Category: Uncategorized

Derek Tremblay                                                     Help Received: Conferences with Major Garriott

Major Garriott                                                                                          Peer Review: Daniel Breslin

ERH 102-11

20 April 2017

My Progressions in Writing This Year at VMI

For me, writing has always been something that I have avoided. In high school I dreaded writing papers and I only took the basic classes so that I wouldn’t have to do the work required to write a decent paper. I was never taught how to write and when I did do one of the few papers I was assigned in high school the teacher never game me constructive criticism that would help me write, or improve, my paper. When I started taking classes at VMI I was still hoping to avoid writing, but once we got the syllabus on the first day it became clear that I would not be able to do that. Taking ERH at VMI has helped me in the writing process tremendously. Before taking, and even while taking, ERH I didn’t know how to write, my papers lacked order, my thesis statements were not always connected to my central argument, my body paragraphs lacked structure and a topic sentence, and the research for my papers was biased and didn’t connect with my audience, I didn’t use sources that my audience saw as credible and it hurt the validity of my papers. I learned that effective writing is important and biased sources, decentralized papers, and off topic paragraphs harm the communication of the message that I want to offer to the reader.

Sources I originally put into my paper were biased and were detrimental to the credibility of my paper to the audience. The first assignment we were given in class was to write an essay arguing against a topic that we were in support of to a lawmaker. I chose Planned Parenthood, a topic that I knew almost nothing about. This was because I wanted to learn more about Planned Parenthood and using it as the topic for my paper would force me to research, and learn more about it. Unfortunately I didn’t research well enough, the sources I used in my paper were mostly straight from the Planned Parenthood website. Major Garroitt pointed out “First, you need to find better, more credible, academic sources. You over rely on planned Parenthood’s sources. Planned Parenthood is going to advocate for itself, it has to (qtd. in “Federal Funding for Women’s Health” 6). These sources, of course, supported my argument well but when writing the paper I didn’t think about my audience. A lawmaker against Planned Parenthood isn’t going to take seriously my argument if it is full of biased sources that are known for supporting Planned Parenthood, of the Planned Parenthood website for that matter. I received a “D” on this assignment, and it was because of the terrible sources I had put to use in my paper. In my revision I eliminated almost all of the sources from Planned Parenthood and I replaced them with unbiased academic sources.

Another problem I had was I would veer off from my central argument and I would add in other points that were not relevant to the point I was trying to make. In the first paper I make the argument that Planned Parenthood should continue to be funded because of the services that they provide not related to abortion. Then, in a body paragraph, I try to explain why abortion is ethical and the right thing to do in some cases. Major Garriott commented “So why are you talking about abortion if you’re focusing on non-abortive services? This hurts your argument (qtd. in “Federal Funding for Women’s Health” 3). My paper was focused on one thing and I wrote a paragraph that wasn’t on topic and that hurt my argument. In my revisions I completely deleted the paragraph so that my argument would be centralized. My audience is entirely against abortion and my whole paper up until that point caters to them and their beliefs. They would not receive my whole paper well because I have a paragraph that is in support of abortion and they are in strong support of banning abortion.

I made many overall improvements in the second paper we did in the class this semester which was a research paper on a topic we were in support of. However, I missed an opportunity in my paper to include examples from people effected by the issue. I explained how the censorship of video games is a hit on the free speech of people within the game industry. This would have been a good time to strengthen my argument by adding examples from developers and people directly in the gaming industry such as game designers or artists. Major Garriott commented “Your argument resonate more if you brought in the voices of people in the game design industry. What do they have to say on the issue of free speech.? (qtd. in “Why Violence Shouldn’t Be Taken out of Video Games” 3). In my revision I found a quote from a game designer explaining his position on the issue and explaining how much of an impact video games plays on his daily life including paying the bills. Including this comment strengthened my argument and allowed for my paper to connect to my audience as to why video games are without a doubt a good thing for people.

By taking ERH at VMI I have learned many valuable skills used in effective writing. The assignments that I have had to do have helped me to gain an understanding as to what is important to have in a paper to effectively reach my audience. I’ve learned the importance of finding unbiased research that supports my claims, and writing toward my audience so they will hear out my arguments. I learned the importance of staying on my topic and not trying to bring up unrelated arguments to discuss in my papers.

