Embedded Files
UNIT FIVE: PERSUASIVE WRITING
Persuasive Argumentation Rhetorical Moves (49-52): create counterview, concede, converse, create co-commentary
(61-63): Indicate genre by the title, Use numbers correctly, Create a Works Cited Page
Debate Topics at ProCon.org
(bolded topics are links)
Do violent video games contribute to youth violence?
What are the solutions to illegal immigration in America?
Should gay marriage be legal?
Should fighting be allowed in hockey?
Should the United States Keep Daylight Saving Time?
Should the United States maintain its embargo against Cuba?
Should adults have the right to carry a concealed handgun?
Should Bottled Water Be Banned?
Should abortion be legal?
Is the ACLU good for America?
Can alternative energy effectively replace fossil fuels?
Should animals be used for scientific or commercial testing?
Is sexual orientation determined at birth?
Are cell phones safe?
Should churches (defined as churches, temples, mosques, synagogues, etc.) remain tax-exempt?
Is human activity a substantial cause of global climate change?
Was Bill Clinton a good president?
Is a college education worth it?
Should adults have the right to carry a concealed handgun?
Does lowering the federal corporate income tax rate create jobs?
Should the United States maintain its embargo against Cuba?
Should the death penalty be allowed?
Should the drinking age be lowered from 21 to a younger age?
Should the United States Continue Its Use of Drone Strikes Abroad?
Should euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide be legal?
Should felons who have completed their sentence (incarceration, probation, and parole) be allowed to vote?
Should gay marriage be legal?
Should the United States return to a gold standard?
Is golf a sport?
Should more gun control laws be enacted in the United States?
What are the solutions to illegal immigration in America?
Israeli - Palestinian Conflict
What are the solutions to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict?
Should marijuana be a medical option?
Is drinking milk healthy for humans?
Should the federal minimum wage be increased?
Is the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) good for America?
Is obesity a disease?
Should prescription drugs be advertised directly to consumers?
Should prostitution be legal?
Was Ronald Reagan a good president?
Should all Americans have the right (be entitled) to health care?
Should students have to wear school uniforms?
Are social networking sites good for our society?
Should Social Security be privatized?
Should performance enhancing drugs (such as steroids) be accepted in sports?
Is the use of standardized tests improving education in America?
Should tablets replace textbooks in K-12 schools?
Should teachers get tenure?
Should the words "under God" be in the US Pledge of Allegiance?
Should any vaccines be required for children?
Should people become vegetarian?
Do violent video games contribute to youth violence?
Do electronic voting machines improve the voting process?
SUMMARIZING CONVENTIONAL VIEW STARTERS:
-A dominant view of this passage is ________________________________.
-In the critical essay “ ,” the author argues that _____________________________________.
-In our class discussion, it was asserted that _________________________.
-In discussions of this text, a controversial issue has been_________________________.
-My teacher has argued that _________________________________________.
-Although my teachers have never directly said so, many given the impression that they believe that ______________________________________.
-Many critics believe that ___________________________________________.
-It is common to believe that _____________________________________.
-Americans today contend that ____________________________________.
-Common sense has it that ___________________________________________.
-It has often been said that _________________________________________.
-One would think that ______________________________________________.
-Many people assume that because __________________________________, then _____________________________________________.
SUMMARIZING WHO EXPRESSES THE OPPOSITE VIEW:
-Many religious people / atheists / feminists / conservatives / liberals / independents / children / adolescents / adults / … object that _____________________________________________________.
-Although not all religious people / atheists / feminists / conservatives / liberals / independents / children / adolescents / adults / …think alike, some will disagree with my claim that _________________________.
USING QUESTIONS TO SUMMARIZE THE OPPOSITE VIEW:
-Is it really true that _______________________________? Some believe that ______________________________.
-Does my analysis prove that _______________________________? Some could say that __________________________________________.
UNQUALIFIED CONCESSION STARTERS:
-It is true that ________________________________________________.
-___________________________________ supports this interpretation as well.
-While many believe in this view, the crucial point of this perspective is ___________________________.
-The opposing view rightly claims that ______________________________.
-She argues that ________________________, and it is true that _____________________.
-Admittedly, _____________________________________.
-Granted, _____________________________________.
-Of course, _____________________________________.
CONVERSE STARTERS:
DISAGREEING:
-My own view is _____________________________________.
-Whereas some are convinced that ________________________________, others argue that _______________________________. The latter view is more persuasive because _________________________________.
-Although some believe the text is about _______________________________, it is in fact about _______________________________________________.
-However, _______________________________________________________.
-Nevertheless, ___________________________________________________.
-The assertion that _________________________________ is contradicted by the claim that _______________________________________________.
-This interpretation is mistaken because it overlooks ____________________________.
-This interpretation rests upon the questionable assumption that _____________________________.
-By focusing solely upon ______________________________, this interpretation overlooks _____________________________.
-Although some claim that __________________________, it does not necessarily follow that _________________________________. In fact, __________________________.
AGREEING AND DISAGREEING:
-It is true that _______________________, but it is also true that ___________________.
-While it is a fact that _____________________, and even more that ___________________, it is also true that ___________________________.
-Proponents of _____________________, are right to argue that _____________________, but they go too far when they ____________________________.
-While it is true that _______________________, it does not necessarily follow that _______________________.
-It is without question that _______________________, but it is also true that _______________________.
-He claims that __________________________________. On the one hand, it is true that ____________________________. On the other hand it is also true that _________________________________________.
-The interpretation ___________________________ is right, but the conclusion _____________________ is suspect because ____________________________.
ANTICIPATE OBJECTIONS:
-Some readers may challenge my view that _______________. Indeed, my argument ignores _____________________________. However, ______________________.
-Many will disagree with my assertion that ____________________________, but ________________________________.
Persuasive Argument Papers (page 115)
Persuasive Argument Papers (page 115)
In a persuasive argument, it is important to let your readers know that you understand the counterview well in order to establish yourself as a reasonable thinker who is aware of the argument from the opposing side. Moreover, writers of persuasive arguments will establish shared ground with those who support the opposing side by conceding a point of agreement. This allows you to establish credibility with those who oppose your view. Once the counterargument is summarized and shared ground has been established, writers can then pursue their argument with supporting evidence from facts, passages, and personal experiences.
In a persuasive argument, it is important to let your readers know that you understand the counterview well in order to establish yourself as a reasonable thinker who is aware of the argument from the opposing side. Moreover, writers of persuasive arguments will establish shared ground with those who support the opposing side by conceding a point of agreement. This allows you to establish credibility with those who oppose your view. Once the counterargument is summarized and shared ground has been established, writers can then pursue their argument with supporting evidence from facts, passages, and personal experiences.
Below is an example of a short persuasive argument in favor of the constitutionality of same sex marriage:
Look for the persuasive argument principles:
-Create the counterargument
-Concede
-Converse
-Create Co-commentary
Create the counterargument: Many Textualists believe that the right to same-sex marriage is not considered a fundamental liberty protected by the 14th amendment of the U.S. Constitution, nor that it should be considered one. Proponents of this perspective believe that textually—determining the meaning of the Constitution by solely addressing the language of the text and the original understanding of the text at the time of ratification—,same-sex marriage is unconstitutional. Textualists argue that a fundamental liberty must be “deeply rooted in this nation’s history or tradition and implicit in the concept of ordered liberty such that neither liberty nor justice would exist if it were sacrificed.” (Bowers majority 1986). Advocates of this outlook will argue that same-sex marriage is not deeply rooted in this nation’s history since each state had laws requiring marriage to be between a man and a woman from the founding until 2003. Each state has enforced laws that marriage is a ‘gender-differentiated union of man and woman’ in order to channel procreation toward stable, monogamous relationships.
Concession: It is true that, textually speaking, same-sex marriage is not a fundamental liberty, because neither the text of the 14th amendment nor the original, ratified understanding of “liberty” included marrying someone of the same gender.. Converse: However, this interpretation fails to acknowledge the primary purpose of marriage. Devaluing the meaning of heterosexual marriage is not the intention os same sex marriage advocates; rather, they want to encourage and support the bond between two humans, whether the bond is between a man and a woman, a man and a man, or a woman and a woman. Marriage is loving another human forever. In Obergefell v Hodges (2015), Justice Kennedy states in the majority opinion:
The Constitution promises liberty to all within its reach, a liberty that includes certain specific rights that allow persons, within a lawful realm, to define and express their identity. The petitioners in these cases seek to find that liberty by marrying someone of the same sex and having their marriages deemed lawful on the same terms and conditions as marriages between persons of the opposite sex...The nature of injustice is that we may not always see it in our own times. The generations that wrote and ratified the Bill of Rights and the Fourteenth Amendment did not presume to know the extent of freedom in all of its dimensions, and so they entrusted to future generations a charter protecting the right of all persons to enjoy liberty as we learn its meaning. When new insight reveals discord between the Constitution’s central protections and a received legal stricture, a claim to liberty must be addressed.
(“Obergefell v Hodges”)
Justice Kennedy argues that the generation that ratified the 14th amendment could not foresee same sex marriage as an asserted liberty, nor that the denial of such a union would constitute injustice. Kennedy rightly argues that we are always learning the definition of liberty and will always continue to change our understanding of it. Our rights can’t be limited to one word nor one pinpoint of history. Same-sex couples seek the same love, access, affection, opportunities, and equal treatment that opposite-sex couples seek. In the words of Justice Kennedy, “it would disparage their choices and diminish their personhood to deny them this right.” Limiting marriage to heterosexual couples denies homosexual individuals the right self-definition and personal autonomy because all humans should have the inalienable right to define and express their identity. Co Commentary: Moreover, the children in a same-sex relationship “suffer the stigma of knowing their families are somehow lesser...The marriage laws at issue here thus harm and humiliate the children of same-sex couples.” Some readers may challenge my view that same-sex marriage is a fundamental right. However, it is crucial that the definition of liberty be expanded. Marriage is the coming together of two people who love each other for better or for worse; it’s the unwavering love between two people forever. And thanks to Obergefell v Hodges (2015), marriage now and forever includes same sex couples.
A persuasive paper asks a student to take a side on an issue while considering and summarizing counterviews. It is an old saying from F. Scott Fitzgerald that "(t)he test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function." (www.brainyquote.com).
To do this, a writer should summarize the counterview, concede a point to the
counter view, and then converse with his / her argument after the writer
has established that s/he can value a contrary perspective.
Many papers in History and English courses will ask you to take a side on a
controversial issue, but the persuasive rhetorical move can be used in all
papers when a debatable point is being made. All a writer must do is
anticipate a counterview, concede to it, and then argue for his or her point.
Prompt: Use at least three sources and write a synthesis persuasive paper on an issue from the web site Pro / Con:
MODEL PERSUASIVE PAPER:
PERSUASIVE PAPER WRITER OF THE WEEK: Joe Hall ’19
Standardized tests - All children left behind?
The average student in America’s big-city public schools takes some 112 mandatory standardized tests between pre-kindergarten and the end of 12th grade (www.washingtonpost.com), an average of about eight a year. Standardized tests have been used since the mid 19th century, but their use has spiked after 2002’s “No Child Left Behind” (N.C.L.B.) policy. Since then, America has gone from 18th in math globally to 27th, with similar losses in science and reading. There are a lot of factors than could have led to these losses in student performance, with the rise of standardized tests among them (standardizedtests.procon.org). Standardized tests have been embraced by administrators, but the reality is that they degrade the quality of teaching and both the emotional and intellectual growth of students. Our country should lessen the impact of standardized tests on students to promote good teaching, lower stress, and bring value back into the fine arts.
Create counterargument: Standardized tests have been increasingly used in public and private schools over the past several decades. Proponents of standardized testing rightly say that they are a great way to evaluate huge amounts of students and encourage consistent quality across many different teachers. Many parents approve of standardized tests, and students seem to think they are fair. 93% of parents say standardized tests "should be used to identify areas where students need extra help" and 61% say their children "take an appropriate number of standardized tests." (www.AP-NORC Poll.com) Standardized testing provides data that helps improve education as a whole is by being consistent across public and private schools. Finally, standardized tests can ready students better for rigorous college curricula, as well as the standardized tests that many professionals are required to take. (standardizedtests.procon.org). Concede: Standardized tests may be the best way to fairly measure student achievement in subjects such as math and reading.
Converse: With all these advantages, we should wonder, “What’s the catch?” The catch is that standardized tests are killing individuality, quality and integrity, and placing a bigger emphasis on mindlessly drilling than teaching students how to be productive, healthy workers. Many students see standardized tests as highly stressful, and the increasing need for test preparedness is especially destructive to young children’s childhoods (standardizedtests.procon.org). Despite being lauded as fair, standardized tests can be unfair towards those learning english as a second language and kids with special needs. Despite the increase in use, standardized testing has not improved America’s academic rankings as opposed to countries such as Finland, which does not use standardized tests and consistently has the best students in the world. There is evidence that standardized tests do not significantly improve student understanding (standardizedtests.procon.org). They also cost a lot of taxpayer money and are notorious for expensive scoring errors (standardizedtests.procon.org). Standardized tests have begun to matter so much for college admissions that they have become a huge source of stress for students. Imagine being a gifted student leader, artist, or athlete with a unique set of skills that don’t necessarily include test-taking? Is it fair that we can determine the futures of America’s diverse youth with shallow, right-or-wrong questions? On top of this, standardized tests are “dumbing down” curriculums to make room for more math and basic language. They don’t value the arts, creative writing, or many sciences. The use of standardized tests devalues teachers’ individuality, which hurts both them and their students.
Standardized tests have a place in a large country like the USA, but they cannot become a replacement for professional teachers. Their content may be fair for most students, but they block out time and money that could be used for the Arts, Sciences, and other creative disciplines. Standardized tests should be used sparingly as a tool to analyze specific subjects over a large number of students, but cannot become a one-size-fits-all solution. Call to Action: Instead, we should treat the valuing of innovative, creative teachers and students as an investment that will pay off our country’s intellectual debt.
WORKS CITED
Agiesta, Jennifer and Elliott, Phillip, "AP-NORC Poll: Parents Back High-Stakes Testing,"
Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research website, Aug. 17, 2013
http://www.apnorc.org/Pages/default.aspx February 23, 2017
"Confirmed: Standardized Testing Has Taken over Our Schools. But Who’s to Blame?" The
Washington Post. WP Company, n.d. Web. 02 Feb. 2017. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/answer-sheet/wp/2015/10/24/confirmed-standardized-testing-has-taken-over-our-schools-but-whos-to-blame/?utm_term=.49181f85af04
"Standardized Tests - ProCon.org." ProConorg Headlines. Procon.org, N.d. Web. 05 Feb. 2017.
http://standardizedtests.procon.org/
Joe’s Reflection: I really like persuasive writing. While literary analysis is interesting, it sometimes seems like there’s no point, you can prove pretty much anything you want if you pick and choose language. Contrast that with persuasive writing. Not only is this type of writing easier to apply to real-world issues, it fully requires you to form two sides on an argument and makes it seem like your interpretation actually matters next to those of others. This essay, I feel like I did a good job of summarizing the counterargument and providing logical, emotional, and ethical appeals in my argument. In the future, I would want to work on making my proposal more clear in the beginning.
Debate Topics at ProCon.org
Should Bottled Water Be Banned?
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37..
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
44.
45.
46.
47.
48.
49.
54.
55.
Should abortion be legal?
Is the ACLU good for America?
Can alternative energy effectively replace fossil fuels?
Should animals be used for scientific or commercial testing?
Is sexual orientation determined at birth?
Are cell phones safe?
Should churches (defined as churches, temples, mosques, synagogues, etc.) remain tax-exempt?
Is human activity a substantial cause of global climate change?
Was Bill Clinton a good president?
Is a college education worth it?
Should adults have the right to carry a concealed handgun?
Does lowering the federal corporate income tax rate create jobs?
Should the United States maintain its embargo against Cuba?
Should the death penalty be allowed?
