Debate Paper Example
English 102
Topic: Unintended consequences of oil consumption
Research question: What are the most important unintended consequences of petroleum use?
This is the question this research paper will attempt to answer.
Unifying question: What are the unintended consequences of petroleum use?
This is one question that the various sources have in common.
Note that many of the sources for this paper will not be interested in deciding which are the “most important” consequences, so they won’t directly answer the research question, but they will provide essential information that can be used to answer it. The unifying question ties them all together by looking at the broader question, just “What are the unintended consequences.”
Here is part of a sample Debate Paper:
The unintended consequences of petroleum use have gotten increasing attention in recent years as pollution, resource depletion, international conflict and global warming have grown harder to ignore. This paper examines several of the most significant consequences and attempts to determine which are the most important in terms of their long-term impacts on human health, quality of life and social stability.
For some, one issue stands out. It might be national security, wars and international competition for oil, or environmental damage. Gelbspan’s focus on global warming exemplifies this perspective. He details some of the most severe anticipated consequences of global warming, including “ever harsher droughts, floods, heat waves, and tropical storms,” which, he says, “could bankrupt the global economy by 2065.” Gelbspan’s evidence, drawn from the physical sciences and industry, is sufficient to establish the problem. His examples are all relevant to the issue and representative of larger trends or patterns. His primary conclusion (we must act to slow global warming) follows from the evidence that global warming is caused by human activity, though the claim that US policy is driven by oil interests overlooks other possible contributing factors. Gelbspan’s work supports the claim that the most important unintended consequence of petroleum use is global warming.
Other writers consider a wide range of issues. This is Manning’s approach in his critique of oil-based agriculture, which, the author argues, is “not so much about food as it [is] about the accumulation of wealth.” Manning’s strongest criticisms concern petroleum-based fertilizers and the green revolution, which may be “the worst thing that has ever happened to the planet.” As evidence Manning cites global warming, acid rain, ocean “dead zones” caused by fertilizer runoff, and the epidemic of obesity. He notes that agricultural production wastes vast amounts of energy. Manning’s evidence is more than enough to establish the scale of the problem, and his prime exhibit of agricultural waste, Iowa, is both relevant to and representative of the bigger picture. His conclusion that modern agriculture is “insane” follows from the evidence, although his failure to weigh the damages against the benefits leaves him open to the charge of special pleading. Manning’s evidence points to the conclusion that there is no single most important consequence of petroleum use.
The paper would go on from here to consider other sources and their relationship to the unifying question and the research question. Here is the concluding paragraph:
Researchers have identified numerous unintended negative consequences of our petroleum-based economy. Some focus on a single factor and suggest that it is the most important. Others address several problems, sometimes pointing out one or two as the most important, sometimes not. My paper will argue that while all of these problems are significant, by far the most dangerous from the standpoint of human health, quality of life and social stability is that of global warming.
FYI, the two body paragraphs describing the two articles total 312 words. Multiplied by 3, for a total of 6 sources, it would reach 936 words. Together with the introductory paragraph (60 words) and the concluding paragraph (75 words), it would fall well within the word count (1,000 – 1,500).
Other Examples
In some cases you may be reading highly specialized literature, making it difficult to evaluate. Furthermore, some types of sources simply report research without any obvious thesis or point to make in a larger debate. Here is an example of how such an article might be included (the research question is, “What is the most important factor contributing to osteoporosis?”):
The study appears to be well-designed, providing relevant and representative evidence, and to have included a sufficient number of participants. The authors’ primary conclusion that osteoporosis has a strong genetic link is well-supported by the data. They do not draw any larger conclusions about whether heredity is the most important factor in determining whether an individual will experience osteoporosis.
Here are a couple more examples of how to write simple but effective critiques of reasoning, from a student paper on global warming:
… If every coal-fired plant in the world converted to clean coal, one can only imagine the amount of emissions that would cut back. It is the author’s belief that this is the best solution to global warming today. I find that her reasoning here is quite on target. An increase in efficiency would not be very expensive and the results would be tremendous.
Jet planes are another factor adding to global warming. An anonymous article in the April 2005 issue of Environment, “The Trouble With Contrails,” says that contrails form when the hot air from the jets hits cool low-pressure air in the sky. Contrails “sometimes persist for hours, trapping warmth in the atmosphere and exacerbating global warming.” The article argues that flying at lower elevations will help stop this problem. The atmosphere is thicker in the lower elevations which means more fuel is needed to propel the planes but, the authors claim, that is not as bad as having all the contrails. I have a hard time believing that the use of more fuel would not do as much damage as the contrails do. I think this author’s reasoning is a little off here.