Rhetorical Analysis Template: Fill & Download for Free

It's possible I'm missing something, but I've never found the speech to be deeply complex or layered. Hamlet is in a horrible situation, and he's pondering whether to go on living (to be) or to kill himself (not to be).It's worth remembering that he lives in a world in which there's definitely life after death (with reference to the ghost), and it's not necessarily a good life. So though killing himself would end his Earthly troubles, it might yank him out of the frying pan and plop him into the fire.For in that sleep of death, what dreams may come,When we have shuffled off this mortal coil,Must give us pause.I love the speech, and I'm not saying it's un-profound. Rather, I am saying it's profundity lies in its simplicity: Hamlet is clearly and simply stating a great human dilemma. Anyone who has every faced an unbearable life has asked himself, "Should I live or should I die," and there are no easy answers.UPDATE: Here's an excelled technical analysis of the speech. http://poemshape.wordpress.com/2009/01/25/the-annotated-to-be-or-not-to-be/I'll add that people who dislike the play often remark that Hamlet takes forever to act -- that he complains instead of taking action. This speech explains why: he finds the situation he's in so horrible that he'd rather kill himself than act. And the only thing that's stopping him is fear of the afterlife. Which means that his decision, at the end of the speech, to keep on living, is what prompts him to take action. That's why this speech is so pivotal in the play.(The afterlife is hugely important in the play. At one point, Hamlet almost kills Claudius, but he can't, because Claudius is praying at the time. Hamlet doesn't want to kill him, only to have him got to heaven!)If someone doesn't like the play, that might mean the actor playing Hamlet hasn't made it clear what a corner he's in. Or, perhaps, for some people, there's no worldly trouble so horrible that they'd contemplate killing themselves rather than working to fix the problem. Naturally, such people will be unable to relate to Hamlet.There might be still others who can relate, but who'd rather not experience that particular human problem in an entertainment.---Yet another layer to the speech is to think of it as a piece of classical rhetoric. Like all Elizabethan schoolchildren, Shakespeare had to learn rhetorical devices (figures of speech) in school. These are basically templates for effective speeches, and they show up all over his plays. One of the most common is called "Thesis, Antithesis" (or "Thesis, Antithesis, Synthesis"), which is about comparing opposite ideas:"Should I stay or should I go?""Give me liberty or give me death."This speech contains a terse thesis-antithesis in the first line: to be (thesis) or not to be (antithesis) and the rest of the speech fleshes out those two ideas.An Elizabethan audience (at least the educated part of it) would have been able to spot the rhetorical device in the speech. It would have been, to them, almost like a particular kind of song -- as if Hamlet had suddenly launched into a rock-and-roll song or a jazz standard."To be or not to be" is kind of the thesis-antithesis that trumps all other speeches of that form. What two ideas are more in opposition than live vs. die?

Is quite simple I think to destroy an argument like this by moving away from bigotted rhetoric and focussing on the logic of what thet’re saying which is just blatant nonsense.You can copy and paste the template response below for future use if that helps as these sorts of statements will no doubt crop up in some other form on Quora.The example you gave says that ALL black people…..do whatever.That means that 100% of [blacks or insert another ethnic group] do [insert nonsense argument here ] 100% of the time.Any person with even minimal education and intelligence would be able to work out that saying 100% of people do something 100% of the time is statistical nonsense, with the exception of say death and taxes. And even taxes is debatable.It is a laughable statement at best and if genuinely believed seriously pitiable.If you still insist on this being true then present your FACTS or go back to High School to better understand statistical analysis or get off Quora* until you can present valid arguments for genuine debate.*The ‘get off Quora’ point is optional.Use freely to help to crush stupid, racist, groundless statements.

