• Home
  • Tag: Argumentative

Should Students Work While Studying?

Topic: Students working while studyingGeneral purpose: To argue

Specific purpose: To argue that students should not study while working You’re lucky! Use promo “samples20”
and get a custom paper on
“Should Students Work While Studying?”
with 20% discount!
Order Now
Thesis statement: Students should not study while working because 1) they will not have time to concentrate in their studies 2) they will engage in unruly activities 3) it causes students to drop out of school
Introduction

I) [Attention Getter] The statements below given by the US department of education were published in Sheena’s book, Studying Strategies.

‘It is estimated that there are more than five million teenagers who are working in the United States as of today.’ (‘) Most teenage students are trying their best to find jobs while they are schooling.” (Sheena 282-283).

The salary they receive might make them engage in unruly activities because they are not responsible and they do not know how to handle money.’ (Sheena 269-270).
II) [Topic justification/ Establish controversy] In today’s world, most teenage students, all over the world engage in various part time jobs, mostly in developed countries.

Students who work while in school are likely to drop out of school because of the stress associated with multi-tasking their school work with job activities (Clifford & Nigel, 2012).

Many students who work while studying experience difficulties in their academic works. A research conducted by the National Council showed that those students who spend over 20 hours a week working while studying are likely to get poor grades. (Michael, 2014).

I totally agree with the National Council findings that students should not work while studying.
III) [Credibility statement] I have a strong interest in education

I have spent a lot of time researching on both sides of students working debate.

I was privileged to attend a seminar where educational stakeholders debated on the students working issue
IV) [Preview] the education department should prohibit working while studying in the US for three reasons

First, students who engage in jobs are less likely to do less homework and have very little time to concentrate on their studies.

Second, working while at school can make a student drop out of school.

Finally, working while in school can make a student have bad habits.

Transition: let’s begin with factors that have an immense impact when one works while studying: working while schooling is not good because it adversely affects one’s education.
Body

1.[ First constructive argument] First, students who engage in jobs are less likely to do less homework and have very little time to concentrate on their studies

A. working while schooling was originally designed to assist student gain experience before the get into the job market, but the unintended consequence is that it has adversely affected student’s education
1. A research carried out by the institute of Medicine also found out that students who spent more than 20 hours a week working get poor grades (Sheena, 2000).

2. This is largely due to the fact that students arrive home late and tired and hence they cannot handle their homework (Sheena, 2000).

3. Students who spent more than 20 hours a week working get poor grades (Sheena, 2000).
B. On top, working while schooling can make a student drop out of school.

1) Findings of research by University of Minnesota and Stanford University found out that students who work while studying are likely to drop out of school. Moreover, students who work while in school are likely to drop out of school because of the stress associated with multi-tasking their school work with job activities (Michael, 2014).

2) A research carried out by the Temple University found out that students who work are likely to engage in alcoholism that will make such students skive classes and work so that they can earn an extra coin for their leisure activities. This might also lead to addiction which is an added problem. Addiction will lead such students to engage in other activities such as pre-mature sex which will result to early and unwanted pregnancies. Such students are also likely to acquire sexually transmitted infections such as HIV/AIDS (Michael, 2014)
C. Many students do not realize that working while studying is unfavorable because they get extra cash besides the pocket money that they receive from their parents and guardians (Michael, 2014).

Transition: Now that we comprehend exactly how working while studying affects one’s education, we will look at its implications in the society and disadvantages.
II) [Second constructive argument] Second, working as a student affects the education.

Working while studying affects the education system in the United States.

The Education Department of the US has tried to abolish working while studying and made laws to curb this situation ( Clifford & Nigel 2012)

By disrespecting the wishes of the Education Department of the US we undermine its authority (Clifford & Nigel 2012).

A report issued by the National Council claims that working affects education negatively.

The National council report makes it clear that studying while working is illegal and be abolished by all means.

Transition: Even though it is vivid that working while studying is unfavorable, some critics argue that it is counterproductive. My next argument will show that working is actually counterproductive.
III. [Refutation] finally, working while school is not productive

[Minimization] Working while schooling has more cons than pros.

Such students are likely to value money more than their academic work.