Should the drinking age be lowered from 21 to a younger age?
Should the United States Continue Its Use of Drone Strikes Abroad?
Should euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide be legal?
Should felons who have completed their sentence (incarceration, probation, and parole) be allowed to vote?
Should gay marriage be legal?
Should the United States return to a gold standard?
Is golf a sport?
Should more gun control laws be enacted in the United States?
What are the solutions to illegal immigration in America?
Israeli - Palestinian Conflict
What are the solutions to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict?
Should marijuana be a medical option?
Is drinking milk healthy for humans?
Should the federal minimum wage be increased?
Is the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) good for America?
Is obesity a disease?
Should prescription drugs be advertised directly to consumers?
Should prostitution be legal?
Was Ronald Reagan a good president?
Should all Americans have the right (be entitled) to health care?
Should students have to wear school uniforms?
Are social networking sites good for our society?
Should Social Security be privatized?
Should performance enhancing drugs (such as steroids) be accepted in sports?
Is the use of standardized tests improving education in America?
Should tablets replace textbooks in K-12 schools?
Should teachers get tenure?
Should the words "under God" be in the US Pledge of Allegiance?
Should any vaccines be required for children?
Should people become vegetarian?
Do violent video games contribute to youth violence?
Do electronic voting machines improve the voting process?
Archived Debate Topics
Should the Big Three car manufacturers be bailed out by the US government?
[Archived]
Should college football replace the Bowl Championship Series (BCS) with a playoff system?
[Archived]
Is the D.A.R.E. program good for America's kids (K-12)?
[Archived]
Should insider trading by Congress be allowed?
[Archived]
Should the US have attacked Iraq?
[Archived]
Is it appropriate to build a Muslim community center (aka the ''Ground Zero Mosque'') near the World Trade Center site?
[Archived]
Is the Use of Standardized Tests Improving Education in America?
(http://standardizedtests.procon.org/ July 20, 2016)
Standardized tests have been a part of American education since the mid-1800s. Their use skyrocketed after 2002's No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) mandated annual testing in all 50 states. US students slipped from being ranked 18th in the world in math in 2000 to 27th in 2012, with a similar decline in science and no change in reading. Failures in the education system have been blamed on rising poverty levels, teacher quality, tenure policies, and, increasingly, on the pervasive use of standardized tests.
Proponents say standardized tests are a fair and objective measure of student achievement, that they ensure teachers and schools are accountable to taxpayers, and that the most relevant constituents – parents and students – approve of testing.
Opponents say the tests are neither fair nor objective, that their use promotes a narrow curriculum and drill-like "teaching to the test," and that excessive testing undermines America's ability to produce innovators and critical thinkers. Read more background...
Top Pro & Con Arguments
93% of studies on student testing, including the use of large-scale and high-stakes standardized tests, found a "positive effect" on student achievement, according to a peer-reviewed, 100-year analysis of testing research completed in 2011 by testing scholar Richard P. Phelps. [138]
Standardized tests are reliable and objective measures of student achievement. Without them, policy makers would have to rely on tests scored by individual schools and teachers who have a vested interest in producing favorable results. Multiple-choice tests, in particular, are graded by machine and therefore are not subject to human subjectivity or bias. [55]
20 school systems that "have achieved significant, sustained, and widespread gains" on national and international assessments used "proficiency targets for each school" and "frequent, standardized testing to monitor system progress,"according to a Nov. 2010 report by McKinsey & Company, a global management consulting firm. [146]
Standardized tests are inclusive and non-discriminatory because they ensure content is equivalent for all students. Former Washington, DC, schools chancellor Michelle Rhee argues that using alternate tests for minorities or exempting children with disabilities would be unfair to those students: "You can't separate them, and to try to do so creates two, unequal systems, one with accountability and one without it. This is a civil rights issue." [103]
China has a long tradition of standardized testing and leads the world in educational achievement. China displaced Finland as number one in reading, math, and science when Shanghai debuted on the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) rankings in 2009. [150] Despite calls for a reduction in standardized testing, China's testing regimen remains firmly in place. [139] Chester E. Finn, Jr., Chairman of the Hoover Institution's Koret Task Force on K–12 Education, predicts that Chinese cities will top the PISA charts for the next several decades. [150]
"Teaching to the test" can be a good thing because it focuses on essential content and skills, eliminates time-wasting activities that don't produce learning gains, and motivates students to excel. [18] The US Department of Education stated in Nov. 2004 that "if teachers cover subject matter required by the standards and teach it well, then students will master the material on which they will be tested--and probably much more." [19]
Standardized tests are not narrowing the curriculum, rather they are focusing it on important basic skills all students need to master. According to a study in the Oct. 28, 2005, issue of the peer-reviewed Education Policy Analysis Archives, teachers in four Minnesota school districts said standardized testing had a positive impact, improving the quality of the curriculum while raising student achievement. [116]
Increased testing does not force teachers to encourage "drill n' kill" rote learning. According to a study in the Oct. 28, 2005, issue of the peer-reviewed Education Policy Analysis Archives, good teachers understand that "isolated drills on the types of items expected on the test" are unacceptable, and principals interviewed said "they would sanction any teacher caught teaching to the test." [116] In any case, research has shown that drilling students does not produce test score gains: "teaching a curriculum aligned to state standards and using test data as feedback produces higher test scores than an instructional emphasis on memorization and test-taking skills." [18]
Most parents approve of standardized tests.A June-July 2013 Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research poll found that 75% of parents say standardized tests "are a solid measure of their children's abilities" and 69% say the tests "are a good measure of the schools' quality." 93% of parents say standardized tests "should be used to identify areas where students need extra help" and 61% say their children "take an appropriate number of standardized tests." [2]
Testing is not too stressful for students. The US Department of Education stated: "Although testing may be stressful for some students, testing is a normal and expected way of assessing what students have learned." [19] A Nov. 2001 University of Arkansas study found that "the vast majority of students do not exhibit stress and have positive attitudes towards standardized testing programs." [5]Young students vomit at their desks for a variety of reasons, but only in rare cases is this the result of testing anxiety. [6]
Most students believe standardized tests are fair. A June 2006 Public Agenda survey of 1,342 public school students in grades 6-12 found that 71% of students think the number of tests they have to take is "about right" and 79% believe test questions are fair. [22] The 2002 edition of the survey found that "virtually all students say they take the tests seriously and more than half (56 percent) say they take them very seriously." [108]
Most teachers acknowledge the importance of standardized tests and do not feel their teaching has been compromised. In a 2009 Scholastic/Gates Foundation survey, 81% of US public school teachers said state-required standardized tests were at least "somewhat important” as a measure of students’ academic achievement, and 27% said they were "very important " or "absolutely essential." [111] 73% of teachers surveyed in a Mar. 2002 Public Agenda study said they "have not neglected regular teaching duties for test preparation." [108]
Standardized tests provide a lot of useful information at low cost, and consume little class time. [134] According to a 2002 paper by Caroline M. Hoxby, PhD, the Scott and Donya Bommer Professor in Economics at Stanford University, standardized tests cost less than 0.1% of K-12 education spending, totaling $5.81 per student per year: "Even if payments were 10 times as large, they would still not be equal to 1 percent of what American jurisdictions spend on education." [135]Other cost estimates range from $15-$33 per student per year by the nonpartisan US Government Accountability Office (GAO), to as low as $2 per student per year by testing scholar and economist Richard P. Phelps. [55] A 50-item standardized test can be given in an hour [134] and is graded instantaneously by computer.
Most teachers and administrators approve of standardized tests. Minnesota teachers and administrators interviewed for a study in the Oct. 28, 2005, issue of the peer-reviewed Education Policy Analysis Archives (EPAA) approved of standardized tests "by an overwhelming two-to-one margin," saying they "improved student attitudes, engagement, and effort." [116] An oft-cited Arizona State University study in EPAA's Mar. 28, 2002 edition, concluding that testing has little educational merit, has been discredited by educational researchers for poor methodology, and was criticized for wrongly blaming the tests themselves for stagnant test scores, rather than the shortcomings of teachers and schools. [152]
The multiple-choice format used on standardized tests produces accurate information necessary to assess and improve American schools. According to the Center for Teaching Excellence at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, multiple-choice questions can provide "highly reliable test scores" and an "objective measurement of student achievement." [131] Today's multiple-choice tests are more sophisticated than their predecessors. The Center for Public Education, a national public school advocacy group, says many "multiple-choice tests now require considerable thought, even notes and calculations, before choosing a bubble.” [39]
Stricter standards and increased testing are better preparing school students for college.In Jan. 1998, Public Agenda found that 66% of college professors said "elementary and high schools expect students to learn too little.” By Mar. 2002, after a surge in testing and the passing of NCLB, that figure dropped to 47% "in direct support of higher expectations, strengthened standards and better tests.” [34] [108]
Teacher-graded assessments are inadequate alternatives to standardized tests because they are subjectively scored and unreliable. Most teachers are not trained in testing and measurement, and research has shown many teachers "consider noncognitive outcomes, including student class participation, perceived effort, progress over the period of the course, and comportment," which are irrelevant to subject-matter mastery. [105]
Cheating by teachers and administrators on standardized tests is rare, and not a reason to stop testing America's children. The Mar. 2011 USA Today investigation of scoring anomalies in six states and Washington DC was inconclusive, and found compelling suggestions of impropriety in only one school. [118] The US Department of Education’s Office of Inspector General said on Jan. 7, 2013 that an investigation had found no evidence of widespread cheating on the DC Comprehensive Assessment System tests. [156] It is likely that some cheating occurs, but some people cheat on their tax returns also, and the solution is not to abolish taxation. [152]
Each state's progress on NCLB tests can be meaningfully compared. Even though tests are developed by states independently, state scores are compared with results on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), ensuring each state's assessments are equally challenging and that gains in a state's test scores are valid. [57]
State-mandated standardized tests help prevent "social promotion," the practice of allowing students to advance from grade to grade whether or not they have met the academic standards of their grade level. [136]A Dec. 2004 paper by the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research found Florida's 2002 initiative to end social promotion, holding back students who failed year-end standardized tests, improved those students' scores by 9% in math and 4% in reading after one year. [137]
Many objections voiced by the anti-testing movement are really objections to NCLB's use of test results, not to standardized tests themselves. Prominent testing critic Diane Ravitch, Research Professor of Education at New York University, concedes standardized testing has value: "Testing... is not the problem... information derived from tests can be extremely valuable, if the tests are valid and reliable." She cites the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) as a positive example, and says tests can "inform educational leaders and policy-makers about the progress of the education system as a whole." [1]
Physicians, lawyers, real-estate brokers and pilots all take high-stakes standardized tests to ensure they have the necessary knowledge for their professions. [23] If standardized tests were an unreliable source of data, their use would not be so widespread.
Standardized testing has not improved student achievement. After No Child Left Behind (NCLB) passed in 2002, the US slipped from 18th in the world in math on the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) to 31st place in 2009, with a similar drop in science and no change in reading. [95] [145] [144] A May 26, 2011, National Research Council report found no evidence test-based incentive programs are working: "Despite using them for several decades, policymakers and educators do not yet know how to use test-based incentives to consistently generate positive effects on achievement and to improve education." [154]
Standardized tests are an unreliable measure of student performance. A 2001 study published by the Brookings Institution found that 50-80% of year-over-year test score improvements were temporary and "caused by fluctuations that had nothing to do with long-term changes in learning..." [107]
Standardized tests are unfair and discriminatory against non English speakers and students with special needs. [106] English language learners take tests in English before they have mastered the language. [101] Special education students take the same tests as other children, receiving few of the accommodations usually provided to them as part of their Individualized Education Plans (IEP). [102]
Standardized tests measure only a small portion of what makes education meaningful. According to late education researcher Gerald W. Bracey, PhD, qualities that standardized tests cannot measure include "creativity, critical thinking, resilience, motivation, persistence, curiosity, endurance, reliability, enthusiasm, empathy, self-awareness, self-discipline, leadership, civic-mindedness, courage, compassion, resourcefulness, sense of beauty, sense of wonder, honesty, integrity." [147]
"Teaching to the test" is replacing good teaching practices with "drill n' kill" rote learning. A five-year University of Maryland study completed in 2007 found "the pressure teachers were feeling to 'teach to the test'" since NCLB was leading to "declines in teaching higher-order thinking, in the amount of time spent on complex assignments, and in the actual amount of high cognitive content in the curriculum." [11] [12]
NCLB tests are drastically narrowing the curriculum. A national 2007 study by the Center on Education Policy reported that since 2001, 44% of school districts had reduced the time spent on science, social studies and the arts by an average of 145 minutes per week in order to focus on reading and math. [1] A 2007 survey of 1,250 civics, government, and social studies teachers showed that 75% of those teaching current events less often cited standardized tests as the reason. [16]
Instruction time is being consumed by monotonous test preparation. Some schools allocate more than a quarter of the year's instruction to test prep. [Kozol] After New York City's reading and math scores plunged in 2010, many schools imposed extra measures to avoid being shut down, including daily two and a half hour prep sessions and test practice on vacation days. [14] On Sep. 11, 2002, students at Monterey High School in Lubbock, TX, were prevented from discussing the first anniversary of the 2001 terrorist attacks because they were too busy with standardized test preparation. [15]
Standardized tests are not objective. A paper published in the Fall 2002 edition of the peer-reviewed Journal of Human Resources stated that scores vary due to subjective decisions made during test design and administration: "Simply changing the relative weight of algebra and geometry in NAEP (the National Assessment of Educational Progress) altered the gap between black and white students."[130]
Standardized testing causes severe stress in younger students. According to education researcher Gregory J. Cizek, anecdotes abound "illustrating how testing... produces gripping anxiety in even the brightest students, and makes young children vomit or cry, or both." [7] On Mar. 14, 2002, the Sacramento Bee reported that "test-related jitters, especially among young students, are so common that the Stanford-9 exam comes with instructions on what to do with a test booklet in case a student vomits on it." [8]
Older students do not take NCLB-mandated standardized tests seriously because they do not affect their grades. An English teacher at New Mexico's Valley High School said in Aug. 2004 that many juniors just "had fun" with the tests, making patterns when filling in the answer bubbles: "Christmas tree designs were popular. So were battleships and hearts." [132]
Testing is expensive and costs have increased since NCLB, placing a burden on state education budgets. According to the Texas Education Agency, the state spent $9 million in 2003 to test students, while the cost to Texas taxpayers from 2009 through 2012 is projected to be around $88 million per year. [94]
The billion dollar testing industry is notorious for making costly and time-consuming scoring errors. [99] [42] NCS Pearson, which has a $254 million contract to administer Florida's Comprehensive Assessment Test, delivered the 2010 results more than a month late and their accuracy was challenged by over half the state's superintendents. [100] After errors and distribution problems in 2004-2005, Hawaii replaced test publisher Harcourt with American Institutes for Research, but the latter had to re-grade 98,000 tests after students received scores for submitting blank test booklets. [99] [42]
The multiple-choice format used on standardized tests is an inadequate assessment tool. It encourages a simplistic way of thinking in which there are only right and wrong answers, which doesn't apply in real-world situations. The format is also biased toward male students, who studies have shown adapt more easily to the game-like point scoring of multiple-choice questions. [77]
America is facing a "creativity crisis," as standardized testing and rote learning "dumb down" curricula and jeopardize the country's economic future. A 2010 College of William & Mary study found Americans' scores on the Torrance Test of Creative Thinking have been dropping since 1990, and researcher Kyung-Hee Kim lays part of the blame on the increase in standardized testing: "If we neglect creative students in school because of the structure and the testing movement... then they become underachievers." [133]
Finland topped the international education (PISA) rankings from 2001-2008, yet has "no external standardized tests used to rank students or schools," according to Stanford University researchers Linda Darling-Hammond and Laura McCloskey. [148] Success has been achieved using "assessments that encourage students to be active learners who can find, analyze, and use information to solve problems in novel situations."
