Ten years after the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., people are still protesting and empathizing with his death, but trade unionist and civil rights leader Cesar Chavez explains why nonviolent resistance prevails on violent resistance. Chávez is able to present his belief to the people through his extensive use of antithesis and diction, and even alluding to a historical leader whose views and beliefs are still extremely well known today. Through his use of strong rhetoric and specific examples, Chavez is able to solidify his argument for nonviolent resistance. Say no to plagiarism. Get a custom essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”?Get the original essay Throughout the article, Chavez uses antithesis to compare the disadvantages of violent resistance with the advantages of its argument in favor of nonviolent resistance. Chavez first highlights one of the proponents of nonviolent resistance when he asserts that "nonviolence offers the possibility of remaining on the offensive, and this is of crucial importance to winning any no matter what competition.” Chavez is trying to make it clear that it is better to stay on good terms and stay safe, rather than “fight fire with fire,” because that can easily become violent, dangerous, and out of control. Chavez juxtaposes this idea of ​​being civil and not "fighting fire with fire" with the downsides of violent resistance when he says: "If we resort to violence, then one of two things will happen: either the violence will intensify or there will be an escalation of violence. There will be many injuries and perhaps deaths on both sides, or there will be total demoralization of the workers.” Both outcomes that Chavez describes as the result of violent resistance are bad, and Chavez takes advantage of this situation to continue to advocate for nonviolent resistance, stating shortly afterward: "Nonviolence has exactly the effect reverse. » Chavez finally ends his description of the negative consequences of violent resistance after stating: “Violence does not work in the long term and if it succeeds temporarily, it replaces one violent form of power with another equally violent one. » This statement ends his juxtaposition against violent resistance, giving the reader the opportunity to reflect on the truth of this statement, and as we see throughout the story, this statement turns out to be quite accurate. Chavez uses strong language to try to persuade the reader to advocate for nonviolent resistance. When Chavez begins to oppose violent resistance, he uses powerful words such as "escalation" and "demoralization" to describe the negative effects of violent resistance. These words have a negative connotation in the context in which they are used, which strengthens the argument against violent resistance. Chávez uses this terminology in this specific paragraph because this is the first time he truly introduces the idea of ​​violent resistance, and he immediately wants to make it seem bad and negative. Another example in which Chavez uses strong language is when he uses the words "frustration" and "impatience" to express how aware he is of how frustrated, impatient, and angry people feel, but he continues saying that There is no reason to resort to violent resistance, because things will work out in the end. It is through his extensive use of diction that Chavez is able to leave a lasting impression on the reader as to..