Journal Entry #1

Journal Entry #1

Michael Kadish
8/26/99

1)

a) "Congress should endorse the right-to-life amendment"

This is highly controversial. Arguments can be fund for both sides. But, the problem is that there has to be some authority to decide when a human life begins. The bible and pity for suffering are used on both sides. Unless an authority respected by all comes forth to give the answer, both sides not only believe themselves to be right, but both sides enforce their views dogmatically; right to lifers because they "are preventing murder," and pro-choicers because they are "preventing future suffering.

c) "Homosexuals should have the same job rights as heterosexuals."

Some people question homosexuals' levels of morality because of the biblical commandment against it. On the other hand, homosexuals show themselves, in most cases, to be completely normal human beings, other than their sexual desires. Any test that shows homosexuals as competent, if not more, than heterosexuals, can be ignored with the explanation that they are living out a forbidden life. Unless science can show that there is a fundamental problem with homosexuals, or the various homophobic people around the world see a fundamental error, the continuous fight between science and the bible continues.

f) "Violence on television produces violent behavior in children who watch more than four hours a day."

The two sides here are the people who are looking for an explanation as to why violence is so much more prominent in today's generation, as oppose to the people who either profit, or simply enjoy television, and view it as a problem. Tests have been inconclusive, with research indicating either side. Science, or investigation, may determine if TV violence is in fact a cause for today's violent society.

g) "Both creationism and evolutionary theory should be taught in the public schools."

The difference between this policy claim from A and C, is that this one seeks to be a conciliatory decision between the two strong sides. In addition, two sides will attack it. Those who believe in science will ask how a belief that has no scientific basis can be seriously taught. Those who believe in creationism would feel that a blasphemy of the likes of Darwin should never be taught. The best way for this argument to work would be that both side would be convinced individually, that if their side were put up next to the other side, there's be no question that the other side will appear thoroughly ridiculous, and will then finally be ignored.

j) "Bilingual instruction should not be permitted in the public schools."

The argument here lies as to how immigrants, particularly those who are from non-English speaking countries should be treated. One side says that until the person knows English, that person is not beneficial to society. The other side says that they have come to this country, we should be helping them. Both warrants will have supporters, it's up to the person in charge.

2) Somebody just told me of the old kids' line of a great reason pertaining to why there's no need to go to school. "The more time at school, the smarter you are. The smarter you are, the more you know. The more you know, the more you forget. The more you forget, the less you know. So why go to school?" This does come off as a logical syllogism, the statements however need clarification; the warrants would not justify the claim if properly studied.

The Claim is not actually stated. The hypothetical question suggests that school is unnecessary. The Warrant is that your time in school will simply be a 360-degree turn, back to where one began. The Support is that "logically" school serves no purpose.
Return to the list of papers.
Return to Homepage.

Sign Up ForFREEEmail Account

Hosted by www.Geocities.ws