Over the last semester of my college career, I participated in an argumentation class. I hadn’t taken a class like this in my life, but I was happy to see how it would go, and looking back now at the end of the semester, I can see how this class will help me in my life going forward. First, the class really helped me see how to categorize my thoughts about issues that I’m passionate about and allow me to make sound arguments that can help back my positions. This helps me to be a more credible source and someone that can research various topics and categorize them into arguments that at the end of the day, are logical and make sense. Secondly, the class helped me meet new people and understand different viewpoints. To make an argument against a certain viewpoint, you must first understand the viewpoint you are arguing with. I believe this class has helped me understand that notion.
This week, I was assigned to write a policy paper that was over a subject of my choosing. After some deliberation, I decided to write it over one of the subjects that I am personally very passionate about; climate change. This policy paper really allowed me to do a deep dive into how climate change occurs, what the consequences to be, solutions that can limit the effects of climate change, and more. It was hard at first, as I had to do a lot of research and make sure that all my facts were correct. However, I’m glad that I did wrote about this topic and could possibly play a part in raising awareness not only about the catastrophic issue of climate change, but ways we can all come together and help solve this issue so that future generations won’t be as affected. Hopefully, this paper will be able to be seen by others and they can also help the cause.
In my argumentation class, we were assigned to participate in a CX debate. This debate was quite the undertaking, as this was a longer-form debate that must of us in the class had never participated in before. The topic of the debate that my group was in was about cancel culture, and my group had to argue the affirmative, that cancel culture was a good thing to have on social media platforms. This was an interesting challenge as all I had ever heard about cancel culture previously was very negative things. Overall, the debate went very well for my team. I believe we came in with great arguments and were prepared for whatever the other team had to say to counter us. I found the experience fun because it was a good challenge coming up with counter arguments on the fly and treating the whole thing like a competition.
When self-reflecting on how I did in my debates in argumentation, I will say that there were a couple things I would’ve done differently. First off, I would gave a lot more of a performance for the audience. While my facts and arguments that I constructed were very sound, my performance was lacking and I learned that debating is half arguing and half performing and being charismatic for the entire audience. Another thing I would do is to add more sources to my argument to gain credibility with the audience. This would make my arguments sound more legit to people who might not have known much about the topic I was debating about. However, overall, I can say I’m proud of the way I handled my debates and happy with how they went.
In my argumentation class for college, we debated once again, with this being our second SPAR debate. Our topic was over whether college should be free in the United States, and I was arguing for the affirmative and my partner was arguing for the negative. I did a lot of research for the topic, and the affirmative position was my opinion on the matter already. I had a lot of fun researching this topic and seeing what kind of research about the topic was out there. During the actual debate, I believe my partner and I were quite even in respect to who won. She got me on certain arguments and made me think on my feet and go off script from what I originally was going to do. All in all, it was a fun endeavor.
Since 1896, when Swedish scientist Svante Arrhenius predicted that the temperature of the Earth would rise due to the emission of CO2 gasses and the subsequent greenhouse effect, humans have been aware of the issue of climate change. Since the start of the Industrial Revolution, humans have pumped over 1.6 trillion tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, and this has caused the Earth’s temperature to rise 1.9℉ since the year 1880. Currently, the Earth’s temperature is rising at a rate of .32℉ every year. If this pace continues, the Earth will begin to see catastrophic consequences that include rising sea levels, erratic climate, harsher storms, increased levels of flooding, increased amount of wildfires, and longer droughts. These effects will dramatically damage tens of millions of people worldwide, and rising sea levels have the chance to displace over 150 million people worldwide. However, solutions that are required to remedy this issue have been thoroughly debated over, including whether climate change exists, if humans caused climate change, how pressing the issue is, etc. This has made finding common ground and taking action on solutions very difficult. While most people in the United States believe that climate change is real (), some disagree with the notion that humans are the main cause. Skeptics of climate change are liable to go against regulatory actions due to the economic costs that it would take in order to limit the rise of the Earth’s temperature in the future. Others that are more environmentally conscious believe that it is important to begin implementing solutions to ease the effects of climate change and are more likely to vote for candidates who promote bills that can regulate large corporations whose pollutants accelerate the rise of Earth’s temperature. However, one thing is for sure. Climate change and the rising of Earth’s temperature is real and could be catastrophic. Climate change is a worldwide issue and a solution will require international cooperation to achieve enough success to outweigh the economic costs required to implement them. However, if enough is done to achieve that success, the human race will have a much better future and will be able to turn their heads to other problems in society. Now that climate change has been established as a real event taking place currently, the question becomes whether humans can come together and cooperate to solve this issue and what solution will have the largest impact on climate change. In this policy paper, we will look at what the United States government can do to limit the emissions that come from the country.
