Various Rhetorical Positions and Different Types of Evidence CP Project Like the CP Project, the main assignment here is a multi-modal composition that use

Various Rhetorical Positions and Different Types of Evidence CP Project Like the CP Project, the main assignment here is a multi-modal composition that uses various rhetorical positions and different types of evidence to make arguments. This one, however, is a bit different from the first in that over the course of these next few weeks, as you research and evaluate various sources, and as you draft, craft and organize your thoughts and evidence, you will at some point have to make a decision to become an advocate for solutions to your central problem in at least one of the following three ways: 1) you might advocate for one or more specific solutions to the significant and current political/social/cultural problem that sits at the center of your focus; 2) you might locate the next steps to potentially solving your project’s central problem; or, 3) you might argue for why the current solutions do not work and leave your readers with questions about possible next steps. In other words, your arguments for advocating solutions in combination with the analytical reasons you provide for why you have chosen to focus on particular solutions will after weeks and weeks of diligent engagement become a richly-textured thesis statement, one that deepens your articulation of the problem at hand and argues for convincing for ways to move forward.

When we think of the act of advocating and when we imagine a person or an organization who is an advocate for a cause, we think of strongly held opinions delivered with intensity from a rhetorical position that appears unshakable, deeply confident in the ethical rightness of its arguments and the accuracy of its knowledge. If we look at advocacy in such ways, we can understand why it takes time to become a convincing advocate, and that advocacy, even when it is delivered in the form of a thesis-driven composition, is a form of argumentation that can be quite different from the balanced arguments we often think of as academic writing even if it is as rigorous in its presentation of evidence.

This is not to say that academic writers are not advocates. They are, and over the course of this project, you will become such an advocate—one who uses academic research and methods to deliver persuasive arguments convincingly to a public of one’s peers. Academic writers in many disciplines often write with the purpose of advocating for solutions to political/social/cultural/environmental problems. When they do so, they are expected to consider and present positions that run against theirs in various ways – call them counter arguments – in order to meet the expectations of their academic audience. They must demonstrate their mastery of established arguments and knowledge in areas of discourse and recognize the legitimacy of other perspectives, even if the author seeks ultimately to dismiss them.

In the realm of public advocacy, arguments and persuasion can look, feel, and sound quite different. Public advocates deliver strong and impassioned arguments by undermining counter arguments. They do so by choice and with knowledge about the various perspectives and pieces of evidence that may potentially undermine their case. When putting forth arguments in academic or public settings, the most convincing advocates do not simply put forward solutions without first comprehending the informed debates in which these solutions are situated. Rather, successful advocates draw from a deep well of knowledge when carefully selecting the evidence and rhetorical appeals that will make their case about how to address the profound social problems they put before their audiences.

This assignment challenges you to become that strong advocate, one who delivers convincing solutions to a current and pressing political/social/cultural problem. You cannot, in all likelihood, be this advocate at the beginning of the project. You will need to spend time researching and evaluating sources; you will need to explore various arguments and perspectives as you write proposals and drafts. At some point, however, after deepening your knowledge and maybe even after writing a full draft or two, you will need to choose a position to advocate.

Sources & Citations:

You should use at least 10 sources beyond the sources you’ve been assigned in class or used in your first essay. At least four of these sources need to be scholarly, peer-reviewed sources. Use the MLA system for citing your sources.

Advocacy Composition: Graded Submission

(Written portion of Draft 2: 2500 words minimum including notes and in-text citations but not bibliography, multimodal. You should attach your Working Annotated Bibliography to your document and after the works cited page.)

and for annotated bibliography. here is it’s prompt. please note, this is actually two assignment, one is to edit AP draft 2 and one is to write the annotated bibliography.

2) For each source: Explain who the author is, including their credentials, field of study, and any other relevant information that can help us understand where they’re coming from.

3) For each source analyze and explain the genre of the source (e.g. scholarly peer reviewed article, newspaper article, chapter in a peer reviewed book, messageboard, etc.) What type of information and style of presentation is characteristic of this genre? How does the author establish credibility, or expertise, in this genre?

4) For each source: In 100-200 words, summarize the source’s thesis and main supporting arguments. Remember to avoid including “fluff” arguments!

