English 9 Argumentative/Debate Essay Assignment
Purpose: The purpose of this essay assignment is for your debate team to lay out your arguments in a clear fashion before the actual debate, so that you are well informed and prepared. This essay will also be given to your opponents in advance of the debate so that they can prepare for your case, and vice versa. Your main task, as it is in the debate, is to convince a reasonable but previously uninformed reader to support your side of the proposition.
Time Schedule
Monday, 5/9: Introduction to the essay and the powa.org website.
Tuesday, 5/10: Pro/Con lists, tentative resolution, as well as three additional cited sources due.
Weds.., 5/11: Statement of the case due; resolutions finalized and sides assigned.
Thurs., 5/12: Plagiarism lesson. Practice paragraphs due.
Friday, 5/13: Rough drafts of individual essay sections worked on in class. Assign sections so that each member has a clear responsibility and equal workload. Weekend homework is to work on drafting separate components of essay.
Monday, 5/16: Rough drafts of essay sections due—individually. Revise and edit essay sections and merge into one document.
Tuesday, 5/17: Rough drafts of merged essay due—transition to preparing for a speech.
Thursday, 5/26: FINAL COPY OF ESSAY DUE, REVISED, EDITED, DOCUMENTED, AND COLOR-CODED.
Format
This is an argumentative essay, which is an extension of a typical thesis/support essay. You have a stand on the proposition (resolution), which will serve as your thesis. For example, if you were the affirmative team arguing about the death penalty, your thesis would be something like, “The death penalty should be abolished because…” If you are the negative team, your thesis would be some variation of “ We need to maintain capital punishment in the United States because…” Please see the Paradigm web site for suggestions on structure. Each essay should contain an introduction, statement of the case, proposition statement (thesis), refutation, confirmation, and conclusion. Note that some of these components may be combined, but others, especially the refutation and confirmation, may take multiple paragraphs. So, I would suggest a total length between 5-10 detailed, developed paragraphs.
Collaboration and color coding
This unit is a mixture of individual and group work. Ultimately, as in any group endeavor, your success will depend upon your teammates to a certain extent. Historically, teams who have not worked well together have not won many debates, and indeed, working together successfully is one goal of this project. At the same time, I also realize that sometimes, despite our best efforts, groups do not work out. I do not want anyone to be unfairly penalized by a group member who drops the ball; nor do I want anyone to get a "free ride" thanks to a superstar group member. Therefore, while you will win or lose the debate as a team, you will be graded individually on the essay and on your speeches. To make it clear on the essay which group member writes which part, I ask that you simply color code the respective sections. For example, if Claire and Clai are working together, perhaps Claire's section would be in blue and Clai's in red. For parts of the essay that you truly write together, choose a third color.
Documentation
In both the essay and debate, any statements presented as facts, and any direct quotations from authorities, survey results, or statistics must be documented, or they will not be counted. This means that from the moment you begin your research, please DOCUMENT EVERY SOURCE!! Consult the Bedford Handbook for guidelines on documenting sources, especially those of the electronic variety.