Works Cited:

Tremblay, Derek. “Federal Funding For Women’s Health.” ERH 102 Paper, VMI, 2017

 

—-. “Why Violence Shouldn’t Be Taken out of Video Games.” ERH 102 Paper, VMI, 2017

 

Word Count: 1022

Derek Tremblay

Major Garriott

ERH 102-11

20 April 2017

My Progressions in Writing This Year at VMI

For me, writing has always been something that I have avoided. In high school I dreaded writing papers and I only took the basic classes so that I wouldn’t have to do the work required to write a decent paper. I was never taught how to write and when I did do one of the few papers I was assigned in high school the teacher never game me constructive criticism that would help me write, or improve, my paper. When I started taking classes at VMI I was still hoping to avoid writing, but once we got the syllabus on the first day it became clear that I would not be able to do that. Taking ERH at VMI has helped me in the writing process tremendously. Before taking, and even while taking, ERH I didn’t know how to write, my papers lacked order, my thesis statements were not always connected to my central argument, my body paragraphs lacked structure and a topic sentence, and the research for my papers was biased and didn’t connect with my audience, I didn’t use sources that my audience saw as credible and it hurt the validity of my papers. Constructive help from my teacher and the Writing Center has not only helped my papers but has turned me into a better writer.

Sources I originally put into my paper were biased and were detrimental to the credibility of my paper to the audience. The first assignment we were given in class was to write an essay arguing against a topic that we were in support of to a lawmaker. I chose Planned Parenthood, a topic that I knew almost nothing about. This was because I wanted to learn more about Planned Parenthood and using it as the topic for my paper would force me to research, and learn more about it. Unfortunately I didn’t research well enough, the sources I used in my paper were mostly straight from the Planned Parenthood website. Major Garroitt pointed out “First, you need to find better, more credible, academic sources. You over rely on planned Parenthood’s sources. Planned Parenthood is going to advocate for itself, it has to (qtd. in “Federal Funding for Women’s Health” 6). These sources, of course, supported my argument well but when writing the paper I didn’t think about my audience. A lawmaker against Planned Parenthood isn’t going to take seriously my argument if it is full of biased sources that are known for supporting Planned Parenthood, of the Planned Parenthood website for that matter. I received a “D” on this assignment, and it was because of the terrible sources I had put to use in my paper. In my revision I eliminated almost all of the sources from Planned Parenthood and I replaced them with unbiased academic sources.

Another problem I had was I would veer off from my central argument and I would add in other points that were not relevant to the point I was trying to make. In the first paper I make the argument that Planned Parenthood should continue to be funded because of the services that they provide not related to abortion. Then, in a body paragraph, I try to explain why abortion is ethical and the right thing to do in some cases. Major Garriott commented “So why are you talking about abortion if you’re focusing on non-abortive services? This hurts your argument (qtd. in “Federal Funding for Women’s Health” 3). My paper was focused on one thing and I wrote a paragraph that wasn’t on topic and that hurt my argument. In my revisions I completely deleted the paragraph so that my argument would be centralized. My audience is entirely against abortion and my whole paper up until that point caters to them and their beliefs. They would not receive my whole paper well because I have a paragraph that is in support of abortion and they are in strong support of banning abortion.

I made many overall improvements in the second paper we did in the class this semester which was a research paper on a topic we were in support of. However, I missed an opportunity in my paper to include examples from people effected by the issue. I explained how the censorship of video games is a hit on the free speech of people within the game industry. This would have been a good time to strengthen my argument by adding examples from developers and people directly in the gaming industry such as game designers or artists. Major Garriott commented “Your argument resonate more if you brought in the voices of people in the game design industry. What do they have to say on the issue of free speech.? (qtd. in “Why Violence Shouldn’t Be Taken out of Video Games” 3). In my revision I found a quote from a game designer explaining his position on the issue and explaining how much of an impact video games plays on his daily life including paying the bills. Including this comment strengthened my argument and allowed for my paper to connect to my audience as to why video games are without a doubt a good thing for people.

With in class lectures, peer reviews, comments from Major Garriott, and help from the writing center my writing skills this semester have improved bigly this year in taking ERH at VMI.

 

Activity 1:

I expected it to be more of the same of ERH 101. I didn’t expect the longer essays and the added amount of research that I would have to do. I would tell my parents that I’ve learned the importance of doing unbiased research in a paper that does a good job of supporting my argument.

Activity 2:

I remember struggling with the word count and finding adequate research for a topic that I didn’t know much about.

