I'm currently taking a writing class that teaches us how to "argue" academically. So far I've done really well and enjoy it. My current assignment has me stumped! I have to support or defend an argument from a few selected readings. My choices are suicide, euthanasia, sexuality, gay marriage, etc. The main frustration I have is that all of the issues that I may choose from are very controversial. Now that I'm trying to strip the church away from me, it's so hard for me to know what I support and what I do not support. I'm also trying not to slant my opinion based upon 14 years of brainwashing.

I was working on the gay marriage, but feel stumped. I think I might switch to suicide. I think it's safe to assume most people do not think suicide is a good thing (except those doing it).

While suicide may be easier to argue, that's not really the point of your assignment. Trying to persuade on a controversial issue is going to be more difficult and interesting than an easy one.

For example, you wouldn't write a persuasive piece on why murder is wrong. We all know that.

As for the confusion over what you believe, that doesn't have to matter. You can, and should, learn to argue against your own view points. Write it, and even if your argument doesn't agree with what you think you believe, you'll probably open your mind a lot more. If you think gay marriage is fine, but write from the perspective that it's wrong, then you may find yourself with a much better handle on the whole topic.

I agree with Hollywood...
Just treat it like an academic exercise. It doesn't have to be a declaration of your beliefs to the world (unless that's part of the assignment).

...where you need to be able to present a case for both sides.

Besides, in the course of researching your arguments for this assignment, you might discover where you actually stand.

Suicide is often called a selfish act. But the way I see it, it's the ones calling it selfish who are selfish. They're saying, "You shouldn't kill yourself because it would make *us* feel bad, it would make life harder for some of *us*. So you need to go on being miserable so we can be happy."

We own our lives -- even if we own nothing else. We have the right to decide when we're done, when we want to go. It's cruel to make someone stay when they don't want to be here. We're all going to die anyway. Might as well have some control over how it all ends. It sure beats a long decline, years of illness and a pile of medical bills.

polychromatic fer sure.

I would write a paper defending gay marriage. It will force you to think like a defense lawyer (i.e. giving your "client" the best defense possible even if you don't believe in his innocence.)

If, at the end of the paper, you still don't feel that you can support it, write an addendum stating that your own feelings are more mixed on the matter, or that you simply don't know, or you are not yet convinced, etc.

I think that most professors would be very understanding if you have a hard time disassociating from religious indoctrination. He's just trying to stretch your mind a little bit. It's a good thing!

Isn't it fun, though?

You are growing up! I got a great deal of pleasure in finally "growing up", and I'm much older than you. Some of my opinions became so much the opposite from when I was a TBM, that, for a while, I was wondering if bad was good and good was bad. For example, I am for gay marriage, euthanasia, and abortion under certain circumstances. I also enjoyed the relief of having old prejudices disappear. (My mother used to beat us, if we walked down certain streets, where the Black people lived. My TBM friend married an Asian, and her parents dis-owned her. Etcetera.)

Your assignment might be difficult for you, because everything is not black or white. Euthanasia and abortion might not be the best solution for certain people. You can sympathize with people who are depressed and have attenpted suicide, although you abhor the act itself. As a former Mormon, understanding the gray areas has helped open up my mind.

Congratulations on getting your education!

Think about each issue, from different points of view, and you will soon know how you feel. Listen to your heart. Also--you have permission to change your mind, whenever you wish!

Just act like the FARMS people act, they treat defending the Church as an academic exercise (an intellectual thing I suppose - same with attorneys). You do not have to believe it to argue it.

with people having different values and views. I kept trying to find the "good" and the "bad." This assignment is an opportunity to challenge that way of thinking which you have likely inherited from Mormonism. That isn't to say you should be devoid of values or that people, ideas, situations don't have their positive and negative points; it is that understandimg those things isn't as easily arrived at as Mormonism taught us.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 11/07/2011 02:26PM by robertb.

Posters above have pointed out that the assignment has nothing to do with your own personal points of view. It is an important skill to learn to see the valid points of BOTH SIDES of an argument--this is the objective of the exercise. When I was young, this very exercise helped put me in touch with my own views:

The assignment was to choose whether we thought the Catholic Church was threatened more by the barbarians or the Mohammedans (as Islaam was called in those days). I started out describing how the barbarian hordes damaged the beautiful cathedrals and violated the sacred spaces. As I continued to write, I found myself thinking how much easier it is to rebuild a building than it is to reclaim a soul for Christ. So I flipped over to believing that religious conversion is more damaging.

A view that I hold to this day.

Anagrammy

If you argue FOR something you don't believe in and as Summer said write an addendum stating that this was a tough assignment for you. I think you will be assured an A. The professor is trying to get the students to think outside of their comfort zone. I believe by doing that it will be liberating for you.

A good paper to write on a PRO position for gay marraige is to focus on it economically. Through an economic perspective, one can see that not legalizing it, is to cut of one's nose to spite their face, and I am not gay.

I have been a benefits admin for a long time and I see a serious flaw in not allowing gays to marry as well as the rules surrounding common law marraige. The risk associated with these free for all communions are passed on in the form of premiums.

Its no different than theft in a store. Stores factor in the cost of security and the losses they take in theft and build that into the prices of the products they sell. Insurance companies do the same. To legalize gay marraige can actually bring health insurance costs down as well as other things because ppl are not jumping in and out of relationships randomly (since they can't marry).

I am strictly looking at this objectively through economical eyes. If you want to throw in morality, then start quoting the Constitution and the bill of rights. Everyone is afforded the right to life, liberty, and the persuit of happiness. Freedom of religion and freedom from religion.

And like I said, I am heterosexual, but most important, I like to think I am not as biased as I used to be.

and support different sides of a question, or concern. One of the things we learned in Debate class was to be able to present supported evidence for either side. In one exercise, we would present information on one side with a time limit, of perhaps 5 minutes, then we all were told to change sides.

Just because information is presented, with supporting evidence, does not mean the person must believe that side as the only right/or wrong one.

It's about getting informed and understanding how other people view an issue. It teaches the student how to be objective and present information in a logical fashion, without emotionally based editorializing.

Probably one of the best classes I ever took!

Have fun!

One of my best argumentative essays ever was the essay entitled "Be vegan and save humanity". I loved it.

I loved it because it was well-written and I didn't stand for a single word of it. Well I understand the arguments they just don't relate to me. But I chose this subject, got the highest grade available on the essay and was very happy about it.

Also, arguing for something you either disagree with or don't have an opinion on will help you in assessing what you really believe is important regarding a matter.

A good argumentation addresses the opponents' arguments and rips them to pieces in a dignified and obvious manner :)

Good luck!

If this specific assignment is supposed to be a pro/con thing, then I suppose you know what to do--pick a side and argue for it by giving your evidence and refuting known counterarguments.

However, this is, to me, a less sophisticated approach than I would like to see my students develop. Most significant problems are multi-dimensional rather than binary, and the answer is critical inquiry. Check out the resources at criticalthinking.org that will help you dig beyond the pro/con level.