No parent ever likes to hear their child use profanity, and no parent appreciates their child’s viewership of expletive-filled entertainment. I have no sort of research or survey to back this claim up with facts, but I do believe it is reasonable to make the logical leap that if you ask one hundred parents with children between the ages of eight and ten if they appreciate the existence of profanity in their child’s life, all one hundred parents will answer with an emphatic “no!” The ethical issue being presented with this commonsensical parenting stance is what the child should and should not be exposed to through the entertainment industry. The boundaries of this issue are pushed on a daily basis, with the heart of the progression coming from the genre of satirical comedy. Perhaps the most controversial use of modern satire is that used by the comedy duo of Trey Parker and Matt Stone, who have had full creative control over all twenty two seasons of the animated series South Park. In 1999, roughly two years after the show’s original debut, Parker and Stone released a feature-length movie titled South Park: Bigger, Longer, and Uncut. The two used the movie as a platform to discuss the ongoing issues of censorship, more specifically the corruption of the current generation of children and the idea that it is directly correlated to lack of proper censoring of profanity in the entertainment industry. Parker and Stone have always seen mixed opinions from the general public ranging from being heralded as comedic geniuses to being given the title of insensitive bigots, but the fact of the matter is that the formula that they use to create each episode of the show is meant to create this discussion of widely varying opinions. Applying this practice to an 80 minute movie to be shown in theaters is bound to outrage a hefty amount of overbearing parents, even with the movie being given an R-rating meant to at least attempt to control the age of the crowd that is able to see it.
The movie starts off with Parker and Stone’s standard foundation of portraying itself to be an innocent cartoon about kids in suburban Denver mountain town. The opening scene portrays main characters Stan Marsh, Eric Cartman, Kyle Broflovski, and Kenny McCormick leading the whole town in a choreographed musical number called “Mountain Town,” as they make their way to the movie theater to see the newest movie of the fictional cartoon comedy duo of Terrance and Phillip called “Asses of Fire.” The cheerfully innocent nature of the movie comes to a screeching halt when the boys attempt to purchase tickets to the movie, but are denied because they are not old enough to buy admission to an R-rated film. The scene continues with Parker and Stone highlighting the first issue of censorship when the boys immediately set out to find a homeless man to purchase their tickets for them in exchange for ten dollars. This plan of action succeeds and the boys are admitted to the film after some light questioning from the cashier of the ticket booth, shining light on one of the main flaws of the rating system currently in place. Parker and Stone masterfully use their movie to satirize the problem that the movie itself faced upon release. The in-your face nature of the comedic development in this film proves that much like many aspects of life in America, regardless of how old someone may be, anyone with half a brain and ten extra dollars can get their hands on anything they want regardless of the legal restrictions that may be in place.

The South Park animated film series, written by Trey Parker and Matt Stone, has always found itself at the forefront of issues regarding controversial content airing on television. This is due to the fact that the satirical style that the writers choose to impose prevalently throughout each episode is to outlandishly criticize both parties of literally any social issue, regardless of how sensitive the topic may be; however, the reason the show has become such an iconic series is the masterful craftsmanship and intricacies that become evident as each installment of the series develops. The fact that this comedy duo was allowed to develop a feature length movie should be considered in mankind’s greatest accomplishment. To me, the writers quite literally redefine the bounds of poetry by establishing the precedent that if done correctly, strategic placement of childish racial slurs and many, many other profanities can be put together to create some of the most groundbreakingly poetic satire that the entertainment industry has to offer. In South Park: Bigger, Longer, and Uncut, the main issue being proposed is the idea that the entertainment industry is being used as a scapegoat to blame the corruption of children around the country.

This is a compelling issue to me because I believe that everyone has inherent free will to believe what they want to believe, but this can be taken to a dangerous extreme when applied to issues of such a subjective nature. Freedom of speech is being exercised to its maximum potential as the writers shine light on the types of supporters that are on each sside of the issue. This movie highlights Sheila Broflowski’s attempts to end profanity on television after her son Kyle manages to sneak into the fictional premiere of the new movie, “Terrance and Phillip, Asses of Fire,” which is an R-rated movie. Sheila’s effort that she gives to her cause leads to a rapid spiral into legitimate political turmoil between the United States and Canada. Their algorithm of balancing the profanity and legitimate facts continues to push the boundaries of how far satire can truly go without losing the initial message behind the outlandish storylines, and their first and only feature-length movie of the franchise is no exception. The fact that the four young boys sneaking into an R-rated movie leads to the Canadian-American war is not exactly a short jump from point A to point B. The writers truly show how ridiculous the proposed issue is by just how ridiculous the scenario that they create to explain it is.

In terms of what I know on this issue, it mostly comes from what I gained from critical analysis of the plotline of this movie. I see two sides of an issue, with one side being the kids who are “victims” of this corruption that supposedly stems from; on the other side, we have the parents who will stop at nothing to make sure that their kids’ ears are protected from the “darkness” that is taking over the entertainment industry. As per usual in the tendencies that this franchise takes, the children who are being put through these ridiculous measure, which the parents believe are in their best interest, are the ones that have the most sound logic in how the issue should be handled. Instead of attacking the entertainment industry as a whole, parents should educate their kids on what is right and wrong.

When it comes to the concept of civil rights, the widely agreed upon gold standard works of the literature on the topic are Henry David Thoreau’s “Civil Disobedience,” as well as Dr. Martin Luther King’s “Letter from Birmingham Jail.” While these two works were written over a full century apart from each other, both writers share the common theme in their work of appealing to the reader’s sense of logic to communicate their message. King takes on a much more literal method of proving his own logic throughout his writing, targeting the clergymen that the letter was addressed to by raising questions about their faith. Thoreau, however, chooses to establish his credibility on the subject through the use of a variety of hypothetical examples. He does so in order to gain credibility in the eyes of the audience by actively engaging the reader’s ability to apply and compare parallels from the examples that he uses. Even though the methods used by each author respectively differ in a variety of ways, both King and Thoreau compellingly deliver their greatly controversial messages of change with authority and rationality.

