Analysis of a television, online or radio talk show argument Essay

Analysis of a television, online or radio talk show argument - Essay Example The main argument of the pro-group is that the issue of same sex marriage has been tarnished by lies and black propaganda. The opposite camp responds with a religious nuance—God only allowed a marital union between opposite sex, and it is a sin to do otherwise. There are three components of argumentation—the claim, the support, and the warrant. The claim is the argumentation’s component that responds to the issues. A claim can be categorized into three: claims of policy, claims of value, and claims of fact (Phillips & Bostian 239). The claim of policy is a form of claim that stresses the enforcement of a specific policy thinking that the specific policy will be able to resolve a specific issue. In this talk show, the claim of policy is a policy supporting same sex marriage, like that in California. According to the pro-camp, policies guaranteeing the rights of homosexuals are ought to be constitutionally justifiable for they safeguard human equality. On the other hand, the anti-camp believes that such policies will only further undermine the already threatened institution of marriage. The claim of fact is the form of claim that emphasizes that a particular situation has confirmed to have existed, remains existent, or will continue to exist. The claim of the pro-camp is that discrimination against gays and lesbians has existed, still existing, and will continue to exist if the right to marry is denied to them. On the other hand, the claim of value is the form of assertion that is regarded as an effort to show that a specific issue is less favorable or more favorable than the others. The anti-camp claims that it is immoral or a sin to allow same sex marriage. They refer to the Bible or religious teachings to support this claim. The support of both the pro- and anti-camp is strong. The pro-camp uses legal, scientific, and practical evidence, whereas the anti-camp uses religious, cultural, and societal values. Lastly, the warrant

THEORIES OF EFFECTIVE LEADERSHIP AND (B) POWER & INFLUENCE Case Study

THEORIES OF EFFECTIVE LEADERSHIP AND (B) POWER & INFLUENCE - Case Study Example They are involved on improving the performance of the group members as well as focus on each individual to achieve his/her potential (Yukl, 2007). It is a common perception that leaders have to build and maintain strong relationships with followers, co-workers and subordinates. In other words, relationship leadership inspires leaders to inculcate in themselves these leadership qualities (Northouse, 2009). Leaders with this style of leadership have high moral and ethical standards which build trust and authenticity amongst his/her group members (Northouse, 2009). Without the bond of trust and standards, the leaders might be disliked by his/her followers making their leadership role short-lived. A successful relation is one that can create and maintain trust. According to Northouse (2009) relationship between leaders and followers must be found on trust or else a leader will be unsuccessful. To build trust, it is important to start with authenticity. Being authentic with followers allo ws them to look upon their leader with inspiration. Fake personas can be adopted quickly but will also be easily picked up by others and fail to create authenticity and build trust (Yukl, 2007).