Activity 3:

They say that the research isn’t good because the sources that I used are biased and that would not make for a good argument to my target audience , which is on the opposite side.

Activity 4&5: done on essay

 

Activity 1:

The thesis statement is broad and doesn’t narrow down to a specific argument. He is questioning his own argument and he seems unsure that thesis statements are his greatest weakness.

Activity 2:

I would probably give him a 3 or 4 because his thesis statement isn’t very good, and is broad and he talks about other things not related to his thesis in the paper. He does have a good amount of information and examples but he could have more examples from his own writing to help the paper.

Activity 3:

I would probably give the paper a 2, because the thesis is not clear at all at he has a lack of examples from his own writings. He does however, explain himself and where his writing has come this semester very well.

Activity 4:

The thesis doesn’t really tell us what he learned in the class or how he learned to overcome it. He wrote more about what his problem was with writing, not really how he was able to fix it.

Activity 5:

Ive learned not to write unless I want a 1-3 paper. I’ve learned about the importance of answering the prompt, and have a narrow thesis statement that goes along with my body paragraphs. I should also provide many direct examples from my papers to support my argument in order to get a better grade on my paper.

Derek Tremblay                                              Help Received: Conference with Maj. Garriott

Major Garriott                                                Peer Review: Darren Barile

ERH 102-11

27 March 2017

Why Violence Shouldn’t be Taken Out of Video Games

After numerous school shootings and instances of violence from young people such as Sandy Hook and many others, Congress is looking to pass legislation to limit the amount of violence in video games. Members of Congress, such as California Democrat Sen.Dianne Feinstein, have suggested to Congress that they take steps to “make sure (video games) don’t glorify guns” (huffingtonpost.com). While violent video games such as Call of Duty, Halo, Grand Theft Auto, and Battlefield have been on the rise in popularity with young adults, youth violence has declined in recent years (usnews.com), they do not cause the people who play these games to commit acts of violence. Rather than focusing on video games it would be more useful to control the weapons used to carry out these horrendous acts. The people who do any outrageous acts of violence are mentally ill, and whether or not they play violent video games has no influence on if they commit these acts or not. The current laws and age limit required to buy violent video games should be taken out because there is no evidence that playing violent video games cause people to act violently, and limiting people’s ability to create video games would be a violation of their right to free speech. Instead the current video games laws banning anyone under the age of 17 to buy a mature rated video game should be repealed to protect the rights of minors.

Video games do not cause anyone to commit mass homicides, the people who do these acts were previously mentally ill and if video games had been banned they would have committed these acts regardless.  In a recent study conducted by Christopher J. Ferguson and Cheryl Olsen found “little evidence that violent video games had negative influences on children with pre-existing mental health problems (cnn.com). This research means that the violence in video games has no correlation to the effect the mental state of children, and that it doesn’t cause kids to act how they otherwise normally would. The urge to commit violent acts is a result of being mentally ill rather than what type of video games someone plays. I know many people, myself included, that grew up playing violent video games since grade school like Halo, and Medal of Honor, and it never gave us the urge to go out and mimic the violent acts in real life on real people. People who kill others are born being mentally ill killers, and playing video games does not turn anyone who is normal into killers. Also supporting that video games don’t cause violence are the many cases of people who are not children, such as men over the age of 60, who commit terrible acts and are not in any way influenced by the violence in video games (cnn.com). When lawmakers debate making a restriction on video games they often ignore the facts relating to video games and mass homicides and they just point at the violence in the games, which doesn’t have an effect on the mental health of a person.

Lawmakers looking to ban video games because of potential violence from the youth could be barking up the entirely wrong tree. “The average video game player is 35 years old and has been playing for 12 years. Forty percent of gamers are women, and one out of every four gamers is over 50” (usnews.com). Since such a large percentage of gamers aren’t easily influenced youth in grade or middle school the eliminating the violence in video games would most likely not affect the target audience of America’s youth. The main factor in any mass homicides is never a certain video games that a certain individual played. The real factors that pushed someone over the edge are always more serious such as, being fired from a job, being treated unfairly, a bad home life, a mental illness, or many other reasons not attributed to playing a video game. If playing video games cause mass homicide violence would be more widespread because of the millions of people that play violent video games. But it’s not, violence is isolated because people can distinguish playing a game on a television and real life, and because video games do not cause people to commit violent acts.

