Yankee's Argument Analysis

Today, Americans are worried about the effects plastic bag impact the environment. In the dispute between the Gulftowne Gazette Committe and gift shop owner Theo Jones, the Gulftowne Ordinance Committee provides a stronger argument for it point that plastic bags litter our landscape and threatening surrounding wildlife. As the Gulftowne Ordinance Committee points out cities across the country and globe have banned the use of plastic bag.

The Quinnipiac University poll was done during early September to test the waters before the first presidential debate between Clinton and Trump. The sample size was roughly 960, supposedly voters from across the nation with a margin of error of +- 3.2 which isn’t horrible. The numbers look fine and because it was a nationwide poll, the possibility of getting a fair and accurate cross section of views is fairly high, that being said there are a few issues with this poll that cause me to be concerned with the accuracy of this poll for many reasons.

1. One of the main arguments of the debate was situated against inventive and the ways it presented itself in Hillary Clinton’s campaign. For example the proposition said that Clinton’s background was a good indicator of her future decisions and that inventive is based off of situated. The opposition rebuttal included the argument that situated is only a platform and the way she speaks now and the narrative that is created is more important is current predicament of the race. The also debated on party allegiance and the factors that play into that. The proposition argued that depending on your political party, you bring different situated ethos while the opposition debated that especially in this election, using examples of the split Republican

The first aspect of choice showcased by Stewart is the delegation of authority. As per her statement, whenever she is close with a member of the management team, she shares problems that she faces as a leader and works with the junior manager to arrive at a decision. This also showcases her willingness and ability to share information as well as an attribute of trust towards her members of staff.

Short and to the point, Capt. Serrano’s article can be summed up by her quote, “Marine infantry isn’t broken, it doesn’t need to be “fixed”.” She decided to write about this issue in response to the base newspaper asking readers to submit articles that debated controversial policies in the Military and Marine Corps. Although she stated that she usually does not join in with these discussions due to the vast amount of differing opinions amongst her peers, she worked up the courage to “Be Bold”, as the Gazette advertisement called for. As a female, she knew she would be ruffling some feathers by disagreeing to let women join the infantry, but it’s a topic she felt too strongly about to stay silent.

The first chapter of Howard Fineman’s national best-selling book, The Thirteen American Arguments, focuses on Abraham Lincoln’s famous question, asking if everyone is a person. Are black men and women people? Are women people? Are unborn children people? Are gays people? Who in our constitutional scheme, is a person?

Both letter to the editor and editorial staff offer position that are supported by both facts and opinions. The letter explores to urges the new reusable bag ordinance while the editorial staff argues that they are serious about making Proposition 328 mandatory in every store. While both side make an acceptable case, it is clear that the letter provides a better argument.

Throughout our lives, we will come across other individuals whose opinions differ from ours. Whether we decide to shadow their beliefs or stay strong to our own, it is how we handle the situation, as well as what we take from it, that shapes our character. I am now aware that, for the most part, it is best to have your own voice and remain firm to what you believe in instead of changing your views in order to please others just to fit in.

Jessie Little Doe Baird is an incredible linguist whose groundbreaking work at MIT helped to bring back the said to be death language of the Wampanoag indians of Massachusetts. She is working to bring the language more into the light and the ancient culture as well by teaching classes, creating programs, and even a dictionary for the words of the language. This work can help us to understand an article previously discussed in class by James clifford, on the Mashpee indian tribe. This article was about the disagreement over whether or not the Mashpee indians were considered to be an official tribe. They had been told that since they had been so integrated into modern society, by marriage, migration, language, and religion, that they no longer held a tribal culture nor legal tribal status. The proclaimed Mashpee tribe attempted to fight this, with arguments that their land was stipped from them in the past and that their culture was still alive. In the end, the verdict was that since the Mashpee had lost their tribal status years ago, they could no longer be considered a tribe.

Brennan argues that one should not vote badly. I will be arguing in favor of Brennan’s argument. I will first start by stating the author’s argument, then I will propose objections to his argument.

In my search to find an argument for omnivores, I found, despite typing in the exact opposite, that pro veganism articles outnumbered most them. Nevertheless, I discovered a piece about reverting from veganism on the blog of Aaron Moritz. The author’s reason for his renascent into his former meat-eating ways were primarily for health purposes. Ironically, health was a motive for converting to his vegan lifestyle. Differing is Moritz’s argument for as to why he completely renewed his sentiments on consuming meat.

On June 6th 2015, Lee Siegel wrote an op-ed piece titled "Why I Defaulted on My Student Loans" which should cause one to wonder how the New York Times allowed such an irresponsible article to be published. Siegel encourages impressionable young students to take loans with the intent of defaulting. He gives advice, based off of a "moral" argument, to accumulate large debts and effectively steal from the government in order to pursue your dreams. Since when did pursuing one's dreams validate committing crimes? Siegel attempts to validate his irresponsible behavior through these types of faulty arguments.

Philo does not mind that the argument is a posteriori; his only complaint is that it is a bad argument. Philo brings up several ways in which the argument from design fails as an inductive inference. To begin with, he claims that the analogy is no good. He asserts that the universe and a machine are not comparable in the way that the red and blue flames are comparative, and hence, a contention by similarity is not substantial. Philo's second objection is that the analogy does not work since it is between an entire and a part of that entirety. A machine is a part of the universe, and it looks bad to accept that one part of the universe is comparable to the entire of the universe since we have no experience of alternate parts. Philo's third objection is that not all order is the result of design. Therefore, it is conceivable that the universe is not undifferentiated from a machine despite the fact that it is requested; it may be practically equivalent to some other type of request and not to a man-made structure. For instance, some highly ordered systems that we know of are the result of reproduction instead of intelligent design. Just because there is order, therefore, it does not mean

Philo argues the argument from design that shows that god is infinity, perfection, and unification. He made a claim that shows his unsupported to this argument, which has the idea of the universe design. This claim plays a significant role to the general thrust of the discussion in the Dialogues. Philo disagree with the argument and says that there is no nature evidence of god’s infinity, perfection, and unification.

Have you noticed a trend with the historical arguments? We're continuously on opposing sides each week, however, this is a good thing. The discussions are much more interesting when you have to research to make your claim stronger. Additionally, I respect and appreciate reading your perspective and feelings. Without further ado, I disagree with your argument for the following reasons. Critics have argued that Truman's decision to drop the atomic bomb was a barbaric act that brought negative long-term consequences to the United States. Additionally, some military analysts insist that Japan had been weak, ergo the bombings were unnecessary. Therefore, the American government was accused of racism on the grounds that nuclear weapons would never