball should not be about going to see a certain player, it should be about going to watch the team. It should be about watching the game that is America's favorite past time, not about going to see one player who is tearing it up in the league. Baseball will always have its finest players, but it should be the pride in the team that makes people invest in games.

               

Works Cited

Abraham, Peter. E-mail Interview. 01 Mar 2013.

Abraham, Peter. "Why Daniel Bard Has a New T-shirt and Alfredo Aceves Is Wearing His Cup." Boston.com. Boston Globe, n.d. Web.

"Alfredo Aceves on Pitching Again Wednesday: ‘If I Wake Up Tomorrow, I’m Good'" NESN. N.p., n.d. Web. 19 Feb. 2013.

"Carl Yastrzemski Biography." The Official Website of Bio, Career Stats, and Autographed Memorabilia. Dick Gordon Sports, n.d. Web. 17 Mar. 2013.

Carrabis, Jared. Internet Chat Interview. 05 Mar 2013.

McDonald, Joe. "Still Testing The limits?" ESPN. ESPN Internet Ventures, 18 Feb. 2013. Web. 20 Mar. 2013.

Posnanski, Joe. "The Rise and Fall of A-Rod." NBC Sports. MSNBC, n.d. Web. 18 Mar. 2013.

Shapiro, Ben. "Boston Red Sox: 5 Under the Radar Free Agents Who Paid off." Bleacher Report. N.p., n.d. Web. 03 Mar. 2013.

"Yankee Players Dominate Baseball Marketability." MarketingCharts. N.p., n.d. Web. 06 Mar. 2013.

"Yastrzemski, Carl." Baseball Hall of Fame. National Baseball Hall of Fame and Museum, n.d. Web. 17 Mar. 2013.

"Violent Media Is Good For Kids" Homework

Identifying Elements of Argument
1. Violent Media has a positive impact on children's development.

2.

•  He explains the impact that the Incredible Hulk comics had on him and his strengths and career path.
•  He explains the impact Tarzan had on his son who was afraid to be like his peers.
•  The little girl who used her violent stories to become self-controlled, socially competent, and a leader        among her peers

3. 

• Touches upon school shootings
• States that violent entertainment has inspired people to real-life violence
• He refutes them by inferring that violent media has helped more than it has harmed. It helps if people learn to use it well.

4. Sheltering children from violence hurts them more than it helps. They'll never learn self-control or how be powerful and demonstrate leadership.

Exercise 2.4: Annotating

• Writer is focusing on the impact that violent media has on children's development
• The writer is clearly arguing the benefits violent media has on children's development
• Violent media has a positive impact on children's development
• The writer could relate to this topic and used personal experiences to support his argument
• The writer is probably addressing parents, schools, anyone leery about violence
• The writer assumes that some will not agree with the essay's position, so he refutes the counter argument and demonstrates what's right and wrong about it
• The writer uses personal information to support the thesis and provides a sufficient amount of evidence. He could have included more, but he conveys his point well enough with what he has
• The writer refutes the opposing arguments in a way that convinces you that they are wrong
• Writer uses easy to understand vocabulary
• Good use of references
• Valid points/premises

Exercise 2.8: Writing A Critical Response

According to Gerald Jones, violent media can actually have positive effects on young people because it teaches them important lessons on life, such as how to be a strong-minded person, how to lead, how to overcome fear, and how to be more vocal and social. Jones also believes that violent media are a positive influence on children because it trains them to be open-minded, so that they aren't sheltered from the world. Jones makes some good points. For example, he says that "the dual-identity concept at the heart of many superhero stories helps kids negotiate the conflicts between the inner self and the public self as they work through the early stages of socialization" (Jones). What he means by this is, the split personalities, or facades, teaches kids about common conflicts about the person they are inside and the person they reflect to the world and helps them overcome the struggles of early socialization. However, he refutes for the opposing argument, expressing that violent media can actually inspire people to be violent in real life, but he refutes this counter argument by inferring that violent media benefits more than it hurts. All in all, violent media is beneficial to a child's early development.

Reading And Writing About The Issue

In Praise Of Tap Water

1. Tap water saves money and doesn't harm the environment.

2. You could spend $1400 annually on bottled water
    The 1.5 million barrels of oil used to make plastic water bottles could fuel 100,000 cars a year instead
    If the demand for bottled water continues, there could be less maintenance to the water supply

3. Consumers can save money and the planet by drinking tap water as opposed to bottled water.

4. I think the writer uses valid premises in the argument, and I'm not sure they could have included more. Perhaps the writer could have used more facts about how bottled water is a waste of money, but the supporting details in article and sufficient enough to back up the thesis statement. The writer states how much money is being lost by purchasing bottled water, which is enough to convince people to change if they wish to save money. The premise about the oil used to make plastic bottles being able to fuel 100,000 of cars a year was a strong argument, because with the country's dependency on oil, people are more willing to listen to that fact. The argument stating that if the demand for bottled water increases, less will be invested to maintain the water supply definitely reaches out to the readers, especially those who still use tap water on a daily basis.

