How America Works

In  Libertarian Lad y, the author Tonni Hammler is making the argument. It appeared in a section of a blog. The argument was that the wall that Donald Trump is trying to build is imprudent and a waste of money. To get the audience's attention she uses a lot of exclamation marks and gives the reader some mind-blowing facts. This could affect the content because it makes it very powerful. The basic argument is that America should not build a wall between the US and Mexico. The assumption that she relies on is that the wall is too expensive. It states that instead of using that money on the wall we could spend it on more important things such as helping the homeless. The important terms are clearly defined in this piece. Even though she clearly expresses her emotions, her claims have been backed by a good amount of evidence. The argument was successful and it did convince me. Now I think that it's a bad idea because it's a waste of money and because "illegal" immigra...

We need to keep birthright citizenship. It is a constitutional right to make sure that children who were born with foreign parents stand a chance to become citizens. If we repeal the 14th amendment, we would have more “illegal aliens”. The reason is that a lot of natural born parents don’t really know how to obtain citizenship for their child if they are not natural born. The schools fail to teach children how people who are not natural born obtain citizenship. Most of the “illegal immigrants” are legally trying to get asylum. If we get rid of birthright citizenship it could hurt the child and the family in the long run. The chances of that newborn child getting citizenship would be lower because the parents are probably not literate in English enough. Even if the parents are not citizens the newborn did not choose their fate, so it would not be fair in the long run for the kid. The thing that can really hurt children with American parents is that if they were born outside of US terri...

This article was written by Tammy Bruce . It appeared on Fox online but, was originally from Washington Post. The argument was that Senator Elizabeth Warren had a false DNA test result.  To attract the intended audience which is, far right conservatives, they made sure to point out that she was a democrat and had words against the democratic party. This could make a fraction of people a little doubtful about this article because it has the potential to come across as more of a rant. The basic argument is that Senator Warren DNA results are false. The writer is assuming that the Democrats are just craving attention. They imply that they want court orders for her to say that this whole ordeal is a lie. The important terms such as the DNA test are not well defined. They do not tell us what type of DNA test she took.  The type of evidence that this article uses is not clear enough for it to be good evidence. The reason is because they are vague about where their information ...

The person who wrote this article is  Andrew O'Reilly and, the main argument was that the accusation of Brett Kavanaugh was a hoax.  Brett Kavanaugh is a DC Circuit Court Judge being nominated for supreme court justice and, he is accused of is sexually assaulting a Dr. Blasey Ford when he was a senior in high school. He says that the accusation is false and has another politician to back him up. For example, in paragraph six the quote, 'this is the most unethical sham since I've been in politics' from Graham. This shows based on who the writer quotes what he stands for. To attract a more conservative audience they gave Kavanaugh's and Graham's perspective more. This affects the contents because It becomes more one-sided. He relies mainly on what Graham says and goes forward with that.  This is not supported with facts or evidence because he heavily relies on what this one person says.  There is not any solid document that is not biased that he shows ...

The Washington Post published an article called Endangered Species Act Stripped of Key Provisions in Trump Administration proposal by, Darryl Fears who focuses on wildlife issues. This article talks about what the endangered species act is and it's purpose. It goes into detail about what would happen if Trump's proposed plan goes through with stripping the endangered species act. The article talks about some species could go extinct due to lack of federal protection.  This article was great because it was not one-sided and they gave good examples.  One good example from the article about federal protections talks about how an oil company can get away with injuring animals under the new law. A good example that shows that they are not biased is when they include the perspective of a person who thought that repealing the endangered species act would help Americans get new jobs. Overall this article goes into great detail about what taking away the endangered...

Welcome