Pro/Con Paper

Technical Description: 2 3-page papers. Argument supported by evidence.

You can choose from two topics, one of which is based on ideas in this course, and the other of which is intended to be fun for those who are getting sick of talking about community all the time:

In this paper, you will need to argue both sides of an issue. Each side will be presented in a single, three page paper, for a total of six pages.

The idea here is that you cannot really think rationally about an issue until you have truly looked objectively at both sides. In our culture, we are often too quick to ignore valuable arguments put forward by the other side based upon gross oversimplifications of their motives, intentions, and reasoning skills. Liberals often brush off conservative ideas as being based on corporate greed, and conservatives often brush off liberal ideas as being based on naive political correctness, for example. Once you fit somebody else's ideas into a category like this, it becomes very easy to dismiss them and ignore any truth behind their argument.

You should always keep in mind the following thought: if an idea is strongly supported by a large group of people, there is almost always some valuable kernel of truth to it that you would do well to understand! Make it your goal to get to that truth and contemplate it. Turn it over in your mind and inspect it. Realize that there is very likely something there that you can make your own and use to improve your understanding of the world. This is not to say that you shouldn't have strong political ideas. It often happens that when you really understand the kernel of truth in the argument, you can also see where it breaks down. If that is the case, then you can now explain to open-minded individuals from the other side where the real problems are with their ideas. Maybe they can do the same for you (or you can do it yourself!), and you can come to a better solution that takes the truth from both sides and unifies it in a way that works better than a single-sided solution would. Notice that this is very different from a compromise, which asks people to drop the ideas that matter least to them. Instead, it is a synthesis, and can only occur when people look deeply into each other's ideas without reflexive dismissal. If a person realizes that you are willing to analyze your side as critically as you analyze their side, and that you will admit when your "side" is wrong (or when your previous beliefs were wrong), they will take you much more seriously. As an aside, there are actually a few cases where large groups of people believe something because they are deluded or greedy or naive or incited, for example. I am not arguing that all ideas have a real basis in valuable truth, just that you should assume this to be the case until you have proven to yourself beyond any doubt that it is not the case. Whenever you come to such a conclusion, you should be very uncomfortable.

This paper is an attempt to begin to develop these qualities of rational thought, by explicitly making you think about something that you (perhaps) care about and arguing the other side. I want you to truly attempt to convince me in each of your papers that the side you are arguing is logically correct, based upon the types of evidence that we have discussed in class. In the past, some students have tried to do this by changing their definitions, but this doesn't really work. For example, in a paper on whether Bush is a good president, some have said "The most important thing is security..." and then gone on to argue that Bush has increased our security. Then, in the other paper, they have said "The most important thing is constitutional liberties..." and then gone on to argue that Bush has decreased our liberties. This is not effective, because the reader will choose their side based upon which presupposition he or she supports. I want your argument to be applicable to a wide audience, regardless of narrow presuppositions.

Of course, one side will be easier for you to argue than the other, but if I can tell which side you really believe, then you will not have succeeded in the assignment.