Animal captivity has long been a subject of ethical debate, with growing concern about the mistreatment animals suffer in confined spaces. As public awareness increases, animal advocacy groups have raised their voices about the long-term harm captivity inflicts on wildlife. In this essay, I will compare and analyze two different sources addressing the harmful effects of captivity on animals: an in-depth article detailing physical harm, health issues, and premature deaths faced by captive animals and a video with experts in the field sharing their views on zoos. Both sources serve to inform the public about the realities of captive animals, though they do so through different mediums, one through typography and the other through iconography. The two sources also have different argumentative styles; the written source follows the Classical style, while the video employs the Rogerian style. This essay will explore the audience and purpose of these mediums, the rhetorical appeals used, the structure of their argumentation, and how their respective features enhance or constrain their message. 

The audience for both sources is individuals with an interest in animal rights, wildlife conservation, and the ethical treatment of animals. The video source, however, addresses a broader audience who may be just ordinary individuals or those with a shorter attention span, looking to provide the pros and cons of zoos in as simple a form as possible. The written article, on the other hand, targets a more specific audience, like engaged readers who appreciate reading a more descriptive critique of how captivity affects animals, such as animal rights activists, researchers, and policymakers. The goal of both sources is to inform the readers about the reality of most zoos and to get the audience to reconsider support for institutions that do not have the well-being of the animals as a priority. 

Both the visual source and the article employ the appeals of ethos, logos, and pathos but in varying ways. The article builds credibility, or ethos, using citations of scientific studies and by listing examples of harm caused by captivity with a surplus of information. For example, “Tigers and lions have about 18,000 times less space in their captive enclosures than what they would have in the wild” (Coleman). This makes the argument sound and authoritative. In the visual source, ethos is created through the inclusion of identifiable institutions, key statistics, and individuals who work in zoos to maintain the credibility of the information presented. Logos, or logic, is used in the article through the presentation of detailed information about the physical harm, medical ailments, and psychological suffering of the animals. This is supported by research studies and specific cases of animals in captivity who had these illnesses. The visual source employs logos by using summary statistics. For example, only 4% of money raised from zoos goes back to conservation and rehabilitation. This generalization makes the information accessible to viewers and easy to digest. Pathos, or emotional appeal, is a main strategy in both. The article uses pathos through the vivid description of animals' pain, such as undergoing self-mutilation or premature death, which evokes sympathy in readers. There are also pictures of animals in cages or performing for an audience instead of displaying natural behavior. The video mainly uses pathos through the images and videos of animals showing harmful behaviors to elicit strong emotional responses from the audience concerning their health. 

The article is written in the classical form of argumentation, which allows the points to build in a logically sequential manner where every statement supports the opinion. The article begins with a brief introduction to the issue of abuse of animals in captivity. Then evidence from research on the physical and psychological damage captivity has on animals is explained. For example, animals in zoos are subject to premature mortality, and orcas can have dorsal fin collapse. The article then ends with a call to action by promoting animal sanctuaries and the reintroduction of animals into the wild. Conversely, the video uses the Rogerian method of argumentation and speaks to both sides of the argument to create a more balanced approach. First, the video states how some animals would not exist if it were not for zoos and about the money and public interest zoos generate. However, it then goes on to narrate the objectification of animals for entertainment and shows animals malnourished or stuffed in small boxes. The video also counters their earlier point on conservation since a great deal of the money collected by zoos does not get spent on conservation after all. I think that this type of argument is better for the public because it does not just focus on one side of the argument and grabs the attention of regular people who may love the zoo. It does not diminish the fact that some zoos do a great job with education or conservation, but it gets the main point across that zoos are not best for the animals and are more centered on human entertainment. 