There is a reason why i have thrived on Quora, it is because despite being a member of parliament from a party, i have tried to be as apolitical as possible. Thus my answers have always been around knowledge and have never evolved around turning this great intellectual platform into a mud pit of politics. I knew that i had to say something on the Padmavati issue, but i took the higher stand of refraining from adding to the political rhetoric till i had a objective and scientific analysis of the same.After forming the same, I shot across the article to our Indian media but as it goes, the media picks up articles that can titillate the viewership and not educate them with a rationale take on a subject so it never got printed on any news paper. I would like to share that article with you and would request you to share this as much as possible among your network, doing such shall set a precedent and a template for public led communication and not agency led communication.Here goes the article:Padmavat: Historical Accuracy or Creative Liberty?What India should learn from the agitation against the Film Padmavat?In the recent times, an issue regarding cinematic liberty and historical accuracy became the talking point for the argumentative Indians both on news channels and on the social media. The entire north India witnessed scenes of macabre, the judiciary stepped in and the elected representatives were accused by the public of staying silent over the topic. Of the few who talked, none could put forward a balanced point of view. The film Padmavat entered into our collective consciousness as a film that divided India in its narration but united caste groups based on history.To understand the controversy around the film Padmavat, we need to first take a hard look at the functioning of the democracy. Democracy, an experiment in Governance that started in Greece is today a major pivot for world peace and harmony. But on clinically analyzing the very essence of democracy, one shall find that it stands on the tripod of Debate, Dependence and Diversity. Combined together, they are the gears on which a democratic society moves forward. The first aspect i.e. Debate is the base on which dissent is fostered, but on close observation from the angle of behavioral sciences, we find out that it is severely crippled by two cognitive biases; Motivation Bias and Conformation Bias. Both the biases state that people debate with an agenda in their mind, thus never can an impartial debate take place and when a person is presented with facts that make their points invalid, rather than accept he conforms more strongly to his initial point of view.If you want to understand the futility of a debate, try debating with a person who believes that the earth is flat. Far from accepting defeat they will go and cherry pick pseudo-research that makes them strongly conform to their initial belief. Thus, if debate alone is futile in the maintenance of a system, then what makes sanity prevail over utter chaos? The answer is diversity and dependence. Democracy is the only societal innovation that gives a legal platform for many special interest groups to emerge, these groups make sure that other groups don’t infringe into their belief system. Thus due to democratic system, stakeholders despite having to debate and dissent, have to make sure that mutual respect is maintained in the society. Between the buffer zone of friction and dissent, between chaos and order, democracy works its magic on a society.Every group has to be formed on basis of certain key beliefs or absolute truths. Absolute truth lies in the domain of philosophy, it is a concept that every group aims to achieve. In Hinduism, it is Advaita, for BJP it is the concept of Integral Humanism and for science it is the “God Equation” or string theory, etc., to reach absolute truth is the aspiration of every group. But because absolute truth is so difficult to achieve, groups are formed on certain key beliefs or some key principles. The key beliefs that we have mentioned above roots back to the historical context from which they have emerged, the DNA of their existence. We should be grateful to our non violent struggle of independence which gave us the right DNA from which this country’s existential key beliefs of secularism, justice, integrity, tolerance, etc., emerged. The responsibility of a court is to maintain those principles without bias. For politics it is however different, while court doesn’t have to directly deal with groups, a leader has to listen to the masses. A transformative leader has one magic formula, he brings all groups in the democratic system under one key belief, one single belief that no group has any contention against. Our Prime Minister did just that with his focus on development, Sabka Saath Sabka Vikas, he brought various groups and community under one theme, one theme that no one has any contention against and one theme that binds various groups together.Thus, now after having set the motion for a dialogue about the interplay between democracy and history, we should look at the controversy around the film on Queen Padmavati in new light. A group and specifically a warrior clan like Rajput, Maratha or Sikh’s belief system has emerged from the rich and sagacious history that he/she has inherited from their valiant forefathers. The key belief system of a Rajput group is Valor, Honor and Sacrifice. A Rajput grows up on the story of the great Maharana Pratap having to resort to eating rotis made out of grass while fighting the Mughals, The supreme sacrifice of Panna Dhai who saved her prince by putting her own son under the assaulter’s sword or the supreme jauhar of Rani Padmavati to safeguard her honor from the marauding army of Khilji. Similarly, a child from the Maratha clan hears about the extreme defiance of Sambhaji even while having to suffer immense brutality at the hands of Aurangzeb. A Sikh’s eye is moistened at the mention of the torture of the tenth Guru, Guru Gobind Singh. Thus, like a Maratha and a Sikh, a Rajput who has been brought up on these stories feels an immense sense of gratitude and pride towards their illustrious forefathers and when a group has in the past sacrificed so much to maintain its dignity and existence, the stakes are very high for the community leaders and the special interest groups to protect and safeguard its honors, to make sure that not a single part of their DNA is tweaked. Thus, I believe that the agitation against the recent film is the collective angst that the Rajput society showed towards the marginalization of its own history. It can also be seen as an attempt to hold on to the remnants of a rich culture that has been colored with sacrifice and where wars have been fought mostly on the basis of honor. The community feared that narration of the events if colored even by the slightest brush of creative liberty or spicing up of the historical realities might sully the reality of Rajput glory and push it towards oblivion in our collective memory. This is not only true with Rajputs but also is true for warrior clans around India like the Marathas and Sikhs, where supreme sacrifice forms the basis of their DNA.The agitation although done in a manner that doesn’t befit a Rajput is an example of how if we don’t strengthen, revisit and cherish the history and legacy of each and every group inside our democratic system on an apolitical platform periodically, angst shall start to form. A small incident can act as a catalyst that will ultimately lead to communities trying to ascertain their history under the name of preservation of their culture, their Aan, Ban, Shan. It a clarion call for people inside Rajput community itself to think of what precedence that they are setting up, the community should now sit back and think on whether in the name of fighting to preserve their DNA, Are we not sullying the DNA that our future generations will inherit? And once the realization dawns over the community that undemocratic protests and unacceptable demands goes against the constitutional framework of this land, I am sure that better sense shall prevail.