In the two videos debating whether or not one should wear a bike helmet while cycling, both speakers utilize several techniques to develop their evidence, such as expert testimonies, facts and statistics, and real-world situations. Fred Rivara is a physician that believes one should wear a helmet, and uses several statistics and reasons from a medical perspective to persuade his audience. On the other hand, Mikael Colville-Anderson is an urban planning consultant who uses his personal examples with his own cities to explain his perspective. While both speakers sound very persuasive and present strong arguments with evidence, I personally agree more with Rivara’s approach, specifically because his arguments are more relatable to a wider audience. I believe that Rivara had evidence that can be applied to a large demographic, whereas it would be harder to understand Anderson’s personal testimonies when his circumstances are more selective and exclusive.

To Wear or Not to Wear?