The article is more effective at explaining the issue comprehensively through the inclusion of expert opinions, research, and elaborate discussion of the physical and psychological harm inflicted on captive animals. The evidence builds a rational argument, and the emotional appeals from the harm inflicted on the audience help make the argument persuasive. Additionally, the infographics and charts break down complex paragraphs into bite-sized pieces to help share the information effectively. However, the lengthy details and written format still can restrict the message in terms of accessibility because it is intimidating for people with short attention spans or less time. The video format is more immediate and visually stimulating, making the message powerful since anyone can quickly absorb the information. The video focuses on presenting key statistics in quick succession and incorporating images that elicit emotional responses, which are simple but effective. Even so, depending solely on images can oversimplify the problem and lose out on conveying detailed analysis of why captivity is bad for wild animals. For those who want to research the zoo's effect on animals, the video would not provide enough information, and the audience would shift to another medium. 

Overall, both the visual medium and the article perform important roles in educating the public about the ill-treatment of animals in captivity. The written source provides an in-depth and logical analysis of the issue, whereas the video platform provides emotive arguments in a quick format. The combination of both media would be the best approach, not only helping people understand the nature of the problem but also helping the emotional weight of the issue to be completely understood. This method would allow the written piece to use ethos and logos to establish the credibility and reasoning behind the issue, while the video could foster an emotional connection to the issue and capture the audience's attention. The combination of mediums would deliver a more impactful message and promote other methods of preserving and living with nature, driving public action and awareness. 

Works Cited:

Coleman, Madison. “Mistreatment of Wild Animals in Captivity.” Ballard Brief, Ballard Brief, 31 July 2023, ballardbrief.byu.edu/issue-briefs/mistreatment-of-wild-animals-in-captivity. Ideas, BCC. “Should Zoos Exist? .” YouTube, YouTube, 27 Oct. 2022, www.youtube.com/watch?v=aQDYxTCIVRE. 

Introduction 

The documentary 13th, directed by Ava DuVernay, exposes the history of violence that has plagued people of color and led to their mass incarceration and mistreatment within the U.S. justice system. The documentary begins by discussing post-Civil War U.S. and comments on the conditions of freedom afforded to former slaves. For instance, although they were “free” they were viewed as dangerous, and many innocent men were killed or terrorized by gangs like the Ku Klux Klan for no reason. This brutality shows the harmful effects of a clause within the 13th amendment, which stated that people who have committed a crime can become servants of the state. This clause became a powerful tool for many in power to employ to control people of color by saying people of color are criminals. The documentary is aimed at a broad audience and can be seen by anyone interested in social issues or the justice system. The primary purpose of this documentary is to inform the public on current and past issues that have continuously taken away human dignity and to inspire change. The 13th argues that while the 13th Amendment ended slavery, it created incentive for mass criminalization and incarceration of African Americans, which continues to this day. This essay will analyze the documentary’s argumentation style, structure, video elements, and overall effectiveness in presenting its case and creating an impactful message. 

Argumentation 

The 13th follows a Toulmin model of argumentation, which presents clear claims supported by evidence and warrants to show the validity of its argument. This can be seen in the multitude of interviews, historical events, and data all showing the damage done to the Black community because of the perpetuation of harmful stereotypes. For example, the war on drugs and harsh policies on crime that were supported by Nixon and Reagan were due to the southern white vote, called the “Southern Strategy,” the documentary found a direct quote from one of Reagan's campaign leaders speaking on how they pushed for legislation that hurt Black people more than white people. This can be seen in how crack versus cocaine crimes were sentenced with Black people who used crack getting way more attention than cocaine which was commonly used in suburbs and within the white population. The “Three Strikes You’re Out” policy also shows how politicians were competing for the popular vote by being increasingly strict with crime. The documentary provided countless examples of policy within the united states focusing on minority populations and supports their claim that many black men have been in prison most of their lives with a statistic, saying, “6.5% of the population are Black men, but they make up 40% of the prison population (DuVernay). Arguments against the main perspective debate that mass incarceration is a complex issue and that many Black people were gang members and displayed animal-like behaviors. Furthermore, many people of color who were getting arrested were addicted to drugs or involved in murders. However, many were simply a product of their environment, and there were also white people displaying these behaviors; it was just accepted, and they were not being overpoliced. It is known that the documentary is biased in favor of presenting the criminal justice system as an instrument of racial oppression based on the stories and mass violence shown, but the documentary uses strong well rounded evidence to support their side so there is not an issue in the way the information is presented. 