A research carried out by the institute of Medicine also found out that students who spent more than 20 hours a week working have high rates of alcohol consumption (Sheena, 2000).

[Turn the table] Furthermore, working will lead such students to engage in other activities such as pre-mature sex which will result to early and unwanted pregnancies.

Students are also likely to acquire sexually transmitted infections such as HIV/AIDS (Michael, 2014).

Students who have been affected by such diseases may drop out of school due to stigmatization.

[Impact statements] Working while schooling not only affects education but also the society at large.

Transition: Although working while in school is beneficial, it has many disadvantages.
Conclusion

In summary, let’s look at why the government should abolish student working programs in the US.

A. First, students who engage in jobs are less likely to do less homework and have very little time to concentrate on their studies.

B. Second, working while at school can make a student drop out of school.

C. Finally, working while in school can make a student have bad habits
It is high time the government curbs the student working program to promote education system and the society at large.
Enthymemes

Categorical Enthymeme

Major premise: working affects students negatively

Minor premise: Working affects studies

Conclusion: working affects studies negatively

Tests:

1-yes, only three terms appear, they are in the right place.

-major term: Studies

-minor term: Working

2-yes each term is used twice.

3-yes, the middle term is applied universally

4-yes the middle term is used again in the minor premise

5-yes, at least one of the premises is affirmative

6-both terms are affirmative therefore the conclusion is negative
Hypothetical Enthymeme

Major Premise: if engage in work studies program, you affect you education

Minor Premise: work studies work program affects education

Conclusion: work studies program undermines education
Tests

1-yes, the two conclusions are casually related, work program is an underlying component of education

2- The minor premises affirms the antecedent

3- Yes, a logical conclusion is made because the minor premise corresponds with the antecedent.

References
Clifford, K & Nigel, F. Multitasking while Studying: Divided attention (2012). New York, NY: Oxford University press
Michael, P. Study Skills: How to Manage your Time (2014). Boston; Cengage Learning
Sheena, G. Studying Strategies: How to Effectively Balance Studies and Work (2000). Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Is Torture Ever Acceptable?

As reasonably remarked by Holmes, (2007) it is important to take into consideration numerous factors, and when speaking of the factors, related to this particular question it is that this issue is mainly debated referring situations of war or counter terrorism. It is questionable, whether or not it is acceptable to torture an agent of an enemy when such actions may result in preventing the enemy’s aggressive actions or bringing their effect to a minimum. And in this respect there is no exact answer. The answer depends on the system of values one uses when making a moral decision. You’re lucky! Use promo “samples20”
and get a custom paper on
“Is Torture Ever Acceptable?”
with 20% discount!
Order Now
From the point of view of utilitarianism such tortures are entirely acceptable and excusable, as they lead to well being of a large number of people when compared to sufferings of only one person or a small group of people.

From the point of view of Kantian ethics it is unacceptable to torture anybody since an agent, who would give such an order or would implement the torture itself would not desire to be a subject of such tortures themselves. As for virtue ethics, those who share this approach may consider the torture unacceptable, since it is not virtuous to do so. However, the history knows that through suffering the way to excellence lies, and excellence, as understood by many ancient philosophers, is one of the basic virtues (Hursthouse, 2013). This is why in some way tortures may be seen as acceptable, excusable for the developing the virtues of the tortured enemies.
Christian ethics will by no means accept torturing or find an excuse for it, as the main virtue of Christianity is forgiveness, and Christians are encouraged to forgive even their enemies, particularly their enemies.
I particularly find utilitarian approach the most acceptable in this case, as it is focused on the well-being of the majority, and the answer for this question is to be given by the people, responsible for the well-being of the countries or even entire continents. Their duty is to mind first of all and only the interests of the majority, and thus no other approach except utilitarianism is acceptable in this situation.
References

Holmes, A. F. “Ethics: Approaching moral decisions”. (2nd ed.). Downers Grove, IL. (2007). InterVarsity Press. ISBN: 9780830828036.
Hursthouse, Rosalind. “Virtue Ethics”. In Zalta, Edward N., ed. “Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy” (Fall 2013 ed.). Available at http://plato.stanford.edu

Textbook Assignment: Chapter 3: Issues for Discussion

1. Comment on this situation in terms of the different perspectives of the manufacturer and the retailers about this environmental development.

