posted on Apr, 13 2013 @ 09:41 AM
Okay, I will first, I am here in Albany, New York so I am in the thick if this and this was discussed among my co-workers.
First off, this thing has gotten blown out of proportion and not explained very well. In this area, their English classes roll their speech & debate,
essay writing, and general grammar/punctuation in one. As disgusting of a topic as it may sound like, I see why the teacher was doing it.
In Illinois, I had a speech and debate class that involved many sensitive topics. In many of the cases we were allowed to voice agreement or
disagreement with the topic prior to debating the topic. Usually, if you were against a topic, you generally were going to debate for the topic. We
did this for improvement on our debating skills. In persuasive essays, your goal is to "persuade" the reader to either agree with you or at least
soften its resistance toward your side. In my class, I argued for gays being thrown out of the military, KKK is not a hate group, segregation/ Jim
Crow laws, drug legalization, alcohol. We debated on many topics. The goal was not to solve problems or prove anything was right or wrong. It was to
improve our skills as debaters. Its much like lawyers, you may not like your client but you must defend them.
Now the context was part of persuasive writing and though I understand what the teacher was trying to do, he did it in a real #ty way. It is a
sensitive subject and more care should have been taken when explaining the purpose of the assignment. In some of my assignments, we actually had
permission slips to to go over certain subjects and this would have been a good idea here.
It was an excellent idea in critical thinking to truly understand the art of persuasion. In debate, if you can successfully defend the position you
appall, then you can successfully defend the position you agree with.
Again, I do not agree with the way it was handled or designed, but if it were, it would have been an interesting and fruitful experience for the