5. The purpose of paragraph 5 is to provide the reader with evidence that places are becoming less dependent on bottled water and are encouraging the use of tap water. Providing examples of cities enforcing tap water is more likely to convince the reader to do so if the premises haven't already done so.

Defying the Nalgene

1. The arguments against the use of bottled water are unconvincing.

2. Plastic is cheap, so wasting plastic does not cause problems to the economy. The price of bottled water is very inexpensive and tap water is not "free" and in some cases can be more expensive. While Moore does refute both his arguments effectively, he could have used more arguments to solidify his point.

3. Bottled water is much more convenient than carrying around a water container. Most people do not have running water, and the demand to supply bottled water creates the opportunity for people to be able to afford running water. Perhaps Moore could have mentioned that bottled water is more sanitary. Not only can tap water be unsanitary, but so can reusable water bottles.

4. There's not enough convincing reasons to refrain from buying bottled water.

5. Moore didn't have to define Nalgene because there was enough context clues to allow the reader to figure out the meaning and the significance of it.

Poland Spring Water

• Plastic bottles are not recyclable
• Not convenient
• Not energy efficient

   

Gun Control: Can It Actually Stop Gun Violence?

Angela Forte

ENGL 102-048

Causal Argumentative Essay

29 January 2013

Gun Control: Can It Actually Stop Gun Violence?

                Columbine, Virginia Tech, University of Texas, and Sandy Hook Elementary School are some of most deadly and widely known school shootings to this date. Every time an attack like this happens, most recently Sandy Hook, the second amendment becomes jeopardized.  Gun critics demand for stronger gun laws and assault weapon bans to be enforced nationwide. In the past few months, it has become a widely debated topic among American citizens, those who are in favor of stricter gun laws and those who wish to keep the rights that the Constitution gives them. Gun control in the United States will do little to enforce the safety of the Nation, instead it takes away from the safety of others. 

            "Connecticut has become the third state, following California and New Jersey, to pass a comprehensive ban on assault weapons" (State Legislatures 19.10). Connecticut banned the sale of assault firearms on October 1, 1993 and believed that this ban ultimately would result in a lesser crime rate (State Legislatures 19.10). On December 14th, 2012, Adam Lanza shot and killed twenty six people, twenty children and six adults at the Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut (CNN). Joining the list of other famous school shootings, it further proved that enabling gun laws do not lessen the crime rate. Connecticut had this ban in effect for quite some time and the shooting still happened because nothing, not even a strict gun law, can really stop people from getting their hands on guns. People will find ways to obtain illegal things, like they do with drugs. If said people are not able to get their hands on guns, they will use a different weapon.

The most frequent policy lesson drawn following the Columbine school shootings was the need for more gun controls. Review of the details of both Columbine and other contemporary school shootings indicates, however, that the specific gun control measures proposed in their aftermath were largely irrelevant and almost certainly could not have prevented the incidents or reduced their death tolls (Kleck).

After the tragic shooting at the Columbine High School in 1999, the people of Colorado strongly advocated stricter gun laws in hopes that an attack like the Columbine would never happen again (Kleck). After the details were reviewed, it was proved that gun control was irrelevant and nothing could have prevented the shooting. In the summer of 2012, James E. Holmes killed 12 people and wounded 58 at a movie theater in Aurora, Colorado (Kleck). If Colorado were to have had an assault weapon ban, would this shooting still have happened? Most certainly, it would have. It does not make sense that one law could stop violence completely. "Shortly after the massacre, John Hickenlooper, the Democratic governor of Colorado, suggested that stricter gun laws would not have stopped the shooter" (Goldberg). The governor of Colorado even addressed that stricter gun laws would not have stopped the movie theater shooter. Hickenlooper went on to suggest that the killer would have found another weapon, most likely a bomb.

            "46 percent of Americans think gun laws should be stricter, 38 percent want them to stay the same, and 13 percent want them less strict" (State Legislatures 37.3). While it seems like the majority of the people in the country want stricter gun laws, 51 percent either want them the same or less strict, juxtaposed to the 46 percent that want harsher laws (State Legislatures 37.3). Stricter gun laws is unconstitutional, as it contradicts the rights that citizens are believed to have under the second amendment of the United States Constitution. What good does an amendment do if people are limited to those rights? Amendments are not meant to be disregarded or overridden over time.