There are two different perspectives present in the given situation. James Johnson sees the situation as one of potential growth for the organization, while Bill Allan recognizes the fact that simply because there is a recent rise in energy prices, this does not mean that this is a potential benefit for the DIY market, potentials causing issues and necessitating consumers tightening their belts to meet pricing changes as opposed to spending more to reduce overall costs due to the increases. You’re lucky! Use promo “samples20”
and get a custom paper on
“Textbook Assignment: Chapter 3: Issues for Discussion”
with 20% discount!
Order Now
4. Do you think hhgregg can compete with Best Buy and Walmart successfully as a relatively small consumer electronics retailer by offering a customer experience that is not available from the giants? Why or why not?

I believe that hhgregg will be able to pull some of the customers from the retail giants simply as a result of the fact that most consumers are tired of the type of experience, or lack thereof, offered by the retail giants. Consumers are more concerned with a more personalized experience, one in which they can have their questions answered by knowledgeable sales staff as opposed to attempting to track down employees who are never available and if they are available cannot assist with the questions being asked. In spite of this, consumers are more interested in the most cost effective experience, something that a smaller chain cannot offer. I believe that hhgregg will be able to pull away some of the customers from the retail giants as a result, but they will not be able to compete on the same level because they cannot afford to match the prices of the retail giants.
6. Do you think e-book channels will eventually totally replace conventional, physical book channels? Why or why not?

I do not believe that e-book channels will ever completely replace conventional, physical book channels because in spite of the fact that e-book sales have risen in recent years, the pull of the book, the appeal of the book, and the book experience will never be able to replace the experience afforded by the presence of a physical book. In addition, as a result of the increasing prevalence of online medium, physical books afford one the availability of removing oneself from viewing text in a screen based medium, something that is a necessity in today’s day and age.
Textbook Assignment: Chapter 8: Issues for Discussion

3. Do you think the vending machine channel will work for healthy foods as well as this channel worked to sell junk food to students? Why or why not?

I do not believe that the healthy food will be able to be sold effectively in vending machines for a variety of different reasons. Individuals are willing to pay slightly more for junk food in vending machines, knowing that they are paying for the convenience of an immediately available junk food; however health foods are already overpriced, and as such, individuals are going to be unlikely and unwilling to pay even more on top of these high prices for the purposes of convenience. The target audience is only willing to pay so much for the obtainment of such items and no more; the convenience costs associated with vending machines would not be something most individuals would be willing to pay.
7. Is Avijit Mohan being fair with his criticism? Discuss in terms of consumer buying patterns, the constraints on the department stores and Mohan’s choice of channel structure to sell these products.

Mohan is being completely fair in his criticism. He is providing a high quality product and he is right in his expectation that those he is entrusting to sell his products should be able to do so in a manner that works to highlight the benefits of the products themselves. While it is true that certain department stores have different constraints, it is within Mohan’s right to want his product sold in a certain manner, though if he wishes something done about this, he will need to look for alternative distribution channels, taking action instead of simply complaining to his wife.