Excessive testing may teach children to be good at taking tests, but does not prepare them for productive adult lives. [140] China displaced Finland at the top of the 2009 PISA rankings because, as explained by Jiang Xueqin, Deputy Principal of Peking University High School, "Chinese schools are very good at preparing their students for standardized tests. For that reason, they fail to prepare them for higher education and the knowledge economy." [139] China is trying to depart from the "drill and kill" test prep that Chinese educators admit has produced only "competent mediocrity." [112] [113] [1]
Using test scores to reward and punish teachers and schools encourages them to cheat the system for their own gain. [117] A 2011 USA Today investigation of six states and Washington DC found 1,610 suspicious anomalies in year-over-year test score gains. [26] A confidential Jan. 2009 memo, prepared for the DC school system by an outside analyst and uncovered in Apr. 2013, revealed that 191 teachers in 70 DC public schools were "implicated in possible testing infractions," and nearly all the teachers at one DC elementary school "had students whose test papers showed high numbers of wrong-to-right erasures," according toUSA Today. [155] 178 Atlanta public school teachers and administrators from 44 schools were found to be cheating on standardized tests according to a July 2011 state report. At one school, teachers attended "weekend pizza parties" to correct students' answers, according to ABC News. [158] Ultimately in Apr. 2015, 11 of those district employees were convicted of racketeering, which carries a sentence of up to 20 years in prison. [159]
Standardized tests are an imprecise measure of teacher performance, yet they are used to reward and punish teachers.According to a Sep. 2010 report by the Annenberg Institute for School Reform, over 17% of Houston teachers ranked in the top category on the Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills reading test were ranked among the two lowest categories on the equivalent Stanford Achievement Test. The results "were based on the same students, tested in the same subject, at approximately the same time of year, using two different tests." [30]
Each state develops its own NCLB standards and assessments, providing no basis for meaningful comparison. A student sitting for the Connecticut Mastery Test (CMT) is asked a completely different set of questions from a child in California taking the Standardized Testing and Reporting (STAR) test, and while the former includes essay questions, the latter is entirely multiple-choice. [120]
Open-ended questions on standardized tests are often graded by under-paid temporary workers with no educational training. Scorers make $11-$13 per hour and need only a bachelor’s degree, not necessarily related to education. As one former test scorer stated, "all it takes to become a test scorer is a bachelor’s degree, a lack of a steady job, and a willingness to throw independent thinking out the window…” [97]
Schools feeling the pressure of NCLB's 100% proficiency requirement are "gaming the system" to raise test scores, according to an Arizona State University report in the June 22, 2009, edition of the peer-reviewed International Journal of Education Policy & Leadership. [141] Low-performing students are "encouraged to stay home" on test days or "counseled to quit or be suspended" before tests are administered. State education boards are "lowering the bar": manipulating exam content or scoring so that tests are easier for students to pass. [141]
An obsession with testing robs children of their childhoods. NCLB's mandate begins in third grade, but schools test younger students so they will get used to taking tests. [13] Mar. 2009 research from the Alliance for Childhood showed "time for play in most public kindergartens has dwindled to the vanishing point, replaced by lengthy lessons and standardized testing." [21] A three-year study completed in Oct. 2010 by the Gesell Institute of Human Development showed that increased emphasis on testing is making "children feel like failures now as early as PreK..."
Prompt #2: Use at least three sources and write a synthesis persuasive paper on this issue:
Should Law Enforcement Be Allowed to Use Racial Profiling?
Should Law Enforcement Be Allowed to Use Racial Profiling?
Pro
Con
Not Clear or Not Found
Trump
Clinton
Johnson
Sanders
Stein
Pro (Yes)
Con (No)
Pro
Now Con
"Well, I think there can be profiling. I mean… If they thought there was something wrong with that group and they saw what was happening, and they didn't want to call the police because they didn't want to be profiling, I think that's pretty bad. People are dead. A lot of people are dead right now. So everybody wants to be politically correct, and that's part of the problem that we have with our country… We are having a problem with radical -- with the radicals in the Muslim group. Let's not kid ourselves. And you can say it, or you don't have to say it. And maybe you won't even want to. But I've been saying it loud and strong. So if you have people coming out of mosques with hatred and with death in their eyes and on their minds, we're going to have to do something, John. We can't just say, 'We're not going to look at it.' Now I made that statement a number of weeks ago. It took a lot of -- you know, a lot of, whatever, a lot of people were not exactly thrilled with it. And now everybody seems to agree with me… You have people that have to be tracked. If they're Muslims, they're Muslims. But you have people that have to be tracked. And we've better be --I use the word vigilance. We have to show vigilance. We have to have it. And if we don't, we're foolish people."
Source: CBS News, "Face the Nation Transcripts December 6, 2015: Trump, Christie, Sanders," cbsnews.com, Dec. 6, 2015
"As president, Hillary will invest in law enforcement training programs on issues such as implicit bias, use of force, and de-escalation. She will also create national guidelines for use of force, provide federal matching funds to make body cameras available to every police department in America, and support legislation to ban racial profiling by federal, state, and local law enforcement officials."
Source: Hillary for America, "Racial Justice," hillaryclinton.com (accessed May 16, 2016)
[Editor's Note: Clinton previously expressed a PRO opinion on this question. Read Clinton'sformer position on racial profiling.]
Con
"Stop and frisk policies in New York. 700,000 New Yorkers have been stopped in the last year and basically searched. And we're not talking about getting on an airplane here. We're talking about on the streets of New York and Mayor Bloomberg had criticism for Arizona's law [SB 1070] said it was going to lead to racial profiling. Well I have got to tell you in New York I think racial profiling is going on right now with regard to the whole stop and frisk. Isn't this why we fought wars when it comes to protecting our civil liberties? Well this is civil liberties out the window."
Source: Electad, “Gary Johnson Talks to Alyona Minkovski onThe Alyona Show – April 25 2012,” electad.com, Apr. 25, 2012
Con
"In too many instances, deportation programs like the Priority Enforcement Program (PEP), the 287(g) program, and the Criminal Alien Program have unjustly turned local law enforcement officials into immigration officers. Racial profiling and the criminalization of communities of color form the foundation of these deportation programs which will be eliminated under a Sanders Administration...
Senator Sanders will fight to end racial profiling. Immigrants should never face deportation as a result of racial or ethnic profiling. A Sanders Administration will work to revise the U.S. Department of Justice’s Guidance Regarding the Use of Race by Federal Law Enforcement Agencies. Under the current guidance, the Department of Justice carved out significant exceptions for federal law enforcement agencies like the FBI, TSA and Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to profile racial, religious, and other minorities at or in the vicinity of the border...
Steps taken by the CBP surrounding excessive force on the southern border must be expanded and we must eliminate racial profiling, violence and prolonged detention."
Source: Bernie 2016, "A Fair and Humane Immigration Policy," berniesanders.com (accessed May 24, 2016)
Con
"It's clear that we need to rein in police violence, we need to hold police forces accountable, the stop and frisk program in New York City which is all about racial profiling too, we need to put an end to racial profiling, they do not make us safer and are inherently violent and degrading... It's really important for people to acknowledge the institutional racism that is built into the functioning of our society. We need to talk about this so we can understand how tilted of a playing field we are on. We are not in a post racial era, these problems are alive and well and they are only getting worse."
Source: Yana Kunichoff, "Interview with the Green Party's Jill Stein, Candidate for Organizer in Chief," truth-out.org, Aug. 7, 2012
Prompt #3: Use at least three sources and write a synthesis persuasive paper on this issue:
Should the Government Allow Immigrants Who Are Here Illegally to Become US Citizens?
General Reference (not clearly pro or con)
[Editor's note: "Path to citizenship" (sometimes called "amnesty") refers to allowing undocumented immigrants to become citizens via a process that may include additional requirements (such as fees, background checks, or additional waiting times) to the naturalization process for documented immigrants. The term "legalization" refers to a process by which undocumented immigrants would be allowed to remain in the country legally but would not be allowed to become citizens or receive the same rights granted to US citizens.]
Francine Kiefer, MFA, Staff writer and Congressional Correspondent for The Christian Science Monitor, in a Jan. 21, 2014 article, "Immigration Reform 101: How Is 'Legal Status' Different from Citizenship?," csmonitor.com, stated:
"Gaining legal status would likely mean three things for people now living in the US illegally… First, they would no longer be subject to deportation solely because they’re in the country illegally, as long as they are law abiding in other ways. Second, they would be authorized to work. Third, they would have the ability to travel in and out of the United States. At least 60 percent of the illegal population has been in the US for more than 10 years… and are unable to return to their home countries to visit family or for other reasons…
[A] path to citizenship for illegal immigrants… [means that as] naturalized citizens, they would be eligible to receive government benefits, such as unemployment insurance and Social Security. They could vote. And they would be eligible for special immigration privileges, such as being able to bring family members into the country. If they commit a crime, they can't be deported.
These privileges of citizenship would not apply to people with legal status."
Jan. 21, 2014 - Francine Kiefer, MFA
Should the Government Allow Immigrants Who Are Here Illegally to Become US Citizens?
PRO (yes)
Barack Obama, 44th US President, in remarks at Del Sol High School in Las Vegas, Nevada on Jan. 29, 2013, available at whitehouse.gov, stated:
"[W]e have to deal with the 11 million individuals who are here illegally. We all agree that these men and women should have to earn their way to citizenship. But for comprehensive immigration reform to work, it must be clear from the outset that there is a pathway to citizenship…
We've got to lay out a path -- a process that includes passing a background check, paying taxes, paying a penalty, learning English, and then going to the back of the line, behind all the folks who are trying to come here legally. That's only fair, right?...
So that means it won't be a quick process but it will be a fair process. And it will lift these individuals out of the shadows and give them a chance to earn their way to a green card and eventually to citizenship."
Jan. 29, 2013 - Barack Obama, JD
The AJC (formerly American Jewish Committee) in a policy statement accessed on Feb. 9, 2016, "Path to Legalization for Undocumented Immigrants," available at ajc.org, stated:
"There are an estimated 11 million undocumented immigrants currently residing in the United States. It is unrealistic and inhumane to deport these individuals from their families and lives in the United States. These immigrants should be offered a path to legal status and eventually earned citizenship. This track to citizenship should be realistic, rather than being so burdensome that it prevents integration. Allowing these immigrants to regularize their status will not only strengthen our national security, but will also stimulate the economy and enhance America’s rich, vibrant, and diverse culture."
Feb. 9, 2016 - AJC (formerly American Jewish Committee)
Ed Krayewski, MS, Associate Editor of Reason.com, in a Feb. 7, 2013 article, "5 Reasons to Grant Amnesty to Illegal Immigrants," available at reason.com, stated:
"[W]hat's wrong with granting amnesty to hard-working, tax-paying individuals whose only crime is their immigration status? Indeed, amnesty is not only the best solution to our immigration problem, it is the only feasible solution. Here are five reasons to grant amnesty to illegal immigrants now.
1. Immigration Is Good for the Economy…
2. Illegal Immigrants Already Pay Taxes…
3. Most Illegal Immigrants Are Otherwise Law-Abiding…
4. Immigration Is a Natural Right…
5. There Are Too Many Illegal Immigrants to Do Anything Else."
Feb. 7, 2013 - Ed Krayewski, MA, MS
Robert Lynch, PhD, Professor of Economics at Washington College, and Patrick Oakford, MSc, Research Assistant at the Center for American Progress, in a Mar. 20, 2013 article, "The Economic Effects of Granting Legal Status and Citizenship to Undocumented Immigrants," available at the Center for American Progress website, stated:
"As our study demonstrates, legal status and a road map to citizenship for the unauthorized will bring about significant economic gains in terms of growth, earnings, tax revenues, and jobs—all of which will not occur in the absence of immigration reform or with reform that creates a permanent sub-citizen class of residents. We also show that the timing of reform matters: The sooner we provide legal status and citizenship, the greater the economic benefits are for the nation."
Mar. 20, 2013 - Patrick Oakford, MSc
CON (no)
Bob Goodlatte, JD, US Representative and Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, in a statement accessed Mar. 1, 2016, “Immigration Reform,” available on his US House of Representatives website, stated:
"As Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, I have strongly advocated for immigration reform that focuses on enforcement and upholding the rule of law, including elimination of enforcement waivers that have been abused by previous and current Administrations. To be clear, any immigration reform proposal must first guarantee that our immigration laws are enforced both at the border and within the United States. I remain opposed to amnesty, as I always have been. I do not support a special pathway to citizenship that rewards those who have broken our immigration laws."
Mar. 1, 2016 - Bob Goodlatte, JD
David Benkof, Senior Policy Analyst at The Daily Caller, in an Oct. 13, 2015 The Daily Caller article, "Why Not Second-Class Citizenship for Illegal Immigrants?," available at dailycaller.com, stated:
"Illegal immigrants, in their arrogance, have shown they believe our immigration rules do not apply to them. They have jumped the line – basically stealing a chance at a better life from millions of people around the world who would like to live in America. The idea they would be granted full citizenship essentially so the Democratic Party would gain millions more votes is obscene."
Oct. 13, 2015 - David Benkof, MA
Paul Ryan, Congressman and House Speaker (R-WI), in a Nov. 15, 2015 interview with 60 Minutes, “The Speaker of the House,” available at cbsnews.com, stated:
"It starts with border enforcement… It starts with enforcing the rule of law. But you need to have a vibrant, legal immigration system. Legal immigration is America… I think you could have a pathway to legal status. That's been what I have proposed in the past is a pay--a way to make amends with the law, effectively go on probation and earn your way to legal status, but not to citizenship."
Nov. 15, 2015 - Paul Ryan
Allan J. Favish, JD, attorney, in a Mar. 28, 2015 article, “Senator Ted Cruz's Contradictory Position on Illegal Immigration," available on the American Thinker website, stated:
"As long as they get to remain in the United States legally, they will have jumped ahead of those in their home countries who are attempting legal entry. The newly legalized illegal immigrants will be able to have children born here that will be given automatic American citizenship, with rights to a multitude of means-tested welfare benefits, and non-means-tested entitlements. These children will become the anchors for future citizenship applications from their parents. These benefits will not accrue to those who remain in their countries while attempting to come here legally.
There is only one way to ensure that illegal immigrants go to the back of the line, and that the rule of law is respected. Illegal immigrants must leave the United States without any change in their status under the law beyond what is available to them under present law and present lawful regulations promulgated in compliance with present law."
Mar. 28, 2015 - Allan J. Favish, JD
John Boehner, then Speaker of the US House of Representatives (R-OH) and House Republicans, in a Jan. 20, 2014 press release, “Standards for Immigration Reform,” available at blogs.wsj.com, stated:
"Our national and economic security depend on requiring people who are living and working here illegally to come forward and get right with the law. There will be no special path to citizenship for individuals who broke our nation’s immigration laws – that would be unfair to those immigrants who have played by the rules and harmful to promoting the rule of law. Rather, these persons could live legally and without fear in the U.S., but only if they were willing to admit their culpability, pass rigorous background checks, pay significant fines and back taxes, develop proficiency in English and American civics, and be able to support themselves and their families (without access to public benefits). Criminal aliens, gang members, and sex offenders and those who do not meet the above requirements will not be eligible for this program. Finally, none of this can happen before specific enforcement triggers have been implemented to fulfill our promise to the American people that from here on, our immigration laws will indeed be enforced."
Jan. 20, 2014 - John Boehner
Esther Yu-Hsi Lee, MA, Immigration Reporter for ThinkProgress, in a Jan. 31, 2014 article, "Why Citizenship Is Better for America Than Legal Status," available at thinkprogress.org, stated:
"Legal status would boost the economy, but the resulting productivity and wage gains would be much higher if the vast majority of the undocumented population are granted citizenship. Researchers found that immigrants who are only eligible for legal status, but not citizenship, would contribute about $832 billion to the economy in a ten year period, add 121,000 more jobs per year, and pay $109 billion in taxes over a ten-year period. Compare that to a scenario where undocumented immigrants are granted legal status and citizenship at the same time, the U.S. GDP would grow by $1.4 trillion over a ten year period, immigrants would help to create an additional 203,0000 jobs per year, and add $184 billion in tax revenue. In another scenario where undocumented immigrants are granted legal status and citizenship after five years, the GDP would grow by $1.1 trillion, there would be an additional 159,000 jobs per year, and add $144 billion in tax revenue."
