Our first writing assignment will be based on debates we have covered in class: \u201cFree Speech is Threatened on [College] Campus\u201d and \u201cAbolish the Death Penalty.\u201d For this assignment, you will have to choose one panelist from the two debates, and critique his or her argument. Choose one panelist and only one panelist. I strongly suggest you choose a debater that you predominately don\u2019t agree with. We usually have more to write when we don\u2019t agree with a debater. The purpose of this assignment is to critique a specific argument in essay form, and use the rules of A Rulebook of Argument as the basis of your critique. The point of the critique is not to argue the issue as much as it is to critique the argument. In other words, it is very possible you may agree with the debater\u2019s stance\/position on the issue, but your paper will show not why the stance or position is bad but why the argument the debater made doesn\u2019t work. Of course, it could be the case that for you both are true: you disagree with debater\u2019s position, and you think the argument is bad. In any case, choose one panelist from the two different debates we covered\u2014\u201cFree Speech is Threatened\u201d: Wendy Kaminer and John McWhorter, pro position; Jason Stanley and Shaun Harper, for con position. \u201cAbolish the Death Penalty\u201d: Diann Rust-Tierney and Barry Scheck, pro position; Robert Blecker and Kent Scheidegger\u2014and write an essay in which you critique the argument as an argument. Here again, your position on the issue isn\u2019t the point of essay #1. Critique the panelist\u2019s argument as an argument. Here again, choose one panelist\u2019s argument for the focus of your paper.<\/p>\n
II. Structure
\nA. Introduction: Summary and Conclusion.
\nSummary: In your introduction, you will have to summarize the debater\u2019s argument in question. You should focus on the debater\u2019s main premises, and you should consider the debater\u2019s argument throughout the entire debate, although you only need to include premises you will challenge in your body paragraphs. So, remember the requirements of a good summary when you summarize debater\u2019s argument. Please write a new summary for this assignment. <\/p>\n
Conclusion (thesis statement): End your summary with your conclusion, your overall reason on why you believe the argument didn\u2019t work. Your conclusion\/thesis should be one sentence, and should be the last sentence of your introduction. One method of writing a conclusion is this: issue + stance (because) overview of reason or reasons for stance.<\/p>\n
Ex: John or Jane Doe\u2019s argument (issue) failed (stance) because his\/her argument was off-topic and superficial.<\/p>\n
B. Body Paragraphs
\nEach body paragraph should focus on a specific premise: (1) Summarize a specific premise; (2) explain the premise, if you need to, along with any evidence; and (3) critique premise and evidence. To the best of your ability, show why the premise\/evidence doesn\u2019t work.<\/p>\n
The body paragraphs are obviously the bulk of your essay, and they are the pay off and defense of your conclusion. The homework assignments on the four types of argument, I hope, would be used here. Just as you had to critique specific paragraphs using the rules for each argument, so you should critique the debater\u2019s premises and evidence. You should consider what type of argument the debater is using and what rules might be used to critique the argument in order to support your response. You don\u2019t need to cite specific rules. In fact, please don\u2019t cite the rule or the number of the rule. Moreover, please don\u2019t feel chained to the rules. Before you consider types of argument, try to work out your own understanding on what fails with premises and evidence. Allow the rules and content of Rulebook to strengthen your own ideas and help you articulate your own ideas. Here again, begin with your reasoning and language on why the premises and evidence don\u2019t work, and then use Rulebook to help articulate your ideas.<\/p>\n
C. Overarching Structure of the Paper
\nYou need to consider how you will arrange the body paragraphs. What body paragraph do you want to begin with, what paragraph do you want to end with, and what chain of paragraphs do you want for the middle section of your argument? Each body paragraph should build off of one another, and you should consider how the overarching arrangement of your body paragraphs builds your overall argument for the paper. You could arrange paragraphs from weakest (relatively weak) to the strongest point. But in general, each body paragraph should show a continuation of thought. Consider transitions when move from paragraph to paragraph.<\/p>\n
III. Final Comments
\nBe sure you read over hand out on structure for essay #1. I posted sample essay, so please review it. The paper must conform to the MLA style. In other words, the paper must be word-processed in a 12-point font (preferable Times-New Roman), and must be double-spaced. Your margins must be 1 inch all around, except for the header. Place your last name and page number \u00bd inch from the top on the right-hand corner of each page. Remember to type your name, course, instructor’s name, assignment, and date on the upper left-hand corner of the paper. Please give your paper a title. Lastly, do not use source material for essay #1. You can use comments or ideas from other panelists, but no outside sources at all. If you use any source material or any material that does need in-text citations and works cited, I will send your essay #1 back to you and you will have to cut the source material from the paper before I can score your essay.<\/p>\n