Man’s Search For Meaning

Viktor Frankl’s book Man’s Search for Meaning describes his experiences in the Nazi concentration camp Auschwitz (Frankl 1985). These experiences inspired his ideas concerning meaning and meaninglessness. In a sense what makes Frankl’s ideas so powerful is that he was able to himself find—and to stress the importance of anyone, in any situation, finding—meaning, despite the brutal and awful conditions that surrounded him there. His being able to find meaning in such conditions contributed to his ability to survive the ordeal. You’re lucky! Use promo “samples20”
and get a custom paper on
“Man’s Search For Meaning”
with 20% discount!
Order Now
A key to Frankl’s conception of meaninglessness is his denial that having a meaningful existence is a person’s natural state. Instead, meaning has to be made. (But as we will see below this does not mean that there are some people, or some conditions, in which meaning is completely lost.) And the costs of failing to make one’s life meaningful to a significant extent can be severe. For example, Frankl theorized that some criminal behavior may be partially a result of failing to make one’s life meaningful.
Notice that it does not follow from what has been said so far that the concentration camp did not remove meaning from the existence of those involved in it. It did. But it removed meaning that had been previously created in the lives of the affected people. And so it was necessary to recreate meaning in life in order to survive.
There are three different courses of action that one can pursue—or three different states one can be in—in order to create meaning in one’s life. The first is through deeds or actions. Such actions can be, but need not be, particularly extraordinary. Making connections with other people could count as such an action. Helping someone with something small can even create meaning. The second course of action is the experience of values through a certain sort of medium—the medium might be an experience of beauty found in a work of art, or an important relationship with a close friend or loved one. The third sort of way that meaning can accrue to one is through suffering. While Frankl obviously did not want people to suffer, his view seems to have been that suffering is necessary, to some extent, for having meaning in one’s life. There are different sorts of suffering, and different grades of severity. Frankl was not suggesting that something as horrific as the Holocaust had a beneficial example of people. But meaning can be found (sometimes must be found) in suffering; in losing a loved one, failing in some of one’s pursuits, and so forth.
Frankl founded a school of psychotherapy called ‘Logotherapy’. ‘Logos’ is the Greek word for logic or reasoning. Frankl may have chosen this name because he believes that there is a clear sense in which most neuroses are failures of understanding or reason. As one would expect, it is specifically designed, at least in part, to help one deal with the existential loss of meaning.
There are three fundamental ideas to Logotherapy (Melton et.al. 2007). First, life has meaning—and thus can have meaning—under any sort of circumstance. Frankl’s experience at Auschwitz in effect proves this, because it is doubtful whether there are worse possible conditions than those that he there endured. Second, finding meaning in life is our main purpose in life. It is what Aristotle called the ‘final end’ of human existence. Finally, we always enjoy the freedom to find meaning in our circumstances, or in what we do. Under the worst conditions, there may not be much that we can do to find meaning, or express our freedom.
But one thing that is always available, even to someone horribly treated and in unfathomably bad conditions. And that one thing is to take a stand against the poor treatment. In the very act of negating one’s oppressors in this way meaning is made possible. Frankl emphasized that the first two ways of making or finding meaning, which he calls ‘creative possibilities’, are primary. The third only comes in to play, as it were, when conditions are so poor that there are no opportunities to create meaning in a more positive manner. The approach toward meaning in one’s life is called ‘bottom-up’, rather than ‘top-down’, because through it meaning is made. It is not simply bequeathed one. The role of the therapist in helping one through this process is effectively to show one that and how one’s affliction—however it specifically manifests itself—is ultimately the result of a privation of meaning. Once one comes to a full understanding of these kinds of connections, Frankl believed that most conditions will dissipate or disappear altogether (Metz 2013).
How might Frankl’s ideas help one to deal with more ordinary situations, such as those that arise for most people every day? It is intrinsic to Logotherapy that even being made aware of how one’s condition, or concern, relates to gains and losses of meaning can positively benefit one. In this way it contrasts with some more traditional forms of psychoanalysis, in which it can actually be dangerous to tell a person why he or she is suffering in the relevant way, rather than trying to get the person to figure it out within the context of therapeutic sessions.

References
Frankl, Viktor E. Man’s search for meaning. 1985.
Metz, Thaddeus, “The Meaning of Life”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2013 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.)

Argumentative Essay On War

The issue of war has come under inspection by both the general public and the media, yet many people seem to not know what we are doing any better after they hear this speculation. Sometimes, people come out with the wrong information that is inaccurate, and this causes a snowball effect which creates many threads diverging from the true story line. When politicians say that America hasn’t really been engaged in war for a very long time, that is simply wrong. The concept of war is rather broad yet easy to understand, and this subject is rather dear to me since my grandpa is a veteran and my cousin is currently serving right now. When politicians say that we are at peace right now, they could never be more wrong. We’re in so many wars that we have lost track of where our troops are.

