In several weeks I am supposed to start working on my argumentative coursework. We will be able to chose from any topic and basically prove our point. (ie: Gravity does not exist or Smoking is good for you...) Well I am kinda lost, dont know what to chose. I want to make my argument provocative, something outside the crowd, but too abstract. I have so many ideas and for those of you who know me, I suck at picking good choices Any ideas? I thought of things like the Olympics 2008, Nuclear weapons but in a positive kind of way, nuclear power, (positive) discrimination, gaming addicts (some of you may recognize these from Serious Business), creationism vs evolution etc. Very long list. Oh and it sohuld fit into around 800 words.
Omg do it on the way we have removed our selfs from nature is bad as natural selection does not happen naturally and the law of the strongest survive has been diminished in our human society, for example: mentally/genetically impared people are able to live with modern science. Talk about the effects long term, on individuals, communities, etc and evidence it through relation to the environment around us all. And in the end it polutes the gene pool, strong bloodlines can get ruined, the 'weak' control the 'strong'. Physically strong, mentally strong, etc. I'm sure you catch my drift. But on the ones you listed, I'd choose either creationism vs evolution or discrimination.
So I can shorten it into "The Nazi Policy"? Though thats very interesting topic I havent thought about (atleast not right now). It kind of fullfills all my needs - provocative, disrespecting to minorities, against all ethics, anti-current society -ish.
Just to note, its nothing like wiping out all disabled people. I'm just saying how it effects the human race long term and current, how it opposes 'natural selection' etc.
So you want him to make an argument in favor of eugenics? That's just a bad idea unless you are trying to inflame your readers.
Write about the constantly decreasing age maturity is achieved at and its consequences on the child's body and mind. I like Psi's idea though, very provocative indeed
Psionicz: I know what you ment, but I can see a giant flaw in that argument and thats the humanity itself. One of the reasons why are we so succesful is that we create giant (global) societies where everyone has his own function, and even though he might suck at one thing, he mught still be useful. Take Hawkings as an example. He wouldnt survive more than few days on his own but he was one of the biggest contributors to human population ever. I am sure that many scientists, artists and all other important parts of society which make humanity distinct from animals wouldnt be sucessful without the support from other members of the society. Ill stop it before I go too off-topic. But I am not sure if I want to pick this topic if any person with atleast half brain is capable of throwing this counter-argument in my face. edit: I could dodge this problem by making the piece like a study of the effects, but then thats not really argumentative piece is it?
@ LK, That has nothing to do with what I said. Lets put it like this: In the wild a mentally/physically impared human would not survive as he/she could not tackle the mental and physcial problems which would come at him/her at an everday basis, and as those weak die out, the strong prevail meaning long term evolution allows us to in a way become immune to those obsticals. For example, the 'weak' could not compete with the climate changes or change in sustanence, and they die out. However, the strong who survived that and were obviously built that little bit better had survived and continued to breed, and through breeding they have secured this good gene which allows them to beat that obstical and that will continue to strengthen over the decades. And of course that way each generation will be updated with those good genes making the human race on a whole stronger which is the objective in natural selection, the reason humans are still alive today, the reason we have survived. But with our modern technology, someone whose genetic make up went wrong and are genetically built with an error to have 4 extra disfigured limbs can get physcially rebuilt, but what cannot be rebuilt is their DNA meaning as they are 'normal' now they will spread that bad gene which can evolve in its self into something bad. Although, were a gene like that can be bad it can be worked with over the generations to form a positive adaptation but thats not likely as they'd continuously get 're-built' but the bad gene will not cease to exist. Its like painting over a crack in a structure. And what happens when an error is masked like that? the building crumbles. Thats just a narrow explaination of what I wanted you to explore, something along them lines. Another thing in which you could branch from that is the selection of those mutated genes, and how modern science can mani[ulate that gene into something benificial for the human race on a whole thus turning someone once bad into something benificial. For example: someone has some kinda mutated gene which programmes the body to effectivly double the layer of skin meaning in our current form this person cannot breath thus meeting certain death. However if you manipulated this gene into something workable it could make us tougher and more resiliant to sudden climate changes, e.g. ice age. Thicker skin means more insulation. Kinda simple really. Edit: On the Steven Hawkings thing is where my part about selecting those genes which are bad yet good in some aspects and manipulating them to become benifical to the human race on a whole. That then can branch into selective genes. You can also talk about how, we may longer evolve in a sense, that our minds do and the things we create which are tailored for our increased survival, relate to Steven Hawkings. So in effect, the tools become a part of our evolution and instead of us 'naturally' progressing, the things we create aid us in this. So maybe that is evoluation, just in a different aspect...
Just quickly, why is everyone calling him Steven Hawkings? His name is Hawking. There's no 's'. In my opinion, if you want to be provocative, I think that the positive discrimination topic is a great one, but if you want to be informative, nuclear power is the way to go.
Write a scathing criticism of George Bush and convince people that he's the worst president EVER (not that anyone would need much convincing).
The one thing about natural selection , is in theory if enough time passed we would end up with some kind of master race. In reality, this theory can never be true due to multiple factors. 1.Environment- The World is different every where you go, whats the perfect conditions in one place may not be the perfect conditions in another place (concerning human characteristics) 2. Radiation- causes mutation, with out it evolution would go on, but it would be much slower, we owe our heritage thanks to a healthy dose of radiation in our ancestors lives. If you've ever read the book Starship Troopers, it talks about a world exactly like earth , but with out all of our radiation, quite interesting. 3.Climate Change- Falls right under environment , but i thought it deserved its own part. Lets say theres two groups to species x , furry and unfurry, the climate is cold so the furry group is dominant, because the unfurry typically freeze to death, well lets also have the climate change to a warmer climate, Whos the master race now? So you cant write about natural selection because its too many factors to change it to really be argued about properly. It's hells random game of chance and we happened to get lucky. Write about dependency on oil or something easy like that to write about .
I never mentioned proving natural selection right or did I? I mentioned Evolution vs Creationism, proving that Evolution is more likely the way to go rather than creationism, which has very little to do with what youve just said. Anyways I dont think I am going to pick anything to do with Evolution. I am seriously thinking about the Nuclear weaponary/power or positive discrimination.
