Pro-Con Exercise

Write your topic: Hydraulic Fracturing/Fracking

Write your tentative question:  Why isn’t the government doing more to put a band on or regulate the fracking process?

Write your tentative thesis (this should be a statement that is debatable, with which someone could disagree):

While fracking does prove to be able to provide a large quantity of natural gas and oil for our domestic use, the problems associated with it are clearly detrimental to the health of our society and more should be done to regulate this pressing issue.

Claims that support/strengthen your argument:

1.  In order to get the natural gas from beneath the ground, land must be cleared and forests are destroyed in numerous locations around the country that not only makes the surrounding area look unpleasing, but creates a quality of life for that’s unhealthy for the residents in the area.

2.  When the land is mined for these resources a water, sand, and chemical mixture is propelled into the ground at high pressures in order to break through the shale stone layer of the Earth’s crust.  Unfortunately, this mixture, and any residue that comes from it, are often not disposed of properly and tend to leak into local rivers and estuaries thus, polluting the environment for both the organisms and humans living there.

3.  There have been claims in which excess gas, or shafts that weren’t lined properly and allowed leaks, have formed pockets in the surrounding ground which have then mixed with local residents water systems and pipes and caused gas to leak into their houses when they had the water on.  In a few instances the gas that built up in the houses lead to greater troubles, such as, explosions.

4.  It is known that one of the results of fracking is methane leaking into the local area and surroundings.  Methane is extremely bad for the environment, being that it is believed to be one of the major components of ozone depletion and global warming, and is a great health hazard to those who are exposed to it directly.

Claims that undermine/weaken/challenge your argument:

1.  It proves to be a big boost for our economy and has the potential to provide and bring thousands of jobs here to the U.S..  With the current problem that unemployment is so high and there are so many individuals without jobs, this could be a true turn around for our economy.

2.  There are estimated values that the supply of natural gas that is “hidden” beneath us could last us for roughly 100 years.  This would mean that we could have less of a reliance on foreign countries and industries for oil and gas, and could turn into a major world exporter of fuel.  This too would provide a boost for our economy that is greatly needed.

3.  The EPA has yet to find any direct results or negative outcomes that fracking has had on its’ surrounding areas.  That any of the current reported problems or things that have happened are all due to other reasons and not solely to fracking.

4.  It solves a lot of the energy problems that we currently face here in the United States and seems to be liked by both democrats and republicans, although democrats are much quicker to shoot it down.

Pro/Con

Write your topic: 

Good or bad effects finance brings to our lives

Write your tentative question: 

Why do most people think finance always brings us good lives? What kind of data base do they use to prove that? Does that reliable? Why do most governments want to develop finance to build their countries? Is this reasonable? How did finance change our lives? Does it  help us to raise living standards? Does finance have any bad effects? What are they? Does these bad effects influences people’s lives and countries economics? How so? Which one influenced more, good or bad effects?

Write your tentative thesis (this should be a statement that is debatable, with which someone could disagree): 

I think the stock market and haphazard investment does bad for people’s lives.

Claims that support/strengthen your argument

  Identify the claims that support your argument; for each one, draft one or more sentences.

What evidence (stats, studies, trends, anecdotes, expert opinion) will you need to support 

each claim? Aim for a good mix of evidence. As you look for evidence at this step, 
      start compiling your annotated bibliography.

1. The stock market or investment would cause foam economy which is really bad for countries. Such as 2008 finance crisis. “Yet the crisis showed the invalidity of the most important assumption that the value of the underlying cash flows is invariant to their repackaging” This means that however the finance developing,the real value of money would never changes. Therefore, it was just not necessary for contry to develop finance.

2.The stock market or investiment would cause people to be lazy and just want money falling down from the sky. They don’t know investment and stock still needs knowledge .

3.The stock market or investment would cause people loss money too. Like I mentioned the finance cirsis and especially the Chinese stock market, those kinds of issues would cause people loss money.

4.Although the stock market or investment would earn money , people’s lives don’t really rises. For example china.

Claims that undermine/weaken/challenge your argument

Identify the claims that challenge your argument; for each one, draft one or more sentences.

