42.101 Blog

I believe that George Will has the better argument. He establishes his point quickly, then uses the rest of his essay laying down strong evidence to convince us that he's correct. In the end he makes us consider where the moral decay and spectacle will eventually end. This essay contributes to the discussion of us as a society becoming too decadent and excessive in our actions and interests.

Although as a quick counterpoint, who here wouldn't watch gladiatorial matches on pay per view? We basically already do with UFC, how long until we arm them?

After reading both essays, I found that Gerald Graff had the stronger argument.
In Graff's essay, he reflects about the relationship between street smarts and intellectual interest. His arguments and points show how being involved in non-academic activities such as sports, fashion, and music can help students develop their academic way of thinking. To enforce his argument, he uses his own experience as an example.
George Will's essay,however, targets a specific type of television show rather than all shows that can be reenacted. His argument is bias compared to Graff's and lacks statistics that say people are reacting to television shows this or that way.

I think that Graff has a more stable argument. Although he gets his first point across quickly he tends to drone on for a while about his life story and sports. In the essay he makes us think about how being street smart is a form of intelligence, that institutions should consider integrating it with the current lessons and the schools that dont follow this are missing an oportunity.

Although only certain channels such as discovery, history and the science channels (there are others but I don't know of them. There are also exceptions within the channels I mentioned themselves such as the shows "Swamp People", "American Choppers", "Mantracker" and others) are the few good channels on television (In my opinion) that add to someones intelligence

And to comment on Brians note it would be interesting if you left a bunch of convicts (at least 200) on a fairly large deserted island and see what happens, I bet that would get very high ratings very quickly.

george will seems to have a better argument because he is more passionate. he truly belives what he is arguing. George also is able to state his argument in a quick and concise manner. i like that. i feel it gives it more power behind it than someone who has to explain a set of circumstances in which his argument fits. George doesnt need to do that, we understand where he is coming from almost immediatly. he also uses examples that i agree with, which include the overuse of sex and violence on television, his example of which was the xfl, and the use of absolute idiots vying for a chance at money, prizes and dellusions of gradeur, and example of which he gives as fear fator. his argument factors into the larger argument of how we as americans are developing as a culture. where it used to be a dream to be president or a famous artist now people seem to only be some stupid jock or some sleazy bimbo exploiting themselves on television. people now days are more concerned with appearing to be worth something rather than makeing themselves better. he also touches on the desensitation of americans to both sex and to violence.
also as a counter point to brians comment all i have to say is that he is a poopy face.

Both Gerald and George had fairly strong arguments. As for who did better, I would say that Gerald made a better point. Althought George's point came out right in the begining, and held some very compeling arguments, Gerald, maintains his argument through out the entire essay. I feel that because he used the example of himself and how he was a "street smart" and then turned it around to become a very good writer, shows us his point that some kids with street smarts are very intelectual. Also that fact that he states that most of the intelectual orginized world outside school his very closely related to that of sports teams and arguments about books.

While Will makes a solid argument, Graff has the best argument. Graff's argument relies on personal experience rather than simple observation of changing times and the act of suppliers shifting their services towards what is demanded. Personal experience is a very strong piece of evidence that Graff uses efficiently to prove his point, that street smarts are important, even as important as school smarts. His contribution to a larger argument is that if school based intellectualism is made as important as street and sport based intellectualism the world would be a better place.

In my opinion, Graff had the more compelling and easy to follow argument, which is that modern day television programing is getting more and more obscene and vulgar, and that it is desensitizing viewers. Will uses several examples of TV shows which show the downward direction of entertainment in our society. First, he mentions Fear Factor, which shows contestants competing in horrendous challenges in which they humiliate themselves for money. Will also talks about the XFL, an NFL knockoff which advocates violence and sexuality, and Jackass, a show in which the stars humiliate and mutilate themselves in order to make the audience laugh. All of these programs clearly mirror what Will is arguing, which is that programming is getting worse and worse as we become desensitized to worse and worse things. Although the essay is about TV specifically, it ties in with a universal idea that our society is becoming increasingly bored and therefore looks to more extreme and shocking ways to entertain itself. For example, Jackass (one of the shows Will discusses) released its' third movie, which features images of male nudity, feces, and people hurting themselves deliberately. This movie is doing amazingly well in box offices, proving our societies cravings for the ridiculous and extreme.

I believe that both Gerald and George have good arguments and both are argued nicely. And even though i can connect better, personally, to Gerald's argument, I would have to say that George does have better point. Television now a days is getting more towards the extremes. More action, more sex, more explosions (which are always nice), more guns, more whatever. George makes and excellent point that we, as a culture, are becoming desensitized to many things on television. The stupid drama of soap operas and other daytime television is more then enough for many people in sure. But shows that are trying to draw in a huge audience do need to do something that has never been done. there is even a show on Cartoon Network called "Destroy, Build, Destroy", something very simple and easy to understand. Take a show like Mythbusters for example. It did something never ben done before: each episode could not be predicted because there was no good or bad, no right or wrong, they were simply trying to figure out a simple question: True or False? They would then run tests and what not to answer that question, not trying to make it work either way. Yes there were explosions, big guns, and other things like that. But not so much that is was the basis of the show. George's point that television shows are trying to grab our attention by making shows more appealing due to more violence or things like that is, in my opinion, completely accurate. But also I believe that older shows stay around because there simplicity is something that is rarely seen now a days unless your watching kid's shows. Shows like Green Acres or The Beverly Hillbillies will always be around because of their simplicity and because they are classics.

