Michael Binyon's Argument Analysis

1.If you were stripped of your freedom and individuality to be held in a camp waiting to die would you feel indifferent. Elie Wiesel, a Nobel Peace Prize winner and Boston University Professor, presented a speech as part of the Millennium Lecture Series at the White House on April 12, 1999 2.(Wiesel 221). President Bill Clinton and his wife Hillary Clinton hosted the formal event. Numerous government officials from a wide order of public, private and foreign office attended the event 2.(Wiesel 221). Although Elie Wiesel designed his speech to persuade, it actually felt somewhat outside from its original intended purpose, as being more different.

On April 20, 2017, the undersigned detective responded to the complainant’s residence, located at 5036 Astor Place, SE #301. The complainant and his 13 year old brother Antwan Freeman opened the door and that their mother’s at work. Antwan stated that their 14 year old brother Fashad Freeman is at home but sleeping in his room.

In Oslo, Norway, in 1986, Elie Wiesel received a Nobel Peace Prize in response to speaking out on behalf of oppressed people throughout the world. In his speech to the members of the Nobel Committee, the people of Norway, and the rest of the world, Holocaust survivor Elie Wiesel proves to be an ardent advocate for social change, particularly concerning the oppression and persecution people of all ages face primarily due to their race, religion, and/or political views. He acknowledges the appalling injustices present across the globe, postulating that feigning ignorance or maintaining silence in times of maltreatment is detrimental to fostering peace. As a result, Wiesel educates humanity on the anguish people endure around the world and the

On the 12th of April, in the year 1999, Elie Wiesel gave a speech at the White House. Several members of congress, President Clinton, and the First Lady, Hillary Clinton, were present to listen to him. His speech became a powerful testament to the pitfalls and dangers of being indifferent to the sufferings of others. However, Wiesel’s speech was also a very skillful exercise in using rhetoric for persuasion. By using certain wording and striking the right balance of facts and emotions, he was moving the audience in the direction of understanding his point of view. He was moving the audience to not feel sympathy, but actual empathy to the events he was speaking about. To feel the as closely as he felt for these events in history. He acted as judge, jury, disappointed parent and as vengeful deity. In this paper, I will examine key elements of his speech to show that by instilling deep feelings of shame, fear, and even pride at the right moments can inspire people to open their minds to the dangers of ignoring the pleads of help from their fellow man.

Elie Wiesel is known to be a deserving recipient of the Noble Peace Prize because as written in Pbs.org, Wiesel “was a witness for truth and justice…not with a message of hate and revenge, but one of brotherhood and atonement” (Egil Aarvik). Almost immediately, Wiesel’s trustworthiness will spark and the audience will feel an immense amount of admiration and trust for him and what he has to say since only a selected, amazing individuals have received the Nobel Peace Prize. The Nobel Peace Prize will serve as a message that the speaker has dedicated an immense amount of time for a greater good and to help others; it is without a doubt prestigious and respected award. Similarly, the reputation of Elie Wiesel and the fact that he advocates for peace and to save suffering victims around the world will make the audience conclude that he has had experience in humanitarian and peace attempts and organizations. As a result, Elie Wiesel’s reputation will without a doubt increase his credibility and authority throughout the text. The audience will be aware of his actions in the past and they will trust and admire Wiesel. The credibility and authority he has built through his reputation and public image will benefit him in regards to persuade his audience to kill indifference and help those who are still to this day suffering. His public image is seen as one of a dedicated individual who is a leader and encourages others to peacefully stop intolerance and indifference and that builds his credibility in the eyes of the

Lewis could support Lasn arguments because Lewis describes A&F as a place that does not seem un-Moonielike. Lasn make a distinction between the feeling of independence and the rules. Lasn mentions, “The atmosphere is quite un-Moonielike. We’re free to roam and recreate. No one seems to be forcing us to do anything we don’t want to do. In fact, we feel privileged to be here. The rules don’t seem oppressive. But make no mistake: There are rules” (378). Lasn emphasized the comfort ability the consumer culture creates for its members. The ambience of the culture he considers a cult is supposedly free and unrestricted. With that feeling, Lasn believes one becomes so welcome that they feel privileged- they belong here. The rules of the cult do not seem

Elie Wiesel, a Noble Peace Prize winner and Boston University Professor, presented a speech as part of the Millennium Lecture Series at the White House on April 12, 1999. President Bill Clinton and his wife Hillary Clinton hosted the formal lecture series. Numerous dignitaries from a wide array of public, private and foreign office attended the event. Although Elie Wiesel designed his speech to persuade, it actually fell somewhat outside the deliberative genre category, as being more non-typical within this genre category.