What evidence (reason, stats, studies, trends, anecdotes, expert opinion) will you need to counter

this claim? Aim for a good mix of evidence. As you look for evidence at this step, 
      start compiling your annotated bibliography.

1.It would be not hard to say investment is a good way to develop economy, that’s why most countries try to develop finance as their goals in decades. Investment would really helps rising economy too, such as America.

Pro/Con

Write your topic: Technology and Education

Write your tentative question: Would implicating technology into the classroom provide better results than the traditional methods of teaching?

Write your tentative thesis (this should be a statement that is debatable, with which someone could disagree):

Technology in education yields better results than the traditional form of teaching. Therefore schools should be pushing for more technological integration into their curriculum at the same time learning the best ways to adopt all the resources available to better meet the needs of their students.

 

Claims that support/strengthen your argument

            Identify the claims that support your argument; for each one, draft one or more sentences.

What evidence (stats, studies, trends, anecdotes, expert opinion) will you need to support

each claim? Aim for a good mix of evidence. As you look for evidence at this step,
start compiling your annotated bibliography.

1. Education in the classroom would help better prepare students for the 21^st century workforce. All forms of technology and applications of the internet play a major role in society today. By indirectly teaching students How to use and understand such things would provide to be an irreplaceable life skill for their futures.

2. (Active Engagement) The use of technology provides a more direct approach to educating students. Rather than simply textbooks and black board examples, students have more of an opportunity to interact with their education. (For example: Interactive Smartboards, online experiments, videos, tangible examples of learned topics, etc.) This makes common lessons more retainable by peaking the interests of students.

3. The application of technology would allow teachers the ability to tend to the needs of many students with a variety of difficulties rather than approach them all as a group problem in classrooms.

Claims that undermine/weaken/challenge your argument

            Identify the claims that challenge your argument; for each one, draft one or more sentences.

What evidence (reason, stats, studies, trends, anecdotes, expert opinion) will you need to counter

this claim? Aim for a good mix of evidence. As you look for evidence at this step,
start compiling your annotated bibliography.

1. The implication of technology does not always yield better results to the traditional method. In the end it depends on the students and the abilities of the teacher. Plenty of students have had no trouble with education in the past making technology not as necessary as it seems to be; it becomes more of a privilege then a necessity.

 

2. Integrating technology into the classroom is not as easy as expected. Not only is this a costly investment that many schools in this country cannot afford but also it takes a great deal of time to prepare before it becomes something of use. Integrating specific tools into a class can be more challenging than expected. It takes a great deal on the teacher to plan and learn all aspects of the tools and resources they wish to bring to the class. On top of that, students must also become accustom to the changes. This in itself could affect performance in a negative way before they begin to understand how everything works and how they can use this technology, resources, and programs to their benefit.

3. An increase of online plagiarism may end up as a result of dependence on technology for research and other assignments assigned to test the abilities of students. Many assignments such as essay topics or research topics reflect the ability of students to obtain information and apply it to prove a point or something relevant; much like thesis essays. But many of these open ended assignment end up being similar to others from other schools and other classes and therefore could be taken and used fairly easily. As compared to the past, plagiarism was more difficult because obtaining the works of others was more challenging and opportunistic at best, but now with so many different resources, posts online, such things are common place to find.

4. A “digital divide”; in this case between the more wealthy compared to the less wealthy. If technology in education were to yield better results, then the people and educational districts that could afford it would out pace low budget areas, more so than now. Public schools would be out matched by all private or well-funded schools.

Pro/Con Grid Exercise

Write your topic: Distracted driving due to new automotive technology

Write your tentative question: Has the technology in cars reached a point where it is much more distracting
rather than helpful?

Write your tentative thesis (this should be a statement that is debatable, with which someone could disagree):
While new innovative ideas are being made to help assist a driver, they are in turn more distracting and take
away the driving experience

Claims that support/strengthen your argument
1. Anecdote about car giving a live update on what the weather is outside at the moment. Why do you need a

live update if you’re already inside the car, which is outside? Can’t you just look outside?

2. Article discussing how cars have the ability to check whether there’s another car by you when you merge

onto the highway. Why not just turn your head and check like how people have been doing for years?

3. Internet enabled devices in cars. Reading out Facebook status updates while driving is completely

unnecessary; it can wait.