Dershowitz does not come right out and state it, but he must believe that the war on drugs policy has failed. He does claim that the slogan of \u201cJust Say No\u201d to drugs was \u201csimpleminded,\u201d and that now it\u2019s time to try a decriminalization policy, although he never clarifies what that policy means. This is a crucial point for Dershowitz. Why would we accept and implement his new policy unless the current policy has failed? So, has the war on drugs policy failed? For those of us who have lived since the time of the Regan years and the \u201cJust Say No\u201d to drugs slogan, we can remember the crack epidemic of the late 80s and early 90s, the meth epidemic of the late 90s and first part of the twenty-first century. Even those of a younger generation know about the increase in heroin and opiate drug-use in the New England States during the Obama presidency. Because of this drug history, we might agree with Dershowitz. I can remember sitting in the lunch room at New Holland Machinery reading Time or Newsweek articles about the skyrocketing homicide rate in cities of Baltimore, Washington D.C. or New York City because of crack cocaine. Because I have lived almost all my life in Fresno, California, I remember plenty stories of meth violence and houses exploding because of meth mixed incorrectly.<\/p>\n
But, here\u2019s my point. Why am I supplying evidence for Dershowitz\u2019s conclusion about Regan\u2019s failed policy? Dershowitz is a Harvard Law Professor. Surely, he must have some stories from policy officers and police chiefs and even politicians about drug violence. Dershowitz must have read some articles and studies that he could have used to defend his premise. Even if some of this information could not have been used when he originally made his argument on the Oprah Winfrey show, Dershowitz clearly could have listed some of this information when he moved to the written page, and he could have used his memory about stories from newspaper articles and evening news shows, and not necessarily had to cite a single source, much like I did. So, perhaps he\u2019s correct in his assessment, but where is his evidence?<\/p>\n
Secondly, why does it follow that if the war on drugs has failed, we now adopt a national policy of decriminalization? Countries like Portugal have brought decriminalization to global attention and helped many people understand that the policy places an emphasis on therapy and rehab instead of incarceration, a point I will return to later in the paper. However, why not a policy of legalization or revamping the law enforcement\u2019s approach to stopping drug usage and flow? Why not a combination of legalizing the less harmful drugs, decriminalizing others, and maintaining status quo for a drug like meth? My point is not that decriminalization is a bad policy, because it does have strong merits. It\u2019s certainly better than legalization. The point here is that we still don\u2019t know why the war on drugs policy has failed, and failed so badly that decriminalization is now cast in the spotlight. The only evidence for this move on Dershowitz\u2019s part is that the decriminalization was featured in Time magazine and on the Oprah Winfrey show. How many news magazines and talks shows have catered to sensationalistic and novel polices for the sake of ratings? In any case, one featured magazine issue and one episode on a talk show hardly leads us to the conclusion that decriminalization\u2019s \u201ctime has come.\u201d<\/p>\n
All of this leads to his first point about his proposal. Dershowitz argues that drug vans and\/or clinics will be positioned in neighborhoods so the addict will have easy access to the government-sponsored heroin. Dershowitz, however, doesn\u2019t provide any logistics on this point. So, what neighborhood or community would want to have drug vans and clinics? Who wants to live across the street from a flow of people entering and exiting a drug clinic? What would happen to the property value of homes and businesses? We can assume the wealthy wouldn\u2019t allow the drug vans to park in their neighborhoods, so Dershowitz must have in mind the apartments, houses, and businesses on the poorer side of towns, the very people who typically have little access and resources to influence city hall. Besides, what exactly will the addicts do after they get their fix? Stand on street corners playing saxophones and trading Charlie Parker licks? Philosophize in parks about the nature of the cosmos or volunteer at homeless shelters and homes for battered women? They certainly couldn\u2019t work or be much good to their sober family and friends or dare I say children. They would probably only be good for other addicts, and that wouldn\u2019t be much of a functional citizenry for any neighborhood to have. Even if we might favor Dershowitz\u2019s proposal, his lack of development on implantation doesn\u2019t help his argument.<\/p>\n
Dershowitz argues that his policy will lead to a decrease in drug-related deaths and that it \u201cwill save the lives of countless innocent victims of both crime and AIDS.\u201d Who wouldn\u2019t want a policy that can save addicts and non-addicts alike? And yet, Dershowitz also admits that his policy won\u2019t block addicts from black market heroin, and even admits that addicts will supplement their legal with illegal doses. Dershowitz is smart enough to know that any drug policy will not be full proof, and so for the sake of reality and credibility he must argue the high probability of success for his proposal. And yet, Dershowitz seems to believe that the violence related to a drug isn\u2019t due to the properties of the drug but to the illegality. In other words, once we wave the wand of legality over drugs like heroin or crack or even meth, we suddenly minimize a drug\u2019s harmful effects. According to Dershowitz, people commit criminal acts because they want drugs. But is this true? I assume in part it is true, and conventional wisdom might even say it\u2019s almost absolutely true, although conventional wisdom can be wrong.<\/p>\n