Structure 

Firstly, the 13th outlines the legacy of slavery and the 13th Amendment, which shows how deeply inequality was ingrained into the United States. It then moves into the period of Reconstruction and how Black Americans were continuously shown as dangerous to the white female and forced to work as criminals. Then the documentary highlights the creation of new forms of racial control called the Jim Crow and segregation laws. This was used as an example of how segregation was reborn and how violence continued during times of progress. Then the film shifts to modern-day issues, showing how the War on Drugs and the criminalization of Black communities led to mass incarceration and the boom of the prison system. Modern videos of police officers killing Black men show that violence against Black communities is still being done today. The final segment discusses the economic motivations behind mass incarceration and examines the role of private prisons. For example, many industries were getting free labor from the work of prisons, like Victoria's Secret and Idaho potatoes. Overall, the documentary combines several storytelling techniques, beginning with overarching commentary, then features interviews with scholars, activists, politicians, and individuals impacted by the criminal justice system, which provides personal insights and expert opinion. Furthermore, the mix of historical and contemporary footage, with clips of news reports and protests, all help explain the issue and make the argument more compelling. 

Video Elements 

The documentary relies heavily on powerful visual imagery, such as footage of civil rights protests, political campaigns and police violence which all help establish a serious tone. The transitions between historical periods are smooth and repeatedly had short scenes with a black background and words recapping what was shared with different song choices. Rap was used to detail violence and hate, and at another point it was opera was used to show painful emotion. This wide range of music added depth to the message and helped build emotion around the issue. The camera remains mostly static during interviews, focusing on the speakers and their messages, which allows the audience to really take in all the information. Even so, there were some close-up shots to capture the emotion and shifts in demeanor of the interviewer if they were sharing a personal experience. Additionally, the text on screen was used sparingly, so it emphasized key words and statistics central to the argument and made the data more impactful and less likely to be forgotten. The colors and shades throughout the documentary were also very bleak and dull to show the tragedy of current and past events. All these tools helped create a serious and engaging platform that really engaged the watcher and supported the main argument that mass incarceration was wrong.

Conclusion 

The 13th documentary is effective because it combines an organized and well thought out argument with emotional appeal and pushes the audience to truly understand the pain that the Black community has gone through. The documentary builds a compelling case using historical evidence, various testimonies, and real-world examples of the criminal justice system’s impact on African Americans. Through its use of powerful visuals and interviews it also presents an emotionally urgent argument about racial inequality and mass incarceration. The documentary’s bias is clear, but it is effective in raising awareness and prompting conversation about social justice and the need for reform. In summary, 13th uses the Toulmin-style of argumentation to create a powerful critique of the U.S. criminal justice system and to encourage change. The documentary’s structure, storytelling techniques, and multimedia elements all built strong emotion and contributed to a final compelling and persuasive argument. 

Most people have tried a brownie at least once. Brownies are a common American staple that children love, and parents remember fondly and indulge in. For our Advanced Video Argument project, we created an argumentative video comparing two popular brownie box mixes Betty Crocker and Pillsbury. The project centered on evaluating what makes a good brownie and which brand best embodied those criteria. Specific factors like smell, texture, appearance, and taste were judged. To begin, we found pros for both Betty Crocker and Pillsbury on their respective websites and the Food Network, such as ease of preparation, convenience, high-quality outcomes, and delicious flavors that families or people at events love. Meanwhile, we let the differences and cons be determined organically by the bakers and judges. When creating this video, it was crucial to capture multiple sources of footage and to gather a wide range of opinions. Fun uses of music, transitions, text, and images were also important to keeping the audience’s attention and helping them follow the structure of the video and argument. This reflection will explain the tools and strategies that made our video effective, point out areas for improvement, and ultimately explain how one brownie mix was proved to be the best.

