Time to RANT
PURPOSE:
► To use the art of rhetoric to prove to your class that your topic is frustrating, annoying, useless and /or harmful and must be changed or stopped
► To justify your decision thoroughly using specific rhetorical devices , methods of development and the three appeals of persuasion (logos, ethos, pathos)
FORMAT:
This unit will culminate in a recorded video OR presentation to the class in duration of 2-2.5 minutes. That includes a written component. You MUST include research material about your topic from other sources. Follow the following format (A+B+C):
A You must create a convincing argument in rant form that persuades the class why they too should be angry or frustrated about your topic. In order to do this:
o You must identify a clear thesis.
o You must use appropriate body language, posture, pacing, eye contact and diction.
o You must include a CLEAR beginning, middle and end. Open with an interesting beginning; Conclude with a memorable ending.
o You must use two secondary sources and have completed Works Cited page
o You must be creative but above all, BE Persuasive!
B You will submit a written version of your rant, typed, double spaced, titled and properly cited.
o You must use AT LEAST ONE rhetorical device to persuade the audience
o You must use AT LEAST ONE method of development to persuade the audience
o You must employ persuasive appeals of logic, ethics and emotion.
This will include a separate page which lists and labels your rhetorical devices (from the rant), your methods of development, and the 3 elements of appeal you have used within the rant to prove your thesis in your speech.
C You must complete some background research in order to write your rant. Your final speech must include two secondary sources, properly cited at all times.
All of these aspects (A+B+C) will be evaluated
DUE: May 23, 2013 (to submitted in my hand-in folder – or posted online so that I may access it on any computer)
Follow the model of Rick Mercer (RickMercer.com – from the CBC – or YOUTUBE his rants) to write a light-hearted, non-controversial rant persuading your audience to agree with you.
Topics - Rant about one of the following possibilities:
Breakfast cereal
Dogs
Cats
Canadian winter
Reality TV
Online gaming
Sports
Fast food
The slap chop
Bugs
Parents
Summer jobs
Scholarships
Dating
Superstitions
The one percent
The ninety nine per cent
Green peas
Homework
You get the idea - pick something that makes you want to rant!
If you would rather do a more serious rant, you can. Some topics might be:
Bullying
Politics
Euthanasia
Abortion
Etc.
Some sample rants from Rick Mercer are listed below. Remember to watch some of his online so that you can see his excellent pacing, body posture, change of tone and volume.
1. There’s been a lot of talk over the last five years among political geeks about voter suppression. Convincing voters that politics is so nasty that come election day people just stay home. Now up until now, to give them credit, nobody has ever accused the NDP of practicing this dark art.
Well that has certainly changed because I don’t think I have ever seena greater example of voter suppression than the current NDP leadershiprace. It's like they designed it to disengage the public. Leadershipraces are tough on parties but they’re fun. They expose rifts, theylead to debate; things are said in the heat of the moment which causesexcitement, which makes people care. Not with this crowd.
As of last count there were eight different candidates. And I use theterm "different" very loosely. Because I don't know where you couldfind eight different Canadians who agree on as many things as thesepeople. It's like the worst dinner party ever.
I watched the last leadership debate on streaming video. The mostexciting moment happened at the 40 minute mark when I got a pop-up adfor a liberty coin from the Franklin Mint. And the nastiest exchangeso far came when front runner, Brian Topp, who nobody knows, accusedMulcair, of being – wait for it – a moderate. Whoa those are fightingwords. Can anyone on the left make a fist in this country?
I would like to say that there's a fine line between an exciting raceand a race that is so dull it is actually detrimental to thedemocratic process but there's not. There's a huge gaping divide. Andunless the NDP can fix this and get people to pay attention everyoneloses. Because if you can't engage voters, you don't deserve voters.
Posted: 01/02/2012
2. Democracy is very messy. In fact on paper it doesn't even make a heckof a lot of sense. For starters it involves all of us, and by all ofus I mean the people. And what’s worse, people’s opinions, which onlyleads to debate. And let's face it, no matter what the issue, for everysensible person on either side there are two idiots who are addictedto the sound of their own voice. I should know I'm one of them.
But lately, I’ve noticed that some of the messy parts of democracy areslowly being done away with. Like debate. Remember debate? No, neitherdo I. It's been a while.
For example, a couple of months ago, Stephen Harper decided to changethe name of the Canadian Navy to The Royal Canadian Navy. There was nodebate. He just announced it. Now personally I don't care one way orthe other, but people in the navy do. Some of them love it; some ofthem hate it. But the important thing is nobody asked for theiropinion. Who cares what they think? They just serve in the Navy. Whocares what we think? We just pay for it. Nope, dad said, end of story.
And now we have this pipeline business. Now I realize I should havepaid more attention to this a year ago, but like a lot of Canadiansit's just showing up on my radar now. And honestly, I don’t know ifthe pipeline is a good idea or a bad idea. But the good news is I nolonger have to look at both sides. None of us do. No, because dad hasmade it perfectly clear, there’s only one side to this issue. Andanyone who thinks otherwise is an enemy to Canada. I’ve got to saythis is way better than the old days when we had the burden of beinginformed citizens on our shoulders.
No, now we have a new job: to be seen and not heard. Welcome to Canada2012. His house, his rules. God save the King.