For example, the recent incident in Niger where our troops were ambushed, resulting in four killed U.S. soldiers, hasn’t come under enough scrutiny. Why were they even there? And what’s the point of sending more and more Americans in harms way if we aren’t getting anything noteworthy accomplished (Park 1). Yet the politicians, the military industrial complex, and the special interests keep telling us lies after lies, that we are in it to win it, and that we will eventually pull our troops out. How long have our troops been fighting in Afghanistan? I doubt many Americans even remember that we are still fighting a war in Afghan since it’s been so long. You’re lucky! Use promo “samples20”
and get a custom paper on
“Argumentative Essay On War”
with 20% discount!
Order Now
When the Trump administration made it so the number of troops would increase, I was surprised since I didn’t even know we had any troops in Afghan in the first place. The public has been lied to when it comes to war, and what’s sad about this is that the money being funneled overseas to watch our soldiers die so we can make arms deals could have been invested in America, rebuilding our infrastructure and helping to solve the Social Security crisis.

References
Park, Madison. “Niger ambush: Timeline of attack that killed 4 US soldiers.” CNN, Cable News Network, 24 Oct. 2017, www.cnn.com/2017/10/24/politics/niger-ambush- timeline/index.html.

Credit Cards – Argumentative Essay

Credit cards have been helping and hindering our country for years now. At first, credit cards were used as a way that consumers could buy or pay for something with a promise to the credit card companies that they’ll pay them back. Credit card providers give a person a line of credit, determined by the company, and in exchange the person tells guarantees that over time they’ll make sure that the company gets their money back. In the Frontline episode, it was stated that the average American family has eight credit cards. But the difference between borrowing money from a friend, or even a bank, is that credit card companies can change the percentage of interest rates, which makes the holder of the credit card owe more money than they initially agreed to pay. This causes more and more debt as time goes on, which is a reason that a lot of people are failing to pay their bills, car payments, or mortgages. A lot of people take on these credit cards for a quick way to gain money and think that they can just pay back what they owe. This is not the case with credit cards. These companies approve you of a certain amount of money, let you use their money, and expect you to pay back way more than what you borrowed in the first place. You’re lucky! Use promo “samples20”
and get a custom paper on
“Credit Cards – Argumentative Essay”
with 20% discount!
Order Now
By Americans having these credit cards in their wallets they are putting themselves in a deeper debt, especially if they don’t have the money to pay off the cards. Credit card companies approve of thousands of dollars everyday, with APRs (annual percentage rates) through the roof. What we, as Americans, don’t realize is that the more we borrow, the more we owe. We look at credit cards as an easy way out or to buy something that we probably didn’t need in the first place. Everything is glamorous when we use our credit cards to buy things or pay for things but when the bill comes in the mail is when reality hits. That’s when we, as a majority of people, realize that we actually don’t have the money to pay for these credit cards but they looked so good and cheap in the mail. Credit card companies offer the choice of paying minimum payments on credit cards but in return credit scores will be lowered. With this, there will be lower chances of actually having enough credit to buy a car, a house, or even get a bank loan because they will know that you aren’t good at money management.
Even though credit cards pose a major threat in our financial stability in later years, there are a few solutions that would help. The obvious solution would be to just stay away from credit cards period. If you don’t have a credit card, you won’t have the chances of not being able to pay off the card. But for those that do or plan on having credit cards, a solution would be to better understand what a credit card is, what are the pros versus the cons, and to find out if a credit card is really the best thing for you. Ways to do this are by: contacting a financial advisor, doing thorough research before signing or agreeing to anything, calling the credit card company and asking to speak to someone that can “dumb things down” for you and don’t end the conversation until you can completely understand what was said. Credit card companies value customers because they’re putting money in their pockets so they will answer all questions.
Another solution to the credit card issue would be to only offer credit cards to people that could afford them. Asking for proof of income every three or six months would eliminate probabilities that people wouldn’t be able to pay off their cards. If credit card companies were to only give credit cards to people that they were sure could pay them their money back, then they would have a higher chance of actually getting their money back instead of people sending in IOU’s or ignoring their phone calls. This is the ethical thing to do because credit card companies really aren’t ethical at all. They take from the rich and poor, especially people that have low self-control, and provide them with credit lines that they know these people can’t afford. By only offering credit cards to people that can afford them, less people would be in debt. Those that can’t afford the cards would be denied and those that can afford them will be able to pay them. With this, credit card companies shouldn’t be allowed to change the rates of someone that is paying their cards off on time and with an amount that can satisfy their debt.
If changes aren’t made to the credit card system, our debt would increase even more than it is now. Making it impossible to buy anything, making us poorer, which could ultimately lead to losing of houses, cars, and even bankruptcy. Borrowing money that we know that we can’t pay back isn’t the smartest idea but people continue to do it because of things that they want but can’t afford. Even people that can afford to pay their credit cards off are upset because their rates are being changed right before their eyes. In my personal opinion, I think that credit cards should be eliminated completely because credit card companies have entirely too much power. Money “makes the world go around” and they know this which is why they send out credit card applications and offers to homes all across the nation and the naïve fall for them. If change isn’t made, our national debt will only increase which will make prices of everything increase which will make taxes increase. Before we know it, we’ll all be apart of one broke country.