4. Distracted driving guidelines recently issued by NHTSA

Claims that undermine/weaken/challenge your argument

1. “The technology is needed for older drivers who have trouble driving.” To counter this, I don’t think you

should be allowed to drive if you are having trouble doing so in the first place.

2. “Technology will never advance if we keep limiting our current automotive tech”

3. “Self driving cars can become real as a result of all of this new technology.” That’s great and all. but self-driving cars is a whole other topic that should also be looked upon heavily

4. “The new technology makes driving easier.” Well, driving shouldn’t be easy. It requires a great deal of concentration and awareness.

Pro/Con Grid

Topic: E-Waste Recycling in China

Tentative Question: Should we continue dumping waste on countries for the sake of trade, even though it is ethically irresponsible, or should we stop this practice, but jeopardize our relationship with China?

Tentative Thesis: We should continue trade with China.

Support:

1) We need e-waste recycling to balance supply/demand of key metal resources.

Technology grows rapidly each day, with year-old devices being seen as “obsolete”. In order to supply the rapidly growing industry, more metal is needed. China is the world’s #1 producer and consumer of metals (China Nonferrous Metals industry Association, 2009; China Metallurgical Industry Press, 2009). 

2) We need e-waste recycling because there is only a limited amount of metal.

It is necessary to preserve the use of “virgin resources”. The extraction of this limited number of resources depletes the world’s reserves, and requires the native people of that land to be removed from the premises.

3) We need e-waste recycling because it is mutually beneficial for the US and China.

The US needs to recycling electronic equipment because the byproducts can prove deadly to humans and toxic to the environment. China buys the e-waste from American recycling companies, fueling a multi-billion dollar industry. Similarly, China benefits financially from taking old electronics and recycling them by extracting the precious metals in order to re-use in new devices.

4) We need e-waste recycling because we need to maintain good relations with China.

The e-waste recycling trade with China generates a $7.2 Billion dollar industry with the US. E-waste recycling, or “electronic machinery and equipment” is the 3rd most popular commodity in trade with China. Additionally, US trade (imports/exports) constitutes a whopping 25% of the US’s entire GDP as of 2011, with China being the US’s #1 trading partner. Therefore, maintaining an amicable relationship with China is necessary in order for the US to maintain its status as one of the world’s leading superpowers.

Challenge:

1) We do not need e-waste recycling because the towns in China that handle the recycling are getting sick.

Although e-waste recycling can prove toxic when mishandled, it is on the onus of the respective mayors of each town to protect the health and welfare of its citizens. Instead, they cover the scandal up. We need to reform government corruption and e-waste handling practices, not cease e-waste operations.

2) We do not need e-waste recycling because it is illegally being dumped onto other countries.

There is already legislation in place to stop the illegal distribution of e-waste. In the U.S., 65 percent of the population is currently covered by some sort of state e-waste recycling law. In addition, China’s government and much of Asia (including Korea and Japan) promote e-waste recycling.

3) We do not need e-waste recycling because it emits CO2 and other chemicals into the atmosphere.

Although this is true, there is legislation already in place to reduce the CO2 emissions. China, for example, has levied a tax onto certain types of e-wastes which prove harmful to the environment.

4) We do not need e-waste recycling because workers are harmed by its chemicals while receiving little pay.

In adjustment to the world currency scales, “little pay” in the eyes of the US is perceived as a lot of pay in China, where cost of living/eating is generally lower than in the US. Additionally, workers admit they subject themselves to harmful work because it is more pay than they would originally receive working other jobs. As a result, they are better able to support their families.

 

Sources used:

http://www.law.northwestern.edu/journals/jihr/v10/n3/2/

https://www.uschina.org/statistics/tradetable.html

http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=2&sid=4a31b47c-cc77-440e-a3e3-912ed19b275e%40sessionmgr104&hid=121

Pro Con Exercise

Write your topic: Mayor Bloomberg’s ban on the sales of sugary drinks over 16 oz.

Write your tentative question: Should the government be able to implement health regulations for the best of the society even if it will interfere with the people’s right to choose the kind of diet that they want?

