While reading Civil disobedience, i began to question things in our society, mainly in regards to the government. I personally believe that the government shouldn’t be as involved as it is, but i still believe it should at least exist. The role of government is to control us, its citizens, and keep us under its control. That’s also its role to each individual citizen. to control things and keep things in order (even though they fail at that half the time). i believe that a government that commands my respect is one that is a constitutional one. they make the rules, and they expect us to simply obey them. the role of civil disobedience in todays society is to obtain things without violence, such as marches. its meant to disrupt people’s daily life so they become aware of the thing the people are marching for. i believe that its effective because people are going to notice if their day is being disrupted because of civil disobedience. it makes people listen, and consider.
Over the course of this entire debate, my views of argument have changed drastically. Instead of mindless bickering back and forth, i have learned that an argument is much more complex than i had originally thought. It taught me how to better form an argument, even for small things. Instead of just coming up with a weak argument, i can better formulate one. At the beginning of this unit, ill be honest. I thought it was stupid, pointless. When i found out we were actually debating one-on-one, i panicked. I hated the fact that it was one-on-one, because i instantly felt pressured to not embarrass myself. I didn’t really take the debate seriously until my turn to go was around the corner. Thats when i really started to get it together and prepare. The experience of debating in general has helped me become better at it, and it kinda helped my social anxiety, too. Now, coming up with everything in the actual debate was rather difficult. Im the type of person that prefers knowing whats going to be said, and whats going to happen, but i didnt have that choice in this debate. So writing the debate was kinda hectic for me. But overall, this entire thing has been an experience. Its taught me important elements to an argument, whether it be one in everyday life, or its a professional debate.
i think that the purpose of independent reading is to try to show students just how fun/interesting reading a book can be. to encourage students to read, you could expand your online ebook selection, because some students dont get books simply because they lose them easily. For my second quarter book, i chose the rose and the dagger. i chose this book because i personally like the series. after reading the first chapter of the book, im not sure what exactly is going to happen. the first chapter is just a flashback. i liked the book as soon as i started reading it, and i couldn’t put it down. As for the book trailer, i don’t really have any concerns, except my lack of ability to create videos (im assuming the book trailer will have to be in a video format.) Otherwise, i don’t have anything else to say about it in regards to concerns.
i’ll admit, i actually enjoyed reading this excerpt. It was incredibly deep and meaningful, albeit hard to understand at times. i believe that man can naturally be good without rules of society. half of the time, society is the thing that causes people to misbehave. Without the norms of society pressuring people, people wouldn’t be so evil. most of the time, it’s society around them that causes them to act evilly and violently. For example, a kid at school may do something violent to a fellow classmate who had previously bullied them. if people weren’t confined by the laws of society, the bully wouldn’t have bullied him. i know this because a lot of people who bully or injure people have been hurt themselves, whether it be emotional or physical. if humans weren’t forced to follow the rules of society, the world and people around them wouldn’t have been treated so harshly. people are influenced by the environment around them, which may pressure people to become violent, like some are today. the rules of society are to blame for this happening. its created judgement and bias throughout the world, the very things that cause people to lash out and be violent, and act in evil ways. thats how i would argue that man itself is not evil, and that society rules have played a large factor in shaping people to be the violent and evil people they are now.
Throughout the entire debate process, i don’t believe my views on gun control have changed. It hasn’t because i just always personally believed that there should be more gun control. The most interesting piece of evidence for my side of the argument, which is pro gun control, is that people still deny it works, although other countries implement it and it works for them. It should be interesting to others because its a common argument with this entire subject, that gun control doesn’t work. Its interesting because although people have evidence to show it does indeed work, they still deny it does. I didn’t know this fact too well before i did research, because i was uncertain on whether or not it actually worked. One source that i always went to was procon.org. There are a lot of sad and depressing emotional elements in my topic, the big one being that children are getting killed every day for no reason. My topic activates these emotions for the audience because its a very real situation. Anybody at any time could be shot dead for no reason. This topic is obviously emotionally charged for reasons iv’e stated above. The debate about my topic is important because it happens often, an innocent person died because the wrong person got a hold of a firearm. Many ethics factor into this debate, in particular right vs. wrong. We are giving dangerous people access to these harmful weapons, and that is wrong. There is only one ethical topic that goes against my debate topic, which would also be right vs. wrong. I personally believe the most important appeals in my argument is the emotional appeal. Emotional appeal is probably the most common on both sides of this debate. i think the most important thing iv’e learned about creating a valid argument is that you need time, and a lot of research. You can’t just waltz in there with nothing prepared and expect to win the debate. it’s a tedious process. this will affect future debates/arguments i have because now i know how to properly form them.