Are we being tricked into thinking something is true when in reality we are are being deceived? Is this something even our government is doing to the people of our country? This is a question that Howard Zinn provokes in his writing “Declarations of Independence: Cross-Examining American Ideology”. This is a debatable topic, with evidence to support both claims that agree and disagree. Are Howard Zinn's claims about America right, and is he persuasive about his point of view on the topic?
Debater 1: Zinn's claims about America are correct and he is very persuasive on his point of view on the topic. Zinn provides many examples to support that the freedom Americans have is not really all that they think. He proves that Americans are being deceived. …show more content…
In summary, Zinn claims that this freedom that Americans envision they have does not exist. Americans view the choices they are able to make as part of their freedom, for example, their ability to choose and place their input in politics. When Zinn discusses how Americans freedom is actually limited, he says, “And so we have the Democratic and Republican parties (chose a or b), but no others are really tolerated or encouraged or financed” (Zinn, 1). Zinn explains how the freedom is similar to a multiple choice test where answers a-d are options but e, f, and g are not even listed on the paper. What he is not mentioning is that there are limitations within everything. There is no possible way to have an infinite amount of options when it comes to choosing certain things. Remaining on the topic of politics, it would not be intelligent to have a large amount of options. Having an extremely large amount of candidates and parties would make the voting process a very unnecessarily long event. Having limits is very beneficial when it comes to certain things. That being said, Zinn making the point that Americans are being deceived and that the great freedom does not exist makes him incorrect. Zinn is not persuasive with his writing. Instead of making an argument based off of other views and comparing differences, he straight up states his opinion without examining the other side. …show more content…
Although some of the points Zinn brings up are true, by no means do those allow him to jump to the conclusion that Americans are being deceived and they do not have all the freedom they think they have. Zinn does not present enough evidence throughout his writing to support the end conclusion he makes. Americans have a lot of freedom, especially if you compare the country to some others where the people have very limited freedom. Zinn does not acknowledge that Americans are privileged to have the amount of freedom they have today and that many battles have been fought in the past to get the point where they are at. He does not examine the other side of the argument either, which is vital to making a strong claim and being persuasive. On the topic of persuasion, although he makes his points clear which makes the writing slightly persuasive, he does not use literary devices like ethos, pathos, or logos to actually persuade the audience. All of these points made contribute to why Nicole sides with debater
Debater 1: Zinn's claims about America are correct and he is very persuasive on his point of view on the topic. Zinn provides many examples to support that the freedom Americans have is not really all that they think. He proves that Americans are being deceived. …show more content…
In summary, Zinn claims that this freedom that Americans envision they have does not exist. Americans view the choices they are able to make as part of their freedom, for example, their ability to choose and place their input in politics. When Zinn discusses how Americans freedom is actually limited, he says, “And so we have the Democratic and Republican parties (chose a or b), but no others are really tolerated or encouraged or financed” (Zinn, 1). Zinn explains how the freedom is similar to a multiple choice test where answers a-d are options but e, f, and g are not even listed on the paper. What he is not mentioning is that there are limitations within everything. There is no possible way to have an infinite amount of options when it comes to choosing certain things. Remaining on the topic of politics, it would not be intelligent to have a large amount of options. Having an extremely large amount of candidates and parties would make the voting process a very unnecessarily long event. Having limits is very beneficial when it comes to certain things. That being said, Zinn making the point that Americans are being deceived and that the great freedom does not exist makes him incorrect. Zinn is not persuasive with his writing. Instead of making an argument based off of other views and comparing differences, he straight up states his opinion without examining the other side. …show more content…
Although some of the points Zinn brings up are true, by no means do those allow him to jump to the conclusion that Americans are being deceived and they do not have all the freedom they think they have. Zinn does not present enough evidence throughout his writing to support the end conclusion he makes. Americans have a lot of freedom, especially if you compare the country to some others where the people have very limited freedom. Zinn does not acknowledge that Americans are privileged to have the amount of freedom they have today and that many battles have been fought in the past to get the point where they are at. He does not examine the other side of the argument either, which is vital to making a strong claim and being persuasive. On the topic of persuasion, although he makes his points clear which makes the writing slightly persuasive, he does not use literary devices like ethos, pathos, or logos to actually persuade the audience. All of these points made contribute to why Nicole sides with debater