Directions: Watch the video (if you have trouble accessing the video from Blogger, go directly to YouTube address: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CSO_d1svtfU).
What is the main argument of the video? How does the introduction of the video support this argument? What about the main support (what types of main support are there?)? What would make the middle part more convincing, if you feel it does not effectively support the main argument? How does the conclusion of the video work to wrap up the whole argument?
Note: If you wish to comment on the video, please perform the assignment first, and then comment.
(You might think that listening to parts of this video is torturous, but push through).
Due before class on Thurs. Feb. 6th.
Reply to a classmate: Find a classmate you can politely disagree with, and comment on his/her blog.
Note: Disagree with what you think your classmate misdiagnosed or mislabeled as part of the argument, especially the evidence. If you wish to disagree with his/her opinion, do so, but please perform the assigned reply first.
Stay helpful and professional!
Reply to classmate due before class on Tuesday, Feb. 11th.
1. The main argument is the long lasting affects of loud noise and interrogation can have over time in a hostile environment.
ReplyDelete2. The introduction supports scientifically of how much and how long the human ear can stand at a certain decibel.
3. The middle of the video draws out more of a mental image of where he was so it makes the rest of the argument feel more real.
4. The conclusion wrapped it up by stating the anguish of those two years changed the last 20 years.
Adam,
DeleteYour conclusion for what the man is talking about is correct, but I believe you may have misinterpreted what the speaker and the liquid were demonstrating. So therefore, you based what you thought the conclusion was only on the man speaking about what had happened to him and did not mention the speaker with liquid.
1. The main argument is how different decibels of sounds have certain effects on humans, especially in captive situations.
ReplyDelete2. The introduction supports the argument by scientific evidence of what decibel levels humans can and cannot listen to before it becomes painful.
3. The main support is given by the man speaking about his captivity. He is describing details of what he went through, and he makes it so you can picture what he went through. The man talks about the music that was played at how loud it was. Also, the scientific evidence stating that modest speakers played loudly causes distortion which becomes more annoying than the music itself.
4. In the conclusion the man speaks about how things were so different once released from captivity. Also, the speaker with liquid shows what can happen to something when different decibels of sound are being played.
1. The main argument of the video is that prolonged use of sound as a tactic for interrogation can have long lasting effects on those subjected to it.
ReplyDelete2. The introduction of the video supports this argument with facts concerning human hearing, sound, and decibels.
3. The main support includes intervals of atrocious noises played to create a sense of understanding for the audience. The obnoxious sounds in the video allow the audience to better relate to the prisoners of Guantanamo Bay by experiencing a level of torture themselves. The story from the former prisoner about his time in Guantanamo provides evidence to the main argument.
4. The conclusion blends in with the main support because it involves more firsthand knowledge of interrogation tactics in Guantanamo as well as more annoying sounds/music. It wraps up the argument with the former prisoner explaining that 2 years of imprisonment in Guantanamo effectively diminished simple skills such as walking, and human interaction.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteI think it's great that we both had very similar interpretations.Glad we were both able to meet on the page.
DeleteI agree with your main argument to a degree. The main point does argue the affect of the use of sound but not argue the use of sound as an interrogation tactic. Also I think your conclusion is accurate but not fully addressed. The liquid on the speaker is also part of the conclusion because it leaves us with a visual of the affect sound has on the ear which of cousre only solidifies the foundation of the main argument.
DeleteThe main argument is the damages caused by sound and the effects it can have during an interrogation. The introduction supports the argument by supplying legitimate facts about what the human ear can withstand and the effects these sounds have on a person. The main support would be the man who used to be a captive that endured this form of interrogation. Also, the various sounds and noise levels that are heard throughout the video help support the main argument. The conclusion fits well because it gives a prime example of the effects noises and sounds can have on a person over a prolonged period of time. It allows the facts to be more relatable, in a sense it humanizes the facts.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you except for the fact that is was not just sound that they used to torture him; it was also freezing conditions inside the room and being forced into a unnatural posture for so long.
Delete1.The main argument of this video is how the use of sound can affect different effects on humans in different situations.
ReplyDelete2. The introduction supports the argument by giving facts and evidence about the human ear and what sounds it can stand and essentially the effects it creates.
3. The main support is the man conversing about his experience is prison at Guantanamo Bay and the tortures that the prisoners had gone through. As well as having different sounds throughout the video is supporting of the argument.
4.The conclusion goes along with the video because it samples many different noises and sounds and effects it can have on a person throughout long periods of time. It makes the viewer to relate more to the producer.
1. Inhumane physical and mental torture given to inmates at Guantanamo Bay
ReplyDelete2. The video shows detailed images of how the interrogation methods were applied.