After reading both essays, I thought Gerald Graffs essay was written a lot better. I agree with Eric that Gerald's essay had a really good argument because he used himslef as an example. He starts his essay off right to the point with his argument. In his essay he talks about how he was once street smart and turned his life around and learned how to live both worlds. He argued that people who are street smart aren't dumb, they just have their mind set for leaving something other then academic interest. He argues that it's not only good to have knowledge on books, but to have "street smarts." If a child can't get into an academic book, but into a sports or fictional novel, then why stop them from reading. Yes, it might not be the kind of reading teachers and parents might want children to read but at least their reading. Geralds states that it's important to study and learn about your interest along with academic interest.

I think Graff had a better argument that Will. Will seemed to focus on one point, and didnt expand on what he was trying to say that much, while Graff touched on more points of the topic. What I'm trying to say is that Graff better supported his argument, while will didn't do that. Graff uses experience as one of his points of evidence which really made me feel as if he truly knew what he was arguing about. Will however, did not and I felt as though he was arguing for the sake of arguing.

Personally i believe that each authors's essay was well argued, but Gerald Graff's essay was overall better. Though when he went into his story about how when he was a child, the thought of the stereotypical cheesy 80's leather jacket to cool for school image was easily imagined. Besides that i felt he had made his argument quite clear from the very beginning. He made the reader know what points he was trying to get across, clearly guided the reader in a certain direction until he said his final point one last time. Making his case very clear that these street smarts that most people have can be guided to help improve their academic skills. And if not improve then use their skills towards a subject that relates. I feel as if the larger argument is essentially everyone has something they're good at... it is just a matter of channeling it.

While George Will?s essay regarding the market created by today?s ?perversity programming? viewers and their acceptance of what is put on TV is a strong argument, I believe that Gerald Graff has the better argument. In order to both strengthen his argument and prove his point, Graff uses personal experience of growing up in Chicago after World War II. The main point of Graff's essay is that in today's world we undervalue the intellectual potential of street smarts. He tells the reader that street smarts and learning about such things as sports or societal trends can help someone later on to make the shift to becoming more literate and reflective in both what they read and write. His argument is that reading sports magazines and discussing sports, for example, provide an opportunity to debate and intellectually talk with all sorts of different people, an opportunity that is limited when discussing basic school subjects like math where the subject being discussed is not necessarily all that interesting, and the community is not very wide spanned. He also talks about how discussing sports taught him how to enter a conversationj, make an argument, restate and respond to a counterargument, and do all the things that the "They Say I Say" book is trying to teach its readers. The evidence used to make his point, in combination with the personal experience he provides, gives his argument more validity in my opinion. His argument contributes greatly to conversations regarding the importance of standardized test scores in high school graduates and the way the selection process is done when accepting or denying students to schools. His argument can be used as an attack against the accepted norm that we are used to and a push for finding a different way to measure a student's intelligence other than the SATs. Also, his essay could contribute greatly towards an argument regarding the reformation of education and the way we teach younger children.

I believe George had a better argument. George uses examples that i see more of. Something that caught my attention is when he said adults don't pay attention to what their children do. They watch so much tv and play so many video games wouldn't you think that they may try to imitate some of the things they are around all the time? The thing we have that will always be free is choice. In our culture all we see is sex, drugs and money and this is something that is shown in commercials, movies tv shows...It's starting to get to the point were sexual things are getting put into children's tv shows and even toys. Everyone is being exposed to this and its starting to effect people like a virus. Its shocking but sadly some people expect it in our society because thats just how our culture is. Over all i agreed with this essay and it was also straight to the point. Some essays take a while to get to the point. He also made a good point at the end of the essay when he said if people were offered to play russian roulette with a loaded gun. People would watch it because our morals are messed up. We would watch people die in our living room and probably wouldn't find nothing wrong with it, thats just the world we live in.

I believe that Graff's argument is a little more consistant and is backed up in detail a little bit more than Will's. George Graff's argument that non-sports are important in developing a person is backed up throughout his entire work and is reinforced strongly. on the other hand George Will's argument is not well reinforced and i feel there is room for more detail and more emphisis on his claim that real sports are better in influencing a person. While Graff appears to go in to detail about his subject, I believe that Will just leaves it there.

Both Will and Graff had excellent points to argue and both backed their views up with evidence. Although the question is how has a better argument I would like to argue that they both have completly different topics that they are supporting. Will is stating that with degraded television that society is also degrading. Whereas Graff is arguing that people have different views on intellegence and there may be a link between street smart and book smarts. With this Will uses more technical evidence to back himself where Graff uses his own personal experiences. Both can be a beneficial approach where more "intellectual" people would mostlikely prefer Wills, but others would prefer Will's for his concrete example of real life application. The authors are arguing on the greater topic of how society reacts in certain instances. Will, with society is on a downward spiral and that its a vicious cirle that's pushing us further down and Graff who argues that using street smart in an intellectuals eye can actually be more beneficail then with an intellectual peace of work looked at with an unregarding eye.