5) For each source: generate a list of 4-6 keywords from the source. In other words, what key terms would you use to find this source online?

6) For each source: In 100-200 words, describe how this source might be useful as research. Were there any terms or concepts in the article that you didn’t understand? Were there specific people, groups, or policies you weren’t familiar with? If you decided to investigate this topic further, what terms, concepts, people, groups, or policies would you need to research further in order to better understand the issue?

7) How are these sources related (beyond discussing the same topic)? Do they use the same key terms, cite the same sources, analyze the same particular events, etc.? Do they agree with each other on the topic, or do they disagree (or both)? How do they agree or disagree, and on what points? Do they cite each other? If so, summarize their conversation. If not, how do you think they might respond to each other if they were having a conversation? Increasing Videogame literacy and the use of the Entertainment Software Rating Board
(ESRB) to Reduce Videogame Aggression
As of 2017, the market value of the video games industry was $134.9 billion (Batchelor,
2018). This market value was expected to attain a market value of $135 billion in 2018 (Batchelor,
2018). The above figures proof that video games have been part and parcel of our daily lives. It is
important to note that the prevalence of video games is high among all populations. This is associated with the ease of accessing video games. With the advancement of technology, people can
now access video games using their smartphones. The increasing use of video games has been
linked to several social problems, mainly Videogame related aggression, especially among children and teenagers. This problem mainly results from frustration in the game process. This is so
because videogame lead in the partial or complete immersion of a person into the virtual reality.
In most cases, the gamers are left frustrated or in need to revenge for certain characters. If
not control, the gamers transfer this frustration or anger to their friends, relatives among other
people close to them. According to Greitemeyer & Mügge (585), Videogame aggression results in
individual causing physical or emotional harm to themselves and others. Among the solutions to
this problem is training the gamers on how to alter the aggressive behavior. This approach is referred to as Aggression Replacement Training (ART). An Aggression Replacement Training
(ART) is an important multimodal intervention to alter the chronically aggressive behavior, especially among young people (Goldstein & Glick, 10). Also, this issue can be solved by ensuring
close monitoring and regulating the type of video that children play. Each of these solutions has
benefits and limitations. However, the combination of the two approaches can be more effective.
This research paper proposes the combination of Aggression Replacement Training (ART) and
Entertainment Software Rating Board (ESRB) as approaches for reducing videogame-related aggressive behavior among children.
Figure 1
Figure 1: The relationship between training and hostile interpretation
Retrieved from Hiemstra De Castro & Thomas (388).
Figure 2
Figure 2: Image of an aggressive videogame player.
Studies show that even non-violent video games can lead to aggressive behavior or reaction. For example, even though the candy bomb is a non-violent videogame, the gamer turns aggressive for losing in the videogame. This is the reason why videogame literacy is of great significance. According to Klimmt (2009), videogame literacy is an effective mechanism to protect
players from undesirable game effects. Players’ Aggression is a negative outcome of a videogame.
One of the most critical dimensions of training that is applicable not only to children but
also to all populations is an improvement of digital videogame literacy. Based on this dimension,
among the ways of reducing the aggression that is related to video games is by ensuring that people
have comprehensive digital videogame literacy. The literacy should entail how to control emotions
resulting from watching video games as well as avoiding videogame-related aggression. This form
of training should be availed to both children as well as adults. If parents receive this trained and
have digital videogame literacy, they are likely to help their children overcoming videogame-related aggression. Also, such parents are likely to assist the children in finding the best approach to
channel the excessive aggressive resulting after watching a video game. This form of literacy
should be encouraged in schools and other social gatherings. As evident in Figure 1 above, training
on digital videogame literacy would result in a decline in hostile interpretation.
Media literacy will play an important role in reducing videogame aggression. Exposing
players to videogame literacy will thus help to reduce the undesired consequences of the game
process. Besides, an increase in the skills of gaming will maximize enjoyment. When gamers
receive adequate training on all the elements of a videogame, they will be able to maximize their