Jan. 31, 2014 - Esther Yu-Hsi Lee, MA
Hillary Clinton, JD, former Secretary of State, in an article accessed on Sep. 25, 2015, "America Needs Comprehensive Immigration Reform with a Pathway to Citizenship," available at hillaryclinton.com, stated:
"The American people support comprehensive immigration reform--not just because it is the right thing to do, but because it strengthens families, our economy, and our country. Congress must pass comprehensive immigration reform that provides a path to citizenship, treats every person with dignity, upholds the rule of law, protects our borders and national security, and brings millions of hardworking people into the formal economy."
Sep. 25, 2015 - Hillary Rodham Clinton, JD
Bernie Sanders, US Senator (I-VT), in a June 19, 2015 article, "Prepared Remarks for National Association of Latino Elected Officials Conference," available at berniesanders.com, stated:
"It is no great secret that across the United States undocumented workers perform a critical role in our economy. They harvest and process our food and it is no exaggeration to say that, with out them, food production in the United States would significantly decline. Undocumented workers build many of our homes, cook our meals, maintain our landscapes. We even entrust undocumented workers with that which we hold most dear – our children...
[I]t is time to end the discussion of mass deportation or self-deportation. We cannot and we should not even be talking about sweeping up millions of men, women, and children – many of whom have been here for years – and throwing them out of the country. That’s wrong and that type of discussion has got to end...
The bottom line of all of this is that it is time to bring our neighbors out of the shadows. It is time to give them legal status. It is time to create a reasonable and responsible path to citizenship."
June 19, 2015 - Bernie Sanders
Lindsey Graham, JD, US Senator (R-SC), in an article accessed Aug. 19, 2015, "Secure Our Future," available at lindseygraham.com, stated:
"The flow of illegal immigration across our borders is a threat to both our economic and national security. We need a comprehensive plan to address this problem and it starts with securing our border. On the economic front, American workers, who are forced to pay taxes, are being cheated by illegal immigrants paid under the table. We should require illegal immigrants to register with the government to ensure they are paying taxes, learning English, undergoing background checks, and paying restitution for entering our nation illegally. Then, after living under our laws and our rules, we should require they wait for citizenship behind legal immigrants already in line. Finally, after going through this lengthy process -- including paying fines, paying taxes, learning English, and passing an American civics and assimilation exam -- which should take a decade or longer, an illegal immigrant could become a citizen, rather than remaining in the shadows and outside the arm of the law. Most important, we need presidential leadership on this issue to build consensus and craft solutions through constitutional means, not executive fiat."
Aug. 19, 2015 - Lindsey Graham, JD
Nathan Thornburgh, Senior Editor of TIME magazine, in a June 7, 2007 TIME article titled "The Case For Amnesty," wrote:
"Amnesty has emerged as the pariah term of the immigration debate, disavowed even by those who believe in its goals. But what are the alternatives to letting illegals stay? Deporting millions? Devising other punishments? Doing nothing at all?... Whether you fine illegal aliens or stick them in English classes or make them say a hundred Hail Marys, at the end of the day, illegals would be allowed to stay and become citizens under this bill [S. 2611]. That's amnesty. And that's a good thing for America. Amnesty won't depress wages - globalization has already done that. Amnesty will not undermine the rule of law... It sounds counterintuitive, but with immigration, forgiving a crime may be the best way to restore law and order. Amnesty won't necessarily add to the social-services burden... Amnesty would offer millions... a fighting chance at self-sufficiency and social mobility."
June 7, 2007 - Nathan Thornburgh
The American Federation of Labor - Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO), in remarks by its President Richard L. Trumka on Mar. 7, 2013, "Remarks by AFL-CIO President Richard L. Trumka 2013 Immigration Campaign Launch Event, Chicago, Illinois," available at aflcio.org, stated:
"Now is the time for real immigration reform, and I’m here to demand that this reform include -- it must include, a workable and clear and practical roadmap to citizenship for every aspiring citizen in America....
Right now, today, the United States of America has 11 million aspiring citizens who rent or own homes, who raise families and buy groceries, who work hard, who pay taxes, and do their fair share right here in Chicago, and in thousands of cities and towns all across this country—but who live here as second-class citizens, and something has to be done about it!
...We don’t want a bunch of useless hurdles to citizenship. We want a simple system that works, a wide path that leaves nobody behind."
Mar. 7, 2013 - American Federation of Labor - Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO)
George W. Bush, MBA, 43rd President of the United States, in an Aug. 3, 2006 White House website section titled "President Bush Discusses Comprehensive Immigration Reform in Texas," offered the following:
"We've got to make sure that we resolve the status of illegal immigrants who are already in this country. It's an interesting debate taking place in America -- I'll give you my position. One, I do not think we ought to grant amnesty to people who are here illegally. And the reason I don't is I think that will encourage a whole other bunch of people to come. But I know you cannot deport 10 million people who have been here working. It's unrealistic. It may sound good in certain circles and political circles. It's not going to work. The best plan is to say to somebody who has been here illegally, if you've been paying your taxes, and you've got a good criminal record, that you can pay a fine for being here illegally, and you can learn English, like the rest of us have done, and you can get in a citizenship line to apply for citizenship. You don't get to get in the front, you get to get in the back of the line."
Aug. 3, 2006 - George W. Bush, MBA
The Service Employees International Union (SEIU), in a Jan. 17, 2007 "Text of Letter to Senator Kennedy from SEIU Leaders - SEIU Announces Agenda for Comprehensive Immigration Reform," available at www.seiu.org, stated:
"Hard working, tax-paying immigrants who are living in this country should be given every opportunity to come forward, pay a fine, and earn legal status and a path toward citizenship. Successful reform mandates the most expansive earned legalization provisions that would make eligible the largest number of undocumented persons... The benefits of an expansive legalization program are clear: employer compliance with withholding requirements is best achieved by the highest level of participation in the legalization programs; people will come out of the shadows and be able to work at higher paying and more secure jobs; and families will be reunited."
Jan. 17, 2007 - Service Employees International Union (SEIU)
The National Council of La Raza (NCLR), in a Nov. 21, 2007 email to ProCon.org, stated:
"Our broken immigration system is like an economic superhighway where the speed limit is set at 30 mph. We need to reset the speed limit by creating legal channels for new workers, eliminate family immigration backlogs which undermine our legal immigration system, and create a path to citizenship for those who are here, working and paying taxes... NCLR supports comprehensive immigration reform that includes the following principles: 1) enforcement that is conducted sensibly, effectively, in a manner consistent with our nation's laws and values; 2) a path to citizenship for the current undocumented population; 3) the creation of new legal channels for future immigrant workers; 4) a reduction of family immigration backlogs; and 5) the protection of civil rights and civil liberties."
Nov. 21, 2007 - National Council of La Raza
Peter Skerry, PhD, Professor of Political Science at Boston College, in a Winter 2013 National Affairs Article, "Splitting the Difference on Illegal Immigration," available at nationalaffairs.com, stated:
"If we succeeded in removing the hyperbole and stereotypes from the immigration debate, our politics might open itself to a balanced approach to the problem: legalization for as many undocumented immigrants as possible, but citizenship for none of them. Under this proposal, illegal immigrants who so desired could become "permanent non-citizen residents" with no option of ever naturalizing.
Such a policy would do much to address the predicament faced by the undocumented while at the same time respecting and addressing the concerns of those Americans who have long demanded that illegals be penalized for breaking the law."
Winter 2013 - Peter Skerry, PhD
Raúl Labrador, JD, US Representative (R-ID), in a Feb. 7, 2013 article, "Labrador: House GOP Won't Vote for Pathway to Citizenship," available at the Talking Points Memo website, stated:
"The people that came here illegally knowingly -- I don't think they should have a path to citizenship. If you knowingly violated our law, you violated our sovereignty, I think we should normalize your status but we should not give you a pathway to citizenship. "Some people are calling it a blue card or a red card [as opposed to a green card], I think we should treat them with dignity, but we should also be fair to millions of people that are waiting in line, that are trying to do it the right way."
Feb. 7, 2013 - Raúl Labrador, JD
John Kasich, Governor of Ohio, in an Oct. 31, 2015 CNN interview, "SMERCONISH: GOP Pres. Candidate John Kasich on CNBC Debate Controversy; GOP Candidates Bash Liberal Media; Political Battle Over Not Prosecuting Cosby; Surviving Politics, TV, and Addiction. Aired 9-10a ET," available at CNN.com, stated:
"I do think we need a fence. I think we need to control our border for sure. But if you're a law-abiding person that has lived here, we'll give you a path to legalization, not a path to citizenship. It is important that we control our border. We lock our doors so people don't wander into our homes.
The country has a right to control its border, too. To say we're going to pick 10 or 11 million people out and shove them out of here, do you remember after World War II when they imprisoned Japanese and what a dark spot, a dark stain on our history. The idea that we're just going to deport all of these people is not going to happen. And it's just not right."
Oct. 31, 2015 - John Kasich
Carly Fiorina, MS, MBA, former CEO of Hewlett-Packard in a June 15, 2015 Morning Joe appearance, available at msnbc.com, stated:
"In my view, we also have to fix the illegal immigration system, which has been broken for about 25 years now. Everyone talks about comprehensive solutions but nobody starts with the basics. My own view is, if you have come here illegally and stayed here illegally, that you don't get a path to citizenship...
I think legal status is a possibility, for sure. I think their children maybe can become citizens. But my own view is it isn't fair to say to people who have played by the rules -- and it takes a long time to play by the rules -- that, you know, it just doesn't matter.”
June 15, 2015 - Carly Fiorina, MBA, MS
The Heritage Foundation, a conservative research and educational institute, in its MyHeritage.org website "Immigration" section, (accessed Oct. 3, 2007), offered the following:
"Do not grant amnesty to illegal aliens. Regardless of the penalties imposed, any program that grants individuals who are unlawfully present the legal permission to remain here rewards illegal behavior and is unfair to those who obey the law and go through the regulatory and administrative requirements to enter the country legally. Those who enter the United States illegally should not be rewarded with permanent legal status or other such benefits, and they should be penalized in any road to citizenship. Those who enter and remain in the country illegally are violating the law, and condoning or encouraging such violations increases the likelihood of further illegal conduct. The only fair way to resolve this problem is to insist that individuals currently in the country who have violated immigration statutes leave and then apply for admission through legal means."
Oct. 3, 2007 - Heritage Foundation
James Sensenbrenner, JD, US House Representative (R-WI), in a July 1, 2013 article, “Sensenbrenner: The Senate’s Amnesty Echoes Only Failure,” available at The Washington Times website, stated:
"Extending amnesty to those who came here illegally or overstayed their visas dissuades people from joining the nearly 4.5 million would-be Americans who are following the rules. This creates economic problems, national security concerns and a human rights crisis as immigrants risk death crossing into America."
July 1, 2013 - James Sensenbrenner, Esq., JD
Ron Paul, MD, US Representative (R-TX), in a Sep. 14, 2006 press release titled "Dr. Paul's Writings: Paul Votes for Stronger Border Security," offered the following:
"The problems associated with illegal immigration cannot be addressed unless and until we gain physical control of our borders and coastlines... The number one priority for Congress should be securing our borders - no immigration reform is possible until then. Once we have control over who is entering the country, we can begin to reform the legal immigration process... Amnesty for lawbreakers is not the answer, and it's time to rethink birthright citizenship."
Sep. 14, 2006 - Ron Paul, MD
Phil Gingrey, MD, US Representative (R-GA), in his Congressional website section titled "Issues: Immigration" (accessed June 18, 2007), offered the following:
"Immigration policy should be based on and adhere to the rule of law. Immigration laws must be enforced consistently and uniformly throughout the United States... Those who enter or remain in the United States in violation of the law shall be detained and removed expeditiously. Illegal aliens shall not accrue any benefit, including U.S. citizenship, as a result of their illegal entry or presence in the United States... Illegal aliens currently in the United States may be afforded a one-time opportunity to leave the country without being prosecuted. Those who do not take advantage of this opportunity will be removed and permanently barred from returning."
June 18, 2007 - Phil Gingrey, MD
Prompt #4: Use at least three sources and write a synthesis persuasive paper on this issue:
Should Performance Enhancing Drugs (Such as Steroids) Be Accepted in Sports?
General Reference (not clearly pro or con)
Sharon Ryan, PhD, Chair of the Department of Philosophy at West Virginia University, stated the following in an Aug. 2008 article titled "What's So Bad About Performance Enhancing Drugs?," published in Philosophy and Football:
"It would be interesting to know the effects of PEDs under legalized and carefully monitored conditions. Athletes are buying drugs from people like Victor Conte, who has no pharmaceutical or sports medicine credentials, and they are shooting up in locker room stalls. If PEDs were used properly and developed in reputable labs by top scientists, perhaps the risks of PEDs would be much lower. Perhaps PEDs could be developed that have very little risk and enormous benefits. These are serious questions for the scientists to figure out..."
Aug. 2008 - Sharon Ryan, PhD
Caroline K. Hatton, PhD, Former Associate Director of the UCLA Olympic Analytical Laboratory, stated the following in her 2008 book Night Team:
"An ongoing debate simmers about whether performance-enhancing drugs should be allowed in sports. Some say they should be, especially in a pill-popping, tummy-tucking society where it is acceptable to use medicine to make healthy people better. Others say that sports would become a competition between pharmacologists, that giving drug use a free rein would open the door to serious toxicity when risk-taking athletes push the envelope, and that athletes would, more than ever, feel coerced to dope in order to remain competitive. In a curious dichotomy, perhaps the only area where there is no doubt or controversy is when it comes to young people: these drugs, especially anabolic steroids, are unanimously considered harmful to the young."
2008 - Caroline K. Hatton, PhD
Keith Burgess-Jackson, JD, PhD, Associate Professor of Philosophy at the University of Texas at Arlington, wrote the following in a Dec. 5, 2004 article titled "Performance-Enhancing Drugs," posted on his website www.analphilosopher.com:
"Part of me--the libertarian part--says that people should be able to use whatever substances they want when they compete. Those who don't want to risk their lives or health should take up another line of work. People who don't want to watch supercharged athletes can find another form of entertainment. But another part of me thinks there should be restrictions on what athletes can consume. The restrictions would be justified on both paternalistic and fairness grounds."
Dec. 5, 2004 - Keith Burgess-Jackson, JD, PhD
David Epstein, Writer-reporter for Sports Illustrated, wrote the following in his Aug. 1, 2006 article titled "Better Cycling Through Chemistry," published in the Guardian:
"Do we want to see the highest possible achievements by men and women who do not use performance-enhancing drugs? If so, what counts as performance-enhancing? Just this month, the World Anti-Doping Agency [WADA] discussed banning oxygen tents that endurance-seeking athletes sleep in in order to simulate a high altitude environment. Apparently WADA really does want normal men and women. By 'normal,' I mean they have armies of scientists, nutritionists, coaches, and physical therapists choreographing their every move, but no tents or steroids.
If sports fans really want to see achievement that they can relate to, perhaps athletes should be restricted to diets of pizza and beer, and be required to have 40-hour-a-week desk jobs."
Aug. 1, 2006 - David Epstein
Jasmin Guénette, MA, Academic Programs Director of the Institute for Humane Studies at George Mason University, wrote the following in his June 18, 2006 article titled "In Defence of Steroids," published in the webszine Le Québécois Libre:
"Now, should baseball-or any other professional league-ban performance-enhancing drugs? The answer is yes, if they want to...