Write your tentative thesis (this should be a statement that is debatable, with which someone could disagree):

Sometimes people do not make the right decision that is best for them. Similar to how a parent gives a set of rules for its child to follow, the government must also do the same for its citizens to promote healthy lifestyles and put an end to obesity.   (My argument might change)

Claims that support/strengthen your argument

1. Recent studies prove that avoiding sugary drinks and drinking sugar-free substitutes and water instead can slow down weight gain in children.

2. A conducted research was done where 224 overweight and obese teenagers were given bottle water and diet drinks for a year. In that year, they only gained an average of 3.5 pounds compared to another group of teenagers that gained on an average of 7.7 pounds.

3. There needs to be laws that will help people make the right decision that is best for them.

Claims that undermine/weaken/challenge your argument

1. The foundation of America is based on the idea of freedom. There are people who believe that they should have the choice to choose the type of diet that they want.

2. Five hundred New Yorkers were surveyed regarding the ban and 53 percent thought the ban was a bad idea. The people should have a say in this law because it is limiting their rights.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504763_162-57447670-10391704/half-of-new-yorkers-say-bloomberg-ban-on-giant-sodas-is-bad-idea/

3. Passing this ban will set a precedent and this will lead to more restrictions which may lead to a violation to the people’s rights.

4. The government should be focusing on more important topics such as smoking in public that affects not only the smoker, but also the people around the smokers.

Pro/Con Grid

Lucenko
WRT 102
Pro/Con Grid

Although the primary goal of an intelligent academic argument is to move beyond simple for/against positions by identifying and trying to solve problems through truth seeking and reasoning, it is useful in this early stage of your writing to identify the benefits and costs, or advantages and disadvantages of an issue of mutual concern (and possible solutions). By doing so you will move beyond your first reactions, to search for at least two sides to an issue in question, and to weigh the value of competing claims.

In this exercise, you will brainstorm and draft some advantages and disadvantages related to your argument. To help generate ideas, think of the various interests or points of view surrounding this issue (parent/child, educator/student, politician/citizen).

Write your topic: eBook V.S. paper book

Write your tentative question: does eBook do more good or more harm to readers and writers?

Write your tentative thesis (this should be a statement that is debatable, with which someone could disagree):

Change in the way of reading is certainly a big deal to people. Based on all the achievements eBook has made so far, there’s no denying that eBook has replaced paper book in a certain level and there must be some reason behind it. Despite the fact that eBook is still in development, and there are some downsides to use eBook instead of paper book, the digitalization of book is a positive and necessary worldwide trend instead of a potential threat.

Claims that support/strengthen your argument
Identify the claims that support your argument; for each one, draft one or more sentences.
What evidence (stats, studies, trends, anecdotes, expert opinion) will you need to support
each claim? Aim for a good mix of evidence. As you look for evidence at this step,
start compiling your annotated bibliography.

1. EBook is more environmentally friendly. Evidences may include stats that shows how much natural resources paper books use in a year, articles that criticize the massive usage of trees and other resources in the expense of paper books.
2. Property of both. Compare to paper book, eBooks is more convenient to carry or read, to share and keep ideas. EBook is more sustainable and has larger capacity. Example may be Kindle, smart phone, IPad.
3. EBooks are cheaper than paper books. Stats show that eBooks have become the preferred choice for reading over paper books for students, especially digital textbooks for college students.
4.

Claims that undermine/weaken/challenge your argument
Identify the claims that challenge your argument; for each one, draft one or more sentences.
What evidence (reason, stats, studies, trends, anecdotes, expert opinion) will you need to counter
this claim? Aim for a good mix of evidence. As you look for evidence at this step,
start compiling your annotated bibliography.

1. Digital piracy. Copy right of eBook is hard to perverse. Authors or writers might not get paid for their works. Ebook might be a potential threat to readers, writers and printing industry. To counter this claim, I will show evidence that how modern companies protect their copy right for digital goods and our system of anti-piracy has become more and more powerful. Article “Digital Printing will save book publishing”
2. Longtime eBook reading might cause eye disease, especially to teenagers who are still under growth. For this claim, I will show the study that proves people actually don’t feel uncomfortable while reading eBooks and as our technology develops, eye disease cause by eBooks will not be a great concern soon.
3. Paper book is concrete and tangible, it has the value as collection or gift or something you can give to your children. Also, paper is more aesthetically appealing. For this claim I will argue that for collectors, they can still buy paper books, there’s no conflict with eBooks and paper books existing at the same time. After all, what we read is the content of the book. For most people in the world, they buy the book for its content not appearance.
4.