The banning of violent video games would not solve the problem of mass homicides, and therefore they should not be censored. If video games are censored or banned there would be a large backlash from the public. Many people play and enjoy these games as well as the many others who develop and sell these games as a means of revenue and supporting their family. Video games are a positive thing in many people’s life and can be a tool used for bonding between people. I have countless great memories of playing video games with my friends and my siblings and even my parents that I will hold onto forever. Video games are an enjoyable experience for everyone that allows for people to express themselves and to do what they love. Studies show that video games can help people with mental issues such as depression. “Brain scans show the most active parts of the brain are the rewards pathway system, which is associated with motivation and goal orientation, and the hippocampus, which is associated with learning and memory. These are the two main parts of the brain that don’t activate when people are suffering from depression” (time.com). Video games are more helpful to people and their mental state than hurtful. Taking away video games might have a opposite effect on the amount of violence, because of the stress that video games can relieve. Mass homicide is not related to the enjoyment that video games are to many people. To take away video games from people would be wrong and a violation of people’s right to express themselves.

If the government were to take away from the people’s ability to make the video games that they want it would be a hit on their free speech granted in the constitution. Video games were declared in 2011 by the Supreme Court to be “entitled to the protection of free speech as the best of literature” and that “disgust (such as violence) is not a valid basis for restricting expression” (ibls.com). Video games are like books or movies in many ways. “Many have elaborate plots and characters, often drawn from fiction or history” (nytimes.com). Such as book enthusiasts there are video game enthusiasts who sit on the edge of their seats waiting for the next version of the game to come out so they can find out what the fate of their favorite character is. Everyone has the right to enjoy the free creations of others and violence in a game should not be discriminated from violence in a book or movie, or any other form of violence. Video games are a form of free expression (nytimes.com) and proposing a ban on video games based solely on violence would be against the Supreme Court ruling in 2011 and could never happen because it would be a violation of free speech.

The laws regarding video games in the United States are not fair in respecting people and their Constitutional rights, and they should allow for minors to buy the video games that suit them and that they want to play. The current laws for the sale of video games only allow for Mature and Adult Only games to be sold to those 17 and older. This way youths cannot get violent games unless their parents approve of them having these games. The Supreme Court says “government doesn’t have the authority to restrict the ideas to which children should be exposed” (thedailyrecord.com). Not allowing kids to have access to the games of their choice is not the right thing to do, as kids should have equal rights to enjoy video games as adults do. Most kids know the difference between fantasy and reality and can understand that violence in video games is different that violence in real life. Kids should be allowed to buy games at their discretion in order to protect their freedoms.

The violence in video games should not be taken out or censored to children, because doing so would not fix the problem of mass homicides. Taking away video games would violate the freedom people have to express themselves and should not be done.

 

 

Work’s Cited:

“Don’t link video games with mass shootings”, cnn.com, http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/20/opinion/ferguson-video-games/, 20 Sep. 2013

 

“Internet Law – Violent Video Games are Constitutionally Protected Speech”, ibls.com, http://www.ibls.com/internet_law_news_portal_view.aspx?s=latestnews&id=2539, accessed on 27 Mar. 2017

 

“Video Games and Free Speech”, nytimes.com, http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/06/opinion/06thu3.html, 5 May 2010

 

“Dianne Finstein: Congress may take action on video games”, huffingtonpost.com, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/04/dianne-feinstein-video-games_n_3016703.html, 4 April 2014

 

“Why Playing Video Games Can Actually Be Good for Your Health”, time.com, http://time.com/4051113/why-playing-video-games-can-actually-be-good-for-your-health/, 26 Sep 2015

 

“Supreme Court: Kids have right to violent video games”, thedailyrecord.com, http://thedailyrecord.com/2011/06/27/supreme-court-kids-have-right-to-violent-video-games/, 27 June 2011

 

Word Count: 1519

Derek Tremblay

Major Garriott

ERH 102-11

27 March 2017

Why Violence Shouldn’t be Taken Out of Video Games

After numerous school shootings and instances of violence from young people such as Sandy Hook and many others, Congress is looking to pass legislation to limit the amount of violence in video games. While violent video games such as Call of Duty, Halo, Grand Theft Auto, and Battlefield have been on the rise in popularity with young adults, youth violence has declined in recent years (usnews.com), they do not cause the people who play these games to commit acts of violence. Rather than focusing on video games it would be more useful to control the weapons used to carry out these horrendous acts. The people who do any outrageous acts of violence are mentally ill, and whether or not they play violent video games has no influence on if they commit these acts or not. The current laws and age limit required to buy violent video games should not be limited or taken out because there is no evidence that playing violent video games cause people to act violently, and limiting people’s ability to create video games would be a violation of their right to free speech. Instead the current video games laws banning anyone under the age of 17 to buy a mature rated video game should stay in place.