Private companies and associations should be able to define what rules will govern them without any intervention from politicians. A private association has no obligation to accept me if I don't agree to their rules, just as I should not be forced to join any associations I don't think are fit for me. This logic should also prevail when it comes to the sale and use of steroids. If a group of people, let's say Bodybuilders and Co., think performance-enhancing drugs are OK, they should be left alone if they don't force anybody to follow their path. Sadly, this is not how things are done. Today, the debate about steroid use is widely dominated by morally superior do-gooders who believe it's not right for an athlete to use products that help him or her perform better...
I am not suggesting that people should take steroids or use other drugs. But just as I don't want other people choosing what's right for me, I don't want to choose what's right for others. This is what respect is all about; not forcing other people to think like you, to act like you and to obey laws simply because vote-seeking politicians and their allies think some products should be illegal."
June 18, 2006 - Jasmin Guénette, MA
Verner Møller, PhD, Professor and Research Director at the Center for Sport at the University of Aarhus in Denmark, wrote the following in his 2008 book The Doping Devil:
"It has been asserted that sport would lose its power to fascinate and its popularity if medically hazardous doping practices were not eliminated. But panicked pronouncements of this kind stand in direct contradiction to the attitude taken toward other forms of culture with which sport can be compared.
Consider, for example, how we look on with equanimity as ballet dancers submit their bodies to training regimens that turn some of them into invalids...
Or think about how we continue to appreciate the music of Jimi Hendrix, Jim Morrison and Janis Joplin, despite the fact that all of them died as a consequence of alcohol and drug abuse before they turned thirty. Who really believes that someone who has learned to appreciate their music might suddenly wake up one day and say it wasn't worth listening to, because he had just found out that this music was inspired by illicit drugs?"
2008 - Verner Møller, PhD
Should Performance Enhancing Drugs (Such as Steroids) Be Accepted in Sports?
PRO (yes)
Bennett Foddy, DPhil, Harold T. Shapiro Postdoctoral Fellowship in Bioethics in the University Center for Human Values at Princeton University, and Julian Savulescu, PhD, Professor and Uehiro Chair in Practical Ethics at the University of Oxford, wrote the following in their June 2007 chapter titled "Ethics of Performance Enhancement in Sport: Drugs and Gene Doping," published in Principle of Health Care Ethics:
"It would be much easier to eliminate the anti-doping rules than to eliminate doping. The current policy against doping has proved expensive and difficult to police. In the near future it may become impossible to police...
Because doping is illegal, the pressure is to make performance enhancers undetectable, rather than safe. Performance enhancers are produced or bought on the black market and administered in a clandestine, uncontrolled way with no monitoring of the athlete's health. Allowing the use of performance enhancers would make sport safer as there would be less pressure on athletes to take unsafe enhancers and a pressure to develop new safe performance enhancers and to make existing enhancers more effective at safe dosages...
The removal of doping controls would have major benefits: less cheating, increased solidarity and respect between athletes, more focus on sport and not on rules."
June 2007 - Bennett Foddy, DPhil
CON (no)
Richard Callicott, former Chief Executive of UK Sport, stated in a Nov. 1, 2003 article titled "Yes or No? Question of the Week: Drugs in Sport," published in The Times(London):
"As the national anti-doping agency we will never accept this. Performance-enhancing drugs are not only prohibited because they violate the spirit of sport but because they can damage the health of athletes. The idea of allowing them in sport could lead to a situation whereby sportsmen and women are used as human guinea pigs for a constant flow of new, unregulated substances. The long-term effects don't bear thinking about."
Nov. 1, 2003 - Richard Callicott
Thomas H. Murray, PhD, President of the Hastings Center, wrote the following in his 2008 chapter titled "Sports Enhancement" in From Birth to Death and Bench to Clinic: The Hastings Center Bioethics Briefing Book for Journalists, Policymakers, and Campaigns, published by The Hastings Center:
"There are several reasons to ban performance-enhancing drugs: respect for the rules of sports, recognition that natural talents and their perfection are the point of sports, and the prospect of an 'arms race' in athletic performance...
Sports that revere records and historical comparisons (think of baseball and home runs) would become unmoored by drug-aided athletes obliterating old standards. Athletes, caught in the sport arms race, would be pressed to take more and more drugs, in ever wilder combinations and at increasingly higher doses...
The drug race in sport has the potential to create a slow-motion public health catastrophe. Finally, we may lose whatever is most graceful, beautiful, and admirable about sport..."
2008 - Thomas H. Murray, PhD
Adrianne Blue, Senior Lecturer in International Journalism in the Department of Journalism and Publishing at City University London, stated the following in her Aug. 14, 2006 article "It's the Real Dope," published in the New Statesman:
"Today, sport's dirty little secret is drugs, and it is high time we made them legal. Performance-enhancing drugs may not be desirable, but they are here to stay. What we can do away with is the hypocrisy.
Insiders know that many - perhaps most - top players in all sports take drugs to train harder and feel no pain during play. The trainers, sports doctors, nutritionists, physiotherapists and managers of the big names make sure banned substances are taken at the safest and most efficient levels, and when they can, the governing bodies look the other way...
The main effect of banning such substances has been to turn performers and their coaches into liars and cheats. We should legalise performance-enhancing drugs so that they can be regulated and athletes on the way up - whose entourages do not yet include savvy physiotherapists and doctors - don't overdose and do themselves damage."
Aug. 14, 2006 - Adrianne Blue
Joe Lindsey, contributing writer for Bicycling magazine, wrote in an Oct. 23, 2008 email to ProCon.org:
[T]he school of thought that advocates legalizing doping, or holds that an athlete has the right to choose whether to endanger his health, is ignoring a completely separate ethical and legal question: should people have the right to use a substance that is not legal for human use under ANY circumstances? The answer cannot be anything other than 'No.' And if that is the case, then we have drawn a line where some substances are OK to take, and others are not. And if that's the case, then what's the difference, philosophically, in where that line is drawn - that more or less substances are deemed banned? The only difference is a world where the semblance of fair play remains, where sports remain the end product of hard work, determination and talent, and a world where sports becomes merely pharmaceutically fueled entertainment. We can choose that world if we like, but with the knowledge that the cost is sports as inspirational and transformative, indicative of the best traits of us as people. Choose that road, and sport is no longer sport, no more noble an endeavor than, say, 'The Apprentice.'"
Oct. 23, 2008 - Joe Lindsey
Lincoln Allison, DLitt, Founding Director of Warwick University's Centre for the Study of Sport in Society, wrote the following in an Aug. 9, 2004 article titled "Faster, Stronger, Higher," published in the Guardian:
"A sportsman or woman who seeks an advantage from drugs just moves up to the level appropriate to his or her underlying ability...
There are no drugs to enhance the human characteristics of judgment and leadership. If there were, would we not want the prime minister to take them? And if there were drugs for hand-eye coordination, would we not pay more to see a performer who had taken them than one who had not?...
In general, the risk to health from performance-enhancing drugs is considerably less than that from tobacco or alcohol, and we ought not to apply paternalistic moral assumptions to sport that we are not prepared to apply to the rest of life."
Aug. 9, 2004 - Lincoln Allison, DLitt
Gary Wadler, MD, Chairman of the World Anti-Doping Agency's (WADA) Prohibited List and Methods Sub-Committee, stated the following in an Oct. 20, 1999 prepared statement for the hearing on "Effects of Performance Enhancing Drugs on the Health of Athletes and Athletic Competition," before the US Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation:
"Doping is a matter of ethics, which affects not only Olympic athletes but also youth, high school, college and professional athletes. The fact is doping threatens to undermine the ethical and physical well being of children...
We cannot allow performance-enhancing drugs to undermine the Olympic Movement. We cannot allow another generation of young people to approach adulthood with a pervading sense of cynicism, and a belief in the power of chemical manipulation rather than the power of character...
New doping control measures must be rooted in sport ethics and values; they must flow from athlete agreement; they must respect athletes' rights to privacy; and they must be independently, accountably and fairly administered..."
Oct. 20, 1999 - Gary I. Wadler, MD
Norman Fost, MD, MPH, Professor and Director of the Medical Ethics Program at the University of Wisconsin, made the following statement in a Dec. 18, 2006 interview published by Scout.com (a Fox Sports News website) titled "Baseball Men - The Skeptic":
"We allow people to do far more dangerous things than play football or baseball while using steroids. We allow people to bungee-jump, to ski on advanced slopes, to cliff dive. To eat marbled meat or ice cream pie every day if they want. I don't think we want to go down a path in which we restrict and even criminalize behaviors just because they have health risks. And steroids are so low on the list of drugs or diets that cause serious harm I don't understand why we would start there."
Dec. 18, 2006 - Norman Fost, MD, MPH
Lewis Kurlantzick, LLB, Zephaniah Swift Professor of Law at the University of Connecticut School of Law, wrote in his Apr. 12, 2006 article titled "Is There a Steroids Problem? The Problematic Character of the Case for Regulation," published in the New England Law Review:
"Athletes are in a position to make a decision about what behavior is in their best interest, to weigh the risks and benefits according to their own values. And a paternalistic rule that attempts to prevent the athlete from harming himself runs counter to the important values of independence and personal choice. Moreover, it is likely that the feared harm is neither life-threatening nor irreversible. Presumably, under this health rationale, if performance is enhanced by substances that cause neither short-term nor long-term harm to the athlete, these substances should not be banned."
Apr. 12, 2006 - Lewis Kurlantzick, LLB
Kenan Malik, Senior Visiting Fellow at the Department of Political, International and Policy Studies at the University of Surrey and presenter of the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) Radio 4 show Analysis, stated during a Jan. 4, 2004 Analysis episode titled "Tainted Gold":
"But scientists already help athletes win. Cyclist Chris Boardman won his Olympic Gold in Barcelona in 1992 sitting on a specially-engineered machine. In the Rugby World Cup, England players wore body-hugging shirts specifically designed to help evade tackles. In neither case did the scientific work in the labs devalue the sporting triumph in the stadium. Why view drug use differently?
It's difficult, in any case, for proponents of the current drugs policy to assume the moral high ground. Not only are the arguments for a draconian drugs regime flawed, but the policies often lead to dubious consequences. Is depriving a 16-year Romanian gymnast of her life's dream because she took a couple of Nurofen tablets really to stand on principle?"
Jan. 4, 2004 - Kenan Malik
Robert Housman, JD, Partner at Book Hill Partners consulting firm, and former Assistant Director for Strategic Planning in the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP), in his Apr. 6, 2005 Washington Times article "Steroids and the Feds," wrote:
"Performance-enhancing drugs seriously risk the health and safety of users, especially young people. The risks of steroid use include: elevated cholesterol levels, increased incidence of heart disease, addiction, serious liver damage, sex-trait changes and often severe behavioral changes, particularly heightened aggressiveness. No victory is worth the damage these substances do to a person - just ask the parents who told the hearing their children committed suicide because of steroid use. Stars who use these dangerous drugs set a deadly example for children."
Apr. 6, 2005 - Robert Housman, JD
Gregory Ioannidis, PhD, LLB, LLM, Barrister and Lecturer in Law and Research Associate in Sport Law at the University of Buckingham, wrote in his Nov. 2003 article "Legal Regulation of Doping in Sport: The Case for Prosecution," published in the legal journal Obiter:
"The strongest justification, perhaps, on the ban on drugs and furthermore, on the application of criminal law on doping infractions, relates to the issues of health. Many commentators have argued that interference with the individual's liberty is unacceptable and, therefore, the ban on drugs cannot be justified. However, this argument cannot rebut the fact that doping is both extremely dangerous and destructive. In particular, the 'individual liberty' argument fails to take into account the coercive nature of doping that is at its most insidious at the State level."
Nov. 2003 - Gregory Ioannidis, LLM, PhD
Timothy Noakes, MD, DSc, Discovery Health Professor of Exercise and Sports Science at the University of Cape Town, wrote in his Dec. 2006 article "Should We Allow Performance-Enhancing Drugs in Sport? A Rebuttal to the Article by Savulescu and Colleagues," published in theInternational Journal of Sports Science and Coaching:
"Sport is meant to be about honesty - what you see is all there is. Doping is part of an evil influence extending to match fixing and gambling that has always been a (hidden) part of professional sport, but which will likely ultimately destroy it. If we do not attempt to control this evil triad, professional sport finally distances itself from the mystical endeavour it is meant to be. Without the illusion that professional athletes are somewhat like ourselves, just better, their profession has no appeal. Rather, sport becomes no different from any other commercially driven activity."
Aug. 26, 2004 - Timothy Noakes, MD, DSc
Sam Shuster, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Dermatology at Newcastle University, wrote in his Aug. 4, 2006 article titled "There's No Proof That Sports Drugs Enhance Performance," published in the Guardian:
"The ethical argument...disappears on examination. Sport is for enjoyment and competition, and usually aims to improve; but what is the difference between increasing skill and performance by training, and taking drugs?...
What is more 'fair' - the use of a team of sports specialists or a simple pill? What is the difference between training at altitude and taking erythropoietin to achieve a similar effect? And why are the strips of adhesive plaster on the nose - absurdly believed to increase oxygen intake - more acceptable than a drug which reduces airway resistance?"
Aug. 4, 2006 - Sam Shuster, PhD
Russell Meldrum, MD, Associate Professor of Orthopaedic Surgery at Indiana University School of Medicine, wrote the following in his Spring 2002 article titled "Drug Use by College Athletes: Is Random Testing an Effective Deterrent?," published in Sport Journal:
"Drug use is a serious concern, not only for the concepts of integrity and fair play in competitive sports, but because of the health threats to the athletes. Certainly drug testing programs should continue with increasing numbers of athletes being tested and increasing penalties for detection, since these are most likely means of deterrence. Drug education programs must also continue in a further attempt to curtail the use of illegal performance-enhancing drugs by empowering the young athlete with the information and skills to make responsible and healthy decisions."
Spring 2002 - Russell Meldrum, MD
Carl Thomen, PhD candidate in Sports Philosophy at the University of Gloucestershire, wrote the following in a Feb. 28, 2009 email to ProCon.org:
"With reference to performance-enhancing drugs, if we have discarded the useless 'unfair advantage' argument because of an unbiased look at the inherently technologically unfair nature of professional sport, we are really only left with worries about harm to athletes. Please note: harm to athletes, not breast augmentation patients, Viagra users or the spaced-out Ritalin generation. We don't worry when the Isle of Man TT race or the Vendee Globe claims another life, or when that boxer on the news gets Alzheimer's. And when innocent Canadian soldiers are shot by American pilots buzzing on Army-sanctioned ephedrine, we're still convinced that sport is somehow exempt from the influence of the natural human desire for constant improvement.
The rationalization is that it is okay for pilots to take performance-enhancing drugs, for musicians to use Beta blockers and for our children to swallow Ritalin because performance is paramount. But where are our health concerns now? Perversely, we deny the 'performance is paramount' principle in professional sport while citing health concerns about performance-enhancing drugs. We want better performances from our sports heroes all the time, but demonize the methods used to produce such performances while hiding behind concerns for health that are not commensurate with our normal paternalistic attitudes."
Feb. 28, 2009 - Carl Thomen
Paul C. McCaffrey, JD, Law Associate at K&L Gates LLP, wrote the following in his 2006 article titled "Playing Fair: Why the United States Anti-Doping Agency's Performance-Enhanced Adjudications Should Be Treated as State Action," printed in the Washington University Journal of Law and Policy:
"The illicit use of performance-enhancing substances -- commonly referred to as 'doping' -- is irreconcilable with the spirit of sport.
The concept of fair play is central to both the 'spirit of sport' and due process. The use of illicit substances to enhance athletic performance is offensive to this concept."
2006 - Paul C. McCaffrey, JD
George Michael, creator and former host of Sports Machine on NBC, stated the following in the Jan. 15, 2007 debate titled "We Should Accept Performance-Enhancing Drugs in Competitive Sports," aired on National Public Radio (NPR):
"Baseball owners paid $370 million to players who were not able to play. Most of them according to Dr. Andrews, were related to their use of anabolic steroids. And you now want to admit--legalize it, and govern it?...