Step One of Refutation Essay

David McCullough presented the commencement speech for Wellesley High School in June of 2012. Instead of veering towards the standard structure of a commencement speech with a main focus on how anything is achievable if you follow your dreams, McCullough approaches his time to speak from a different angle. He grabs the audience’s attention by boldly claiming that nobody is special, and that nothing that you can do could possibly make you stand out from the 7 billion other people just like you; however, digging deeper into this notorious tagline for the theme of the speech will provide the audience with some truly valuable life advice, but the value comes with understanding the deeper context of McCullough’s words. The main point of emphasis that he makes to these young, impressionable high school graduates is that the realization that you are not special comes packaged with the ability to truly be happy with where you are in life.

I am arguing against his idea that if every single person on the planet is special then nobody is special. I personally believe in the clichéd saying that everyone is special in their own way. He argues that the value of the word, “special,” diminishes the more the audience that the word is used to describe expands. He argues that if every single person in the human population of this planet is special in their own way, then you run into a paradoxical ultimatum of the core definition of the word; more simply, he believes that the proper context of the word applies to a select few. This exact reasoning of believing that nobody is special is exactly what I am choosing to arguing against.

McCullough claims that if all people on this planet are special in some way, then nobody at all is special to begin with because the definition of special has implied selectivity. I question this mindset because in McCullough’s dissection of the word special, I do not believe that he fully considered what happens when you focus more on the word selectivity. Every aspect of what makes a person who he or she is was selected by the expansive matrix that is the gene pool. This infinite possibility of creation raises my main point. In my eyes, simply being a sentient being on this planet makes you special because you’re existing in place of the unending possibilities of who you could have been instead.

Throughout my entire existence on this beautiful planet thus far, I have always had the uncontrollable urge to give my opinion on any topic that could be up for debate at a given moment. I cannot tell you how many times I have been told by my parents that I come off as a know-it-all, or that I do not always have to go out of my way to prove people wrong. To me, however, if I feel like I have a more well thought out opinion on an issue being discussed, I am doing everyone a disservice not expressing what I have to say. The last argument that I can remember participating in was with my parents regarding the over-the-top tweets that our president sends out very regularly. I was discussing the wealthy man that owns and runs Coachella Music Festival having very closed-minded political views and expressing such views on social media, which I found extremely disappointing due to my deep love for the culture that music festivals have created. This is when my mother interrupted to tell me that I should not judge a person’s character based on what he or she says on social media. I immediately fired back by asking her if she judges Trump’s character based on his ridiculous tweets. She said she does and immediately admitted defeat in the debate.

While I do feel like I win most arguments that I throw myself into, I truly believe that there is no better feeling than when I come out as the absolute acknowledged winner. I would definitely agree that the story above is rather typical of my argumentative style. One of my go-to strategies for when I am trying to prove a point to someone is taking the situation that I am trying to explain and finding a parallel that the person or people that I am arguing with would understand and relate with, as well as put the point that I am trying to make into perspective to strengthen my argument. From there if the other side is still reluctant to agree that I am right about the topic, then I move to my next strategy, which is basically list as many facts as possible that I can think of to support my argument. Truth be told, the first strategy tends to be remarkably effective so I do not normally have to move on to the backup plan.

When it comes to my style of arguing, I call upon the skills that I learned in the different English classes in high school, mainly in my senior year English IV class. My teacher really put a focus on teaching us how to clearly and properly explain our thoughts, even when you do not entirely know what you are talking about. Another aspect of my life that I believe has gone on to shape the way I argue is my love for going unnecessarily deep into researching various topics. The catch to this part of me is that I really only take interest in researching topics that actually engage my interest. This definitely goes the completely opposite direction when it comes to topics that I do not particularly find a lot of interest in. This has been a serious anchor to my success academically throughout basically my entire life, mostly when the task of reading an assigned novel or article is given to me. The final main influence on the way I communicate points in an argument is the countless mentally tasking life experiences that I have gotten myself into, specifically the ridiculously crowded timeline of events that have taken place ever since I graduated from high school less than two years ago. Without going into any real specifics on what has happened to me, these life events have truly taught me never to fully accept anything as true and to always question everything.

I am personally a huge fan of my style of arguing, mostly because of the high success rate that I have found in using it. One aspect that I would definitely change about my methods would be to simply add more depth to my general strategy. Sometimes, if I do not know enough about the topic that I am trying to express an opinion on, I freeze up if my first move of providing a thought-provoking example to draw a relatable parallel proves to be ineffective, which usually happens when the other side tends to be more stubborn than the average person. A way that I have thought of where I could be able to strengthen my argumentative style is by being able to answer questions that are asked to me from the other side of a debate, instead of simply firing back at the question at hand with another question to divert attention away from the fact that I do not entirely know the answer. Overall, I do believe that I am a strong opponent in an argument regardless of the topic, but I also acknowledge that I definitely have room for improvement.

As someone who feels like I have a lot to say and not enough time to say what I want to say, I too dislike not being listened to when I have something that I feel is very important to say. I dislike putting in the effort in order to organize the thoughts that I have in a way that would make sense in an explanation to other people only to be met with general lack of interest. I dislike the feeling of frustration I get when I am trying to address something that needs to be addressed but my audience is just not hearing me, as if they have something more important to discuss.

Thanks for joining me!

Good company in a journey makes the way seem shorter. — Izaak Walton