First Name Last Name
Date
Class
Assignment heading
Incivility: Nature vs. Nurture
 One of the most important and crucial aspect in constructing a convincing persuasive argument is perhaps the credibility and proof of knowledge on the topic on hand. Authors who can prove their extensive knowledge on a subject vastly increase their own Ethos. As the timeless Aristotelian classical argumentative rhetoric dictates, there should be a clear sequence in authors stating their divided stasis as well as the main supporting reasons to be further explained. Both authors in the chosen articles regarding the validity of incivility exceed the qualities that a good argument desires.
 Social media influences, sensationalism, and the desire to gain publicity provides a motive both detrimental and self-serving. The way of thinking has rubbed off in the public, and society itself is accustomed to being tantalized with juicy tidbits of information without reading further into the articles. Nowadays, headliners become one-word stories that end up being open-ended to their consumer. Rich Heldenfels, a journalist for the Akron Beacon Journal, opens his article with this bold stance and implication. In his opinion, the media has hyped up the incivility for one reason, publicity, and instead of seeing incivility as a novel product of American politics, realizing incivility has always existed. As evidence to support his own comments, he provides examples in history when incivility ran rampant. “…an academic of the day claimed that the election of Thomas Jefferson would lead to Bible burning” (line 7). Even before the media existed, incivility existed in all areas of politics. Heldenfels further elaborates his concerns with well-placed title questions that draw the readers’ attention. By using rhetorical questions in his subtitles as hooks to draw in the reader, the point of the paragraph is clearly stated. Strong hooks such as: “Or Maybe Technology Just Makes Rudeness Appear More Pervasive” (line 8) work as pathos, inciting readers to feel similarly to how the author feels. He draws upon both historical events and current events to provide examples of his reasoning. “When Republican Rich Santorum calls President Obama a ‘snob’…When Democrat Maxine Waters calls Republican leaders in Congress ‘demons’” (line 10) With the introduction of media, competing companies, the focus was less on the privacy of people but of what the most scintillating piece of news would be. Unfortunately, rather than focusing their lens on society’s own existing incivility, the focus on incivility among the people in power is susceptible to unconsciously encourage incivility amongst the masses. Jamieson, co-founder of FactCheck.org, is quoted upon “…the media landscape has made it seem that incivility is pervasive by showcasing even the smallest examples nonstop on 24-hour news channels and the Internet” (line 67).  Heldenfels concedes his opinion and realizes the biggest question. If media is merely showing the incivility that has already existed and brings it to focus, then perhaps the underlying implication is that everyone is uncivil but unaware. With this assumption, the exposed audience would have no choice to assume that debates and arguments and conversations are intended to be filled with incivility. The author is extremely concerned with this belief, he quotes public social tests that seek to answer this hypothesis and even end his piece with a possible solution. Instead of being a less than appropriate example to a social media dependent society, people in positions to be filmed and quoted constantly should learn to keep themselves civil.
Heldenfels succeeds in getting his point across, quoting both professionals and historical evidence in order to add context to his claims about the origin of incivility. With each statement, he expertly provides a quote that is further developed with his own analysis. The article is well provided with sufficient details that do not take away from the author’s credibility.
Tod Lindberg, a researcher at Hoover Institution, also provides his stances on incivility and its meaning. Congruent to the previous article, Lindberg provides his thesis in the first few lines of his introduction. His main focus is on the idea that incivility is not a byproduct of the degradation of Democratic society in America. As Heldenfels would agree, political incivility has had a long history in America and especially abundant in times of controversy. However, Lindberg does not believe that incivility is a result of a breakdown in the society. Rather than point fingers at problems with the government, there is an implied problem that the people within the democracy need to address. Lindberg exhibits a more systematic explanation with bullet point presentation. As with Heldenfels, Lindberg provides historic examples in political history where political incivility grew rampant, but diverges into a different methods of exhibiting support. Lindberg uses logistics such as “…a poll of registered voters for the Center for Political Participation…63 percent of respondents said politics had become ‘less civil’ since Obama became president” (line 19). This provides a less personal emotion to his stance and reasoning, but readers also feel comforted by the depth of research Lindberg portrays. By using statistics in his argument immediately following a bold claim provides a clear path for readers to follow as they read. The contextual support only serves to enrich the readers and cast a positive light upon the author. Another aspect of Lindberg’s piece that shows his dedication is the way his paragraphs are separated. He begins with his stance, followed by a subtitle ‘A Long Pedigree’ that serves to provide history and reasons behind why the stance exists. After stating the history, he moves on to explaining why there is a problem with the topic of incivility, why it should be discussed and why incivility in his opinion is not as large a problem as society would dictate. Another moment within the article where Lindberg demonstrates his writing prowess, he takes each aspect of the opposing sides view and surgically disects them depending on what he agrees and disagrees with. Lindberg's style of writing is precise and leaves readers with no doubt as to any of his opinions on each partition of the argument. The writing method Lindberg uses is incredibly effective because of the clarity and precision whcih leaves no room for confusion.

In judging an authors ability to pursuade an audience using argumentative style of writing which tests their ability to manipulate a readers emotions as well as convincing readers of their analysis both Heldenfel and Lindberg have distinct styles. All in all both writers, although with different approaches, are quite effective in their results. Whether you look at Heldenfels sarcastic savvy and ability to offer statistical evidence to support his opinions or Lindbergs lazer accuracy to get his point across, the reader will find trouble finding fault in their argumentative and writing ability.