Objectives:
In this section, there will be three major objectives that have been outlined in order to combat climate change. These 3 are as following:
Limiting emissions: In essence, the warming of the Earth has been caused by the emission of greenhouse gasses into the Earth’s atmosphere. This causes what is known as the greenhouse effect, which is explained as greenhouse gasses trapping heat from the sun in the atmosphere, causing the Earth to warm. Limiting the amount of greenhouse gasses that are emitted into the atmosphere will be essential in combating climate change. The United States has currently set
Limiting economic cost: The power industry is one of the largest industries in the United States. It employs 7.8 million Americans and accounts for over three trillion dollars of America’s gross domestic product. Many promising solutions to limiting emissions in the United States start at the energy sector, who are most responsible for most of the United States’s emissions. However, fixing the energy sector must be done carefully to limit the economic cost and effects that climate change can have on the energy sector. Eliminating or straining large emitters, most in petroleum and coal energy plants, could subsequently strain the US economy and leave millions unemployed. There must be an effort to ease the energy sector away from these large emitters and to more sustainable sources of energy. These sustainable sources include wind, solar, nuclear, and hydroelectric power.
Switching to sustainable energy sources: Today, in the United States, petroleum, natural gas, and coal account for 79% of the United States’s energy sector. This becomes an issue with the knowledge that these means of energy production aren’t environmentally friendly and non-renewable. With an increase in the level of technology available to harness renewable energy sources, the US can benefit from switching to more renewable energy sources in two ways. The first way is obviously to become more environmentally friendly, using clean energy that doesn’t emit the greenhouse gasses that have been discussed earlier. The second way is that the United States can become leaders in renewable energy development and become more energy independent.
Options:
In this section, there are three options the United States can look to help fulfill the objectives laid out in the previous sections. Those three options are listed in the following:
Carbon Tax: A carbon tax is one of the leading solutions in getting corporations to reduce emissions because it holds these corporations financially responsible for the pollution they create. A carbon tax is exactly how it sounds, a tax on the amount of carbon that is produced by a corporation. This is usually done by having a set amount these corporations have to pay per ton of emissions put into the environment. There are previous examples of countries having success when putting a carbon tax into action, but there are some economic ramifications.
Carbon Capture Devices (CCD): Basically, a carbon capture device is a device designed to capture emissions before they are released to the environment. The way this is done is that during the industrial process, these devices are used while the emissions are being produced, and the devices capture these emissions and stores them instead of the emissions being immediately released into the environment.
Switch to electric vehicles (EVs): Cars are one of the largest emitters of greenhouse gasses. Cars in the United States account for 16.4% of the US greenhouse emissions. With the switch to electric-powered vehicles, these emissions can be cut due to the cars not burning fossil fuels and emitting that into the environment. Phasing out gas-powered vehicles would greatly help the cause to limit the emissions being put into the environment.
Analysis of Options:
In this section, there will be analyses of all the options laid out in the previous section. The three analyses are as following:
Carbon Tax Analysis: As said previously, a carbon tax is one of the most promising ways to reduce emissions in the United States currently. Giving the US the ability to hold companies and corporations accountable for the emissions they are currently producing and pumping into the atmosphere is advantageous for a couple reasons. First, it allows capitalism to do what it is intended to do; to force innovation in order to maximize profits and do better than other competitors. This forces the companies to innovate new ways in order to minimize their emissions so they don’t have to pay as much in taxes. Secondly, this money that is paid to the government can then go into other programs. In an article published online by Economics Help, writer Tevjan Pettinger writes about how the money can be used. He wrote, “The revenue raised from a carbon tax could be used to subsidize alternatives such as green electricity or the revenue raised could be used to repair the damage caused by environmental pollution” (Pettinger, 2020). So, not only can the carbon tax be used to reduce emissions, but it can also be used to generate revenue to make advancements in green energy. In an article published by the Center for Climate and Energy Solutions, it talks about how much revenue a carbon tax could raise in the United States. It says, “A 2017 study estimates a tax of $49 per metric ton of carbon dioxide could raise about $2.2 trillion in net revenues over 10 years from 2019 to 2028” (C2ES, 2021). However, this option does have drawbacks. First, it could make companies less honest about the pollution they are putting into the air. Basically, companies are honest with the government about how much they are polluting because they don’t have any consequences as long as they follow EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) guidelines. However, with the tax in place, companies will have incentive to not be honest to the government about their emission data. Secondly, a carbon tax could have a bad economic effect on the United State’s energy sector. Investors would be less likely to provide funding to places spending millions of dollars in environmental taxes.
