Violence In Movies Rhetorical Analysis

“The typical American child will view more than 200,00 acts of violence-,” states American Acadamy of Child and Adolesecnt psychaiatry.In the centery long arguementative essay there are two points of perspective about violence in movies.One point is that violence in moves should be banned and the counter point is that it shouldnt be banned.Overall the author I beleive is more convicing is the counterpoint author claiming , “Hollywood Filmmakers should not be villainized for move violence.” The reasons why will be explained in 2 paragraphs.

The author of the counterpoint claim does a much better at proving his/her claim because the author not only proves evidence like in paragraph 17 where he proves a very small link of violence in movies by stating, “Jonathan L. Freedman, a professor of psychology at the university of Toronto, reported ‘“a very small correlation”’ between violence and aggressive behavior in children,”and this author also uses his/her own life experiences such as she/he did in paragraph 15 when she/he states, “i watch violent movies on the regular basis , and I never engage in violent behavior,” due to this fact I believe that the counterpoint author is the best. This supports my thesis statement that hollywood filmmakers

Even in one of the authors facts the author states, “media violence is not the only risk factor for violent behavior in children,” the author says this in paragraph 11.This author even says his/her-self that “media is not the only risk factor.” This proves my thesis because blaming hollywood filmmakers for violence even though they aren't the “only risk factor” is wrong, and that even the author of this point admits