Recent orders
Responses
Student’s name
Professor
Course
Date
Responses
Response one
I agree with you that Mongols were barbaric in their nature of the order. How they fought puts them directly into the category of barbaric people. This is true because of their relentless killings and torturing of women to get evidence from them. They made sure that all the women who were in their custody got so much tortured just for the sake of getting evidence from them. The survivor’s account also talks about how he wanted to hide within the building but got lucky to decide to go and hide in the bush where they could not get him. Therefore it is true that Mongols were barbaric since after two days he came back and found out that they had done so much evil, killed so many people, and destroyed the place.
Response two
It is true that Mongols were organized and were religious. Some of these societal structures were such that women were not allowed to drink and that they could mourn their dead. However, they were also barbaric and I agree with you that their manner of being barbaric was an organized one as they could do their things in order. When it comes to war they were known to be ruthless and fought to their last. However, as you have stated war does not fully define a people and therefore their life outside war is very visible and here we know that they were a society of people who had their belief system and were organized even though they were brutal and barbaric.
Redirect examination
Student’s name
Professor
Course
Date
Redirect examination
Redirect examination is commonly used in the American court system. It is one of the most accurate ways to make sure that the total truth about a particular event is brought to the surface and the results of the cross-examination are cleared of any lack of clarity. Therefore this is an essential aspect of the law. Even though most witnesses do not like it, it comes out clearly to the law enforcers if a person made a mistake and lied. Redirect examination can be followed immediately by cross-examination (Lubet, 109). Therefore it can be generally termed to response to the cross-examination and provide clarity of the question at hand. The benefits of allowing a party who calls a witness to the court to have a redirect examination of the witness are varied. First of all, the party will ask all the questions that were not asked during the cross-examination (Lubet, 187). This, therefore, serves to make the information provided as straightforward as possible. However, in those cases whereby the witness still does not provide quality information for the case in hand to be able to go on or for the law enforcers to determine the course of the case, then there can be a re-cross examination as well as an additional redirect examination (Lubet, 188). Therefore, the public benefit is the provision of clarity that is much needed for the case and not provided during the cross-examination. Therefore the witness is to respond, explain and clarify the information presented in cross-examination.
Works cited
Lubet, S. “Modern Trial Advocacy: Analysis and Practice. Notre Dame.” Indiana: National Institute for Trial Advocacy (1997).
Pelé’s Definitive Documentary
Student’s name
Professor
Course
Date
Pelé’s Definitive Documentary
Glen Levy writes on CNN about one of the most famous and most extraordinary achievers on the football field by the name of Pelé. After Netflix produced a documentary about Pele and his role in making Mexico great and him being a footballer, there arose many questions and many ways to see the world as Levy puts it. Therefore, he discusses whether the definitive film makes his legacy in the football field less affluent or makes it even more robust and better. Herein, therefore, I discuss his argument.
He outstandingly introduces his argument. The topic of his discussion is a perfect one as it directly tells a person that it is an argumentative form of writing. He starts by explaining how one of the film directors states that the film he was doing was not just any film since Pele was very much indebted to it. It shows the importance of this film as Levy says that it is to determine if his legacy will remain as strong as felt or diminish.
Through his writing, Levy portrays the idea that this film could have focused on something else like pure football and not Pele’s relationship with Mexico’s politics. Therefore even though Pele does not have a strict stance on this topic, he states that this film, to some extent, was disturbing to Pele. He believes that the man just needed to rest at this moment of his life. It also acts as an emotional appeal towards the strain that Pele had to make towards this film. Levy is cautious not to commit any fallacies in his argument. However, his assertions that this filmmaking was difficult for Pele can be termed as one. He has no proof of this, and it is just from his thinking and from the observations.
In conclusion, Levy discusses the place of Pele in today’s world football. His argument is very discreet, and he is cautious with every part of it, trying to bring evidence to the reader in everything he says. Therefore it is a good argument.
Work cited
CNN, Glen Levy. “Does the ‘Definitive’ Pelé Documentary Cement or Damage the Football Great’s Legacy?” CNN, edition.cnn.com/2021/03/24/football/pele-netflix-documentary-brazil-cmd-spt-intl/index.html. Accessed 8 Apr. 2021.