Carbon Capture Device Analysis: Carbon capture devices are an option that hold a lot of potential in reducing emissions in the United States. CCDs have a couple of advantages that make them handy for limiting emissions. First, carbon capture devices are a very efficient method of reducing emissions. Secondly, the carbon that is stored in the devices can then be reused to create other products as well. However, there have been a couple of concerns that may make this option less viable. First, there are some huge cost concerns that come with carbon capture devices. This technology is fairly new, and thus, really expensive. This could hurt companies and corporations financially. Second, they are also risky in terms of the storage stage. In an article published on AzoCleanTech’s website, writer Olivia Hudson expands on this subject. She wrote, “There are several concerns with respect to the safety of the storage of carbon dioxide in huge volumes at a single location due to the possibility of leakages, which can lead to environmental contamination if not handled correctly” (Hudson, 2022). She also raises concerns about natural disasters that could hit storage facilities underground that could damage the storage devices and cause massive leaks.
Switching to EVs Analysis: As stated in the options section, cars emit a large amount of greenhouse gasses in the air. Plus, they create a very large consumer base that is tied to buying petroleum and other fossil fuels in order to power their vehicles. This could be changed due to phasing out of gasoline-powered cars in exchange for the very promising technology that electric vehicles present. This would allow cars to utilize clean energy and cut the emissions that most current vehicles produce daily. However, this plan doesn’t come without concerns. First, it isn’t realistic to have everyone go out and buy these electric cars that can be very pricey for the average consumer. If gasoline-powered cars are going to be phased out, it would have to happen over a long period of time. Second, to create the batteries that are installed into these vehicles, they require a mineral called lithium. In order to obtain the lithium, companies must mine this lithium from the ground, and this creates all new environmental issues on its own. In an article published by the Wellcome Collection, writer Lauren Grace Simpkins talks about the negative effects lithium mining could have on the environment. She writes, “The common environmental side effects of lithium mining are water loss, ground destabilization, biodiversity loss, increased salinity of rivers, contaminated soil and toxic waste” (Simpkins, 2021). If the trend of demand for lithium batteries continues going upwards, more mining must take place and could create environmental disasters. If electric vehicles are going to become commonplace today, the technology for the batteries that power them must be improved so creating them won’t leave environments in ruins.
Recommendation for Affirmative and Narrative
After doing intensive research on the topic of climate change and assessing the options listed above, I would recommend the option of a carbon tax being implemented into the United States. This policy is the fairest way to increase innovation and reduce emissions going into the air. This is also not an unprecedented policy for countries to put into place. There are currently 27 countries that have implemented some sort of carbon tax. In some of these countries, the results have been extremely promising. For example, we can look at the United Kingdom. In an article published by the National Observer, writer Brendan Frank expands on how the carbon tax has done better than expected, helping the UK drastically reduce their emissions. He writes, “The carbon price completely transformed how the U.K. generates and uses electricity. Its emissions haven’t been this low since 1890, and studies point to carbon pricing as a key contributor” (Frank, 2019). At the end of the day, it is important for the US to take a strong stand against climate change and the corporations that continue to pollute our air and accelerate us further into catastrophe. The best course of action to do that is to implement this carbon tax so that companies will become more innovative and avoid sending out these pollutants.
