More handpicked essays just for you.
Texting and driving argumentative essay
Texting while driving argument essay
Texting and driving argumentative essay
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
The speech we have chosen is called “Texting and Driving…Don’t Do it!”. While this speech may not be given by a famous person, we feel that the speaker does a good job at discussing this public epidemic called “Texting and Driving”. We chose this speech, out of all the others because it has a specific goal to persuade and inform the audience not to text and drive. This speaker was also a respectable choice because he established ethos right away, by stating all the research he has done in order to give this speech. While he does not directly say it, it does become obvious by the amount of statistics and information that he gives us that he has done his research. This paper is going to address the speaker’s overall goals of his speech, some …show more content…
That goal was to inform his audience about the dangers of texting while driving and even more importantly persuade his audience why they should not text while driving. The speaker makes his goal clear multiple times throughout his speech by listing three main reasons why people should not text and drive. The three goals the speaker was speaking on were causes of accidents and collisions, causes the loss of life, and finally the price of paying for tickets. Those reasons include the increased amount of accidents and collisions that result from texting and driving, the 5,800 lives that are lost each year, and the legal consequences that take place if caught texting and driving (John Cortes, “Texting and Driving”). We also know his purpose is to inform and persuade because he defends his position by giving multiple statistics, as well as, the constant repetition of the words “please don’t text and drive” (John Cortes, “Texting and Driving”). John did an excellent job at achieving his intended goals for the speech by “wowing” his audience. This can be seen by his positive reviews and comments. Of the available ratings, less than 1% of the audience members did not feel affected by his speech. However, he was still able to reach out to over 100,000 people with one single …show more content…
The dominant ways of interpreting this speech was to take the facts for their actual and intended meaning (Palczewski, Ice, & Fritch, 2012, p. 24-25). These facts would include the statistics involving texting while driving accidents. We believe that the majority of the audience were a part of the dominant class and believe that texting and driving is wrong. However, those who are part of the negotiated position tend to have mixed ideas about whether texting and driving is bad. This is because the use of the negotiated way of interpreting a speech is the use of believing, or accepting the information being introduced, as well as disregarding, or forgetting some of the information (Palczewski, Ice, & Fritch, 2012, p. 24-25). We believe that there is still a fair amount of audience members who are in the negotiated position. While they do admit that texting and driving is wrong, many of them still will continue texting and driving because they do not believe that any bad consequences will ever arise from them doing it. Therefore, they reject the idea that it can happen to them. This group of people is still too large for comfort. The last group from Halls model is the oppositional position, who understand the intended meaning, but reject it and form their own opinion (Palczewski, Ice, & Fritch, 2012, p. 24-25). In this particular speech, very few people
Wilson begins his essay in a very uncommon way. Although he doesn’t assert his claim until the fourth paragraph, he gives the reader a hint of what he wants to discuss. When Wilson says, “The public supports more gun control laws but suspects they won’t work. The public is right,” (125) he immediately conveys to his audience the
Radley Balko, the senior editor of Reason Magazine and former policy analyst for civil liberties issues for the Canto Institute, vents his frustrations toward the American population crying for a law to holster phones while driving. He states Americans always get a case of “TOBAL-itis” which is an abbreviation for “There Ought a Be A Law”. Balko declares that Americans are not concerned about the outcome of a texting ban law, but only the fact that a law is enacted is suffeciently adequate. The aftermath of this law would be chaotic and the local courthouses would have a line of infuriated citizens stretching out the door due to the increased number of traffic tickets. We must also think of the consequences
This article shows both sides of the “Texting While Driving “debate. The article talks about how banning texting while driving could be a good thing. It states that countless of fatal car crashes have been caused by texting motorists. It also gives information on why banning texting while driving could be a bad thing mainly because it is a law that is hard to enforce. This article does a very good job of portraying both views. It is chock full of facts, quotes and studies that support each argument.