On-line resource
As was noted on the first handout, the Paradigm Online Writing Assistant is a great place for help. We will be viewing parts of the site in class, but click here to go right to the section on argumentative essays. Almost all of the guidelines and suggestions that I have summarized above can be found here in greater detail: http://www.powa.org
Greensboro Day School English Department
Argument Essay Rubric: Grades 9-12
Name: ______Assignment: ______
Evaluating Criteria / CommentsQuality of Thought
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
· Quality of argumentative proposition
· Depth, complexity and development of ideas
· Use of appeals to logic, reason, and emotion where appropriate / The best features of this paper are:
Organization and Continuity
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
· Global
o Unity – Focus on argumentative proposition
· Paragraph
o Focus on topic sentence
o Coherence – use of transitions
Support
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15· Specific details and quotations
· Facts and statistics
· Explanation of examples
Word Choice
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
· Vocabulary
· Diction
· Usage / The aspects of your writing that need the most improvement are:
Grammar and Syntax
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
· Complete and grammatically correct sentences
· Sentences varied in structure and complexity
Mechanics
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
· Punctuation
· Spelling
· Documentation of sources (in-text citations and works cited list)
Format and Process
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10· Color coding or indication of section(s) completed
· Title
· Final Essay submitted to turnitin.com / Specific instructions:
Paper Grade:
Adjusted, if late, to:Final grade:
Sample Essay 1
Affirmative Funding of Space Exploration
Gracie Tewkesbury and Kelly Carty
Introduction
On February 1, 2003, scientists eagerly awaited the return of the seven astronauts aboard the Space Shuttle Columbia. They were about to come home from a 16-day research mission in orbit 300 kilometers above earth. Just 16 minutes before the scheduled landing, NASA lost radio contact with the shuttle. Smoke and debris were seen in the skies of Dallas, where the shuttle was slated to land. Upon re-entry into the atmosphere, Columbia broke into flames and essentially disintegrated. None of the seven crew members survived.
Sadly, this was not the first time a space flight came to a fatal ending. In 1967, a fire started inside the cockpit of the Apollo 1. Although the crew members tried desperately to escape, all three were dead seventeen seconds after the fire had been noticed. A similar accident occurred in 1986, when an unexpected fire caused the Challenger shuttle to swerve off course and rip apart. The seven crew members died instantly, just minutes after the shuttle took off.
How could these horrible tragedies have been prevented? All three resulted from technological errors that probably could have been prevented. After each incident, NASA has suggested several methods of improving the safety of the space shuttle. But the fact that these types of disasters still occur on a rather regular, albeit seldom, basis indicates that additional safety isn’t enough. In order to prevent disaster, our country needs to regulate space travel so that only the most important and necessary missions are put into action. We propose that this be done with a significant budget cut for NASA.
Statement of Case
In 1958, President Eisenhower established the National Aeronautics and Space Administration to aid our country in the “space race” against the Soviet Union. Over the next decade, NASA developed the Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo projects, the latter sending man to the moon for the first time on July 20, 1969. Since setting foot on the moon, NASA has continued to expand knowledge about space through the space shuttle, the International Space Station, the Mars Exploration Rovers, and the Terra and Aqua satellites. The four divisions of NASA are Aeronautics, Exploration Systems, Science, and Space Operations.
In 2004, President George W. Bush announced his Vision for Space Exploration. He plans to return the space shuttle to flight and retire it by 2010, complete the International Space Station, begin robotic missions to the moon by 2008, return people there by 2020, and develop a Crew Exploration Vehicle to send people beyond low earth orbit (Bush). Once his vision is complete, we can consider more lofty goals, like eventually setting foot on Mars.
Currently, the 2007 fiscal budget proposed for NASA is $16.8 billion, a 3.2 percent increase from the 2006 budget. President Bush has asked for an additional one billion dollars over the next five years to help accomplish his goals. Of the budget, $724 million goes towards aeronautics research, $5.3 billion towards NASA’s science missions, and $500 million towards cross-agency support programs which deal with education, commercial leverage, and the management of finances.
Some people fully support the NASA’s big plans for the future.
They believe that further space exploration would lead to exciting discoveries that will inspire young children and adults alike. Every new finding of NASA leads to a sense of pride and patriotism for our country’s dedicated space program. The technology developed through NASA exploration “will pay back incalculable dividends to everyone on Earth during the coming decades” (Eicher). According to these people, NASA’s budget, though high, is well worth it because of all of the benefits for humans.