Posted: 18/01/2012 7:13:42 AM | with 0 comments
3. If you're a member of Parliament, it’s tough to stand out. With 308MPs you need a shtick. You’ve got to be super clever or supercharming. And if you’re neither, you can be a walking/talking trainwreck. Which brings us to Conservative Member of Parliament, CherylGallant. Who every single time she sees a microphone, she sayssomething so colossally stupid, the collective IQ of the nation dropsby about six percent.
Luckily for Cheryl she’s got a big fan in the Prime Minister. BecauseCheryl is much more than an MP, oh yes, she's also a member of theprestigious National Defence Committee. The Prime Minister put herthere. You know, in case a war breaks out. So Cheryl gets to flyaround the world on our dime and hobnob with world leaders andrepresent Canada.
And this past week the Prime Minister sent her on a very importantmission. He sent her down to Newfoundland to warm up the people inadvance of his visit. So off she goes. She attends a public meetingwhere family members are talking about the anguish of losing lovedones at sea knowing they perished fifteen minutes before a Coast Guardhelicopter could reach them. And you know, I think we’ve all been inthis situation where you meet a person who’s lost a loved one andsometimes it’s difficult to know what to say. But not Cheryl, no. Shedecided to lecture them and tell them it was all their own faultbecause, and I quote Cheryl here, "in Ontario, on the Ottawa River forthe example we would never even think of calling the Coast Guard forhelp if we found ourselves in trouble."
You know. Stupid is one thing, I get that. Because let’s face it,there's no cure for stupid. But stupid and talking, there's a curefor that. It's called you're fired. And if Stephen Harper cared onebit about the Canadians who make their living at sea or in the arctiche would do what everyone in Ottawa with a brain would do in aheartbeat. Put Cheryl Gallant on an ice floe – Coast Guard notincluded.
Posted: 15/02/2011 11:00:32 PM | with 0 comment
Keep the attached rubric in mind!
Speech Evaluation Expectations – Rant English 4U
Knowledge - / 5 - Subject detail and examples display sound knowledge of subject
- Logical, ethical and emotional appeals clearly evident in speech
Thinking - /20 – Convincing argument with
Thesis/Rhet Device/MODs
- Appeals to logic, emotion and ethics have desired effect on audience
- Rant shows beginning, middle, and end
- Rant shows effort and wit
- Rant is light-hearted and NON-CONTROVERSIAL
Communication - /20 – Voice projection and modulation
-Clarity of speech
-Pacing of speech
-Appropriate language
- Eye contact
- Comfort level
- Posture
Application - /5 - Rant model is followed
- 2-2.5 minutes in length
- Preparedness
Total = /50
WHAT IS A WORKS-CITED LIST?
A works-cited page lists all of the resources that you used to write your paper:
EVEN THE ONES YOU READ AND DID NOT USE QUOTES FROM.
The sources are listed alphabetically by author’s last name (usually) or by title if there is no author named. Theworks-cited list is always the last page of the assignment.
WHAT IS MLA STYLE?
When you have a research assignment, a project or an essay to write, you will often be asked for secondary sources. ‘MLA’ is a form of writing and citing sources in formal research reports, projects and essays. It is a way to show what sources you have viewed and used within your research, project or essay. While there are many ways to cite sources, MLA is the widely accepted version for English and Literature courses.
Just like a Title Page appears on the first page, the “Works Cited” is the very last page of your essay, (on a separate page), and has the title “Works Cited”
Your works Cited must appear on a separate page and look like this:
*Note: Alphabetical Order
*Note: Proper punctuation
is as important as the entry itself!!!
*Note: Entries are NOT numbered
*Note:
Every line after the first is indented!!
Be sure to follow all of the rules of creating a works cited.
This include using proper punctuation; alphabetical order of each entry; proper indentation, and NO numbering of entries
Check these links for more information or clarification:
http://www.studyguide.org/MLAdocumentation.htm
http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/747/08/
The very basic structure of an entry for a book looks like this:
Author last name, Author first name. Title of work. City of publishing: Publishincg Company, Year of publishing.
The very basic structure of an entry for a website must include:
· Author and/or editor names (if available).
· Article name in quotation marks (if applicable).
· Title of the Website, project, or book in italics. (Remember that some Print publications have Web publications with slightly different names. They may, for example, include the additional information or otherwise modified information, like domain names [e.g. .com or .net].)
· Any version numbers available, including revisions, posting dates, volumes, or issue numbers.
· Publisher information, including the publisher name and publishing date.
· Take note of any page numbers (if available).
· Date you accessed the material.
· URL (if required, or for your own personal reference).
Here are some more examples:
Websites
“Title of article.” Title of page. Title of website. Date last updated. Date accessed by you. URL.
Book:
Turner, Fred. Great Rabbits of the Twentieth Century. New York: Big Ears Press, 1997.
Periodicals
Wolkomir, Richard. "Charting the Terrain of Touch" Newsweek. 17 June 2000:
38-40.
Encyclopedia articles
"Money." Compton's Precyclopedia. 1977 ed. (56). Print.
On-line database (ex. Electric Library):
Anderson, J. "Keats in Harlem." New Republic 204.14 (8 Apr. 1991): n. pag.
Online. Electric Library Canada. 29 December 2000.
Video:
"The One Where Chandler Can't Cry." Friends: The Complete Sixth Season. Writ. Andrew Reich and Ted Cohen. Dir. Kevin Bright. Warner Brothers, 2004. DVD.