But another way to argue this point is to ask the question on what came first. Heroin use or criminality? Perhaps criminality led to heroin use, and if that\u2019s case, the government-sponsored free heroin may not decrease violence as much as he thinks because criminality is already baked into the culture of heroin use. It\u2019s not that people do crimes because of heroin. Heroin use is part and parcel to the culture of criminals. Perhaps the cause and effect relationship between drugs and crimes is much more complex than Dershowitz allows, and his policy is based on a flawed assumption. It\u2019s not that illegality leads to drug use, the \u201cforbidden-fruit syndrome,\u201d or that drug use leads to crime, but criminality leads to drug use or perhaps we have a combination of all three. And yet, once again, Dershowitz never sufficiently explores the issue with examples and studies and expert testimonials for the reader to adequately understand the worth of his argument.<\/p>\n
Finally, Dershowitz asserts an argument by analogy in the last part of his paper. He argues that we decriminalized nicotine and alcohol, and that solution has worked much better than maintaining their illegal status. We can unpack his argument in the following way:<\/p>\n
Premise 1: Decriminalizing nicotine and alcohol has solved problems and saved lives. <\/p>\n
Premise 2: Heroin use is like nicotine and alcohol<\/p>\n
Conclusion: Decriminalizing heroin will solve problems and save lives.<\/p>\n
The implied conclusion here is that we should decriminalize heroin because it worked for the two other drugs. Now we can admit that numerically nicotine and alcohol kill more people than heroin. Fair enough. However, the main property of comparison seems to be criminalization creates more problems than it solves. First off, I have never known a time in the history of our country where we outlawed nicotine. Secondly, and more importantly, Dershowitz never sufficiently unpacks and proves the analogy. Merely because he asserts it doesn\u2019t prove it. We don\u2019t argue by fiat. An unproven premise is merely an assumption, and to assume your premise is true without evidence is nothing more than begging the question. Even if the analogy is easy to prove, he still must supply evidence. Moreover, since we have never decriminalized heroin, how can he be so sure that heroin will fall into the same camp as the other two drugs? When we consider the properties of the drugs, we may have some indication that the opposite is the case. Plenty of people have a glass of wine or a few beers, and are still perfectly reasonable people. A couple of glasses of wine or bottles of beer periodically for a good majority of people does not lead to addiction. Can we believe the same is true of heroin? Can a person shoot an average amount on one occasion and still be reasonable and functional? Will routine usage of an average amount of heroin leave the user as a non-addict? Because of the properties of the two sets of drugs, we do have warrant to doubt his analogy.<\/p>\n
Dershowitz states other points that we can challenge as well. He never clarifies why average citizens will agree to allow their tax monies to be used to fund this program, nor does he clarify security measures to ensure the safety of those medical personnel who will work in the vans and clinics. Dershowitz admits that addicts will secure their heroin \u201cby hook or crook,\u201d so why wouldn\u2019t some addicts get the bright idea to rob these vans and clinics if no security guards were present? Lastly, one of the most glaring flaws in his whole proposal is that Dershowitz never considers therapy or drug rehabilitation, which is one of the main points to decriminalization. From his policy, he seems to assume that addicts will always be addicts, and the best society can do is medicate them for the rest of their lives, and comfort them as they needle their way to the grave. Shouldn\u2019t his proposal have some hope that addicts can live as non-addicts and family members and friends can have their loved ones back minus the heroin? Perhaps Dershowitz has answers to all of these problems and his policy is much stronger than what he presented. But, for now, Dershowitz needs to remember that from nothing nothing comes, and until he fills in the missing gaps of his argument with evidence, we will keep his proposal as \u201cunthinkable.\u201d<\/p><\/div>\n
Our first writing assignment will be based on debates we have covered in class: \u201cFree Speech is Threatened on [College] Campus\u201d and \u201cAbolish the Death Penalty.\u201d For this assignment, you will have to choose one panelist from the two debates, and critique his or her argument. Choose one panelist and only one panelist. I strongly […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":[],"disciplines":[186],"paper_types":[],"tagged":[],"aioseo_notices":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.goodacademic.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/questions\/17752"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.goodacademic.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/questions"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.goodacademic.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/questions"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.goodacademic.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.goodacademic.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=17752"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.goodacademic.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/questions\/17752\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.goodacademic.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=17752"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"disciplines","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.goodacademic.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/disciplines?post=17752"},{"taxonomy":"paper_types","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.goodacademic.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/paper_types?post=17752"},{"taxonomy":"tagged","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.goodacademic.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tagged?post=17752"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}