The introduction of the presentation was done by Matt. He started off the presentation with a loaded question as to whether God exists or not. He then defined as to what creationism actually was. This is an example of the use of rhetorical definition as he mentions what creationism meant. The use of rhetorical definition was seen again when he defined later in the presentation as to what evolution meant. The use of example about Matt Slick from CORM falls under the rhetoric device of argument from celebrity. There were also a few visual images used in the presentation. Matt ended his part of the presentation with a video which involved Richard Dawkins an atheist. This is an example of argument from celebrity. In the video Richard Dawkins got into a serious argument with the interviewer. This was an example of argument from outrage. The next part of the presentation was the pros of Creationism which was presented by Melanie. She started off with a question asking how creationism has started. She, then explained how God created the Earth in seven days. This falls under rhetorical explanation as the way she presented showed that day 2 happened because of day 1. Melanie had most of her material based on what the Bible said. This is an example of argument from popularity as she presented saying creationism is true because Bible says it. Melanie also ended the presentation with a video which included many examples. Argument by example is the rhetoric device used here. Sunny, then presented with the cons of creationism. He started with a really convincing video which involved sarcasm in it. He then explained what theory meant with a definition. Rhetorical definition being the rhetoric device used here. He then presented with a loaded question about the Bible being true or not and also about who had written it. Most of Sunny’s claims involved sarcasm. He had examples from the Bible that contradicted with the pros. This is the use of argument by example. I thought that they had a pretty moderate argument as the cons dominated the pro side of the argument pretty convincingly. The presentation style was more in a basic way with a few visual images used in the beginning and also in the end.