Here's the bottom line. I am not willing to pay the price for legalizing steroids and performance-enhancing drugs, because I've seen too often what it can do. I don't want to go to the cemetery and tell all the athletes who are dead there, hey guys, soon you'll have a lot more of your friends coming, because we're going to legalize this stuff. The only good news out of it? They wouldn't hear the news. Because they're all dead."
Jan. 15, 2007 - George Michael
Richard Boock, author and sports journalist, wrote the following in his July 31, 2008 article titled "Drug Testing Just Dopey," published in the Sunday Star Times:
"It's unclear why we continue to beat ourselves up over performance-enhancing drugs, it's not as if international sport has a great tradition of being pure and clean. Up until 1968 it was a free-for-all; over the next 20 years it was only moderately restricted, and even now the poachers seem light years ahead of the game-keepers"
July 31, 2008 - Richard Boock
Gary Roberts, JD, Editor-in-chief of The Sports Lawyer, submitted the following response in a Dec. 13, 2004 debate entry titled "What Should Baseball Do About Drugs," published by Legal Affairs:
"Home runs are hit only because the player has great skill at swinging a bat at a little ball coming at him at over 90 mph. Most of the folks reading this could take steroids all their lives and still not be able to hit that little ball.
If someone wants to earn millions of dollars being a professional baseball player, he may feel pressured to use steroids to make himself the best that he can be. If he doesn't want to take those health risks, he can take his chances or go into some other line of work. Nobody forces anyone to be a baseball player. That is true for guys who fight oil well fires, tame lions, or do dangerous stunts for the movies, as well.
In short, if the public wants to see 500 foot home runs and there are young men willing to run the health risks associated with taking substances that allow them to hit those home runs and make millions of dollars, why not cut the pretense of public outrage and let them do it?"
Dec. 13, 2004 - Gary Roberts, JD
Barack Obama, JD, US Senator (D-IL) at the time of the quote, in his Oct. 2, 2008 interview on ESPN's Radio show Mike & Mike in the Morning, stated [as transcribed by ProCon.org]:
"As a father and an avid sports fan, I understand the dangers that performance enhancing drugs pose for athletes, as well as the teenagers who seek to emulate them, not to mention the effect that these drugs have on the integrity of sports. As president, I would use the bully pulpit of my office to warn Americans about the dangers of performance enhancing drugs, and I would put greater resources into enforcement of existing drug laws. I would also convene a summit of the commissioners of the professional sports leagues, as well as university presidents, to explore options for decreasing the use of these drugs."
Oct. 2, 2008 - Barack Obama, JD
Robert Simon, PhD, Professor of Philosophy at Hamilton College, stated the following in a Dec. 9, 2004 live internet chat with USA Today readers titled "Drugs in Sports: Robert Simon":
"I would argue that prohibition [of performance enhancing drugs] is justified because (1) steroid use makes little sense if everyone uses; gains are minimal and everyone is exposed to the risks, (2) how your body reacts to a steroid is not an athletic talent like running or hitting, and (3) it's worth protecting the ideal of sport as a healthy pursuit."
Dec. 9, 2004 - Robert Simon, PhD
Bengt Kayser, MD, PhD, Professor of Exercise Physiology in the Faculty of Medicine at the University of Geneva, Alexandre Mauron, PhD, Professor of Bioethics in the Faculty of Medicine at the University of Geneva, and Andy Miah, PhD, Reader in New Media and Bioethics in the School of Media, Language, and Music at the University of the West of Scotland, wrote the following in their Dec. 2005 article "Viewpoint: Legalisation of Performance-Enhancing Drugs," published in The Lancet:
"We believe that rather than drive doping underground, use of drugs should be permitted under medical supervision... The boundary between the therapeutic and ergogenic - ie, performance enhancing - use of drugs is blurred at present and poses difficult questions for the controlling bodies of antidoping practice and for sports doctors. The antidoping rules often lead to complicated and costly administrative and medical follow-up to ascertain whether drugs taken by athletes are legitimate therapeutic agents or illicit.
...Furthermore, legalisation of doping, we believe, would encourage more sensible, informed use of drugs in amateur sport, leading to an overall decline in the rate of health problems associated with doping. Finally, by allowing medically supervised doping, the drugs used could be assessed for a clearer view of what is dangerous and what is not..."
Dec. 2005 - Bengt Kayser, MD, PhD
Gary S. Becker, PhD, Professor in the Departments of Economics, Graduate School of Business, and Sociology at the University of Chicago, wrote in an Aug. 27, 2006 entry titled "Doping in Sports" on the Becker-Posner blog:
"While the case for banning various types of drugs and other enhancers is strong, the ability to control doping is limited. For there is a continuing battle between bans and the discovery of new enhancers that have not been banned...
The result is a fragile equilibrium between the banning of various substances, enforcement of bans, and the search for new substances and ways to evade bans on old substances. This is not a perfect outcome, but I believe it is on the whole better for competitive sports and for participants than a policy that allows all kinds of performance enhancers and stimulants."
Aug. 27, 2006 - Gary S. Becker, PhD
Michael J. Beloff, QC, English barrister (British lawyer), wrote the following information in the article titled "Drugs, Laws and Versapaks," written as chapter four in John O'Leary's book Drugs and Doping In Sport, published in 2001:
"The objects of doping control are clear. The essence of a sporting contest is that it should be fairly conducted, with the competitor's success or failure being the result of natural talents: speed, skill, endurance, tactical awareness - honed, it may be, by instruction, training and body maintenance in its widest sense. The much used metaphor - a level playing field - derives from sport. The use of drugs violates all such notions of equality: the drug taker starts with an unfair advantage. Success becomes the product of the test tube, not the training track. The interests of innocent athletes need protection by punishment of the guilty."
2001 - Michael J. Beloff, QC
Alexandre Mauron, PhD Andy Miah, PhD
Radley Balko, Senior Editor of Reason magazine, wrote in his Jan. 23, 2008 article titled "Should We Allow Performance Enhancing Drugs in Sports?," published inReason:
"Sports is about exploring and stretching the limits of human potential. Going back even to the pre-modern Olympics, when athletes ate live bees and ate crushed sheep testicles to get a leg up on the competition, sports has never been some wholesome display of physical ability alone. Ingenuity, innovation, and knowledge about what makes us faster and stronger (and avoiding what might do more harm than good) has always been a part of the game...
...A free society isn't really free at all if it doesn't include the freedom to make what some may believe are bad decisions."
Jan. 23, 2008 - Radley Balko
Fred Bowen, JD, attorney at the US Department of Labor and Columnist for the Washington Post, wrote the following in his Apr. 18, 2008 article titled "It's a Dangerous Game," published in the Washington Post:
"Steroids are dangerous. They can hurt a player's heart, liver and other parts of his body. Some doctors also think players are tearing more tendons and ligaments because their bulked-up muscles have gotten too big for their bodies.
And no one knows for sure how steroids may affect a player's health over the long run. Players may be risking their lives for a chance to be bigger and stronger today...
Millions of kids still dream about playing in the major leagues. They have posters of Nomar Garciaparra, Barry Bonds and Randy Johnson on their bedroom walls. MLB is setting the worst possible example and sending the worst possible message to kids by doing nothing about steroid use. Baseball is telling kids that they may have to take dangerous and illegal drugs if they want to reach their dreams of playing in the big leagues."
Apr. 18, 2008 - Fred Bowen, JD
Garvan Grant, journalist at the Sunday Business Post(Ireland), wrote the following in his Aug. 3, 2008 article published by Sunday Business Post titled "Don't Spoil the Sports":
"Whether we like it or not, drugs have become a part of modern sport. Instead of condemning them, all athletes should be allowed to take whatever substances they feel will enhance their performance."
Aug. 3, 2008 - Garvan Grant
Kate Schmidt, former US Olympic javelin thrower, wrote the following in her Oct. 18, 2007 article titled "Just Say Yes to Steroids - Learn, Make Better Choices," published in the Los Angeles Times:
"In the same way that we have learned about injury prevention and safety, we need performance drugs exposed to the hot light of public scrutiny. We need to legitimize their use. With a more realistic view of our elite athletes, parents and kids can make more informed choices about their extracurricular activities.
The technology exists to test for levels of most of the substances on the 'banned drugs' lists. What if we declared that certain levels of them in the body were acceptable, while excessive amounts would result in penalties? Athletes could satisfy their drive to be faster and stronger. Drugs could move from the black market to the legitimate sports-medicine community. Athletes could stop experimenting on themselves. It would be safer to take the substances, and with medical monitoring, there would be fewer negative side effects... Track gets faster, nutrition gets more specific and training techniques improve."
Oct. 18, 2007 - Kate Schmidt
Gary Cartwright, writer for the Texas Monthly, in the magazine's Apr. 2008 article "Truth and Consequences: Yes, Roger Clemens Is a Jerk. But Congress Shouldn't Make a Federal Case Over Whether He Lied About Using Steroids," wrote:
"Who among us hasn't used performance enhancers, preferably with ice and an olive? Steroids, synthetic substances similar to testosterone, can be as benign as those that are commonly prescribed for allergies and as harmful as those that have sent many retired athletes into physical decline; as with any medication, the effect depends on the dose and frequency of use...
For the most part, however, the only thing certifiably bad about steroids is that they may improve athletic performance. Somehow we've decided that the only hardworking professionals who shouldn't be permitted to enhance their performances are athletes. Amphetamines were staples in professional training rooms in the sixties and seventies...
It is time to admit that not all steroids are dangerous and that every individual and every situation cannot be addressed with the same set of rigid rules. Instead of banning steroids, we should control them. Cool the hysteria; educate without scaring."
Apr. 2008 - Gary Cartwright
Don H. Catlin, MD, Founder and CEO of Anti-Doping Research, stated the following in a Dec. 12, 2004 article titled "The Steroid Detective, published in US News and World Report:
"If you try to get every last little cheater, you're going to be pretty frustrated. There are always going to be ways to beat testing. But if you don't test, sport is gone, it really is. Then you might say, well, OK, everybody is going to be on drugs, and they will all be equal again. But people will start getting really sick. All these things are toxic."
Dec. 12, 2004 - Don H. Catlin, MD
Michael Giltz, freelance pop culture and politics writer, wrote the following information in the Dec. 12, 2007 article titled "Mitchell Report: America Loves Cheaters," published by The Huffington Post:
"I think cheaters are losers. I think sports like baseball are a lot less fun when some players have an unfair advantage. I hate to think of my team winning with the help of cheaters. I hate even more to think of kids in high school and the minor leagues risking their health and dignity by breaking the law to cheat because they believe if they don't they'll never make it to the majors. I don't boo my own team, but I don't applaud when Jason Giambi's name is in the lineup and I wish he were traded, however nice a guy he may be on a personal level. I just don't like cheaters. And people using PEDs [performance enhancing drugs] don't make a one-time mistake or suffer a slip of the tongue, the sort of thing anyone might make and be forgiven for. They choose actively and aggressively to cheat for months and years at a time and they sometimes reap millions by doing so. I hate cheaters..."
Dec. 12, 2007 - Michael Giltz
Craig Lord, Swimming Correspondent at The Times, in a May 2, 2008 Swimmers World magazine article titled "You Wearing The Right (Wrong) Suit And Genes?," wrote:
"Among some there is an attitude of resignation and self-justification that drugs are just part of sport. They're not. They are part of cheating, part of dirty sport, part of everything that the Olympic spirit is not... As things stand, the more the public take hold of the idea that Marion Jones [disqualified American Olympic Gold Medalist for the use of steroids] was the tip of the iceberg, the less faith they will have in Olympic sports, the less keen they will be to send their kids to the pool, the smaller the audience will become... A sport is as good as the authenticity of its assets."
May 2, 2008 - Craig Lord
Abdul-Karim Al-Jabbar (formerly known as Sharmon Shah and Karim Abdul-Jabbar), former National Football League (NFL) running back, was quoted as having said the following in a Sep. 7, 2006 ESPN The Magazine article titled "HGH: Performance Enhancer or Healer":
"The bottom line is we get beat the hell up. We need whatever's available to keep ourselves out there... I think anything that's helpful should be legal, because when you're done, they fold you up and say goodbye."
Sep. 7, 2006 - Abdul-Karim Al-Jabbar
Donald M. Fehr, JD, Executive Director of the Major League Baseball Players Association (MLBPA), stated the following in his written statement for the hearing on "Drugs in Sports: Compromising the Health of Athletes and Undermining the Integrity of Competition," before the US House of Representatives Committee on Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection on Feb. 27, 2008:
"The Major League Baseball Players Association does not condone or support the use by players - or by anyone else - of any unlawful substance, nor do we support or condone the unlawful use of any legal substance. I cannot put it more plainly. The unlawful use of any substance is wrong.
Moreover, the Players are committed to dispelling any suggestion that the route to becoming a Major League athlete somehow includes taking illegal performance enhancing substances, such as steroids. It does not take a physician to recognize that steroids are powerful drugs that no one should fool around with. This is particularly true for children and young adults, as the medical research makes clear that illegal steroid use can be especially harmful to them.
Playing Major League Baseball requires talent, drive, intelligence, determination, and grit. Steroids and other unlawful performance enhancing drugs (PEDs) have no place in the game."
Feb. 27, 2008 - Donald M. Fehr, JD
Scott Long, sports writer and comedian, stated the following in his June 9, 2006 sports blog posted on www.baseballtoaster.com, titled "The Happy Hypocrite Takes on Jason Grimsley":
"Players have always looked for an edge... And why wouldn't they do this? I'm tired of so-called moralists acting outraged that players could do such a thing. Are you telling me that you wouldn't consider taking some substance if it potentially made you better? Especially if you were in a profession where 2.5 million dollars a year is the average salary. Especially if you knew that there would be no drug testing. Especially if you knew that many other workers in your field might possibly be getting an advantage over you...
I don't have any problem savoring the prose of Poe or Burroughs, even knowing they were junkies. I don't run from the room when I hear Nirvana or Alice in Chains rumbling through the speakers, just because their lead singers killed themselves using heroin... Personally, I don't have a big problem with some of baseball's greatest records being broken by athletes who are under suspicion as cheaters..."
June 9, 2006 - Scott Long
Maxwell J. Mehlman, JD, Director of the Law-Medicine Center at Case Western Reserve University School of Law, wrote the following in his Aug. 11, 2004 article titled "What's Wrong with Using Drugs in Sports? Nothing," published in USA TODAY:
"There is nothing inherently wrong with athletes using relatively safe drugs. People simply find it distasteful. It offends their aesthetic sensibilities...
Tastes change, as perhaps they will when people realize that the ultimate justification for the policy against all drugs in sports is the same reason that we get upset when the neighbors paint their house purple.
Aug. 11, 2004 - Maxwell J. Mehlman, JD
Frank Deford, Senior Contributing Writer at Sports Illustrated, stated the following in his Oct. 29, 2003 article titled "Dope and Glory: Why Don't Fixed Bodies Provoke the Same Outrage as Fixed Games?," published in Sports Illustrated:
"Doping is to sport very much like terrorism is to nations. It is insidious. OK, there's a lot of bad stuff that's always gone on in sports. But, at the core, we are always drawn to the physical majesty of the young men and women who do wondrous things with their bodies. Sport is art, aesthetics -- tabulated. We are outraged at games that are fixed. Drugs fix bodies. It's the same thing, and we know it."
Oct. 29, 2003 - Frank Deford
Prompt #5: Use at least three sources and write a synthesis persuasive paper on this issue:
Are Social Networking Sites Good for Our Society?
76% of American adults online use social networking sites such as Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, LinkedIn, and Pinterest, as of July 2015, up from 26% in 2008.[26] [189]. On social media sites like these, users may develop biographical profiles, communicate with friends and strangers, do research, and share thoughts, photos, music, links, and more.
Proponents of social networking sites say that the online communities promote increased interaction with friends and family; offer teachers, librarians, and students valuable access to educational support and materials; facilitate social and political change; and disseminate useful information rapidly.