Video games do not cause anyone to commit mass homicides, the people who do these acts were previously mentally ill and if video games had been banned they would have committed these acts regardless.  In a recent study conducted by Christopher J. Ferguson and Cheryl Olsen found “little evidence that violent video games had negative influences on children with pre-existing mental health problems (cnn.com). This research means that the violence in video games has no correlation to the effect the mental state of children, and that it doesn’t cause kids to act how they otherwise normally would. The urge to commit violent acts is a result of being mentally ill rather than what type of video games someone plays. I know many people, myself included, that grew up playing violent video games since grade school like Halo, and Medal of Honor, and it never gave us the urge to go out and mimic the violent acts in real life on real people. People who kill others are born being mentally ill killers, and playing video games does not turn anyone who is normal into killers. Also supporting that video games don’t cause violence are the many cases of people who are not children, such as men over the age of 60, who commit terrible acts and are not in any way influenced by the violence in video games (cnn.com). When lawmakers debate making a restriction on video games they often ignore the facts relating to video games and mass homicides and they just point at the violence in the games, which doesn’t have an effect on the mental health of a person.

If the government were to take away from the people’s ability to make the video games that they want it would be a violation of their free speech granted in the constitution. Video games were declared in 2011 by the Supreme Court to be “entitled to the protection of free speech as the best of literature” and that “disgust (such as violence) is not a valid basis for restricting expression” (ibls.com). Video games are like books or movies in many ways. “Many have elaborate plots and characters, often drawn from fiction or history” (nytimes.com). Such as book enthusiasts there are video game enthusiasts who sit on the edge of their seats waiting for the next version of the game to come out so they can find out what the fate of their favorite character is. Everyone has the right to enjoy the free creations of others and violence in a game should not be discriminated from violence in a book or movie, or any other form of violence. Video games are a form of free expression (nytimes.com) and proposing a ban on video games based solely on violence would be against the Supreme Court ruling in 2011 and could never happen because it would be a violation of free speech.

The laws regarding video games in the United States are fair in respecting people and their Constitutional rights, and they should remain the same and not be taken away. The current laws for the sale of video games only allow for Mature and Adult Only games to be sold to those 17 and older. This way youths cannot get violent games unless their parents approve of them having these games. Parents have the discretion to whether or not their kids can mentally handle violence and it should be up to them if they allow their kids to play these games. After kids turn 17 or 18 they have fully developed the ability to decipher real life and fantasy. This is the correct age that kids should be allowed to buy video games and it should remain that way.

Lawmakers looking to ban video games because of potential violence from the youth could be barking up the entirely wrong tree. “The average video game player is 35 years old and has been playing for 12 years. Forty percent of gamers are women, and one out of every four gamers is over 50” (usnews.com). Since such a large percentage of gamers aren’t easily influenced youth in grade or middle school the eliminating the violence in video games would most likely not affect the target audience of America’s youth.

 

 

 

 

Work’s Cited:

“Don’t link video games with mass shootings”, cnn.com, http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/20/opinion/ferguson-video-games/, 20 Sep. 2013

 

“Internet Law – Violent Video Games are Constitutionally Protected Speech”, ibls.com, http://www.ibls.com/internet_law_news_portal_view.aspx?s=latestnews&id=2539, accessed on 27 Mar. 2017

 

“Video Games and Free Speech”, nytimes.com, http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/06/opinion/06thu3.html, 5 May 2010

1. 

Software companies should continue to make violent video games because it is there right and free speech to make them. The games are not intended for small children and are only made for those ages 17 and older. It is up to the parents if they want their kids to have the games. If the parents dont want their children they just dont buy the games for the children, it should not be on the manufacturers.

I learned that you need to speak to your audience and provide a good argument that the reader is able to understand. Provide facts and statements from people with credibility. Establish your own credibility and provide examples from your own experiences.Establish a common ground with the audience.