Sports debate is a hobby that I am most passionate for. A reason I am so fond of this hobby is because it includes two of my favorite things: sports and arguing. I constantly find myself tuning into ESPN to watch ESPN first take or Fox Sports to watch Undisputed. These two sports debate shows take up most of most mornings as I would sit watching the art of oration between two well prepared candidates. Unlike sports debate, writing papers was not one of my hobbies. In fact my mindset towards writing was that of abhorrence instead of dedication and care. As a result, the papers I turned in high school were hit or miss depending on how the teacher felt about my paper but usually my essay grades were ,needless to say, not As. However, deep down
…show more content…
Society conforms everyone individual in it to become alike and boring. Because of this, there are rarely any real individuals that exhibit greatness and passion but rather just a group of commoners satisfied with being mediocre.” (Kim) Clearly these statements are just too general and unspecific. I have no evidence backing up this statement and as a result, the audience can easily question the other aspects of my paper, not to mention the confusion I must have caused for my audience. I had failed in building up my own credentials like Stephen A. Smith in his respective show. I fixed this issue in my second paper “The Selfish Nature of Humankind.” Instead of vague statements, I supported claims with evidence. For example in my second paper I stated that
“ The relationship developed between Gregor and his family is completely one sided in terms of reliance: his family depends on Gregor for all the monetary income and this dependence becomes cemented once the family members becomes lax and comfortable with their minimal roles.” (Kim)
The first part of this statement is my claim and then after the colon I followed up with evidence and like Stephen A. I was able to build credibility and trust from the …show more content…
Stephen A Smith’s sources come directly from the players, as a result, credibility is established. More importantly, however, the information he gains from his sources is used to support his argument and opinion. I realized this is the same case as in writing.The sources need to be credible and must flow with my argument. My improvement in this area is demonstrated by my correction from my first essay to my second. In my first essay “Better to be Daring” I stated that Icarus is merely representing “his expression of personality”(Gill), and is being watched in amazement for it. This text is a message for society: The ones who will boldly try the unexpected and dare to do things no one has ever done will be revered and respected, no matter if they fail or not. There are many errors in the way I implemented the outside source. First off it was documented wrongly. But even worse, the outside source does not support my statement that followed. This is because the second part of my statement was simply a general claim. In my second essay “The Selfish Nature of Humankind” I stated that Gregor’s metamorphosis propelled the young daughter( Grete) to become a mature woman and “It is she who will ironically bloom as her brother deteriorates”(Strauss). This sets up the role reversal between Gregor and Grete and the audience can assume that the parents will now rely upon Grete and
Society conforms everyone individual in it to become alike and boring. Because of this, there are rarely any real individuals that exhibit greatness and passion but rather just a group of commoners satisfied with being mediocre.” (Kim) Clearly these statements are just too general and unspecific. I have no evidence backing up this statement and as a result, the audience can easily question the other aspects of my paper, not to mention the confusion I must have caused for my audience. I had failed in building up my own credentials like Stephen A. Smith in his respective show. I fixed this issue in my second paper “The Selfish Nature of Humankind.” Instead of vague statements, I supported claims with evidence. For example in my second paper I stated that
“ The relationship developed between Gregor and his family is completely one sided in terms of reliance: his family depends on Gregor for all the monetary income and this dependence becomes cemented once the family members becomes lax and comfortable with their minimal roles.” (Kim)
The first part of this statement is my claim and then after the colon I followed up with evidence and like Stephen A. I was able to build credibility and trust from the …show more content…
Stephen A Smith’s sources come directly from the players, as a result, credibility is established. More importantly, however, the information he gains from his sources is used to support his argument and opinion. I realized this is the same case as in writing.The sources need to be credible and must flow with my argument. My improvement in this area is demonstrated by my correction from my first essay to my second. In my first essay “Better to be Daring” I stated that Icarus is merely representing “his expression of personality”(Gill), and is being watched in amazement for it. This text is a message for society: The ones who will boldly try the unexpected and dare to do things no one has ever done will be revered and respected, no matter if they fail or not. There are many errors in the way I implemented the outside source. First off it was documented wrongly. But even worse, the outside source does not support my statement that followed. This is because the second part of my statement was simply a general claim. In my second essay “The Selfish Nature of Humankind” I stated that Gregor’s metamorphosis propelled the young daughter( Grete) to become a mature woman and “It is she who will ironically bloom as her brother deteriorates”(Strauss). This sets up the role reversal between Gregor and Grete and the audience can assume that the parents will now rely upon Grete and