I need to argue: someone say something passionate and flawed

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 19, 2010 1:13 AM GMT
    For the LOVE of god I can NOT study the "Issue Essay" part of the GRE. Essentially, I am to be given a 1-2 sentence topic, and then should take 45 minutes to either support or oppose it. But the topics are so BORING I can't even get myself to write a sentence.

    RJ is full of fanatics and very emotional debates. Can someone please say something stupid (or just something controversial) regarding a relevant and recently debated issue so I can come up with a thoughtful yet dry rebuttal? I need an audience otherwise I can't type. icon_sad.gif

    [edit] Feel free to critique my essays. But if you do, please make sure you stay relevant to the subject how cohesive and convincing my essays are. For example, in my essay below about DADT and comparing it to African Americans in the military, don't say something like "yeah but what about women and Asians!?!?" The point of the essay is not to cover every digressing subject, but to provide a few examples to enhance my point.

    [ANOTHER EDIT] Done with thread. No more interest in writing essays until I take that damn GRE test on Thursday. Thanks for the help with my practice.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 19, 2010 1:28 AM GMT
    I think Dont Ask Dont Tell should be handle by the military and not civilians. I don't care if they are law making officials or celebrities. I don't believe anyone who hasn't served a lick of time in service to their own country or their fellow man should have the right to adjust rules based on their own personal beliefs without considering those who are actually affected.
  • commoncoll

    Posts: 1222

    Oct 19, 2010 2:19 AM GMT
    Immigration should be kept legal, regardless, even if assimilation is not successful.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 19, 2010 2:23 AM GMT
    Thread owners should be able to delete individual postings on their threads, instead of the whole thread.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 19, 2010 2:26 AM GMT
    Hmmm, I can't quite figure out who's more talented, JAKEBENSON, or the new "Surprise Party" hottie on Youtube. I'll need to see a skit with Jake shirtless.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 19, 2010 2:27 AM GMT
    Ahhhh this one is good:

    Kevin324 saidI think Dont Ask Dont Tell should be handle by the military and not civilians. I don't care if they are law making officials or celebrities. I don't believe anyone who hasn't served a lick of time in service to their own country or their fellow man should have the right to adjust rules based on their own personal beliefs without considering those who are actually affected.


    Prior to World War II, African Americans fought in the military, but separated from European Americans, because it was thought that working side-by-side would be deleterious to the military's ability to function cohesively. After World War II though, president Harry Truman signed an executive order mandating integration of Blacks and Whites in the military. Historically, the military has not been the ultimate authority in making changes in its infrastructure, and integration ordered by an outside source has not worsened the military's performance. Therefore, the military should not be the ultimate authority in deciding whether Don't Ask Don't Tell should be annulled.

    The military is not a self-governing entity. For example, the military can receive orders from the President. Thus, the President can change the military's strategy or formation with a single order. Furthermore, the military relies on outside knowledge in order to make proper decisions. Indeed, the military is told which areas to go in to fight, but does not decide on its own which wars to start or stop. The government ultimately decides which wars should be fought, how they should be fought, when they should stop, and how the military should operate. This is evidenced by former President Bush sending troops to Iraq, and then current President Obama gradually take troops out of Iraq. Had McCain been president, troops would have stayed much longer in Iraq. Either way, the military has a say, but is told what to do by the government. Furthermore, since our government is a Democracy, our officials are elected based on the general civilian's interest. So the public's opinion in theory generally shapes the government's opinion, which in turn shapes the military's opinion. Essentially civilians can and do change the way the military operates. Lastly, our government has a Supreme Court, which hears cases by lawmakers and changes the way our country, and sometimes military, operates, based on those cases. So both lawmakers and civilians can shape the military.

    Whether an individual has served time in the military is not relevant to whether their argument for repealing DADT has merit. There is no corroborative data showing that DADT has improved the military. However, there is an abundance of evidence and statistics showing the detrimental effect of DADT kicking out essential workers, some of which had special skills and proved difficult to replace. This conspicuous information can be seen to anyone outside of the military, and remains the same whether one has served in the military in the past. Serving in the military does not warrant one to supersede general changing social attitudes towards what is socially accepted. In this case, the general public is overwhelmingly in favor of repealing DADT. And certain divisions from within the military who are aware of homosexuals within their unit can attest to the fact that the presence of a homosexual does not deter the military's effectiveness.

    In conclusion, while the military and the people who serve the military may have a vivid and thorough understanding of how it operates from the inside, it does not provide them enough reason to choose how their military should operate outside of the country for which they serve. The damaging effects of DADT are too obvious, and there is no data showing that the absence of DADT would damage the military in any way. Moreover, the military does not operate independent of, but as unit of the United States, which is regulated by the government, which is in turn shaped by lawmakers and civilians.
  • creature

    Posts: 5197

    Oct 19, 2010 2:40 AM GMT
    Did that response take 45 minutes?

    I think your statement "Whether an individual has served time in the military is not relevant to whether their argument for repealing DADT has merit" should have come at the beginning.

    You're going to need to work on your organization.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 19, 2010 3:15 AM GMT
    Ahhhh Caslon16000, I read your thread recently. Here's my (moderate) rebuttal:

    Caslon16000 saidThread owners should be able to delete individual postings on their threads, instead of the whole thread.


    When the original poster of a thread deletes a long animated thread, many posters can consequentially feel disheartened that the amount of time, thought, and effort they spent into posting was simply effaced for illogical reasons out of their control. However, based on the postulate that the thread creator is the author of the thread, the thread creator has free will to delete their own thread, but with ramifications.

    Whether a decision to delete one's own thread is simply tactful or not, it is not reason alone to claim that the person who delete their own thread should not have the right to make that decision. While you may have the right to express your opinion and share facts in a thread, it is still under the premise that the thread starter is tacitly giving you permission to do so. And while you have the option of deleting your own post, you may also have the option of deleting your own thread. Both are concepts you have started, and therefore you may be able to delete both. Similarly, while you have the freedom to express your thoughts on RJ, you are operating under RJ's rules of operation which can supersede your own, resulting in your post's or thread's demise. The near ubiquitous canon of online debate is that you may delete your post, the thread starter may delete their thread and therefore your post, and the moderator of the website may delete any thread and any post.

    Having said this, just because someone has the right to delete their own thread, it does not make them an amiable source of communication if they delete their thread based on false premise, or based on no premise. To illustrate, in recent news a restaurant kicked out a Lesbian couple for kissing while inside that restaurant. While the restaurant has the right to refuse anyone, gay organizations have the right to protest their decision which in turn will likely damage their reputation and cause them to lose some business. Similarly, if someone deletes their own thread because they simply do not like opposing viewpoints, then anyone has the right to expose this person for their fallacious form of thinking. As frequently done so in reality, trenchant social pressure online can easily trivialize the importance of a single person, in this case the online user who deleted their own thread.

    To provide some middle ground on this issue, just as the website moderator has control to delete a post or thread, thus superseding any poster's decision, the moderator can also decide to stick a thread or lock a thread. Sticking a thread involves placing the thread into a higher tier of importance by keeping the thread at the top of the first page regardless of how recent posts have been made inside it. A good example of this, that many RJs would probably agree with me on, is the "Mighty Pushup Challenge" started by Rockbiter. That thread is not only the epitome of the intentions of this website, but it is an ongoing thread as it has taken several months to barely reach 1/4 of it's goal. Therefore, it would be beneficial for nearly everyone to keep this thread at the top of page one until the moderators decide it's no longer "sticky" (probably when it reaches one million). Similarly, a moderator could decide to "keep" a thread without sticking it to the top. If enough RJ posters convince the moderators that a thread is important despite the thread's originator's opposition, the moderator can supersede the thread starter's impending decision by keeping the thread. Meanwhile, a moderator can choose to lock a thread typically when the thread that get out of hand or is irrelevant to start. When a thread is locked it means that no one can post in it anymore, and it floats out of the first page of a forum rather quickly. However, the thread has not disappeared from the website, and all posts are in tact and URLs that reference the pages in that thread can still be posted, keeping that thread alive yet more indirect.

    In conclusion, the reason for freedom of deleting one's own post is based on the presumptions that the thread starter has authority over their own thread and has a valid reason for deleting their own thread. It is more important to preserve their right to delete their own thread, as this concept coincides with the general understanding that the creator of anything online, whether it directly harbors other posts, may be deleted by the originator. However, not all threads are deleted in good faith, and anyone who deletes a thread without good reason will endure as much backlash as their opponents wish to serve them. Moreover, there are other options besides deleting a thread, should the moderator chose, that serves as a middle ground for opposing parties. Lastly, although someone may delete a thread that other people disagree with, the opponents of the deleted thread can still keep the original thoughts of the deleted thread alive by restarting a new thread with the same concept as the deleted thread, and vowing not to delete that new thread.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 19, 2010 3:16 AM GMT
    NICKLEBACK & GODSMACK ARE THE BEST BANDS EVARRRRRR
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 19, 2010 3:19 AM GMT
    creature saidDid that response take 45 minutes?

    I think your statement "Whether an individual has served time in the military is not relevant to whether their argument for repealing DADT has merit" should have come at the beginning.

    You're going to need to work on your organization.


    It just took me 30 minutes. And I cheated by researching a little about African Americans in the military.

    Your opinion on which subject I address first is noted. However, the order of what I argue is not important, as long as I address all of the points given in the statement. Furthermore, I addressed the facts based on the same order the facts were given to me. Addressing civilians and lawmakers came before one's personal involvement with the military. So I responded in kind. Moreover, from reading tutorials in the GRE study guides, I've been given instruction to illustrate a cogent opening, rather than cut to the chase by stating my viewpoint. That explains why I opened with African American's in the military as an analogy to support my opinion. Although your reasoning has merit and is not wrong, it does not disprove the organization of my essay. However, feel free to keep nitpicking at my essay. I'm sure it's not the perfect essay after all.
  • Import

    Posts: 7193

    Oct 19, 2010 3:22 AM GMT
    JAKEBENSON said
    creature saidDid that response take 45 minutes?

    I think your statement "Whether an individual has served time in the military is not relevant to whether their argument for repealing DADT has merit" should have come at the beginning.

    You're going to need to work on your organization.


    It just took me 30 minutes. And I cheated by researching a little about African Americans in the military.

    Your opinion on which subject I address first is noted. However, the order of what I argue is not important, as long as I address all of the points given in the statement. Furthermore, I addressed the facts based on the same order the facts were given to me. Addressing civilians and lawmakers came before one's personal involvement with the military. So I responded in kind. Moreover, from reading tutorials in the GRE study guides, I've been given instruction to illustrate a cogent opening, rather than cut to the chase by stating my viewpoint. That explains why I opened with African American's in the military as an analogy to support my opinion. Although your reasoning has merit and is not wrong, it does not disprove the organization of my essay. However, feel free to keep nitpicking at my essay. I'm sure it's not the perfect essay after all.



    send all those god damn mexicans, blacks and immigrants back to where they done came from. .

    fuckin colored messin up america.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 19, 2010 3:23 AM GMT
    Import said
    send all those god damn mexicans, blacks and immigrants back to where they done came from. .

    fuckin colored messin up america.


    LOL this one's too easy: Mexicans are hot, therefore keep them.

    /debate

    I'm going to Coffee Bean now to study recondite vocabulary words and stupid math concepts.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 19, 2010 3:25 AM GMT
    I thought that they grade these essays by machines (like SATs)...does it really matter how you argue as long as you put some logical terms to work?icon_razz.gif
    http://www.ets.org/gre/institutions/scores/how/
    # The primary emphasis in scoring the Analytical Writing section is on the test taker's critical thinking and analytical writing skills rather than on grammar and the mechanics of writing.
    # The essay score is assigned by a trained reader, using a 6-point holistic scale. The essay response is then reviewed by e-rater®, a computerized program developed by ETS, which is being used to monitor the human reader.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 19, 2010 3:29 AM GMT
    q1w2e3 saidI thought that they grade these essays by machines (like SATs)...does it really matter how you argue as long as you put some logical terms to work?


    As I've read from the tutorials, it doesn't matter which side I take as long as I demonstrate the ability to provide convincing support to my opinion. It's by and large graded by overworked, underpaid, sleepy grad students who take less than 2 minutes to view each essay. I've been told that creativity does not matter: just making my points matter.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 19, 2010 3:33 AM GMT
    JAKEBENSON saidAhhhh this one is good:

    Kevin324 saidI think Dont Ask Dont Tell should be handle by the military and not civilians. I don't care if they are law making officials or celebrities. I don't believe anyone who hasn't served a lick of time in service to their own country or their fellow man should have the right to adjust rules based on their own personal beliefs without considering those who are actually affected.


    ....

    In conclusion, while the military and the people who serve the military may have a vivid and thorough understanding of how it operates from the inside, it does not provide them enough reason to choose how their military should operate outside of the country for which they serve. The damaging effects of DADT are too obvious, and there is no data showing that the absence of DADT would damage the military in any way. Moreover, the military does not operate independent of, but as unit of the United States, which is regulated by the government, which is in turn shaped by lawmakers and civilians.


    Cool, Cool How about this...

    The military although lead by multiple civilians have always determined the means how they follow the orders. Although congress declares war and makes it official it is the military who decides the means to execute those orders. The President of the United States is the commander and chief of the military but it serves as a checks and balance to keep military and war minded leaders from situations we have seen all too much in history ( dictators, abuse of civilians, and lack of human compassion). IF ( i really mean when ) DADT repel stands the military will do what it has always done in history. Accept the orders of those who don't understand the organization, modify, and regulate it by the means it feels most efficient.

    The military is and has been aware of homosexuals in the military since the American Revolution. It is actually taught the the discipline and organization that allowed George Washington to lead America to victory was due to a Prussian General Friedrich Wilhelm von Steuben. An individual many believed was kicked out of his country's military for being accused of homosexual acts.

    If you look at our history as a country you will notice the military although conservative has been more progressive than civilians. Women and Blacks made waves in the military way before their conservative civilian counter parts were given the opportunity to swim.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 19, 2010 3:37 AM GMT
    JAKEBENSON saidAhhhh Caslon16000, I read your thread recently. Here's my (moderate) rebuttal:

    Caslon16000 saidThread owners should be able to delete individual postings on their threads, instead of the whole thread.


    When the original poster of a thread deletes a long animated thread, many posters can consequentially feel disheartened that the amount of time, thought, and effort they spent into posting was simply effaced for illogical reasons out of their control. However, based on the postulate that the thread creator is the author of the thread, the thread creator has free will to delete their own thread, but with ramifications.

    Whether a decision to delete one's own thread is simply tactful or not, it is not reason alone to claim that the person who delete their own thread should not have the right to make that decision. While you may have the right to express your opinion and share facts in a thread, it is still under the premise that the thread starter is tacitly giving you permission to do so. And while you have the option of deleting your own post, you may also have the option of deleting your own thread. Both are concepts you have started, and therefore you may be able to delete both. Similarly, while you have the freedom to express your thoughts on RJ, you are operating under RJ's rules of operation which can supersede your own, resulting in your post's or thread's demise. The near ubiquitous canon of online debate is that you may delete your post, the thread starter may delete their thread and therefore your post, and the moderator of the website may delete any thread and any post.

    Having said this, just because someone has the right to delete their own thread, it does not make them an amiable source of communication if they delete their thread based on false premise, or based on no premise. To illustrate, in recent news a restaurant kicked out a Lesbian couple for kissing while inside that restaurant. While the restaurant has the right to refuse anyone, gay organizations have the right to protest their decision which in turn will likely damage their reputation and cause them to lose some business. Similarly, if someone deletes their own thread because they simply do not like opposing viewpoints, then anyone has the right to expose this person for their fallacious form of thinking. As frequently done so in reality, trenchant social pressure online can easily trivialize the importance of a single person, in this case the online user who deleted their own thread.

    To provide some middle ground on this issue, just as the website moderator has control to delete a post or thread, thus superseding any poster's decision, the moderator can also decide to stick a thread or lock a thread. Sticking a thread involves placing the thread into a higher tier of importance by keeping the thread at the top of the first page regardless of how recent posts have been made inside it. A good example of this, that many RJs would probably agree with me on, is the "Mighty Pushup Challenge" started by Rockbiter. That thread is not only the epitome of the intentions of this website, but it is an ongoing thread as it has taken several months to barely reach 1/4 of it's goal. Therefore, it would be beneficial for nearly everyone to keep this thread at the top of page one until the moderators decide it's no longer "sticky" (probably when it reaches one million). Similarly, a moderator could decide to "keep" a thread without sticking it to the top. If enough RJ posters convince the moderators that a thread is important despite the thread's originator's opposition, the moderator can supersede the thread starter's impending decision by keeping the thread. Meanwhile, a moderator can choose to lock a thread typically when the thread that get out of hand or is irrelevant to start. When a thread is locked it means that no one can post in it anymore, and it floats out of the first page of a forum rather quickly. However, the thread has not disappeared from the website, and all posts are in tact and URLs that reference the pages in that thread can still be posted, keeping that thread alive yet more indirect.

    In conclusion, the reason for freedom of deleting one's own post is based on the presumptions that the thread starter has authority over their own thread and has a valid reason for deleting their own thread. It is more important to preserve their right to delete their own thread, as this concept coincides with the general understanding that the creator of anything online, whether it directly harbors other posts, may be deleted by the originator. However, not all threads are deleted in good faith, and anyone who deletes a thread without good reason will endure as much backlash as their opponents wish to serve them. Moreover, there are other options besides deleting a thread, should the moderator chose, that serves as a middle ground for opposing parties. Lastly, although someone may delete a thread that other people disagree with, the opponents of the deleted thread can still keep the original thoughts of the deleted thread alive by restarting a new thread with the same concept as the deleted thread, and vowing not to delete that new thread.

    You really did study all those vocabulary words!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 19, 2010 6:46 AM GMT
    MikeInSLC saidNICKLEBACK & GODSMACK ARE THE BEST BANDS EVARRRRRR

    Godsmack has more credibility and quality than Nickelback. But contrary to your opinion on best band ever, sure, they might be great to you...but..

    www.isnickelbacktheworstbandever.com answers the only thing needed to confirm something so horrible.

    /argument ended for Jake until further notice.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 19, 2010 7:05 AM GMT
    Craigery Morgan (http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/Craigery_Morgan) is an 11/10. PONTIFICATE! GO!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 19, 2010 7:59 AM GMT
    JAKEBENSON saidI need to argue: someone say something passionate and flawed
    sea-horse-r.jpg
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 19, 2010 8:02 AM GMT
    Kevin324 said
    JAKEBENSON saidAhhhh this one is good:

    Kevin324 saidI think Dont Ask Dont Tell should be handle by the military and not civilians. I don't care if they are law making officials or celebrities. I don't believe anyone who hasn't served a lick of time in service to their own country or their fellow man should have the right to adjust rules based on their own personal beliefs without considering those who are actually affected.


    ....

    In conclusion, while the military and the people who serve the military may have a vivid and thorough understanding of how it operates from the inside, it does not provide them enough reason to choose how their military should operate outside of the country for which they serve. The damaging effects of DADT are too obvious, and there is no data showing that the absence of DADT would damage the military in any way. Moreover, the military does not operate independent of, but as unit of the United States, which is regulated by the government, which is in turn shaped by lawmakers and civilians.


    Cool, Cool How about this...

    The military although lead by multiple civilians have always determined the means how they follow the orders. Although congress declares war and makes it official it is the military who decides the means to execute those orders. The President of the United States is the commander and chief of the military but it serves as a checks and balance to keep military and war minded leaders from situations we have seen all too much in history ( dictators, abuse of civilians, and lack of human compassion). IF ( i really mean when ) DADT repel stands the military will do what it has always done in history. Accept the orders of those who don't understand the organization, modify, and regulate it by the means it feels most efficient.

    The military is and has been aware of homosexuals in the military since the American Revolution. It is actually taught the the discipline and organization that allowed George Washington to lead America to victory was due to a Prussian General Friedrich Wilhelm von Steuben. An individual many believed was kicked out of his country's military for being accused of homosexual acts.

    If you look at our history as a country you will notice the military although conservative has been more progressive than civilians. Women and Blacks made waves in the military way before their conservative civilian counter parts were given the opportunity to swim.


    Thanks for the feedback. I probably should have noted more that the military has done in that essay without sounding like I'm speaking too disdainful on it.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 19, 2010 8:09 AM GMT
    The US should stop its drug wars on Colombia... they're never going to win it and they're just attacking poor farmers who are paid by the lords (although I kinda like the airplanes sitting on our airport)
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 19, 2010 8:44 AM GMT
    Fuck gay marriage. Give us the tax benefits, I don't need the piece of paper.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 19, 2010 10:01 AM GMT
    (As a disclaimer; part of what is below is true, part I believe. There are also elements of paranoia, disinformation and faulty reasoning to allow an interesting essay, should you chose to compose a response.)

    By tying their currency to the U.S greenback and their steadfast refusal to revalue their currency China is putting the United States at a disadvantage. While they continue to provide cheaper imports and collect an ever increasing number of dollars from America they are nearly declaring an economic war by not allowing their currency to trade at a higher rate as it otherwise would. Right now it is a stalemate with China afraid to stop their purchase of US treasuries and America afraid that China may dump their treasuries on the open market which would drive the demand down, thus reeking havoc with the dollar.

    Should America chose to start an economic war using tariffs and should China back down and revalue their currency it will be the poor middle class who suffer. "made in China" is a label presently affordable to everybody. Should the price increase the products from China will become less affordable, ultimately leading to a lack of cheap cell phones and shirts for America's underemployed. One might argue that with imports increasing in cost America will find there are fewer unemployed as jobs presently performed in China will now remain in the U.S (or Vietnam or India...)

    On the other hand, should China revalue the Yuan the poor may be better off. China would have less purchasing power; this would likely lead to decreased demand for natural resources and as such cheaper gasoline, coal and metals. As such the poor would be better off.

    So, I leave it up to you to chose a side; will the poor and middle class benefit from a revaluation in terms of cheaper costs of living, or suffer due to Walmart increasing it's prices? Should the government make an attempt to force a revaluation (providing that they are only concerned about the poor and middle class and not trade deficits, treasury auctions and the likes.)
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 19, 2010 10:31 AM GMT
    Passionate and flawed, eh?

    Jake, I really think you´re really hot.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 19, 2010 4:10 PM GMT
    ann coulter's ideology matches much more closely that of the taliban's than america's.

    oh shit... it was supposed to be flawed! i fail.