Hello, my name is James Cottingham. Today I will be arguing on the side of honesty and integrity. “Every lie is two lies, the lie we tell others and the lie we tell ourselves to justify it.” Today
I’ll be arguing on a universal truth to almost all religions abide by, and a fundamental principle to coexist with one another as human beings. I’ll consider the truth as a lifesaving foundation, covered, and protected in a court of law, I’ll consider honesty as not only a preference, but a duty that I as a human being owe to everyone in this room. Honesty is the best policy, for it can help your marriage, your friendships, and ideologies.
• Cross-examination by the negative (60 seconds)
In response to the argument my opponent has made, I can’t argue that there isn’t some validity in his thinking. However, when we look at the statement “honesty is the best policy,” we can see that this statement is very vague. Without further clarification, we must deduce that it means honesty is the best policy in every situation. The truth is important, there is no debating this, but is telling the truth and only the truth in every situation realistic, or even ethical? My point is that the ethics of honesty and dishonesty rely on the situations we are put in. There are some circumstances where we are obligated to tell the truth, but we have to ask ourselves, are we telling the truth to help others or just to help us feel better about our self, by following our own morals, disregarding the negative effects the truth can have on others? The real world isn’t as black and white as this statement would like to make it out to be. There are times that telling the truth is important, but there are also times where the damage the truth causes makes telling the truth a less viable ethical option.
• Negative opening speech (90 seconds)
Hello, my name is Jacob Bennett, and today, I will be arguing on the more realistic side, the side that understands the complex social situations all of us go through on a daily basis. Now, I won’t stand up here today and tell you that being dishonest is a good thing to do on a regular basis. What I’m telling you today is that just because someone tells the truth, it doesn’t mean that action is just immediately considered ethical. In reality, the truth hurts, and being honest all the time means that you will hurt a lot of people. When encountering a situation that requires us to consider whether to be truthful or dishonest, is it not reasonable to consider the consequences of both actions? For example, if someone was to ask you about your lifestyle, but you know the truth would harm you in some way, is it better to still give someone personal details in your life, knowing they could use that against you later on? To be blunt, not everyone needs to know the truth about you, especially when it doesn’t concern them or hurt them in any way. I am aware that lying and the act of dishonesty is vilified in almost every society in the world, but that doesn’t mean that there aren’t situations where being less than one hundred percent honest is the more viable option. There are times where it better to be dishonest to protect yourself, your family and loved ones, or even your friends and colleagues. There are times when being dishonest can be the best ethical choice, and the phrase “honest is the best policy” does not convey these complexities we face in our daily lives.
• Cross-examination by affirmative (60 seconds)
My opponent should carefully consider that while a white lie may seem viable, not telling your spouse a misdoing or not giving the judge the whole story while testifying in a court of law, may not only be dangerous but deadly. One must not simply lie to save one’s feelings, but moreover if you continually lie to a loved one, one should question the legitimacy of that relationship indefinitely. I have a responsibility as a human being to not lie to my opponent, because “it takes strength and courage to admit the truth” Does the audience not want to live a life of valor and respect?
• Affirmative closing speech (45 seconds)
If one is asked to cover up a crime, perhaps one of monumental stature – one should consider, will this have criminal repercussions if I do? What happens if I get caught committing perjury? Will this lessen or worsen my situation? It has been time and time again, “Honesty is the first chapter in the book of wisdom” so why lie? Tell the truth and you will sleep better at night, and live a long and healthy life one can be proud of.
• Negative closing speech (45 seconds)
Unlike my opponent today, I’m not going to give the benefits and negatives of your own personal situations and the answer as to what you should do, to tell the truth or not. All I ask you to do is to really examine the situations you all are put in and to make the best decision for yourself and the other parties involved. Do not blindly follow this saying in order to feel better about yourself or your morals, just understand the ramifications of your actions and use your best judgment. The world isn’t black and white, and any statement portraying it this way should be held to the highest scrutiny. Thank you for your time.
The syllogism written in the editorial is given as – Putin is threatening nuclear warfare. → Threatening nuclear warfare, even if you aren’t intending to actually use nuclear weapons, is reckless. → Putin is acting reckless on the world stage.