Is Lottery A Good Idea?

One of the most improbable things in life is to win a lottery, especially, those with huge cash prizes. The odds of winning a jackpot in some lottery games are one in hundreds of millions. Despite extremely low odds, many Americans gamble in hopes of securing a happy life, free from financial insecurities. However, real world is quite complex and lottery wins frequently become a source of unhappiness and troubles.

First, lottery win may ruin our relationships. Lottery winners are frequently approached by family members, friends, and even strangers for help. It is hard to say no when the person asking for money is someone you know. Lottery win may also lead to paranoia as it becomes a challenge to differentiate between authentic relationships and those relationships that are motivated by greed. You’re lucky! Use promo “samples20”
and get a custom paper on
“Is Lottery A Good Idea?”
with 20% discount!
Order Now
Second, lottery win may lead to bad habits. It is estimated that approximately 70 percent of lottery winners go broke within years, even those with millions in winnings. Lottery winners may engage in riskier habits such as excessive spending, use of illicit drugs, and other vices such as extra-marital affairs that may end up breaking up families. These riskier habits also increase exposure to lawsuits and scams.
Lastly, a lottery win may even cost the winner his/her life. There are only few states in America that allow the winners to remain anonymous so most winners have to go public with their personal information. Their pictures are posted on the internet by the lottery officials, and highlights from their press conferences may be shown on local news channels. There have been stories of lottery winners who were murdered by their romantic partners or family members. The killers hoped to acquire the wealth left by the victim. It is clear that a lottery win may increase personal security risk to the winners, with the winners ending up dead in extreme cases.
Despite extremely low odds, a lottery win is often considered a ticket to life free of financial worries. However, many lottery winnners find out that their win has not turned out to be the blessing they thought it would be; instead the win has turned into a curse. First, the lottery win may make the winner sad by ruining his/her relationship with family members and friends. Second, the lottery win may encourage bad behaviors such as gambling, excessive spending, and engaging in vices such as extramarital affairs and use of illicit drugs. Lastly, the lottery win may increase personal security risks to the winners, with the winners even ending up dead in some cases.

