Discussion 2 Prompt: Student Topic Selection
Logic and critical thinking are highly relevant to the events we see in the world around us. This discussion gives you a chance to share an example. Start by selecting an event that is going on in the world right now. It could be something in the news, something you have learned about from science, technology, an academic field, or even something important and relevant that is going on in your life. It should be an issue that allows for different perspectives (there are many ways to define “perspectives” … they could be about whether the thing is true, good, real, important, being done in the right way, etc.).
In your post:
- Share a source (or sources) that addresses or explains the issue/topic/event (you do not have to use scholarly sources here).
- Share an argument on each side of the issue or explain the two different perspectives.
- Evaluate the reasoning surrounding this topic. Address questions such as the following:
o Are the competing positions clear?
o Do the two positions/perspectives actually contradict each other
o Are the premises of the arguments strongly supported by evidence?
o Do the arguments use good reasoning?
o Are any fallacies or biases committed by either side?
o Why do people hold the different positions/perspectives?
o How might either (or both) sides express their perspectives more effectively?
- Evaluate the rhetoric that surrounds this topic: Address questions such as the following: Are people being civil and fair minded in how they address the issue? How might one strive for greater fairness, objectivity, and civility in how we address this kind of topic? If we did so, would society be more likely to make progress on issues such as this?
A note about controversy and civility: Many of the topics that may come up in this forum may be controversial in nature. Understandably, students will have very different perspectives on them. In order to learn from each other, to avoid creating contention, keep in mind the following: It is not necessary to represent your own views here. You are welcome to present the arguments on both sides of the issue without taking sides yourself. This will allow students to talk about the arguments (rather than trying to prove each other wrong). If you do present your own views, make sure to be highly respectful of the feelings and perspectives of those with different views as you do so. Civility is an essential part of how we learn from each other.
response 1:https://www.theguardian.com/technology/live/2021/oct/05/facebook-hearing-whistleblower-frances-haugen-testifies-us-senate-latest-news (Links to an external site.)The article above is about the very controversial “Facebook whistleblower hearing”, Frances Haugen, a former Facebook employee speaks out against Facebook. Haugen is fighting for a lot of regulations to be put on Facebook, but I will only be talking about her take on social media and its impact to children. Throughout the years since Facebook was created, the company has purchased other companies, one of which is Instagram. Haugen claims that, Facebook intentionally targets teens, including children under the age of 13.-Even if Facebook did intentionally target children, something to think about is, where are the children’s parents? Why aren’t they being held responsible for allowing their children on social media? Why are these children allowed to be on social media when they shouldn’t be.-Haugen is a reliable source because she worked for Facebook and had access to a lot of information that she is using to back up her claims. Starting any profile on Instagram, Facebook, etc. is not difficult. Facebook allows anyone to simply start a profile, they do not require any proof of age in order to prevent children from accessing the social media website.-I think that Haugen is going about her position in the argument very well. She went to lawmakers and is fighting to create more regulations so that even when children are on social media, they are not seeing things they shouldn’t be. While I think she is going about it the right way, I don’t think she is being realistic. People go on social media to get a kick out of things, I go on social media to share my vacations and show my family and friends. I also use social media to look at workout videos, inspiration for travel, workout, food, etc. Sometimes I see things suggested to me by Facebook because I was looking at something relatable or similar.