                Guns, including assault weapons, save lives. People need to have a way of defending themselves when they are in danger. The police could take anywhere up to ten minutes, and in some cases beyond, to arrive. That is too long of a time for a person in danger. That is where the privilege of having a firearm for self–defense comes into play.  Guns do not kill people, people kill people. It depends on who is operating the firearm and if they are capable of owning a gun.

A balanced approach to gun control in the United States would require the warring sides to agree on several contentious issues. Conservative gun–rights advocates should acknowledge that if more states had stringent universal background checks—or if a federal law put these in place—more guns would be kept out of the hands of criminals and the dangerously mentally unstable. They should also acknowledge that requiring background checks on buyers at gun shows would not represent a threat to the Constitution (Goldberg)

Background checks on people who wish to buy guns is a far more reasonable way of ensuring firearm safety than taking them away all together. Neither approach will do away with gun violence all together, but at least background checks are far more reasonable.

            "Violent gun–related deaths have been declining for the past 20 years" (Stengel). If violent gun–related deaths have been declining over the years, does that not mean that stricter gun laws would serve no purpose? It does not make any sense to pass a law that will anger more people than it will please. The entirety of gun laws do not make any sense. How can a gun law minimize violence? Are there not already gun laws that prohibit violence and killing? Do people actually follow them? In my opinion, gun laws hurt more than they help because it only seeks to anger people who already own guns and use them for the right purpose.

Figure 1 argues for anti-gun control, explaining that the gun itself has nothing to do with the crime, more so the operator (Anti–gun control).

              If harsher gun laws or assault weapon bans are enabled, does not necessarily mean that people will follow them. First off, if the said person is a criminal, and is seeking to murder, they are most certainly not going to abide by a gun law. People are going to get their hands on a gun, one way or another, and if all else fails, they would use another weapon to commit their crime. Some killers are not even of certain age to buy a firearm and manage to acquire them anyway, so what is to stop people from finding and using firearms under an assault weapon ban? The motive that drives a killer is most often a psychological disorder, guns themselves have nothing to do with the killer's motive. No law could have prevented any of the school shootings, instead it

could have been something worse like school bombings, which would be far more deadly and destructive.

            "There are an estimated 280 million to 300 million guns in private hands in America – many legally owned, many not. Each year, more than 4 million new guns enter the market" (Goldberg). Harsher gun laws do not even make sense because there is so many guns already out there and in the hands of American citizens. It is very unlikely that all the guns can be confiscated. People would most likely hide their guns before they would ever give them up. It all traces back to the freedoms that are granted in the Constitution. People believe that is their right to own a firearm and will not stand to have their rights taken away from them. There is just no possible way that every firearm could be taken away, people would find them elsewhere or probably even secretly manufacture them.

            Though most tragic accidents occur because of the misuse of a firearm, there is no way to prevent it. Stricter gun laws or assault weapon bans will not stop homicides from happening. There is just too many guns out there in the hands of citizens that there is no way to make them inaccessible. Death is inevitable and so are tragic attacks on innocent people, no matter what laws are out there. If the killer is planning the homicide in the first place, then they are going to break the gun laws or find a stronger, deadlier weapon to use. Guns can be a great privilege when in the right hands and used correctly.

Works Cited

"Anti-gun Control." Tumblr. N.p., n.d. Web. 11 Feb. 2013.

"Connecticut bans assault weapons." State Legislatures 19.10 (1993): 6. Academic OneFile. Web. 29 Jan. 2013.

Goldberg, Jeffrey. "The Case For More Guns (And More Gun Control)." Atlantic Monthly (10727825) 310.5 (2012): 68-78. Academic Search Premier. Web. 29 Jan. 2013

"Gun laws reconsidered." State Legislatures 37.3 (2011): 11. Academic OneFile. Web. 29 Jan. 2013.

Kleck, Gary. "Mass shootings in schools: the worst possible case for gun control." American Behavioral  Scientist 52.10 (2009): 1447.Academic OneFile. Web. 29 Jan. 2013

"Sandy Hook Elementary Shooting: What Happened?" CNN. Cable News Network, n.d. Web. 05

Stengel, Richard. "Talking Common Sense About Guns." Time 180.6 (2012):4. Academic Search Premier. Web. 29 Jan. 2013

Topics For Essay

Gun Control
Illegal Immigration
Use of steroids/supplements in sports
Legalization of Marijuana
Welfare

About Me

I'm Angela and I'm a full time commuter also maintaining a part time position at Professional Machine. As you can see, I have a lot on my plate. I chose BSU because it was close enough to home to commute, even though it's almost an hour away. I'm a Biology major working towards a Bachelors degree and hoping to continue on to a Masters and maybe even a PhD. I plan to be a research biologist and mostly work with cancer research. That's me in a nutshell.