Artificial Meat: Argumentative Essay

Contemporary researchers and animal rights groups have been always on the forefront campaigning for the adoption of artificial meat. Their possibility of producing artificial meat and it is being accepted among the people in the society is gaining popularity. Researchers argue that the artificial meat offers several solutions related to climatic changes, pollution and animal rights. The issues of whether artificial meat is safe for consumption has been contentious. Researchers in the field argue that the artificial meat is safe for consumption. The paper provides an argument that supports the adoption of artificial meat in our society. You’re lucky! Use promo “samples20”
and get a custom paper on
“Artificial Meat: Argumentative Essay”
with 20% discount!
Order Now
According to Singer, he argues that we should respect animals because they have self-conscious, as he uses the great apes as an example, as the great apes have self-conscious sense among themselves. Moreover, in animal kingdom, most animals have forward-looking desires and they have desire to live. Therefore, human beings do not have the right to take away an animal’s life. For Regan, he argues that dying is the worst harm on an individual because it totally destroys a person’s abilities to achieve satisfied desires. Ragan points out that all mammals and birds all have desires. This means that dying is the greatest harmful, and he mentions that we should not kill animals because they have desire and right to live. Synthetic meat can reduce the killing of animals and those animal can achieve their lives desire and have right to live. According to Regan’s view is that it is absolutist, which means that “we never use animals as a means to our ends, no matter how good those ends might be”. As we use pig or cows for our meat, and it is seriously morally wrong to treat animals in this way. All animals should be treated respectfully because they are all having equal rights.
Artificial meat is relatively cheap. It will offer significant solutions to several of problems facing the world today. Artificial meat will offer solutions to hunger problems, pollution problems and production costs. The technology does not require infrastructure to breed animals. Artificial meat production will be cost-effective by avoiding diseases and animal hygiene issues related to breeding and rearing of animals. Also, artificial meat production does not require large scale slaughtering of animals.
Artificial meat production has been accepted by renowned and encouraged by many prominent people. For instance, Google’s Serge Brin funded a project that produced synthetic meat burger from animal stem cells. Brin’s support for the technology is to safeguard the animal welfare. He argues that animals ought to be protected and not subjected to suffering. Brin also argues that breeding and rearing cows are inefficient. This is because, animals require large chunks of food while a little amount of food is obtained from them for human consumption. A lot of food is lost feeding animals at the expense of feeding humans with little food. The process and activities involved in artificial meat production are more efficient and are believed to be clean. The variables can be kept under control.
In supporting artificial meat production and consumption, Singer argues that it is wrong to use animals as foods. Singer notes animals have rights that should be respected and safeguarded. Based on the principle of equality, Singer argues that human beings should have respect for animals. Animals are entitled to equal considerations based on their interests regardless of the species in which they belongs. All the nature species should be treated equally based on the experience of pain and pleasure. Animals too are entitled to equal moral consideration. Ragan reports that the radical animal treatment should be altered. The case for animal rights set out a framework for respecting and treatment animals well.
According to Singer, consuming animal meat can be justified in some circumstances. For instance, animal meat can be eaten if there is not any alternative to survive other than meat. Singer argues that it is wrong for most people to use animals for food since most people living in urban centers have alternatives. Singer provides a utilitarian argument that people have a moral obligation to reduce animal suffering.
It is unacceptable to think and view animals as sources of food to be manipulated, eaten or put in sport to obtain money. According to the textbook, p.143, it is wrong to think that animals are kept and used that way. Humans should be encouraged to eat less meat and minimize the use of animal products. The aim of advocating for this is to respect the welfare of animals, prevent environmental damage and pollution. Less space and land will also be required to keep animals. The land can be used for other productive activities.
Artificial meat can minimize the harmful activities of killing animals and the effects of meat products in the future. Despite that eating meat has deeply evolved into human eating habits, there is a need to make people be aware of the need to change their perception and embrace artificial meat. Based on the predictions that human population is set to double by 2060, and the demand for meat will also rise, the keeping of livestock will be among the key factors expected to be responsible for climatic changes in the world. People are encouraged to reduce consumption of animal meat.
Human beings are judged with the responsibility of directly taking care of animals. People have a duty to be kind to animals and direct duty of not being cruel to them. Embracing the production and consumption of artificial meat can stop or reduce killing of animals. It is also better for our environment and health, as well. Animals, like any other living creatures, experience pain and pleasure. People should also be encouraged to eat less meat and reduce the mentality that meat should be part of their daily diet.

Allow Felons to Vote: Rogerian Essay

In most states felons who have served their time and have been released cannot vote. It’s an injustice that mocks the democratic process. Nearly six million U.S. citizens; more than the total population of 31 states, are senselessly made to feel like partial citizens. Not only do they have a difficult time finding a job upon their release from prison but are not welcomed to participate in the most fundamental right as free people, to vote. They are never fully free which negatively affects their ability to rejoin society and to respect its laws. The motive to disallow felons to vote is as despicable an action as the resulting disenfranchisement of citizens. It is a voter suppression technique, nothing more, developed after the Civil War to curtail the black vote. The effect on minority communities today continues to be disproportionate and the fact these laws still exist should be considered intolerable.