Those who oppose NASA’s plans consider them to be a colossal waste of time and money. As one writer puts it, “What is the value of admittedly mind-blowing photographs of distant nebulae and galaxy clusters when weighed against the literally astronomical sums of money spent on maintaining a leaky space station, an antiquated and unreliable shuttle fleet, and a never-ending stream of hit-or-miss probes?” (Bonta). Those against publicly-funded space exploration believe that NASA’s yearly budget is robbing government money from more important aspects of life, like housing, healthcare, and transportation. In a world plagued with war, disease, poverty, and famine, any money our government spends on NASA could be better spent dealing with issues on our own planet.
Confirmation
The United States government is currently allocating too much money to NASA for space exploration. Space Exploration is an extremely risky business. Astronauts in space have to face a loss of bone mass, unhealthy amounts of radiation, and challenging psychological problems (Schneider). NASA also hasn’t addressed important problems such as what to do if someone is seriously ill on a space voyage. The $16.8 billion budget could be used for many other things such as helping with the devastation wrecked by Hurricane Katrina and housing and health care programs. The government shouldn’t be wasting its time dealing with NASA’s budget when there are other more prevalent factors looming over the United States like the war in Iraq and the environment. The United States government shouldn’t be allocating so much money to NASA when the future is unclear and there are other, more overriding problems here on earth.
There are many medical reasons for not exploring space. Astronauts face the loss of bone mass, radiation problems, and psychological problems on long term space flights (Schneider). Astronauts experience bone loss because of bone resorption and decreased intestinal calcium absorption caused by the lack of gravity in space (Smith). According to an experiment conducted aboard the Mir Space Station, astronauts lose 1 to 2 percent of bone density per month which triggers a rise of calcium in the blood and can cause kidney stones (Hullander). Radiation is also another effect of space travel and probably the most damaging. Radiation is the process of particles from space entering the DNA of human cells and not allowing them to perform their typical functions. Normally, the earth’s magnetic field protects us from high energy sun particles and cosmetic rays from unknown galactic sources. Out in space, an astronaut is unsheltered from radiation. NASA stated that the particles from solar flares could kill an unprotected astronaut. Even airplanes reroute paths to avoid the radiation from a solar flare (Britt). Radiation can cause severe sort-term illness while cosmic rays can cause more long-term illnesses like cancer and cataracts. NASA currently allows no more radiation than what could raise the risk of cancer by 3 percent, and a 2 ½ year trip to Mars would expose astronauts to the limit of radiation (Britt).
The psychological factors of a lengthy space expedition are also problematic. According to Taber MacCallum, the president of Paragon Space Development Corporation, astronauts face an extreme amount of stress and must stay in confined living quarters with complete dependence on technologies. They live a very structured life with a demanding schedule and a perceived lack of control (MacCallum). The astronauts go through extensive training, but still, as MacCallum put it, feel the “paradox of ‘too much and too little’ distance from people.” The overwhelming challenges of bone loss, radiation, and psychological problems are only magnified when the trips in space become longer.
Since space exploration is extremely risky, it brings about many challenging decisions. As posed by Mike Schneider in his article On Trip to Mars, NASA Must Rethink Death “how do you get rid of the body of a dead astronaut on a three-year mission to Mars and back?” In the history of NASA, there have been three major tragedies resulting in the death of seventeen people. The tragedies (Apollo 1, Challenger, and Columbia) all occurred because of technical glitches. According to Schneider, NASA doesn’t have a procedure dealing with disposing of the dead in space or cutting medical aid if an astronaut cannot survive. Not addressing these problems may result in bad decisions and wasting more lives. If an astronaut is on the ISS or the Mir Space Station and becomes sick, he or she can return to Earth and check into a hospital within hours, but if traveling to Mars or another far-off place there is no way the astronaut would be able to land on earth in time for treatment. The astronauts also couldn’t depend on Mission Control to make split-second decisions because it would take a minimum of 30 minutes for a question to travel to earth and an answer to arrive at the spacecraft. With all these important decisions NASA needs to make about human life aboard a spacecraft, it seems that NASA isn’t ready for human space exploration. (Schneider)