Analysis of the Controversy

Assignment: Analysis of the Controversy

Due 10/13 (Final); 10/13 (Rough)
Pts: 100

This is a 4-6 page paper that shows you know the field you are writing about and its literature. You will create a sketch of the different positions people take on a controversial topic. You assignment here, to be clear, is to accurately summarize your topic (not your argument) and present a Wikipedia-like discussion of it--broken down into sections that point out its important elements, important scholars working in this area, and what people disagree about in regards to this subject. Map the various positions held, and explain what they stand for.

Purpose: EXPLAIN/DESCRIBE the debate.

Your paper must include AT LEAST five of the following sections:

* Background/History what “events” turned this issue into a controversy in the first place
* Who this controversy affects, where it is most deeply felt, why.
* Point of View 1 (Pro): Summary of position one—see following
* Point of View 2 (Con)
* Other Points of View (Middle Ground)
*Stakes: What may happen if this issue is resolved according to the Pro and Con agenda. What will happen if it goes unresolved.
* Effects: how the outcome of the controversy might affect that population, the world, etc.
* Benefactors: Why it’s important to others (why should anyone else care?). Who cares and why? What real economic or social incentives guide their belief?
* Key Players: Who are the big names in this debate and what do they say (can be part of Pro/Con.
* Economics: What economic factors influence this debate
* Other Factors: What other factors (IE: Religion. Idealism. Values. Etc) affect this debate
*Local Consequences: How does this debate affect Denver? CO? The West? Etc. How does it affect at certain race? Sexual orientation? Economic status?
* Complications: Roadblocks to this problem/issue being resolved

Each section must be labeled by a sub-header (In Underline and Bold).

Sources:

This paper must include 6 sources (minimum).
• 2 that relate to POV 1
• 2 that relate POV 2 (should disagree with position one)
• At least two others for background, etc.
Sources must come from the Auraria Library databases and books. Newspapers, magazines and respectable websites are permissible, but should be used sparingly (1 to 2 sources, tops). Dot.coms will not be counted. All sources must be cited in MLA format. Paraphrase/Summarize: Only one block quote will be accepted. Work Cited page is required.

For the Pro/Con/Mid Positions in the controversy, look at:

* the reasons offered in support of these positions
* the persuasive styles not directly linked to “logical reasons” (appeals to emotion or the author’s credibility, etc. This could be a Pastor making an argument FOR gay marriage and using the bible as his evidence. He has ETHOS.)
* common rhetorical figures (metaphors, metonymies, analogies, etc.) utilized in making the persuasive case. (IE: “The War On Terror” Saying the Death Panels are coming, etc).
* what’s at stake in upholding this position (who are the winners and losers—including any secret beneficiaries? What will be won or lost? etc. Ie: Where do pharmaceutical companies stand in the Health Reform debate and WHY).

Finally:
Look at how some of these debates can be focused into topics that you can write about (ie if you are writing about the debate of sex education, you could add a section that explains Colorado’s or Denver’s sex ed. programs, etc).

A flow chart of this paper might look like this:

Introduction:
History of debate
Key events
Stats—the problem both sides want to address, disagree on how.
Thesis: Guiding question or statement of problem—“Despite a majority of opinion characterized as ‘middle-ground’, this debate is shaped by the extremism on its fringes. “ or more direct: “This paper will explore how and why this is a debate and what the current disagreement centers around.”

Position one:
Summary of the pro-side
Key voices in debate: Nancy Pelosi, Ginsberg, Professor X and Chomsky

Position two:
Summary of con-side
Key voices/academics: Focus on the Family, Newt G, Professor Y

Position three: The betweeners
Summary of argument
Key voices/academics: Professor W

The Ramifications
Econ. Effects
Social costs

Implications for Colorado

Conclusion
Why we need to succeed.
Works Cited