Response 2:https://www.venable.com/insights/publications/2021…The article I chose for this assignment is regarding recent events with the COVID-19 vaccination with the central question: should vaccinations in the workplace be required? And if so, what happens if I choose not to get vaccinated? The competing positions in this article are clear, as it lays out the facts about vaccinations in the workplace. The two positions/perspectives noted are whether the employer demands the vaccination or not, and if they do, and refusal occurs, what is needed from the employee. Premises to back the argument:Refusal of the vaccination could be from disability or religious belief. The employer can terminate the relationship with an employee if refusal occurs.The vaccination is backed up by law.By getting the vaccination, you can protect other individuals.The arguments use good reasonings. For one, the vaccination is backed up by the law, so it is not subjective from the author’s point of view; it’s based on facts. Another significant argument is that the vaccination can help protect those individuals who may be at higher risk or someone who lives with an individual at higher risk. A bias or fallacy about this topic is someone refusing to get the vaccination for the sole purpose they don’t want it. It has nothing to do with disability or religious beliefs. I think the article also seems aware that the laws will become more complex, as there are also people who are going to try to exploit the system. People tend to hold different positions based on their own beliefs. People tend to refuse the vaccination because they don’t see a point in getting it, there is not enough science-backed behind it, and they don’t believe in it. Whereas others believe it will protect mankind and that it is the right thing to do. Such individuals may not want to discriminate or lose their employers who either can’t or won’t get the vaccine. This is such a controversial and complex topic, so the statistics on individuals being either open-minded or civil are still up in the air. Personally, when you go against someone’s freedom of speech and push something upon someone, they may not take it the best way possible, and you’re going to get the pushback. To strive for greater fairness, objectivity, and civility, individuals, should be more open-minded, make sure all facts are on the table, and simply keep biases out of the equation. Society may make more progress on the issue but, it does still come down to the individual on whether or not the vaccination is necessary.
Response 3:My source came from the ABC6 news channel in Columbus, Ohio, and the CDC.The situation that I have decided to talk about is the COVID vaccine for children.Argument #1: Children should get the vaccine, and it should be a part of the regimen of shots that they receive throughout their youth.Argument #2: Children should not get the vaccine because we do not have enough research to trust it is safe for our children.Looking at this topic, it is a powerful based topic. I know that the mandating of the vaccine is what is getting under everyone’s skin for adults. I can’t say that I blame people for thinking that their rights are being taken away. But this topic I have decided on is not about the adults. This is about our children. We need to think about what is right for them and their future.The competing positions for this topic are apparent. The question is should our children get the vaccine or should they not.The positions of each argument do contradict each other because when I was reading what people were saying on their feeling why they should give the vaccine, it made sense. They want to protect the kids. But on the other side, unlike the mandate fight, they also want to protect their kids. So, they contradict each other because they both want the same thing.Argument 1:Premise 1: We want our kids to be safe.Premise 2: We want our kids not to have to worry about COVID in the future.Premise 3: We wish not to wear masks.Therefore, we need to ensure the COVID vaccine is given and required with all the other mandatory shots in the children’s youth.Argument 2:Premise 1: We want to protect our children.Premise 2: We should have the right to choose what we want to give our children outside of religion.Premise 3: We don’t have enough research.Therefore, because we want to protect our children and give them a choice and not enough testing for safety, we should not give the shot to our children.I believe that both arguments have an excellent reason. They both what is best for the kids. But then, at the same time, one wants to make it mandatory, and the other wants to keep the freedom of choice.I feel that on either side of this argument, there are biases. Everyone has their opinion, and they will not sway on it. But we can all understand that. We have constitutional rights, and people feel that they are trying to take those away. But at the same time, I think that there are a lot of fallacies because I don’t think that we are being given all the information that we deserve to have to make a uniform decision.I feel that the main reason that people hold their perspective or position is that we are a free country. I think that people think that if you tell us that we must do something that we are not comfortable doing, that is taking away our rights.I believe that the best way for either of these sides to express their opinions is to take them to the representatives of their states. I feel that the problem is not at a level that anyone but someone in government can fix.When I look at these issues and take my opinion out of them, I feel significant points on each side. For the most part, the people on both sides of this issue are very civil and fair-minded. They are just doing what they feel is right and protesting civilly. There probably will never be a fair or objective side to this that everyone will agree with when it comes to this topic. I think that the best way to get everyone to decide is to make it an option. Do not mandate it with other already required shots; don’t make someone do something that they don’t want to do. Keep it as a choice. If we kept it as a choice, people would be more willing to get the vaccine. I feel that the main issue is freedom of choice. We need to keep our civil liberties in balance, and then the people will follow in line with what we want.References(2021). Key Things to Know About COVID-19 Vaccines. Retrieved from https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines…NEERGAARD, L. (2021, October 7). Pfizer asks US to allow COVID shots for kids ages 5 to 11. Retrieved from https://abc6onyourside.com/news/coronavirus/pfizer…
0 comments