effectiveness in the videogame. Through training, players can develop a self-regulated mechanism
which inhibits the impact of the videogame outcome on their cognitive process.
Background of the Evidence-Based Initiatives to Reduce Aggression
Aggression Replacement Training (ART) Technique
The ART technique has been in use in different fields. Counselors and teachers who deal
with aggressive adolescents understand that most individuals lack skills in negotiating differences
and to deal with accusations. Similarly, young people who constitute the largest population of
gamers cannot effectively respond to failure. According to Gorman et al. (310), more than 50% of
videogame players are teenagers and young adults. Only 27% of the videogame players are above
50 years. Socially desirable behaviors such as response to a failure in a videogame are vital skills
for all populations to control the problem effectively. The ART training initiative focuses on overcoming the behavior deficit and is a psychoeducational intervention. The effectiveness of the ART
process relies heavily on the social group leaders such as teachers, counselors, mentors, childcare
workers, and organization managers who relate directly to the most active videogame players.
The ART will act as a cognitive-behavioral intervention to help reduce violent and aggressive behavior. This training will have three elements, which include anger control training, moral
reasoning, as well as Social skills. The three components of ART will be utilized in the entire
training process. Regarding the social skills component, gamers will be training on the following
skills; making complaints, comprehending other people’s feelings, dealing with other people’s anger, preparing for a difficult conversation, keeping away from fights, dealing with group pressure,
handling accusations, and responding to failure (Amendola, Mark and Robert 56). Imparting these
skills to gamers will help them to deal with loss in a more courteous way instead of using violence.
Also, ART will entail anger control training. This will focus on helping the gamers to lose their
anti-social skills and replacing them with pro-social skills. During this training, the gamers will be
taught on how to deal with issues that get them angry, including losing in games. What is more,
during the process of anger control training, the gamers would be taught how to deal with anger
triggers, cues, and use reducers. The final step in the ART training will be moral reasoning. In
moral reasoning training, gummers will be taught to avoid three thinking errors, which include
Mislabeling, blaming other people, assuming the worst, and self-centered thinking. These thinking
errors are the main triggers to aggressive behavior, and thus avoiding them is akin to avoiding
aggressive
behavior
(Currie
et
al.,
581).
Entertainment Software Rating Board (ESRB)
ESRB helps in assigning age and content ratings to consumer video games. This approach
was established as a solution to controversial video games that contained excessive sexual or violent content. It assigns ratings to different video games on the basis of their content. In doing so,
it uses judgment that is similar to the motion picture rating systems in use in several countries. In
doing so, the board helps users to determine the game’s content and suitability. It also ensures that
video games are targeted to suitable audiences. This approach is suitable among children. Unlike
their adult counterparts who are likely to go through ART training and practice its provisions,
children are likely to be influenced negatively by video games and become aggressive regardless
of having gone through ART. Thus, there is a need for a system whereby the parents are able to
control the type of content that children are accessing. ESRB is the best solution.
The Advocacy Solution
Considering the limitations of both ESRB and ART, the best solution for reducing videogame related aggression is the combination of ESRB and ART. This is the best solution, especially
among the children. This is so because even though ESRB would help to ensure that children are
not accessing violent content, studies have also shown that children can turn aggressive even following watching games that are not violet. For example, some children are likely to become aggressive after losing in a game that does not contain violence content. Therefore, apart from regu-
lating and controlling the content that children are able to access, there is a need to ensure that are
competent in aggression replacement training. If the two approaches are combined, children will
be able to contain their aggressive even when they lose in a non-violent game. Hence, they would
not be able to harm either themselves or other people around them. Several studies have shown
that modeling the behaviors of individuals through the ART process help reduce Aggression.
When players increase knowledge on the social effect of videogame and acquire skills to deal with
adverse outcomes, their experience is better even when they lose. To deal with aggressiveness is
thus a process in which the gamers will acquire skills to mitigate frustration and others deal with
outcomes.
Protection of videogame players from Aggression is an important benefit of access to the
