I know that with the RPP that I am writing there on some that may argument against me saying how parents are the sole responsible for preventing child obesity. Some may say that a lot is place on the fast food industry for constantly targeting children with their ads. Second counter argument could be that it could be just be genetics and the growing population obesity is because genetics are making people becoming more and more obese. My third counter argument could that many place the blame on the American society, and how that is a very fast pace society and how many people do not have time to eat healthy and be physically active. Which in my opinion it just sounds like people are just trying to play the blame game, and do not want to take responsibility for what they have to do in trying to face this issue. Which if we continue to do this, we will never be able to overcome this issue
I would say that my audience will disagree with me on accepting the matter that same sex marriage is not a safe environment for the children and that it does not look right because thats not what the bible says the definition of marriage is. They would continue to debate that the children will be confused with the situation and should not lack the love of a father and a mother and that they shouldn’t go through the face where other children/ staff at school will make fun of them or treat them differently. I have found common ground with my audience in making sure that they know the definition of marriage and help them understand that it does not only have to do with a man and a women. I will also define what love is and give them them the definition. Since my audience biggest concern is the children getting adopted by same sex couples, I will question my audience and ask them to think about how an adults relationship affects the children that get adopted by them. I am going to provide a real life scenario and give them examples of the type of living conditions that an adopted child with a homosexual couple lives. I believe that people should be allowed to marry/ or date regardless of the sex that they find interests because everyone deserves someone that will make them feel loved and make them feel happy. Everyone brings and has different opinions, likes, and dislikes and we all deserve to show that side of ourselves without getting judged or mistreated the way i’m thinking and putting the situation I want my audience to think when they think same sex marriage.
For my RPP, the opponents of my position would most likely disagree with my central claim, that, funding should be increased. I believe this would be where they would disagree, since in order to fulfill my claim, it is necessary to spend more money, which in the current economy, we don’t have. However, we do share common ground in our reasoning, as my opponents would mention that the budget should be reduced, and projects be cut so that there are not unsafe projects being run. In response to this, I believe that the budget should be increased in order to make these projects safe, so that none of them have to be cut in order to make other projects safer. This would possibly address concerns, since some opponents would possibly ask the question, “If the budget does get increased, where will the money go?” Simply put, the above question would be answered with one of my reasons, which is that the money would be put towards safety efforts, so as to help prevent future incidents such as the Discovery and Challenger missions.
As published in my previous blog post, the main issue that my Research Position Paper will be the use of standardized tests in public schools in response to the United States education system falling behind other developed countries. My main claim is that standardized tests should have less presence and weight in the educational system because of their unintended negative consequences on students and their learning. A potential opposition to my claim would argue that standardized tests are important because they set a baseline of material that students are required to learn, and also, standardized tests are able to produce numerical data that can be used to measure academic student success.
Opponents disagree by mentioning that tangible data standardized tests produce probably because it can be nearly impossible to have one-on-one time with each student to determine if they have learned the required material. My claim could reason with this argument in that in my paper I will include that other testing methods be utilized such as free response essays as opposed to pure multiple choice tests. This way, students are able to fully express their knowledge on a subject area as opposed to being able to merely memorizing and relaying information. Secondly, opponents also argue that standardized tests are important because of the standard they set in education. They set a required curriculum that is to be taught to and learned by students. This is an area in which I would be agreeing with my opponent and establishing that common ground. Although I will be establishing this common ground, I will also be insisting that this standard that the opponent argues for can still be established through utilizing other more effective testing methods.
Having a government that is too big is a very scary thought. Nobody wants a bunch of uppity bureaucrats deciding what is best for the citizens when they have no idea how reality works. In the field of public education, however, there needs to be a grandiose method of attack for improving the education of our citizens. A lot of money is wasted by our government on things we could instead be using on reforming schools. But we also don’t want the money to be used as a means to produce cookie-cutter students that lack critical thinking and individuality.
The education system needs severe attention and the private sector cannot effectively turn this situation around by itself because for-profit competition among schools will lead to segregation and unfair access to education in the long run. Smaller governments with motivated investors may work well for other sectors, but an issue as big as equal access to education should be tackled by the biggest business in America, the federal government. The federal and state governments need to make education its main focus and pour money into it using taxpayer dollars. But what are the bureaucrats going do with all the money?
I believe there needs to be a Constitution of Education which strictly dictates what the governments can and cannot do in public education. Just like the Constitution for the United States, it will be a blueprint for what the government is allowed to do and not do with its power, money, and influence. If this constitution is implemented and most importantly made known to all teachers, all students, and all parents, then we may see changes for the better. The people who are against a big government can suggest rules that will be placed in this new constitution to limit federal and state power and those who want more involvement will be satisfied that we are making progress and finally addressing the issue of reformation in education.
The most common opinion I will have with my opponent is that the end result is the same. Everybody just wants to find a way to save our elderly while saving them money. The biggest stereotype is that the side effects for the elderly regarding growth hormones are way to great. These are false accusations made under the assumption that it is related to a steroid which it is not. What I would tell the people who oppose this was that with every medication there is the risk of side effects. From things as small as taking to many vitamins to poising your body for treatments like chemotherapy. Given the correct dosages and taken in cycles it has shown to improve the quality of life for our elderly. I would also explain that insurance companies give these people limited options on drugs, for an example if someone was to take one to long without cycling off to something else it would greaten their chances to be effected by the side effects. It is true that long term studies past ten years have not been done, but why should that stop us from giving someone a better quality of life that may not be promised ten more years. One of the other points my opponents might make is that this would be a more expensive drug which when sold through doctors is, but considering it is made naturally and treatments are easy to do on your own that is not actually the case. This could also open up new days for social security to save money and maybe even be promised for when new generations need it,