Since the dawn of mankind, clusters of innovations throughout history have allowed for societal progression at an explosive rate. While primarily fostering a centrifugal system of advancements; humans’ interests in expansion is spiraling out of control. Throughout history elements of collapse can be traced through civilizations and natural resources. Wright’s argument posits humans have hyperextended their utilization of resources at a rate that cannot be replenished, therein by setting up the world for the largest ecological collapse in history (Wright, 2004, pg. 130-131). Due to the cyclical process of past collapse and reformation humans have an advantage to rectify our current consumption rates ultimately avoiding a fate similar to past societies (Wright, 2004, pg. 131). As such Wright’s argument should frame larger discussions of responsible citizenship.

Stoll begins the preface of his book by asserting that there is "no doubt about the most important points" Menchú makes (viii). Moreover, despite press reports about requests to the Nobel Prize Committee to rescind the Peace Prize after the Times article, in his book Stoll states that he believes awarding the Nobel Prize to Rigoberta Menchú was a "good idea" and that "she has been the first to acknowledge that she received it, not for her own accomplishments but because she stands for a wider group of people who deserve international support." (ix) The prize was awarded to Menchú not for her testimony but for her later political work and peace organizing.

The entire world paid tribute to the leader who was celebrated globally as a Nobel Prize-winning visionary who pushed his country toward peace during a remarkable seven-decade career.

I think Kaling has a very strong argument. It is important to be able to express yourself and your thoughts and feeling but, you also need to listen to other people and try to understand their views. There is value in listening because you can learn so much and see things in a new perspective if you listen to someone and what they have to say. I also think there is value in speaking. Speaking out about how you feel about something, being able to express yourself, and feeling worthy of speaking out and not scared to share your opinion. Forall you know, what you have to say could make a difference for the better in someone else's life.

The works of The XIV Dalai Lama did not go unnoticed. In 1989 he received the Nobel Peace Prize for consistently championing policies of nonviolence and human rights in his own beleaguered country as well as in other strife-torn areas of the world. He is the first Nobel Laureate to be recognized for his concerns for global environmental problems. The Dalai Lama in his struggle for the liberation of Tibet consistently has opposed the use of violence. He has instead advocated peaceful solutions based upon tolerance and mutual respect in order to preserve the historical and cultural heritage of his people. His holiness, accepting the Nobel peace

It was announced on October 9, 2009 that American President Barack Obama is this year’s recipient of the Nobel Prize for Peace. The Nobel Foundation states that Obama was chosen "for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples." (Nobel Foundation) Controversy and debate ensued in the world wide media. Critics have debated Obama’s worthiness. Supporters have cited numerous examples of the current U.S. Presidents’ nobility. Obama does deserve this prestigious award.

President Obama’s victory speech and Martine Luther King’s speech are two of the most famous discourses that everybody is discussing today. The speeches are representation of racial progression, which starts from the beginning of the Civil Rights Movement to the election of the first black president in the American history. Both speeches are a symbol of hope and a new start of the upcoming changes. In fact, both speeches called for unity and inclusion to achieve the American dream. Furthermore, both occasions had loud voices echo not only in the United State, but also in the global level. Despite the similarity of Obama’s and King’s speeches in the persuasive and inspirational tones, their goals were for different purposes and audience, also the effects on the audience were different.

In their letters to the Nobel committee in 1993, both Nelson Mandella and Frederik Willem de Klerk both speak of what they feel that needs to happen for South Africa at the time to succeed in the efforts of peace. Both speak of the upcoming elections, that they are on opposite sides of. Mandella speaks of others who have won the Nobel and their contributions and what needs to be done to make certain apartheid come to an end. de Klerk tells of what he has been doing recently to move along the cause, how the elections will not be about black or white, but the best solutions for the future of the country. He also believes that the elections will show that peace and equality are possible. They both agree that the children are the future