Narrative Analysis – In this editorial piece by the Washington Post, it vehemently condemns Russian president Valdimir Putin’s decision to continually threaten nuclear warfare in their war against Ukraine. In this piece it presents a couple of arguments that show exactly why Putin is being dangerously reckless as to even threaten a nuclear attack on Ukraine. The first argument is that a nuclear attack on Ukraine doesn’t even make sense when assessing the Russian goals for Ukraine. The invasion of Ukraine was, in Russia’s own words, for territorial conquest and to keep NATO off of Russia’s doorstep. A nuclear attack would not help but hinder Russia in accomplishing those goals. The territory would be useless if it was a desolate nuclear hellscape, and NATO would almost assuredly respond swiftly. This isn’t even considering the damage that could fall upon Russia, with radiation likely to blow over onto Russia’s lands and hurt its own people. The editorial also suggests Putin is overstepping his bounds, as he isn’t the only person that is needed in order to launch Russia’s nuclear arsenal. In terms of these arguments, they seem valid. It is absolutely true that NATO won’t just sit back as Russia launches nukes, and that an escalation to nuclear warfare would only make Russia’s situation much, much worse. Not only this, but Putin threatening this and hanging over the heads of world leaders can make his threats empty and discredit his word on a world stage. Even the mentioning of escalation of this war to nuclear war is something that causes everyone to pay attention and the quote at the end of the editorial sums up how this situation would realistically play out. “A nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought” (Board, 1).
Toulmin’s Model of Argument
Claim
Putin’s threats to use nuclear warheads on Ukraine as a result of how the war against Ukraine has played out is reckless and endangers millions of lives as a result. His threats also endanger the idea of nuclear restraint, the idea that nobody should use nuclear devices for warfare as it endangers the safety of the entire world.
Data
While there isn’t much quantitative data on this as there is only a very small sample size of nuclear devices used in warfare, one can know the type of damage that nuclear warheads can do. Russia has an estimated 2000 nuclear warheads at their disposal, mostly created during the Cold War era. The damage that these warheads could do could wind up killing millions of people through radiation, nuclear fires, and the initial blast itself. It would almost automatically become a humanitarian crisis.
Warrants
The threats of nuclear warfare as frequent as the ones Putin puts out make nuclear warfare not seem as serious as it assuredly is. To make nuclear warfare seem more common and less taboo as it was before these threats is very dangerous, promoting the use of these devices not only in self-defense, but also as a way to gain territory or to conquer other nations. This could set a precedent we’ve already seen during the Cold War, where nations dangle this horrific threat over others for political gain. However, it is possible that while Putin may not even consider using these weapons, it normalizes and weaponizes the idea of nuclear warfare, amping up the stakes for everyone across the world.
Qualifiers
It is true that Russia is not achieving the goals they wanted when they began to invade Ukraine. The Ukrainian people have shown tremendous resolve to hold out against what is considered one of the biggest and most powerful countries in the world. However, one of the biggest advantages that Russia possesses is the nuclear stockpile they have. Putin threatening or even using these warheads would allow Russia to use their full capabilities or lower the Ukrainian morale, as Ukraine knows they wouldn’t be able to fight back in the event of this war escalating to become nuclear.
Rebuttals
While threatening nuclear war could give Russia and Putin a short-term advantage to help win the war against Ukraine, Russia needs to understand how important they are on the world stage. What they do impacts the entire world. They possess an exorbitant amount of firepower in nukes, and the amount of destruction these weapons could cause should be handled with extreme caution and as responsibly as possible. The Russians were the ones who started this war and invaded Ukraine, and using nuclear weapons or even threatening them shows how low Russia will go for short-term gains. Not only this, but this type of action endangers the entire world.
Issue: Greg Abbott has now officially signed SB (Senate Bill) 1 into law. This bill has been promoted by Republicans as a bill to help protect the election from fraudulent votes, but Democrats argue that this law unnecessarily restricts voting in large cities and disproportionately affects minority voting.
Background: This bill primarily affects and restricts drive-thru and overnight voting, which were adopted during the COVID-19 pandemic. These methods were highly criticized by Republicans, with them claiming these methods to be less safe due to the lack of poll watchers. However, Democrats in Texas have put into action several lawsuits that aim to strike this bill down. The main goal of this law is to protect elections from potential fraud and to re-establish confidence in elections from voters. This is following previous elections that have led to a huge drop in voters confidence in said elections. This loss of confidence isn’t good, as having confidence and integrity in elections is the backbone of a solid democracy. Our citizens should be confident that the elections are completely legit and display the will of the people.