Opponents of social networking say that the sites prevent face-to-face communication; waste time on frivolous activity; alter children’s brains and behavior making them more prone to ADHD; expose users to predators like pedophiles and burglars; and spread false and potentially dangerous information. Read more background...
Top Pro & Con Arguments
Social networking sites spread information faster than any other media. Over 50% of people learn about breaking news on social media. [1]65% of traditional media reporters and editors use sites like Facebook and LinkedIn for story research, and 52% use Twitter. [2] Social networking sites are the top news source for 27.8% of Americans, ranking close to newspapers (28.8%) and above radio (18.8%) and other print publications (6%). [1] Twitter and YouTube users reported the July 20, 2012 Aurora, CO theater shooting before news crews could arrive on the scene [3], and the Red Cross urged witnesses to tell family members they were safe via social media outlets. [4]
Law enforcement uses social networking sites to catch and prosecute criminals. 67% of federal, state, and local law enforcement professionals surveyed think "social media helps solve crimes more quickly." [5] In 2011 the NYPD added a Twitter tracking unit and has used social networking to arrest criminals who have bragged of their crimes online. [6] When the Vancouver Canucks lost the 2011 Stanley Cup in Vancouver, the city erupted into riots. Social media was used to catch vandals and rioters as social networking site users tagged the people they knew in over 2,000 photos posted to the sites. [7] [8]
Social networking sites help students do better at school. 59% of students with access to the Internet report that they use social networking sites to discuss educational topics and 50% use the sites to talk about school assignments. [9] After George Middle School in Portland, OR introduced a social media program to engage students, grades went up by 50%, chronic absenteeism went down by 33%, and 20% of students school-wide voluntarily completed extra-credit assignments.[10] [11] A Jan. 2015 study published in the Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology said college freshman should use social networking sites to build networks of new friends, feel socially integrated at their new schools, and reduce their risk of dropping out. [182]
Social networking sites allow people to improve their relationships and make new friends. 70% of adult social networking users visit the sites to connect with friends and family [12], and increased online communication strengthens relationships. [13] 52% of teens using social media report that using the sites has helped their relationships with friends, 88% report that social media helps them stay in touch with friends they cannot see regularly, 69% report getting to know students at their school better, and 57% make new friends. [14]
Social media helps empower business women. Being able to connect on social networking sites gives business women a support group not readily found offline where female CEOs of Fortune 500 companies are outnumbered by male CEOs 15 to 485. [15] Many social media sites are dominated by women: 72% of Pinterest users are women, 58% of Facebook users, 62% of MySpace users, 60% of Yelp users, and 53% of Instagram users. [16] Business women useTwitter chats to support each other, give and receive peer knowledge, and have guest "speakers" share expert knowledge. [17] One.org helps African women entrepreneurs connect on social media to grow their businesses. [18]
Social media sites help employers find employees and job-seekers find work. 64% of companies are on two or more social networks for recruiting [19] because of the wider pool of applicants and more efficient searching capabilities. 89% of job recruiters have hired employees through LinkedIn, 26% through Facebook, and 15% through Twitter. [20]One in six job-seekers credit social media for helping find their current job. 52% of job-seekers use Facebook for the job search, 38% use LinkedIn, and 34% use Twitter. [21]
Being a part of a social networking site can increase a person's quality of life and reduce the risk of health problems. Social media can help improve life satisfaction, stroke recovery, memory retention, and overall well-being by providing users with a large social group. Additionally, friends on social media can have a "contagion" effect, promoting and helping with exercise, dieting, and smoking cessation goals. [22]
Social networking sites facilitate face-to-face interaction. People use social media to network at in-person events and get to know people before personal, business, and other meetings. [23]Pew Research Center's Internet and American Life Project found that messaging on social media leads to face-to-face interactions when plans are made via the sites and social media users messaged close friends an average of 39 days each year while seeing close friends in person 210 days each year. [24]
Social networking sites increase voter participation. Facebook users reported they are more likely to vote if they see on social networking sites that their friends did. [25] During the Nov. 2010 elections, Facebook users who visit the site more than once a day were 2.5 times more likely to attend a political rally or meeting, 57% more likely to persuade someone about a vote, and 43% more likely to say they will vote. [26] During the 2012 presidential election, 22% of registered voters posted about how they voted on Facebook or Twitter, 30% were encouraged to vote by posts on social media, and 20% encouraged others to vote via social networking sites. [27]
Social media facilitates political change.Social networking sites give social movements a quick, no-cost method to organize, disseminate information, and mobilize people. [28] The 2011 Egyptian uprising (part of the Arab Spring), organized largely via social media, motivated tens of thousands of protestors for eighteen days of demonstrations and, ultimately led to the resignation of Egyptian President Mubarak on Feb. 11, 2011. [29] A July 4, 2011 tweet from @Adbusters with the hashtag #occupywallstreet started the American Occupy movement, which gained traction in Sep. 2011 when protesters gathered at New York City's Zuccotti Park and remained there until Nov. 15, 2011. [30]
Social networking is good for the economy.Social media sites have created a new industry and thousands of jobs in addition to providing new income and sales. [31] A McKinsey Global Institute study projects that the communication and collaboration from social media could add $900 billion to $1.3 trillion to the economy through added productivity and improved customer service. [32]Facebook posted $1.26 billion for third quarter 2012 revenue, up from $954 million for third quarter 2011 earnings. [33] Twitter, a private company, earned an estimated $350 million in 2012 revenue. [34]
Social media sites empower individuals to make social change and do social good on a community level. Social media shares popularized nine-year old Scottish student, Martha Payne, and her blog, "Never Seconds," which exposed the state of her school’s lunch program prompting international attention that resulted in changes to her school and the formation of "Friends of Never Seconds" charity to feed children globally. [35] [141]Jeannette Van Houten uses social media to find owners of photographs and mementos strewn from houses by Hurricane Sandy. [36] Hillsborough, CA freshman varsity soccer goalie Daniel Cui was blamed for and bullied about a losing season until over 100 of his teammates and classmates changed their Facebook profile photos to one of Cui making a save, silencing the bullies and building Cui's confidence. [37] [38]
Social networking sites help senior citizens feel more connected to society. [39] [40]According to a 2010 Pew Internet & American Life Project study, the 74-year old and older age group is the fastest growing demographic on social media sites with the percentage quadrupling from 2008 to 2010, from 4% to 16%. [41] Seniors report feeling happier due to online contact with family and access to information like church bulletins that have moved online and out of print. [39]
Social networking sites help people who are socially isolated or shy connect with other people. [42] More than 25% of teens report that social networking makes them feel less shy, 28% report feeling more outgoing, and 20% report feeling more confident (53% of teens identified as somewhat shy or "a lot" shy in general). [14] Youth who are "less socially adept" report that social networks give them a place to make friends [43] and typically quiet students can feel more comfortable being vocal through a social media platform used in class. [44]Shy adults also cite social media as a comfortable place to interact with others. [45]
Social media allows for quick, easy dissemination of public health and safety information from reputable sources. The US military and Department of Veterans Affairs use social networking to help prevent suicide. [46] The World Health Organization (WHO) uses social media to "disseminate health information and counter rumours," which was especially helpful after the Mar. 2011 Japanese earthquake and nuclear disaster when false information spread about ingesting salt to combat radiation. [47] The Boston Health Commission used social media to get information to its 4,500 Twitter followers about clinic locations and wait times for vaccines during the H1N1 outbreak. [48]
Social media can help disarm social stigmas. The Sticks and Stones campaign uses Twitter to reduce stigmas surrounding mental health and learning disabilities. [49] The Stigma Project uses Facebook to "lower the HIV infection rate and neutralize stigma through education via social media and advertising." [50] Gay people speaking openly on social networking sites, like Facebook site Wipe Out Homophobia, help achieve a greater social acceptance of homosexuality. [51] [52] Jenny Lawson, author of the blog "The Bloggess" and New York Times bestseller Let’s Pretend This Never Happened, has made public her struggles with OCD, depression, and anxiety disorders, which has lessened the stigma of the diseases for others. [53]
"Crowdsourcing" and "crowdfunding" on social media allows people to collectively accomplish a goal. A mother was able to find a kidney donor for her sick child by posting a video on her Facebook page. [54] Planethunters.org, a science social media site, discovered a planet on Oct. 16, 2012 via crowdsourcing. [55] Crowdwise, a social network devoted to crowdsourcing volunteers and crowdfunding charity projects, raised $845,989 (as of Nov. 20, 2012) for Hurricane Sandy victims. [56] [57]Followers of Pencils of Promise on social media have helped the non-profit build 74 schools (with 26 more in progress and 7 more planned as of Nov. 19, 2012) and educate 4,500 children. [58]
Social networking provides academic research to a wider audience, allowing many people access to previously unavailable educational resources. Information previously restricted to academia's "ivory tower" can now be shared with the public who do not have access to restricted journals or costly databases. Researchers from a wide variety of fields are sharing photos, providing status updates, collaborating with distant colleagues, and finding a wider variety of subjects via social media, making the research process and results more transparent and accessible to a larger public. [59] [139]
Corporations and small businesses use social media to benefit themselves and consumers. Small businesses benefit greatly from the free platforms to connect with customers and increase visibility of their products or services. [60]Almost 90% of big companies using social media have reported "at least one measurable business benefit." For example, large chain restaurants are using social media to quickly disseminate information to managers, train employees, and receive immediate customer feedback on new items, allowing for quick revision if needed. [61] 80% of companies are expected to have customer service on social media by the end of 2012. [62]
Social networking sites offer teachers a platform for collaboration with other teachers and communication with students outside the classroom. [63] [64] [65] More than 80% of US college and university faculty use social media; more than 50% use it for teaching; and 30% for communicating with students. [66] Educators from around the world interact with each other and bring guest teachers, librarians, authors, and experts into class via social networks like Twitter and social networking tools like Skype. [67] [68] Edmodo, an education-specific social networking site designed for contact between students, teachers, and parents, reached over 49 million users in 2014. [69]
Social networking sites offer a way for musicians and artists to build audiences even if they don’t have a corporate contract.[70] 64% of teenagers listen to music on YouTube, making it the "hit-maker" for songs rather than radio (56%) or CDs (50%). [71] [72] For example, pop star Justin Bieber was discovered on YouTube when he was 12 years old, and, in 2012 at 18 years old, Bieber’s net worth was estimated at $80 million. [73][74] The National Endowment for the Arts found that people who interact with the arts online through social media and other means are almost three times more likely to attend a live event. [75]
Colleges and universities use social media to recruit and retain students. 96.6% of four-year institutions use Facebook to recruit students, 83.4% use Twitter, and 79.3% use YouTube. [183] Colleges and universities use Facebook apps and other social media tools to increase student retention. [77] Social networking sites are also being used to give students a support system at community colleges that consist mostly of commuter students. [78]
Social media enables the spread of unreliable and false information. 49.1% of people have heard false news via social media. [1] On Sep. 5, 2012 false rumors of fires, shootouts, and caravans of gunmen in a Mexico City suburb spread via Twitter and Facebook caused panic, flooded the local police department with over 3,000 phone calls, and temporarily closed schools.[79] Shashank Tripathi, tweeting as @ComfortablySmug, spread false information in the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy by tweeting that the New York Stock Exchange was flooding and that the power company would cut off electricity to all of Manhattan; the bogus information was picked up by national news outlets including CNN and the Weather Channel. [80]
Social networking sites lack privacy and expose users to government and corporate intrusions. 13 million users said they had not set or did not know about Facebook's privacy settings and 28% shared all or nearly all of their posts publicly. [81]The US Justice Department intercepted 1,661 pieces of information from social networking sites and e-mails in 2011. [82] The 2009 IRS training manual teaches agents to scan Facebook pages for information that might "assist in resolving a taxpayer case." 4.7 million Facebook users have "liked" a health condition or medical treatment page, information that is sometimes used by insurance companies to raise rates. [81] [83]
Students who are heavy social media users tend to have lower grades. Students who use social media had an average GPA of 3.06 while non-users had an average GPA of 3.82 and students who used social networking sites while studying scored 20% lower on tests. [84] College students’ grades dropped 0.12 points for every 93 minutes above the average 106 minutes spent on Facebook per day. [85]Two-thirds of teachers believe that social media does more to distract students than to help academically. [86] The Sep. 2, 2014 Learning Habit study published in the American Journal of Family Therapy found that grades began a steady decline after secondary school students reached 30 minutes of daily screen time (time spent using an electronic device such as a computer or mobile phone). After four hours of screen time, average GPAs dropped one full grade. [184]
Social networking sites can lead to stress and offline relationship problems. A University of Edinburgh Business School study found the more Facebook friends a person has, the more stressful the person finds Facebook to use. [87] According to a Feb. 9, 2012 Pew Internet report, 15% of adult social network users had an experience on a social networking site that caused a friendship to end, 12% of adult users had an experience online that resulted in a face-to-face argument, and 3% of adults reported a physical confrontation as the result of an experience on a social networking site. [88]
Social networking sites entice people to waste time. 40% of 8 to 18 year olds spend 54 minutes a day on social media sites. [89] 36% of people surveyed listed social networking as the "biggest waste of time," above fantasy sports (25%), watching TV (23%), and shopping (9%). [90] When alerted to a new social networking site activity, like a new tweet or Facebook message, users take 20 to 25 minutes on average to return to the original task. In 30% of cases, it took two hours to fully return attention to the original task. [91] 42% of American Internet users play games like Farmville or Mafia Wars on social networking sites. [92]
Using social media can harm job stability and employment prospects. Job recruiters reported negative reactions to finding profanity (61%), poor spelling or grammar (54%), illegal drugs (78%), sexual content (66%), pictures of or with alcohol (47%), and religious content (26%) on potential employees’ social media pages. [21]Anthony Weiner, former US Representative, was forced to resign after a Twitter sexting scandal in 2011. [93] Several athletes were banned from the 2012 Olympics because of their racist social media posts. [94]
The use of social networking sites is correlated with personality and brain disorders, such as the inability to have in-person conversations, a need for instant gratification, ADHD, and self-centered personalities, as well as addictive behaviors.[81] Pathological Internet Use (caused or exacerbated by social networking use) is associated with feelings of loneliness, depression, anxiety and general distress. [95] The 2013 Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) is evaluating "Internet Addiction Disorder" for inclusion. A 2008 UCLA study revealed web users had fundamentally altered prefrontal cortexes [96] due, in part, to the fast pace of social networking sites rewiring the brain with repeated exposure. [97]
Social media causes people to spend less time interacting face-to-face. A Jan. 2012 Center for the Digital Future at the USC Annenberg School study found that the percentage of people reporting less face-to-face time with family in their homes rose from 8% in 2000 to 34% in 2011. [98] 32% reported using social media or texting during meals (47% of 18-34 year olds) [99] instead of talking with family and friends. 10% of people younger than 25 years old respond to social media and text messages during sex. [100] [173]
Criminals use social media to commit and promote crimes. Gangs use the sites to recruit younger members, coordinate violent crimes, and threaten other gangs. [101] Offline crime, like home robberies, may result from posting personal information such as vacation plans [102] or stalkers gaining information about a victim’s whereabouts from posts, photos, or location tagging services. [103]
Social media can endanger the military and journalists. The US Army notes that checking in with location based services on social networking sites like Foursquare or Facebook could expose sensitive whereabouts and endanger military personnel and operations. [104] In 2011 a Mexican journalist was murdered by the Zetas drug cartel because she used Twitter to report on cartel crime.[105] A blogger was found murdered by a Mexican cartel in 2011 with the note "this happened to me for not understanding that I shouldn’t report things on the social networks." [106] [140]