Research Article Pro’s and Con’s

My topic, in a broad sense, is looking at Society and Sexual Orientation. In the process of narrowing my topic it became about researching sexual orientation and its correlation to workforce. Along the way I realized a great way to narrow my topic and I ended up with looking at the LGBTQ Community and employment equality. The tentative question that arose was why are qualified, hardworking people being denied job opportunities and being fired from their work place because of their sexual orientation? This leads into my thesis that companies should set policies and regulations prohibiting workplace harassment and discrimination against LGBTQ, as well as diminish questions regarding sexual orientation in applications and interview sessions. What can Society do to contribute to solving this issue of discriminating against gays, lesbians, bisexuals, transgenders, and queers in the work place.

There is no federal law that consistently protects LGBT individuals from employment discrimination; it remains legal in 29 states to discriminate based on sexual orientation, and in 34 states to do so based on gender identity or expression. The Human Rights Campaign is working to pass the Employment Non-Discrimination Act that would provide basic protections against workplace discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity.  ENDA simply affords to all Americans basic employment protection from discrimination based on irrational prejudice.

There are men and women that are members of the LGBTQ Community that are in the military, defending a country that has still not provided them with the rights that all humans should have.  Fifteen percent to 43 percent of gay and transgender workers have experienced some form of discrimination on the job. Eight percent to 17 percent of gay and transgender workers report being passed over for a job or fired because of their sexual orientation or gender identity. Ten percent to 28 percent received a negative performance evaluation or were passed over for a promotion because they were gay or transgender. Seven percent to 41 percent of gay and transgender workers were verbally or physically abused or had their workplace vandalized. Straight coworkers also attest to the presence of discrimination and harassment against LGBT workers.

Studies have shown that sexual orientation influences negative reactions in people and in the work place. “A model of perceived sexual orientation discrimination was tested in a national sample of 534 gay and lesbian employees. The effects of legislation, organizational policies and practices, and work group composition on perceived sexual orientation discrimination were examined, as well as the attitudinal and organizational outcomes associated with discrimination. Gay employees were more likely to report discrimination when employed in groups that were primarily heterosexual and in organizations that lacked supportive policies and were not covered by protective legislation. Disclosure of sexual orientation at work was related to discrimination and antecedent variables. Perceived discrimination was associated with negative work attitudes and fewer promotions. Organizational policies and practices had the strongest impact on perceived discrimination and were directly related to outcomes. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved)”

Just as women and blacks in the past have received lower wages than white males, so are gays and lesbians now with research showing that fewer promotions are given to LGBTQ people and wages are lower relative to other employees.

Research Pro/Con

Topic: Harmful effects of technology on children

Tentative Question: Do children really benefit from exposure to technology at such a young age or is it more of a hindrance in the early stages of their lives?

Thesis: Exposing children to technology can potentially cause them to become dependent on it to the point where they need it in every facet of their lives growing up. Developing technology dependence is detrimental to a child’s health, abilities to grow, learn and socialize.

Supporting the claim:

1. Children won’t know the true meaning of being able to write and think for themselves without feeling compelled to consult the internet. Looking into the stats of how many children can write well in the world without having a medical excuse. I knew a little girl who so used to drawing on an ipad that when her parents gave her paper and some crayons she tried to tap the colors in place with her fingers. In the end the little girl became very frustrated and began to cry because the “touch screen” and “keyboard” was not working.

2. Children constantly focused on handheld devices are prone to join social media sites where they believe they have friends however these “relationships” are nonexistent. Children who sign up for these social media sites are consumed with trying to please their so called friends online instead of going out and developing strong bonds with peers who can serve as a support system. Looking into the youngest age children decide to join a social media site and how much time they devote to it is something to look closely at. Some children feel as though they can’t socialize with a handheld device in their hand. Children who become dependence on technology isolate themselves from family and future friends causing them to become estranged from society itself. Talking about my cousin who spends most of his time on the ipads of some sort of technological device and noting that he does not seem as excited to see relatives come over to play with him. Instead my cousin is more focused on beating the next level in the latest video game. Look up any stories related to this.