The purpose of our video was to fairly compare Betty Crocker and Pillsbury brownie mixes and highlight the positives and negatives of each before reaching a conclusion about which one was better. The subject of the video was the brownies themselves and the process of baking, judging, and analyzing them. Our argumentation style leaned toward Rogerian argumentation because we intentionally presented positive points for both mixes rather than attacking one over the other. This style made sense since the baking competition between two teams, each advocating for their chosen mix, would determine the better box brownie mix brand. We wanted the competition to feel balanced and that each team had a chance to prove their brownies were the best. We arranged our arguments by first introducing the mixes, giving context into what makes a good brownie, demonstrating the baking process, interviewing the bakers, and finally allowing judges to taste and score the final products. The potential audiences are families, home bakers, and anyone deciding which brownie mix to purchase for a treat. By the end of the video, the judges' scores averaged out to show that Betty Crocker was the winner, achieving our purpose of choosing which brownie box mix was superior.

Our filming process started with a detailed script that guided the A-roll footage, including the baking scenes, interviews, and judging. First, we focused on capturing all the main footage necessary to tell the story. Then, using iMovie, we organized the scenes, began cutting footage, and pieced the narrative together. We then added B-roll footage of brownies, kids enjoying brownies, images of the two brownie mix boxes, and visuals showing the final rankings and criteria for what makes a good brownie. We also included voiceovers, time lapses, sound effects, transitions, and background music to make the video flow better and keep the energy up. It was a lot of trial and error to find what combinations of footage and sound worked best. Props, like green and red balloons to represent judge reactions, kitchen tools, and store-bought ingredients, were also used to add a fun and realistic feel to the video. We wanted the video to feel lighthearted, fun, and like anyone could go out and buy the better brownie mix and successfully make it.

Individually, I contributed in multiple ways throughout the entire process. I was one of the bakers for Team Betty Crocker, appearing in the video baking and participating in interviews. I filmed a lot of the scenes, making sure to follow our script and capture important footage that would piece together smoothly. I also took on the role of lead editor, making sure the video stayed engaging by adding fun scenes, cutting unnecessary footage, and incorporating transitions, music, and voiceovers. In our revision, I focused heavily on adding more B-roll footage and incorporating additional supporting information to strengthen our group's overall argument. I feel that my contributions heavily benefitted filming and editing because I worked hard to polish the video so our argument was strong. Looking back, I would have separated the judges during the tasting portion to ensure their reactions stayed unbiased. I also would have worked harder to capture better footage at the end when Amanda was talking to the judges since there was a glare in one scene which could have been avoided with better lighting or camera angles.

Carrying out this project taught me how useful it is to have a structured plan when filming to get all the necessary requirements while also prioritizing a little flexibility for creativity because new ideas can come out of nowhere. One challenge we encountered was realizing after filming that we should have planned B-roll scenes ahead of time instead of trying to squeeze them in later. Our competition-style setup really inspired a fun tone, and we kept that consistent with bright imagery, upbeat music, and funny interviews. However, through the revising process, I learned how to balance all of the tools like sound effects and funny clips with necessary transitions, supporting information, and text so everyone can follow all of the arguments. My biggest takeaway was that every detail, from captions to sound effects, matters in creating a cohesive and persuasive video.

Overall, this Advanced Video Argument project was incredibly insightful. I learned how many tools are available to build an engaging argument and how important careful editing and structure are to keeping the audience's attention. My biggest takeaway is that small tweaks like adding names when new people appear on screen, cutting overly long scenes, and inserting more B-roll really add up to make a big difference in video quality. Reviewing the differences between our first and revised videos showed me how even small improvements in flow and clarity can make an argument much more convincing. I enjoyed the creative flexibility this project offered and realized that a strong video argument depends not just on good footage, but also additional sources and an organized plan. All in all, I believe my group effectively used A-roll footage, B-roll footage, text, music, sound effects, and credible sources to prove that the better brownies were made from the Betty Crocker brownie box mix, while Pillsbury box brownie mix fell short.