As for #2, rules have to be rules regardless. If you start bending the rules in some circumstances, then at what point do you decide things are out of control? How do you "know" the person has that information, anyway? What if you torture the person and they still don't tell? Or they tell a lie? One of the problems with torture is that while it certainly makes people talk, it doesn't necessarily make them tell the truth. It makes them say what they think the torturer wants them to say, regardless of whether it is true or not.
I'm not going to go too far into this because (as you said) it's a very complicated issue and could be debated all day. I think the thing to remember when you're writing this paper (and this may sound weird) is that you're not necessarily trying to convey what you think. You're trying to form a reasonable hypothesis and support it with evidence. On a complicated issue like this one, approaching the assignment from the angle of what you personally think can make the task worlds harder than it needs to be.
I'm not going to go too far into this because (as you said) it's a very complicated issue and could be debated all day. I think the thing to remember when you're writing this paper (and this may sound weird) is that you're not necessarily trying to convey what you think. You're trying to form a reasonable hypothesis and support it with evidence. On a complicated issue like this one, approaching the assignment from the angle of what you personally think can make the task worlds harder than it needs to be.
Good luck! :o)
Reply
Leave a comment