The issue up for discussion is weather the futuristic 3-D printers will have a big impact on the world. In the opinion of Ebeling, in his article, "With 3-D Printers Comes the Possibility of Medical Miracles", his argument indicates the fact that 3-D printers can help the medical world advance care and help those in need. The writer mainly supports his claim through emotional, logical, and ethical appeal. He also uses strong diction to dictate his point across more clearly. The writer's direct purpose is to encourage more and more people, or countries to use 3-D printers, especially in medical technology, in order to help all those in need who do not have a voice. The intended audience is those in poor countries, who are in desperate need of technology to help their country progress, and also governments to adopt this new technology into daily life. Winning points of this article include its strong emotional appeal such as the story of the Sudanese boy whose "arms were blown off in the war" can now feed himself thanks to 3-D printers. He also uses ethical appeal to include himself in the general position as he says "we are exploring". He is lacking in his logical appeal because he has next to no statistics, and his article could've used more stronger persuasion to really sway his readers. The article ended abruptly although it did have a powerful closing statement. On the other hand, Heemsbergen, in his article titles "Be Careful What You Wish For" warns the proponents of the 3-D printers about the consequences it might have on the economy. The writer mainly supports his argument by using rhetorical questions, evidences of past failures, and logical appeals. The writer's purpose is to discourage the widespread phenomena of 3-D printers in order to save the environment from any more abuse. The intended audience is all those who believe this new technology will benefit this earth. This article excels in the area of building its argument. From the very beginning the rhetorical question "Why do we think 3-D printing will be different?" is asked in junction with our past failures. This instantly makes his readers rethink their point of view. He also uses many examples in history that have failed, such as "desktop publishing". The author even includes the counter-argument, but correctly defeats it. This article is lacking a stronger emotional appeal, and also ethical appeal.
While both authors prepare a convincing argument, Ebeling wins the fight. His use of powerful emotion evoking strategy will convince even the coldest of hearts to support this new technology. He uses beautiful emotional appeal of a boy "being able to eat" thanks to the technology of the printers. He also uses logic such as the fact that 3-D printers can be found "for a couple hundred dollars" which makes medical technology available to so many people around the world. He almost personifies the printer as a gift from the heavens above to save hundred of lives. He even includes that with this technology, people do not have to rely on governments to give them medical technology. His style is very short, and to the point, so that even the dumb can understand his message. Printers can be life changing. If that wasn't incentive enough he goes on to say that humans can print whatever they want also, deleting the "middleman", society is all to familiar with. His use of such beautiful appeals and his genuine concern for the well-being of others overpowers the other article. Although the other author does make some valid points, the environmental can be solved easily if humans put their minds to it. Environmental waste is no where near as precious as the life of a little Sudanese boy.
In my opinion, I agree with the points made by Ebeling. Technology is here to help man advance and conquer the world. If these printers can make prosthetic arms for little boys in third-world countries then these printers should be able to them. Although I concede with Heemsbergen, that every time humans have advanced into the ages, we have hurt the environment, I disagree with the fact that this should be the reason why we do not use 3-D printers. As previously stated, if humanity tries to help keep the environment clean, and impose restriction on these printers, then it should be allowed. Human beings need to take care of each other. I agree with the view of Ebeling, also when he states humans can do anything now. 3-D printers provide a new sense of freedom for us to really see our dreams in person. In school, with my brother's engineering class the use of 3-D printers amazes students, encouraging them to think of ways they can use such technology to help others, or improve upon it, It is undeniable that the environment will not suffer due to such advancements. All we do have to do is put mind over matter. If we can accomplish 3-D printers we can accomplish anything.
While both authors prepare a convincing argument, Ebeling wins the fight. His use of powerful emotion evoking strategy will convince even the coldest of hearts to support this new technology. He uses beautiful emotional appeal of a boy "being able to eat" thanks to the technology of the printers. He also uses logic such as the fact that 3-D printers can be found "for a couple hundred dollars" which makes medical technology available to so many people around the world. He almost personifies the printer as a gift from the heavens above to save hundred of lives. He even includes that with this technology, people do not have to rely on governments to give them medical technology. His style is very short, and to the point, so that even the dumb can understand his message. Printers can be life changing. If that wasn't incentive enough he goes on to say that humans can print whatever they want also, deleting the "middleman", society is all to familiar with. His use of such beautiful appeals and his genuine concern for the well-being of others overpowers the other article. Although the other author does make some valid points, the environmental can be solved easily if humans put their minds to it. Environmental waste is no where near as precious as the life of a little Sudanese boy.
In my opinion, I agree with the points made by Ebeling. Technology is here to help man advance and conquer the world. If these printers can make prosthetic arms for little boys in third-world countries then these printers should be able to them. Although I concede with Heemsbergen, that every time humans have advanced into the ages, we have hurt the environment, I disagree with the fact that this should be the reason why we do not use 3-D printers. As previously stated, if humanity tries to help keep the environment clean, and impose restriction on these printers, then it should be allowed. Human beings need to take care of each other. I agree with the view of Ebeling, also when he states humans can do anything now. 3-D printers provide a new sense of freedom for us to really see our dreams in person. In school, with my brother's engineering class the use of 3-D printers amazes students, encouraging them to think of ways they can use such technology to help others, or improve upon it, It is undeniable that the environment will not suffer due to such advancements. All we do have to do is put mind over matter. If we can accomplish 3-D printers we can accomplish anything.