Disallowing felons to vote does not align with the democratic values we claim to posses. These outdated laws put America in the unenviable and hypocritical position of promoting democracy throughout the world while not completely embracing the concept itself. Voter suppression in the U.S. is a “black eye” for Uncle Sam and the notion of liberty. Add Felon voting restrictions with gerrymandering, discriminatory voter ID regulations and early voting restrictions to the recent Supreme Court Ruling which essentially gutted the Voting Rights Act and the sum is a pseudo-democracy, one which is increasingly governed, not by the nation’s people but by big-moneyed interests who seldom have the public’s best interest in mind. “How democratic is our country when so many otherwise eligible citizens are unable to vote because of crimes for which they have already been punished?” (Speckhardt, 2013). You’re lucky! Use promo “samples20”
and get a custom paper on
“Allow Felons to Vote: Rogerian Essay”
with 20% discount!
Order Now
Some would argue the laws denying felons the right to vote has nothing whatsoever in common with voter suppression techniques. Felons have been proven to possess a moral fiber unworthy of participating in a lawful society. The decisions regarding laws and those elected officials who make them should not be left in the hands of habitual or heinous law breakers. Maybe so but where does this rationale end? How about racists, possibly Klan members, or those of the communist political leanings? How about disallowing the right to vote to those who subscribe to a non-Christian religion or those who know nothing about politics or general knowledge involving current events and history? It seems reasonable that an informed, intelligent ex-felon should be more trusted to vote than an ignorant, ill-informed, hateful racist. Some would also argue that not all citizens have the right to vote in a democracy such as the mentally ill and children under 18 years of age. Neither should someone who commits horrible crimes against the same society they now want to grant then the privilege of voting. “We have certain minimum, objective standards of responsibility, trustworthiness, and commitment to our laws that we require of people before they are entrusted with a role in the solemn enterprise of self-government.” (Clegg, 2015) Some opposed to felons voting concede that it would be acceptable for that right to be restored once that individual has demonstrated verifiable and sustained rehabilitation.
Both religious persons and non-believers, two very diverse groups who agree on few issues, think its only right ex-felons should be allowed to participate in a democracy. These groups base their opinion on different justifications, both of which are valid. The core of the evangelical belief system is the possibility of reform, the idea of redemption. They believe that if a person gives their life to God and is actually penitent that they will be “born again,” their sins washed away and forgiven by divine power. Christians are instructed to forgive, meaning to stop punishing the transgressor upon repentance. Galen Carey, Vice President for Government Relations for the National Association of Evangelicals recently stated “we never give up on people, no matter what they have done.” He has outlined a plan that would “support ex-offenders as they re-establish their futures” including allowing their right to vote. Non-believers think that people can be rehabilitated, not through divine intervention but by their willingness to do it, combined with individual circumstances and experiences in addition to society’s willingness to allow them back them into the mainstream of the social order which includes the right to vote. The non-believer and evangelical’s concept of a participatory democracy is one where all who are governed by an entity should have the ability to influence its representatives and laws. Felon disenfranchisement diminishes the important human need for dignity. It relegates a significant portion of society to second-class status which is in conflict with the idea of a free, democratic society. Moreover, by disallowing this democratic process to felons demonstrates that this society doesn’t really think people can be rehabilitated nor in the concept of paying one’s debt to society. The felon continues to pay their debt all the days of their lives. (Speckhardt, 2013).
The foundation of a free, democratic, representative style government such as in the U.S. is the right for all to participate, to vote. Active participation of its citizens is of vital significance for a nation to claim it operates based on democratic values. Those who support the concept of democratically elected governance should advocate allowing as many citizens as practical to vote. Otherwise it lessens the control of the people therefore increasing the power of moneyed interests who are allowed to control legislators. Ex-felons are people who made a mistake and have paid their debt. A true democracy would allow them to participate in it. By forbidding their right to vote diminishes the felon’s chance for reintegration into society along with the strength of the democracy.

References
Clegg, Roger. (2015). Felons and the Vote. Center for Equal Opportunity. Retrieved on April 27, 2015 from http://www.ceousa.org/voting/voting-news/felon-voting
Speckhardt, Roy. (2013). Felons Deserve the Right to Vote. Huffington Post. Retrieved on April 27, 2015 from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/roy-speckhardt/felons-deserve-the-right-_b_3689568.html