Annotated Bibliography: Should Texting and Driving Be Illegal? Abouk, R., & Adams, S. (2013). Texting bans and fatal accidents on roadways: do they work? Or do drivers just react to announcements of bans? American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 5(2), 179-199.
moved to condemn it and to consider their own actions in their own society. Gerald and the Birling’s conclude that if
The cell phone provider known as AT&T has produced several commercials to show the dangers of texting and driving. These are designed to grab people’s attention and to touch them in a small place in there heart to the point that they no longer feel the need to pick up their phone in the car. They stress over and over the dangers of reading just one text. There have even been safety precautions placed in teens vehicles that record them as well as the road while they are driving to catch any of this distracted behavior. As Americans have seen an increase in the amount of texting and driving there have been several of the 50 states that have put laws in place to help try and put a reduction on the amount of fatalities. The devastating part about this kind of distraction is that nearly every person that has owned a cell phone has picked it up at some point while they are driving to make a phone call or send a quick text. They have seen the commercials and they know the hurt that it has caused many families loosing someone they love, but we still to do it anyways. It’s so easy to tell yourself “It’s just one quick text, I will be fine.” At some point we need to realize this is not
Gun control is a controversial issue that currently has no easy solution to please everyone. In an article written by Adam Winkler, a professor from the UCLA School of Law, he states that open carry is the answer to having fewer guns on the streets. His argument fails because it contains false premises throughout the article and is also inductively weak. First, he commits the slippery slope fallacy by assuming a series of events will occur for doing one action. Second, he commits the bandwagon fallacy. The fact that other states have the open carry law in effect does not make his argument true nor does it make it a valid reason. Last, he neglects how there will always be people who do not follow laws. Gun control in the United States has been a difficult topic for many people to discuss, but Winkler’s point of view of the topic does not give a complete thought about why people should agree with him.
Most of the drivers are likely to mix up driving and messaging from their cell phones while driving regardless of the laws standing on the issues, and danger posed to them. A majority of those drivers engaging in this act do not contemplate the possible detrimental effects from their actions. Research has indicated that texting while driving contributes to road accidents significantly. This situation is sufficiently bad to the extent that there are more accidents caused by messaging while driving than those caused by drunken driving (Fumento n.p.). From the foregoing statements, this essay seeks to support the laws, which outlaws texting while driving by highlighting how dangerous it is for drivers to massage while driving.
For a long time, writers have had a large influence on people’s opinions. In fact, 18th century writers and philosopher like John Locke were able to spread their ideas through their books on economics and politics. Still to this day, writers can influence a reader to agree or disagree with an idea by presenting the information in different styles. In the news article, “Locke and Load: The Fatal Error of the ‘Stand Your Ground’ Philosophy” by Firmin Debrabander, the author argues that weapons are not being used safely and when necessary. Debrabander uses the information in a style that influences the audience to be against Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” law, where Floridians can shoot to kill if they feel threatened. Ultimately, the article is persuasive because the author uses strong supporting current events, manipulates the reader, and disproves parts of the opposition.
Thesis statement: Risks of texting while driving over the past few years has become a key topic for many Americans through the country. It has been the cause of numerous deaths and injuries and remains a vast disturbance for drivers. Hence driving is one of the greatest common causes of misfortunes on roads. This can result in, physical visual and cognitive distraction and significantly increases the amount of time a driver devotes not looking at the road. Therefore police officers should seize the phones of those who text and drive.
Jackson, Nancy Mann. "Cell Phones and Texting Endanger Teen Drivers." Teen Driving. Ed. Michele Siuda Jacques. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2013. At Issue. Rpt. from "Dn't txt n drv: Why You Should Disconnect While Driving." Current Health Teens (Mar. 2011).Opposing Viewpoints in Context. Web. 6 Apr. 2014.
The speech called “Texting and Driving…Don’t Do it!” was given by John Cortes. The speech was published on January 7, 2013. This speech was written due to all of the accidents that were caused by texting and driving in 2013. The main argument is that you should not text and drive, it causes accidents and collisions; loss of life; and results in tickets.
Across the globe family and friends are losing their loved ones to fatal texting and driving accidents. These days, many strive to be connected with the world and their friends by using mobile devices. The problem is that numerous people tend to do so at bad times. For example, while one is driving, it is common to look down at the cell phone to send a short text message that could put their lives in harm. Across the nation, numerous advertising and support groups are spreading the word to encourage society to put phones down and focus on driving instead of texting. However, it really hasn’t stopped. There needs to be a significant change and with the way technology is advancing, there is an immediate, attainable action that can be accomplished.
In today’s society, texting and driving have become an issue. Many teens and adults, have formed a habit of using their cell phones while driving. Texting while driving can be very distracting, which can cause many accidents to happen. In trying to prevent this, new laws have been passed, making the use of cell phones while operating a car, illegal. However, too many people do not respect this law. People should stop getting distracted while driving because texting while driving is taking people’s attention on the road, accidents are getting higher and is comparable to drunk driving.
Now that you know how texting and driving is affecting our nation, let’s talk about different ways to prevent it from causing deaths.