Write three short paragraphs, the first explaining the topic you'll research and write about, the last two outlining the different sides of the argument surrounding your topic.
Questions you might answer: Was there an event that touched off the argument about your topic? Who are the key players? Is this an old argument? A new one? Why is it currently in the news?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
15 comments:
The topic I am researching is the Michael Paul Astorga case. Right now what is currently being debated isn’t whether he is innocent or guilty, but rather the death penalty in New Mexico. Astorga has faced one of two trials, both dealing with murder, one of Candido Martinez and the other of Deputy James McGrane. Astorga faced a trial in November of 2005 in the murder of Candido Martinez, “ in dispute over a stolen car in a neighborhood north of downtown Albuquerque (KOB.com).” Astorga’s attorney has filed many motions, including being able to question the jurors of his trial of the McGrane murder case. Currently Astorga faces the death penalty or life in prison as his choices. Yet, Astorga and his attorney believe that jurors are biased and his fate is predetermined.
Astorga and his lawyers believe the jurors that will be used to determine his fate in this future trial are a biased group. They believe that jurors selected to take part in death penalty trials have predetermined decisions and don’t give the defendant much of a chance. “Astorga’s lawyers say that studies show jurors willing to hand out the death penalty are predisposed to finding a defendant guilty (KOAT.com).”
On the opposing side they note that the Capital Jury Project has been relied on three previous times in New Mexico. They have had varying results, not just the death penalty as a result. This is the first time in the state that anyone has refuted this system. Why all of a sudden do this man and his attorneys have a problem? Is it because he is guilty and he knows other people knows he is too?
The current event that I decided to research is the issue of the SW airlines plane conditions. This is a new argument. The two key players are the FAA and Southwest Airlines. This issue is in the news because SW airlines "violated" a safety issue, and air safety has been carefully monitered lately, especially since 9/11.
The first side is the FAA. During one of the inspections, the FAA failed to recognize the small cracks in the airplanes. Either they did not see it, or they saw it and decided that it was not a big deal and failed to mention it. When a SW employee found the cracks, The FAA was alerted, and they decided to fine SW airlines 26 million (or more) dollars for a violation they could not even find.
The other side is SW airlines. They were the ones who actually found the cracks in the airplanes and reported it. The problem is easily fixable, and is not that huge of a air safety problem (it sounds like).SW thinks that 26 million is a ridiculous amount to pay to the FAA, the people who could not even find these cracks.
Sorry, in my blog I meant that that SW airlines was being fined 10.2 million, not 26 million. Sorry. Don't know where I got 26 million from. Haha.
The ongoing topic I have choosen is the supposed link between caffeine and problems in pregnancies. This issue has been discussed over and over again. Many women who have had failed pregnancies or have had children with birth defects have consumed some sort of caffeine during their pregnancy. Does this mean caffeine causes problems in pregnancy? Or is this simply a false correlation?
One side of this touchy dispute is that caffeine causes miscarriage and birth defects. This is based on a correlation between womens consumption of coffee, soda, or anything containing caffeine, during any point of their pregnancy.
The opposing side says this is a false correlation. Caffeine at low amounts will not effect your pregnancy. Although massive amounts of caffeine consumption could suffer from changes in their pregnancy.
The topic i am covering is the Witers Guild of America's strike against it's employers. This strike has been going on for about three months and some people think may end soon. The writers in the Writers Guild of America(WGA) believe that they are underpayed and not appreciated. there is less and less desire for well written tv series and more demand for reality tv shows. The members of the WGA are also being put out by people who pirate their work off of the internet.
The pro side of the debate of wether or not the strike should continue has many good evidence. The writters will be well payed if they can manage to settle with the broadcasting companies. The strike has been very effective costing hollywood over a million dollars already. If the strike settles well the writers will be well appreciated and protected by companies from piracy. Some people are saying that this strike may land the WGA the best deal they have seen in decades.
On the con side of the strike there are issues like the fact that the quality of tv shows rapidly decreasing. Other than a few shows that continue to press on like Conan O'brian the only shows on air are reality shows and re-runs. The industry is suffering amazing consequences due to the strike and they are being forced to lay off many innocent people that work for these companies.
The topic I'm doing research on is about the plan of allowing hunting education classes as a way to promote hunting to young people and kids. The purpose of this plan is to "preserve" hunting as a traditional skill/sport that humans have done since the time of our primate ancestors, for fewer young people are showing interest in it. I believe this issue has been discussed since a few years ago, and it is currently in the news because some politicians are using it along with the issue of gun-control for their campaign.
The supporters of this plan are mostly hunters, people from the National Rifle Association, the Department of Natural Resources, and gun sellers. They say they want to promote hunting to younger generations because "hunting was a way of life" for its supporters. The decline of this activity has also affected the revenues of many organizations involved with hunting for the last few years. They also claim that hunters are needed in controlling the deer population because the growth in their population has contributed to an increase in road accidents.
The other side of this issue mostly deals with the gun-control advocates. The fact of promoting hunting to young people during classes is also promoting the use of guns. If hunting licenses are issued to more people, it means people will have more chances to possess a gun, and most probably some won't use it only for animal hunting but also for committing crimes. In addition, the increase of hunters will eventually put more nature species into the endangered animals list; therefore, this will also break the equilibrium of the ecosystem.