3. Children can’t learn valuable life lessons if they are constantly depending on technology. Children who huddle around a TV, video game, computer or some sort of handheld device are not being taught life lessons they will need in order to become independent. Plenty of children who grow up at some point or another complain that their parents don’t trust them and don’t give them any freedom. Part of the possible reasoning behind this would be that parents know that in the years they have raised their children the parents know that their children have not learned key lessons that will keep their kids out of harm’s way. Observing the trends in how many parents trust their children

4. A child’s health may be at stake because more and more children focused on using some piece of technology as a form of entertainment instead of utilizing their youth. Children nowadays don’t see the point in going outside and getting active in order to take better care of their bodies. More and more children as becoming obese at such a young age and some develop several health related issue as a result. Is there a direct correlation to how much time a child spends focused on technology and obesity?

Opposing the claim:

1. There are quite a few children who go on to amazing things as a result of early exposure to technology. Some children are able to create their own programs and apps as well as discover their passion for technology. These children go on to become notable people in the field of technology and potentially start successful careers earlier than other children. Look up how many children this has happened to. Is there a relationship between children success in future careers and early exposure to technology? I have a friend who has a writing disability who is majoring in computer science because at a young age he has had to rely on a computer. Through the years he has had his computer he became technologically savvy knowing the ins and outs of a computer. He has also created his own apps online through Microsoft and made profits off of it.

2. Children exposed as early as possible as able to self-educate themselves and utilize the resources they have in order to perform better in school. Stats on student success rates and if technology plays a key role in their academic success. Look up cases where this has happened. 

3. Children who engage in programs or games that challenge the mind are allowing for their brain to develop faster and allow for the development of study skills that will benefit them.

Research Proposal Pros/Cons

Topic: Experimenting/Research on Aborted Fetus

Tentative Question: Should all 50 states make it legal to use aborted fetus cells in research?

Tentative Thesis: Aborted fetuses are not necessary to do research. There are many alternatives to the way scientists can experiment and what they use to experiment with. It is immoral and unethical to use the cells of babies that are unwanted to better enhance the science world. There are so many humans that donate their bodies to research after they die, and that should be enough to experiment on.

Pros–Claims that Strengthen My Argument:

1. As stated in my thesis, humans donate their bodies to research after they die. These bodies should be used to experiment on instead of aborted fetuses.

2. Conservative people who do not support abortion will definitely not encourage the act of freezing aborted fetuses in order to later take them out of freezers and use to do experiments on.

3. Many vaccines contain aborted fetal cells, and I’m sure that if parents found out about these cells being in the vaccines that their children are getting injected with, they will have an issue with it.

4. Funding is also something that may hinder this study. There will be so many organizations that will not be willing to fund such activities. They may want to fund this research idea, but if people in their organization or company find out, it may not benefit them, or look good on their part because of the whole idea of morality behind the whole matter.

Cons–Claims that Oppose My Argument:

1. Scientists will argue that using aborted fetal cells is not immoral.They will argue that there is no need to just take out these fetuses out of their mother and not do anything with them. The parents don’t want them, so why not let science use them. They are going to be used in a positive manner to help the science world expand.

2. The government would also support the idea of using aborted fetal cells in research because it will help the science knowledge learned in that country increase. The government will want scientists to discover new findings, and if aborted fetal cells are what is necessary to come up with this information, then they will be allowed to use these fetal cells. The government will spend money on something that is lucrative and if they find this type of research to be lucrative, they will do whatever they need to to back it up and support it.

3. Doctors that can use these aborted fetal cells to help patients will definitely support the idea of fetal cell research/experimentation. The aborted fetal cells which will be in perfect condition can be used to replace damaged cells in grown humans. The fetal cells are not damaged and certain doctors may argue that they should use these cells instead of simply getting rid of them. Freezing the aborted fetal cells is not immoral, but intelligent, they might say. Doctors, will say that freezing these cells is just like freezing body parts or organs for transplants and such surgeries.