Ten years after the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., people continue to protest and empathize with his death, but labor organizer and civil rights leader Cesar Chavez makes the case for why nonviolent resistance prevails over violent resistance. Chavez is able to portray his beliefs to people through his strong use of antithesis and diction, and also alluding to a historical leader whose opinions and beliefs are still extremely well known today. Through the use of strong rhetoric and specific examples, Chavez is able to solidify his argument for nonviolent resistance. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay Throughout the article, Chavez uses antithesis to contrast the cons of violent resistance with the pros of his argument for nonviolent resistance. Chavez first sheds light on one of the practitioners of nonviolent resistance when he states that “nonviolence offers the opportunity to stay on the offensive, and this is crucial to winning any competition.” Chavez is trying to make it clear that it is better to maintain good and safe relationships, rather than “fight fire with fire,” because this can easily become violent, dangerous and get out of hand quickly. Chavez juxtaposes this idea of ​​being civilized, and not “fighting fire with fire,” with the disadvantages of violent resistance when he says that “If we resort to violence, then one of two things will happen, or the violence will increase and there will be many injuries and perhaps death on both sides, otherwise there will be total demoralization of the workers". Both of the outcomes that Chavez describes as resulting from violent resistance are negative, and Chavez takes advantage of this situation to continue to advocate for nonviolent resistance by immediately afterwards stating: “Nonviolence has exactly the opposite effect.” Chavez finally sets aside his portrayal of the negative consequences of violent resistance after saying: “Violence doesn't work in the long term and if it is temporarily successful, it replaces one violent form of power with another equally violent one.” This statement ends his confrontation with violent resistance, leaving the reader to reflect on the truth of this statement, and as seen through the story this statement turns out to be quite accurate. Chavez uses strong diction in an attempt to persuade the reader to support nonviolent resistance. When Chavez first begins to argue against violent resistance, he uses powerful words like “escalation” and “demoralization” to describe the negative effects of violent resistance. The words have a negative connotation in the context in which they are used, which strengthens the argument against violent resistance. Chavez uses this idiom in this specific paragraph because it is the first time he really introduces the idea of ​​violent resistance and he wants to make it immediately appear bad and negative. Another example where Chavez uses strong diction is when he uses the words “frustration” and “impatience” to express how he is aware of how people feel frustrated, impatient, and angry, but follows up by saying that there is no reason to resort to violent resistance, because things will work out in the end. It is through his strong use of diction that Chavez is further able to leave a lasting impression on the reader as to why nonviolent resistance is a much more reasonable and effective form of resistance. Chavez continues to support nonviolent resistance, alluding to Mahatma Gandhi, one of the most famous men in the world...