The topic I am planning on doing for my paper is about steroids in sports. I plan on taking about both sides of different arguments and the politics behind it, whether or not the records that people hold should be counted in the record books.
One side of the argument is people who are trying to argue against it, and who are for the other side. I have not done that much research about it yet but from what I have seen on TV and the news it is a big controversy.
There is one side that I do have an opinion about and that is whether or not baseball hitting stats should still be held in record books. I believe that they should, but only hitting stats because yes steroids can help you get big and strong, but steroids cannot help you see the ball and hit it. If you cannot make contact with the ball then all your strength is worthless.
I am going to research China's one-child limit law. This law first went into play in the late 1970's, and has exceptions such that a farmer can have a second child if the first is a girl. Recently the enforcement of the law has become less stringent, and officials are considering what should be done. There have been recent studies on how China would go about changing the law and the many effects that would take place to the world's already most populated country. Thus lately the debate is resurfacing in the news.
Those supporting the one-child act say that it is better for the overall economy of China. There are more women working and because people aren't spending as much on their children they are investing and saving for retirement. There is also the argument that China doesn't have enough resources to support more people.
On the opposing side their are people that say that this law goes against human rights of reproduction. Also the the pro-life advocates have an obvious problem with the amount of abortions taking place. Another huge problem is that the population is aging. Less young people to work and too many old people to take care of without the help of as many young people.
The topic that I am going to be writing about is the legalization of Salvia Divinorum in the United States. Salvia is an herb that has hallucinogenic properties associated with it, the main controversy over the drug is that a boy in Delaware committed suicide a while back while under the influence of the plant. The two sides of the topic are fairly obvious, keep the herb legal or not.
The main reason to illegalize the drug would be to say that is causes many deaths and is very unhealthy for people, and the main counter argument to this is that very little research has done been done corresponding to this statement.
The main reason to keep the drug legal is that salvia is just another natural herb, which no body has directly died from, and helps motivate “positive thinking”. The main counter argument to this is that salvia can be considered a gateway drug and can lead to death.
The topic that I am going to be researching is the whole drilling for oil in Alaska. The amount of oil according to three government studies is anywhere from 1.69 to 14.77 billion barrels of oil in Alaska.
Those who are for the drilling in Alaska tend to say that we need this to supply the demand. Another pro arguement is we should use it while we have it type of arguement. Other pro arguements say to face it, America needs its oil. Even people who know very little of the situation can see that its a problem with gas prices being so high.
Those who are against drilling for oil in Alaska say that people shouldn't rely on cars and personal vehicles and such. Basically to us pubic transportation. Another is the caribou in Alaska, they might be harmed or driven away by all the oil rigs and workers that would be in their area. More and more people are getting the hybrid cars and envirornmental safe products, so since things are looking good why change it is what some anti-drilling in Alaska people say.
The topic that I am going research and write about is gun control. the topic has many sides and evidence to make it up. A main concern today is the safety of students at school.
One side of the argument is that gun laws and licensing need to be strict o protect and save lives. the question is if it really would help or not.
The opposing view of this argument is that people have a constitutional right to buy and own a gun. Even with tighter laws it would not mean that crime rates would fall.
The topic I'm looking into is the 2008 democratic candidates and the effect having these 2 strong but different candidates is having on their political party. This is the first time in U.S. history that we have a black man running for president against a white woman, and because it is new and both candidates appear promising, it is causing both pros and cons for the democratic party.
On one hand, we have these two different minority figures running for president, which is new and has had an effect on voter turnout. Because of the nature of the democratic primary, it has fueled more people to get involved in politics, take an interest, learn the issues, and vote.
On the other hand, there can be some real reprecussions for the democrats. Because the democratic party and the people are so divided, there is a chance that come to vote the democratic party will be ripped in 1/2, allowing the Republican's John McCain to win the presidency. It's important for democrats to both vote, but also try and stand unified if they want a real chance of taking the presidency.
The topic I am going to research is about Eliot Spitzer. He is the Governor of New York and is in the news for booking a high priced prostitute. Now it is being discussed whether or not he should resign. This is a new topic and is in the news because Eliot is a public figure doing something immoral. Any time that happens it will make the news.
Some people believe Eliot should resign for what he has done. He has shown that he is a man of bad character. Therefore should step down from his possition as governor of New York. Also, he has shammed his wife and family.
Others believe Eliot deserves a second chance because he is a good man that made one bad decision.
the topic i am going to do is stem cell research. the pros for this subject is saving lives and the cons for stem cells research is losing a life or having diseases that have no cure.
The topic I am researching is how are technological advances changing the daily lives of the human race and what does this mean for the future. Technology is always advancing, which allows us to better the lives of others, help them to live longer and invade and endanger their lives?
Brittan has just developed a new camera that can see through clothes from up to eighty feet away. While this camera can not see the flesh, it can detect guns, explosives and knives which can protect lives of the general public but it is also an invasion of privacy.
In addition to the pros and cons of the red light camera, I want to research other areas of research and development that will affect our lives in the future. This will include such things as microchip implanted in the skin and maybe even so far as the development of pharmaceutical drugs which we are becoming immune.
Technology, good or bad?
Post a Comment