knowledge and skills which relate to gaming. Aggression and antisocial behaviors are the harmful
effect of a videogame. Through ART, gamers would be taught that losing in the videogame is
almost a specific outcome for particular individuals since one of the characters must lose. Helping
children and teenagers master the various game controls will have a long-term effect on Aggression (Buckingham, 21).
Even though ESRB can be an effective tool to ensure that children cannot access and play
violent while using a certain gaming console, parents should be concerned of what happens when
the children access violent content using other gaming console. In such cases, the reaction of the
child after watching the violent content will depend on their ART training. If such children have a
mastery of ART skills, they are likely to overcome aggressive behavior even after losing in such
games. Thus, a combination of both ESRB and ART training is an effective solution towards reducing videogame-related aggression.
Conclusion
As evident in the above literature, several scholars have linked videogames to aggressive
behavior. The aggressive behavior can lead to either self-harm or harming of the people close to
the gamers. A combination of ESRB and ART training was suggested as the most effective strategy
towards reducing videogame-related aggression among gamers. This is so because each of the
methods has a weakness. Thus, none of the two approaches is effective in reducing videogamerelated aggression. For example, ESRB only controls and regulates the video games that a child
can access and watch using a certain console. A parent may ensure that children are not able to
watch violent videogames when using certain gaming consoles. Also, with ESRB, parents can
ensure that children cannot access videogames that are rated as violent over the internet. However,
this approach does not fact consider that children can access violent video games using other consoles that are not regulated or controlled. Besides, ESRB does not put into consideration the fact
that children can access violent or aggressive videogames on unregulated internet platforms and
become more aggressive and harm themselves and people around them. To complement this problem, ART training is necessary. This form of training will ensure that even when children access
and play violent and aggressive videogames without their parents’ knowledge, they can control
their emotions and avoid being violent or even aggressive. Through ART training, gamers learn
how to control emotions resulting from the anxiety of playing violent or aggressive videogames.
Also, ART training helps gamers to learn different prosocial behaviors that can help them to value
and protect their relationships with other people, even during highly emotional and aggressive
events. Thus, the combination of the two approaches will help to complement each other and thus
offer an effective solution to video game-related aggression. The combination of both ART and
ESRB methods is a more proactive approach towards the reduction of aggressive behaviors among
videogame players. By employing the two methods, parents would be assured of the safety of their
children and those close to them even when they accidentally or intentionally access aggressive
and violent videogames without the knowledge of their parents. This is a more proactive approach
than when either ART or ESRB is used in preventing aggressive behavior videogame players.
Work Cited
Amendola, A. Mark, and Robert W. Oliver. “Aggression replacement training and childhood
trauma.” Reclaiming Children and Youth 22.2 (2013): 56.
Batchelor, James. “Global Games Market Value Rising To $134.9Bn In 2018.” GamesIndustry.biz. N.p., 2018. Web. 18 Aug. 2019.
Buckingham, David. “Defining digital literacy-What do young people need to know about digital
media?” Nordic Journal of Digital Literacy 10. Jubileumsnummer (2015): 21-35.
Currie, Matthew R., et al. “Aggression Replacement Training (ART) in Australia: A longitudinal
youth justice evaluation.” Psychiatry, Psychology and Law 19.4 (2012): 577-604.
Goldstein, Arnold P., and Barry Glick. “Aggression replacement training: Curriculum and
evaluation.” Simulation & Gaming 25.1 (1994): 9-26.
Gorman, Thomas E., Douglas A. Gentile, and C. Shawn Green. “Problem Gaming: A Short
Primer.” American Journal of Play 10.3 (2018): 309-327.
Greitemeyer, Tobias, and Dirk O. Mügge. “Video games do affect social outcomes: A meta-analytic review of the effects of violent and prosocial video game play.” Personality and social psychology bulletin 40.5 (2014): 578-589.
Greitemeyer, Tobias, and Silvia Osswald. “Effects of prosocial video games on prosocial behavior.” Journal of personality and social psychology 98.2 (2010): 211.
Hiemstra, Wieteke, Bram Orobio De Castro, and Sander Thomaes. “Reducing Aggressive
Children’s Hostile Attributions: A Cognitive Bias Modification Procedure.” Cognitive
Therapy and Research 43.2 (2019): 387-398.
Klimmt, Christoph. “Key dimensions of contemporary video game literacy: Towards a normative
model of the competent digital gamer.” Eludamos. Journal for Computer Game
Culture3.1 (2009): 23-31.

Purchase answer to see full
attachment