Social networking sites harm employees' productivity. 51% of people aged 25-34 accessed social media while at work. [147] Two-thirds of US workers with Facebook accounts access the site during work hours [107] Even spending just 30 minutes a day on social media while at work would cost a 50-person company 6,500 hours of productivity a year.[108] 51% of American workers think work productivity suffers because of social media. [109]
Social networking sites facilitate cyberbullying. 49.5% of students reported being the victims of bullying online and 33.7% reported committing bullying behavior online. [110] 800,000 minors were harassed or cyberbullied on Facebook according to a June 2012 Consumer Reports survey.[81] Middle school children who were victims of cyberbullying were almost twice as likely to attempt suicide. [46] Adults can also be victims of cyberbullying, from social, familial, or workplace aggression being displayed on social media. [111]
Social networking sites enable "sexting," which can lead to criminal charges and the unexpected proliferation of personal images. Once restricted to cell phone texts, "sexting" has moved to social media with teens posting, or sending via messaging, risqué photos of themselves or others. In 2008 and 2009, US law enforcement agencies saw 3,477 cases of youth-produced sexual images with 2,291 agencies seeing at least one case. [112] As a result, teens and adults are being charged with possessing and distributing child pornography, even if the teen took and distributed a photo of him/herself. [113] 88% of private self-produced sexual images posted to social media are stolen by pornography websites and disseminated to the public, often without the subject's knowledge. [114]
People who use social networking sites are prone to social isolation. Social networking can exacerbate feelings of disconnect (especially for youth with disabilities), and put children at higher risk for depression, low self-esteem, and eating disorders. [42] The "passive consumption" of social media (scanning posts without commenting) is related to loneliness. [115]
Social networking sites encourage amateur advice and self-diagnosis for health problems which can lead to harmful or life-threatening results. One in five Americans uses social media for health care information. [116] AnAmerican Journal of Public Health study revealed that, "Social media may also pose a hazard to vulnerable people through the formation and influence of ‘extreme communities'—online groups that promote and provide support for beliefs and behaviors normally unacceptable by the social mainstream such as anorexia, suicide, and deliberate amputation." [46] A North Carolina blogger was criminally charged with "practicing dietetics or nutrition without a license" for offering potentially dangerous nutritional advice about the Paleo diet while posing as an expert. [117] Jeffrey Benabio, MD, searched for "eczema" on Twitter and found, in the first 100 results, 84 were spam and other gave harmful and sometimes bizarre advice like using toothless fish to eat eczema affected skin. [118]
Social media aids the spread of hate groups. A Summer 2012 Baylor University study examined Facebook hate groups focused on President Barack Obama and found a resurgence of racial slurs and stereotypes not seen in mainstream media in decades like blackface images and comparisons of President Obama to apes. [119] Social networking sites allow hate groups to recruit youth and to redistribute their propaganda. [120] According to the Southern Poverty Law Center the Christian Identity religion, a splinter faction of the white supremacist group Aryan Nations, uses social media to recruit members. [121]
Children may endanger themselves by not understanding the public and viral nature of social networking sites. The 2012 film Project X, about an out of control high school house party due to social media promotion, prompted copycat parties across the US resulting in arrests for vandalism, criminal trespassing, and other offenses. [122] Up to 600 Dutch riot police had to be called in to break up a teen's birthday party to which about 30,000 people were accidentally invited after a Facebook post thought to be private went viral (quickly moving on to Twitter and YouTube as well). As a result, at least three people were hurt and 20 people were arrested for vandalism, looting, setting cars on fire, and damaging lampposts. [123] In 2012, a similar incident happened in Los Angeles and resulted in the teen host beaten and hospitalized. [124]
Social networking enables cheating on school assignments. Students in California, New York City, and Houston posted photos of standardized tests to social media sites, allowing students who had not yet taken the tests to see the questions (and potentially find answers) ahead of time. [82] The SAT has had similar problems with students posting parts of the exam to social media.[125] [126] In Mar. 2015, two students in Maryland were accused of cheating on the 10th grade Common Core tests by posting questions on Twitter. Pearson, a company that administers standardized tests, identified 76 cases of students posting test materials online spanning six states in the first three months of 2015. [185]
Social networking sites' advertising practices may constitute an invasion of privacy. An ExactTarget marketing report tells companies, "When a user clicks on a [Facebook] like button belonging to your brand, you’re immediately granted access to additional information about this customer, from school affiliation and workplace information to their birthdate and other things they like… [M]arketers can access and leverage data in ways that will truly alarm customers." [127] From social media sites, simple algorithms can determine where you live, sexual orientation, personality traits, signs of depression, and alma maters among other information, even if users put none of those data on their social networking profiles. [128]
Social media can facilitate inappropriate student-teacher relationships. The Texas Education Agency (TEA) opened 179 cases about "inappropriate relationships" between educators and students in the 2014 school year; 86 cases were reported in 2007-2008 and education experts blame the rise of social media for the increase in cases. [129][187] [188] Social media allows for unsupervised interactions between students and teachers, which can easily escalate into sexual or otherwise inappropriate relationships. Pamela Casey, a District Attorney in Alabama who has prosecuted teachers who had relationships with students, says that social media adds to the problem: "We say and do things on social media and cell phones that we wouldn't say and do in person... As a result, there's a wall that's been removed." [130] [186]
Unauthorized sharing on social networking sites exposes artists to copyright infringement, loss of intellectual property, and loss of income. Social media sites have copyright regulations but they can be difficult to enforce. [131] Pinterest relies upon the re-publication of images from the web and, if users do not use the site conscientiously, artists’ content can be posted without license, attribution, or payment. [132] Vogue Spain was accused of stealing New York street photographer Sion Fullana's Instagram photos and posting them to their own Instagram feed without acknowledging the source. [133]
Using social media can harm students' chances for college admission. College administrators scan Facebook profiles for evidence of illegal behavior by students. [134] [135] A 2014 Kaplan Test Prep survey found that 35% of college admissions officers checked an applicant's social media to learn more about them, up from 10% in 2008. 16% of admissions officers discovered information that "negatively impacted prospective students' admission chances." Only 3% of students surveyed believed the content of their social media presence could hurt their prospects of admission. [76]
Social media posts cannot be completely deleted and all information posted can have unintended consequences. The Library of Congress has been archiving all public tweets from Twitter's Mar. 2006 inception forward. [136]Information about an affair posted on Facebook, for example, can lead to and be used against someone in divorce proceedings because the information, once posted, can never be completely deleted. Facebook was named as a source of information in one-third of all divorces filed in 2011. [137]
Social networking site users are vulnerable to security attacks such as hacking, identity theft, and viruses. Social networks do not scan messages for viruses or phishing scams, leading to large-scale problems like the 2012 virus Steckt.Evl spread from Facebook's chat window. [138] 68% of social media users share their birth date publicly, 63% share their high school name, 18% share their phone number, 12% share a pet's name; each of those pieces of information is frequently used for account security verification and can be used for identity theft. [103]
The paper below contends that understanding Hamlet's moral growth is contingent upon understanding the words "scourge and minister." This is a bold
argument that has its detractors. This writer anticipates the contrary views, summarizes them, and concedes to them and proceeds to argue for the
paramount importance of these words. Have a read:
MODEL PERSUASIVE PAPER ON HAMLET:
Hamlet Persuasive Essay Excerpt
(Starters are in bold)
Hamlet’s Failed Quest as Scourge and Minister
“Not a whit. We defy augury. There is a
special providence in the fall of a sparrow. If it be
now ‘tis not to come; if it be not to come, it will be
now; if it be not now, yet it will come. The
readiness is all. Since no man of aught he leaves
knows, what is ‘t to leave betimes? Let be.”
(V, II, 233-238)
This excerpt from William Shakespeare’s Hamlet, Hamlet expresses his new found confidence in himself and the world. He believes he will return moral order to the “rotten state of Denmark.” But throughout most of the play, Prince Hamlet of Denmark is troubled, angry, and depressed. Hamlet learns that his uncle, Claudius, killed his father and ascended the throne by marrying his mother just a few weeks after his father’s murder. Hamlet believes in fate and plays upon this idea when after accidentally killing Polonius. After this murder, Hamlet deems himself a “scourge and minister” for God. Written in 1605 William Shakespeare’s Hamlet exemplifies the tenets of 16th and 17th century English Renaissance by showing how important faith in a divine order is upon one’s action in the world. In order to better understand the meaning of Hamlet “scourge and minister” need to be defined. According to Renaissance belief, a scourge was an evil doer who is commanded by God to eradicate other evil doers. Hamlet perceives his murdering of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern as acts of a scourge. In addition, a minister was perceived as an agent of God who returns the world to moral order. So, Hamlet perceived that he was justified in killing Rosencrantz and Guildenstern for he is acting as a scourge and in killing King Claudius for he is returning moral order to Denmark. By reviewing the deaths of the five people that Hamlet murdered, Rosencrantz, Guildenstern, Laertes, Claudius and Polonius, and analyzing his thoughts during this time, Hamlet appears unsuccessful in fulfilling his self described role as scourge and minister. He takes his role as scourge too far by punishing people with a consequence much too harsh for their deeds. Hamlet is successful in fulfilling his role of minister, an agent of divine justice, by killing Claudius. Through his actions and beliefs Hamlet ends up hurting the people whom he loves. He helps to drive his girlfriend, Ophelia, into madness, and suicide, he kills three of his good friends; Laertes, Rosencrantz, and Guildenstern, and his quest to return Denmark to its more noble state as a minister is denied because he allows young Fortinbras, the man he is at war with, to take over the throne. In analyzing Hamlet’s seemingly fanatic actions it seems as though he accomplishes nothing except for avenging the death of his father.
It has been argued that Hamlet has fulfilled the role of both minister and scourge. Many critics believe that, as a scourge, Hamlet correctly punished Rosencrantz and Guildenstern for their sins of betrayal. Accomplishing his role as minister, they argue that Hamlet correctly judged the people whom he killed as sinners for the crimes they committed. Hamlet achieves this when he vows to kill Claudius to avenge his father’s murder. In Fredson Bower’s Essay “Hamlet as Minister and Scourge,” Bower explains the idea of scourge and minister as an Elizabethan philosophy. He writes:
Internally, God could punish sin by arousing the conscience of an individual to a sense of grief and remorse, which might in extraordinary cases grow so acute as to lead to madness. The Elizabethans, if there was any suspected reason, were inclined to see God’s hand in most such accidents. But sometimes Heaven punished crime by human agents, and it was standard belief that for this purpose God chose for His instruments those who were already so steeped in crime as to be past salvation...
When a human agent was selected to be the instrument of God’s vengeance, and the act of vengeance on the guilty necessitated the performance by the agent of a crime, like a murder, only a man
already damned for his sins was selected, and he was called
a scourge.
(Bower 42)
It is true that Hamlet meets this definition of a scourge perfectly. This passage argues that a scourge is a sinner who perceives his new role as fulfilling “God’s vengeance.” After slaying Polonius, hidden behind the arras in his mother’s bedroom, Hamlet states, “I do repent; by heaven hath pleased it so/ to punish me with this and this with me,/ that I must be their scourge and minister.” (III, IV, 194 -196) Hamlet committed murder, which is a crime so sinful that it could never be forgiven by God without reparations. After the murder Hamlet believes that he was chosen by God to help to punish other sinners for their crimes. Again, it is the belief of some that Hamlet was right in his punishment of sinners, namely, Ros and Guil for betraying him.
While Hamlet administers the punishment of sinners in the extreme case of death, it only seems as though he meets the definition of a scourge. Although Hamlet’s situation and language fit the description of a scourge, he only halfway fulfills the requirements. The assertion that Hamlet is correct in his suspicion of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern is valid, but the way in which he punishes them that is wrong. Killing his friends Rosencrantz and Guildenstern was unnecessary. Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are naive simpletons who simply do as they are told. King Claudius and the Queen trick them into spying on Hamlet by telling them that they will be helping cure Hamlet’s so called ‘madness’ by retrieving information. After they agree to this, Guildenstern states, “Heaven make our presence and our practices/ Pleasant and helpful to him!” (II,II,40-41) This indicates that they are under the impression that they are helping Hamlet and not betraying their friendship to him. Hamlet is successful in judging Ros and Guil for being disloyal to him; he is simply incapable of administering the correct punishment, for the punishment of death exceeds the crime of the sins. Some readers may challenge my view that Hamlet incorrectly pursues his role as a scourge. Indeed, my argument ignores the fact that Ros and Guil should have been faithful friends and Hamlet’s anger toward their disloyalty is just. However, death is the ultimate and only incontrovertible punishment and Hamlet should not administer death to his friends without understanding the context of their disloyalty.
Model Persuasive Paper #2
Assignment: Read the following passage and answer the question by considering both sides of the issue:
"We have striven at every turn to progress, to always push forward. Regression will not be tolerated, nor will stagnation-perseverance our only guiding principle. We will not be satisfied with nothing less than progress, for progress is always positive."
Prompt: Do you agree that progress is always positive? In an essay, support your position by discussing an example (or examples) from literature, history, art, science, technology, current events, or you own experience or observation.
Progress is not “always positive.” What is often praised as progressive and innovative can be a mask for the destructive.
During the Depression of the 1930's, Americans politicians argued that job creation became the predominant goal of government-especially in western, rural America. To this end huge reclamation projects developed in the American west. Specifically, Hoover Dam was erected to stop the Colorado river and create Lake Mead in order to provide hydroelectric power and irrigation for the desert southwest. Many people assume that because the river was tamed and temporary and permanent jobs were created that this dam was an American success akin to “baseball and apple pie.” While it is true that thousands of men were employed for years after years of unemployment and an enormous amount of land was reclaimed from desert to farmland and a large, renewing source of energy was created, America was hurt by this dam.
By focusing solely upon the dams benefits to humans, this perspective overlooks the dam’s effects upon unsustainable development. Hoover dam allowed Los Angeles-an area that receives less than nine inches of rain a year-to develop into an unsustainable megalopolis. Cities like Phoenix and Tucson would never have existed without Hoover Dam. The fastest growing city in America today is Las Vegas-an area of desert that is inhospitable but to only a scarce few of the hardiest desert creatures and plants. The "progress" of damming the Colorado River has created an irresponsible, unsustainable lifestyle.
In addition, the damming of the Colorado has destroyed the pristine, wild river and eliminated huge amounts of fish, waterfowl, and wildlife habitat. The reservoirs attract motor boats and the trash of environmentally irresponsible recreationalists who pollute what was once a rarely visited canyon of the Colorado. Many will disagree with my assertion that all motor boat enthusiasts are irresponsible recreationalists and they are right to says so, but it cannot be denied that burning fossil fuels on a reservoir that was once a wild river has a negative environmental impact.
The saddest consequence of the dam-building craze of the 1930's is that it encouraged the government to support the damming of all the major rivers in the western United States. The Colorado and its tributaries have been dammed so many times it looks more like a clumping of reservoirs than a river, and now the river never reaches the ocean. As a result, more water is lost in evaporation from the colossal reservoirs than flows down the river in one year. Hoover Dam proved that we could conquer powerful rivers and eliminated the question as to whether we should.
While F.D.R.'s Hoover Dam paved the way future dams and the politicians herald the dams as progress that harnesses the waste of a wild river, sustainable lifestyles, critical habitat, and common sense were lost.
WRITING ASSIGNMENTS FOR SYNTHESIS PERSUASIVE ARGUMENTATION PAPERS:
Synthesis Persuasive Papers: these papers task the student with using sources that develop differing opinions on an issue. The assignment, like the one on the Advanced Placement Language and Composition Exam, asks a controversial question and provides sources that develop contrary views. It is the task of the writer to use at least three sources in developing a persuasive argument.
A simple approach is to develop the counter view by quoting from a source, conceding to it, and then developing at least two points supported by passages from the courses to develop the writer's argument ( in the "converse" section).
THE ACT WILL PRESENT THREE VIEWS ON AN ISSUE AND YOU MUST CHOOSE A SIDE BUT INCORPORATE ALL THREE POINTS OF VIEW.
Here, you are only asked to choose one side and incorporate two perspectives through summarizing the counterview, conding and conversing with your argument.
Page updated
Report abuse