Current Law: While this bill is new to Texas, plenty of other states have passed laws that have similar effects on voting methods. There have been similar bills ratified into state law in Georgia (Georgia SB 202), in Iowa ( IA. S.F. 413) and in Kansas (KS H.B. 2183).
Recommendation: The recommendation in this issue brief is that the bill is allowed to pass into law in order to protect the sanctity of voting. These methods introduced during the pandemic might have been more convenient for voters, but the pandemic is now coming to a close, meaning there is little reason to keep using these voting methods. There are vaccines out for COVID-19, and if somebody would like to vote, then it isn’t unreasonable to restrict voting to a place where poll watchers will be able to make sure the votes are fair and aren’t fraudulent in any way. The last election was one of the most controversial elections in American history, and it is clear we should make sure our elections are 100 percent verified and held with integrity.
Issue: Greg Abbott has now officially signed SB (Senate Bill) 1 into law. This bill has been promoted by Republicans as a bill to help protect the election from fraudulent votes, but Democrats argue that this law unnecessarily restricts voting in large cities and disproportionately affects minority voting.
Background: This bill will have the largest effect in counties that have a high population, including Harris and Travis county, and will benefit counties that are more rural and less populated. While Republicans will say this bill is solely for protecting our elections, it isn’t unreasonable to question their motives for passing a bill like this, as it will benefit them tremendously in the upcoming 2022 elections. Small, rural areas are mostly Republican, while the bill will hurt voter turnout in large population centers, which are mostly made up of more minority and Democrat voters. When looking at what this bill will do, it is almost certainly going to give Republicans an unfair advantage in the upcoming election. While Republicans have made an uproar about voter fraud, the numbers don’t seem to back this notion. Only 197 cases of voter fraud were made between the years of 2015 and 2020, which even if unreported, is unlikely to cause much sway in a state with over 17 million registered voters. This bill seems to only be passed to benefit Republicans and was pushed by the facade that it will remedy an almost nonexistent voter fraud problem.
Current Law: In the affirmative part of this issue brief, I listed laws that have also been passed in other states that are similar to SB1. However, these states are overwhelmingly Republican, and it is known that restrictive voter laws like SB1 benefit the Republican voter turnout, while also simultaneously hurting minority and Democrat voting.
Recommendation: This bill should not be allowed to pass. The reason for signing this bill into law isn’t a strong enough reason to require such a restriction on voter rights. It’s true that Texans should feel confident that the election is secure and without fraud, but one could argue that that is a problem that Republicans created for themselves, as they have made massive claims of rampant voter fraud that just isn’t backed up by the stats. Texans should have the right of access to vote and taking these convenient voting methods away will only lower and restrict the amount of voters that will be able to cast their ballot. This law is completely one-sided, with all the benefits going to Republicans, which unsurprisingly make up the majority of the Texas government. Nobody, regardless of position, should be able to sign laws that allow their political party to benefit and have an unfair advantage in an upcoming election.
In my assessment of the bill, not only does it seem like a bad idea, but also hypocritical by the lawmakers of Texas. First, hate speech is a real thing, especially in the world of social media where someone’s opinion can reach so many different people. In one of the articles, it points to how Twitter banned former president Trump off the platform. This was warranted by Twitter though, given how Trump incited the riot on January 6th, a riot from right-wing extremists that resulted in the death of 5 people. I have no idea how these lawmakers can point to this ban of Trump by Twitter and say that it was unjustified. Secondly, this bill is very hypocritical coming from lawmakers of Texas like Greg Abbott. The reason I say this is because of a case that involved business’s right to deny people service. In Colorado, there was the case of a baker who refused to give service to an LGBT couple, and cited his religion as the reason he couldn’t bake the cake for the couple’s wedding. The case went all the way up to the Supreme Court, who sided with the baker. Texan lawmakers commended this ruling, saying it defended the baker’s right to refuse service. However, this bill contradicts this, saying it isn’t okay for platforms like Twitter, Instagram, and YouTube to deny service to basically right-wing extremists who spew hate speech. So in my eyes, it feels like now that the shoe is on the other foot, they feel like it isn’t right for platforms to deny them service and a platform on which to say their extremist beliefs. That is highly hypocritical and I don’t agree with this bill.
Jacob Dylan Bennett 