3. The source was a former inmate the personality explained the torture methods used on him and others.
4. Direct affect on viewer by demonstration
5. The clay bouncing on the speakers represents mental distortion and/mental collapse. The clay lying flat at the end symbolizes sanity once again regained.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteYour interpretation of the conclusion is spot on; I hadn't fully understood it until I read your commentary. However, you did not mention anything about the use of sound as a tactic for interrogation or the effects of dangerously high decibels. Do you think it is not important?
DeleteHonestly, I just forgot. I totally agree with you though. Thanks.
Delete1. The main argument of the video was how sound can be used in certain scenarios to cause harm to a victim.
ReplyDelete2. The intro supports the argument by showing how different ranges of sound can be harmful to people.
3. The main supports to this argument were the introduction voice-over telling facts about sound and the subject talking from experience of how sound was used in interrogations and the effects it had on him.
4. The middle section of the video could have used less visualizations of sound. Visualizations felt as if they were mostly used as time fillers rather than a source of information. Also, there was a lot of unnecessary information coming from the subject explaining his experience. Incorporating more human subjects to familiarize the audience would have been of greater help, in understanding the harms of sound.
5. The conclusion shows a visual of how the effect “clipping” of a speaker can create a distortion in sound that can be unpleasant; concluding that any sound, unpleasant or not, in long periods of time can be used to harm a victim.
I think the visualization gives you perceptive on how sound effects other things and it can distort. The blob dancing around at the end in a pan shows how just a little sound can fully distort the liquid. Hence giving a comparison between the liquid and the mind.
DeleteI disagreed with number 5
Delete1. The main argument is the interrogation technique(by sound) to weaken a prisoner is in fact inhumane or torture.
ReplyDelete2. The intro support by explaining the hearing range of the ear , sound decimals, and how loudness and time effect the ear
3. The argument is supported by the main detailing his experience at Guantanamo Bay as a prisoner
4.I was pretty convinced but to make it more convincing you could interview a guard, more prisoners, provide pictures or video recording an actual session
5. The conclusion wraps up the video because it gives us a visual of the stress sound can have on the ear
1. The main argument of the video is to object to the use of sound as torture or a weapon.
ReplyDelete2. The main argument is supported by the explanation of what effect sounds have on people and how people can be hurt by sound regardless of the decibel level it is at.
3. The argument is supported by the first person account of treatment at Guantanamo Bay that is interspersed throughout the video.
4. I felt that the description of the conditions of Guantanamo Bay in the middle of the video effectively supported the argument.
5. The conclusion of the video was wrapped up by the description of what it was like to return home after going through two and half years at Guantanamo Bay and having to readjust back to a normal life.
I would have to disagree with number four, I believe that the descriptions should have been a little more detailed, not very much information was given in my opinion, but your interpretation is very well understood!
DeleteI think you interpreted the video well but I would have to disagree with your conclusion. You make a good point but, I thought it was more about the damages caused by the torture and not so much the captive's adjustment into the "norm".
Delete1.The main argument in this video is how sound can is used for physical and mental torture, while being interrogated.
ReplyDelete2. The introduction gives you some information on how the ear is effected by noise and/or sound and gives facts about the ear.
3. The main point is the detainee talking about the things that were done to him. He describes in some detail the things he was exposed to in order to get information.
The man is one type of support, the facts on what decibels can injure an individual.
4. The middle part of the interview would be more convincing if he were to give specific details, also if their were corroborating detainee's or anyone who witnessed the things that were going on.
5. The video is wrapped up by concluding that even 2 years of isolation can have a very long lasting affect on the psyche.
I definitely agree with the main argument you said, but I did disagree with how you wrapped up you conclusion is just the 2 years, but everything else that happened as well. Overall though, I think you totally nailed it.
Delete1. The main argument in this video is to show how sound is used for torture during interrogation.
ReplyDelete2. The main argument is supported and proven by the effect that different sounds have on the ear based on the decibel level.
3.The main support is a man discussing the torture that he and other inmates endured during their imprisonment in Guantanamo Bay. He goes in to so much detail that at some point during the video you can visualize what he went through. He explained how loud the music would be played causing distortion.
4. I was somewhat convinced by the descriptions given in the middle of the interview, more interviews by different witnesses would have convinced me one hundred percent.
5. The conclusion ties the entire video together by proving that different sounds can cause permanent damage to the ear.
1.) The main argument in the video is to show how during an interrogation, different sounds can have not just a mental effect but a physical one as well.
ReplyDelete2.) The main argument is supported by the video when it explain the effect sounds have on people, and what we can stand and not stand.
3.) The main support is the man discussing the torture at Guantanamo Bay.
4.) I think that the clear description of the torture at Guantanamo during the interview is the most convincing.
5.)The conclusion bring everything together by proving different sounds do cause permanent ear damage.
I agree that different sounds can cause permanent ear damage, however, I don't believe that the conclusion of the video was that specific. What I got from the conclusion was that sounds could affect a person physically and mentally if exposed for long periods of time. Besides that I thought you did great.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete