Argument Topics for a Resistant Audience
For another class, I had to choose 3 topics to write a persuasive research paper to a resistant audience. I have to address an audience that would be disinclined to agree with my stance but would share some of my values and goals. I've chosen these 3 topics, and now I'll need to think about the shared values I can play up in an effort to persuade my audience to consider my argument. I wonder what my position on these topics say about my political/social stance to someone who doesn't know me? Compelling thought.
Issue 1
Vladimir Putin's increasing popularity in the West and its effect on Democracy
There has been a rise in Putin's popularity among young people and far-right conservatives in the West over the past few years. Their position is that the Cold War is over and it's time to make Russian an ally; that Putin is a strong leader with conservative values who is working to stamp out ISIS; and that the West needs leaders like him. My position is that Putin's popularity is a result of the rise in nationalism in the West which has been carefully manipulated and promoted by Putin in an effort to destroy democracy.
Issue 2
Should hate speech be protected speech?
Hate speech is on the rise in the U.S. and in Europe. According to the Supreme Court, hate speech is not necessarily free speech. There are those who disagree. They would also argue that if hate speech were banned it would be too easy to abuse those laws and that the banning would be a slippery slope leading to the ban of other types of speech. I am back and forth on this one, and don't have a clear "one way or the other" stance as yet. While I understand the need to protect everyone's speech, I also think hate speech is damaging to individuals and our society, that it can affect political outcomes, and it can get people killed. There has to be limits.
Issue 3
Is NATO obsolete?
The North Atlantic Treaty Organization is a military and political institution that includes 28 states. During the U.S. presidential campaign and since, Donald Trump has called NATO "obsolete". Some say that NATO has outlived its purpose and that the United States pays way too much of the cost to protect other member states. I say that NATO is current and the benefits outweigh the costs.
Issue 4
Should celebrities use their position to be a voice for political and social ideas
I just read in a news article from KOMO News in Seattle that Seahawks football player, Michael Bennett, has tweeted that he will not be going to Israel with other NFL players as planned because he read in a Times of Israel article that the Israeli government thinks the NFL players have the power to influence opinion on Israel. Bennett said he doesn't want to be used like that. He also pointed out that when he does go to Israel, he'll be visiting Gaza and the West Bank, too, because he wants to be "a voice for the voiceless" as was Muhammad Ali. Some people won't like this (supporters of Israel, people who don't think celebrities should use their popularity in this way). I'd argue that they have a right to use their celebrity since they cannot be separated from it, and they very much may pay the price of using it - such as the Dixie Chicks did when they bashed President Bush.
Issue 1
Vladimir Putin's increasing popularity in the West and its effect on Democracy
There has been a rise in Putin's popularity among young people and far-right conservatives in the West over the past few years. Their position is that the Cold War is over and it's time to make Russian an ally; that Putin is a strong leader with conservative values who is working to stamp out ISIS; and that the West needs leaders like him. My position is that Putin's popularity is a result of the rise in nationalism in the West which has been carefully manipulated and promoted by Putin in an effort to destroy democracy.
Issue 2
Should hate speech be protected speech?
Hate speech is on the rise in the U.S. and in Europe. According to the Supreme Court, hate speech is not necessarily free speech. There are those who disagree. They would also argue that if hate speech were banned it would be too easy to abuse those laws and that the banning would be a slippery slope leading to the ban of other types of speech. I am back and forth on this one, and don't have a clear "one way or the other" stance as yet. While I understand the need to protect everyone's speech, I also think hate speech is damaging to individuals and our society, that it can affect political outcomes, and it can get people killed. There has to be limits.
Issue 3
Is NATO obsolete?
The North Atlantic Treaty Organization is a military and political institution that includes 28 states. During the U.S. presidential campaign and since, Donald Trump has called NATO "obsolete". Some say that NATO has outlived its purpose and that the United States pays way too much of the cost to protect other member states. I say that NATO is current and the benefits outweigh the costs.
Issue 4
Should celebrities use their position to be a voice for political and social ideas
I just read in a news article from KOMO News in Seattle that Seahawks football player, Michael Bennett, has tweeted that he will not be going to Israel with other NFL players as planned because he read in a Times of Israel article that the Israeli government thinks the NFL players have the power to influence opinion on Israel. Bennett said he doesn't want to be used like that. He also pointed out that when he does go to Israel, he'll be visiting Gaza and the West Bank, too, because he wants to be "a voice for the voiceless" as was Muhammad Ali. Some people won't like this (supporters of Israel, people who don't think celebrities should use their popularity in this way). I'd argue that they have a right to use their celebrity since they cannot be separated from it, and they very much may pay the price of using it - such as the Dixie Chicks did when they bashed President Bush.