ENGL3 Free Speech Threatened on College Campuses Debate Essay The file attached below contains the requirements, do as listed. The link to the debate is: h

ENGL3 Free Speech Threatened on College Campuses Debate Essay The file attached below contains the requirements, do as listed. The link to the debate is: http://www.intelligencesquaredus.org/debates/abolish-death-penalty (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site.You are on wendy and john’s side and will talk about ONLY one of the two. The essay is on the file below, you will be writing a completely new essay and the essay below is only so you know what NOT to do. Follow the instructors comment below: “One panelist and only one panelist should have been the focus of the entire essay. If you chose Wendy Kaminer then you should not have included John McWhorter. If you chose John McWhoter for the focus of the essay, then you should not have included Wendy Kaminer. In the introduction, you should have summarized one panelist and only one panelist, and you should have ended your introduction with your one sentence conclusion statement—your overall reason or reasons why you believe this panelist’s argument didn’t work. In the body paragraphs (for each body paragraph), you should first summarize a specific premise from the panelist’s argument, explain the premise, and then critique it. When you critique each premise, you should consider the type of argument panelist used—argument by generalization, analogy, authority and causation—and the rules associated with each rule. You should reread the sample essay, explanation of assignment, document on structure of assignment, and all other material for essay.” Mr. Palsgaard
English 3
Essay #1
Length: 1250 words Worth: 100 pts. Do Not Use Source Material for this Essay.
Discussion board #4 for essay #1: Friday, March 22nd 11:59 pm. Worth 10pts. Please read
discussion board #4 for instructions in reference to essay #1.
Final draft is due Friday, March 29th 11:59 pm. If you turn in work for discussion board #4, you
can rewrite the paper. No rough draft, then the score you receive on your final draft is the
permanent score for the paper.
Rewrite: You can rewrite essay #1 after you receive a score if you have completed work for
discussion board #4. You will have four weeks from the moment I return the scored draft back to
rewrite your paper.
I. Overview of Assignment
Our first writing assignment will be based on debates we have covered in class: “Free Speech is
Threatened on [College] Campus” and “Abolish the Death Penalty.” For this assignment, you
will have to choose one panelist from the two debates, and critique his or her argument. Choose
one panelist and only one panelist. I strongly suggest you choose a debater that you
predominately don’t agree with. We usually have more to write when we don’t agree with a
debater. The purpose of this assignment is to critique a specific argument in essay form, and use
the rules of A Rulebook of Argument as the basis of your critique. The point of the critique is not
to argue the issue as much as it is to critique the argument. In other words, it is very possible you
may agree with the debater’s stance/position on the issue, but your paper will show not why the
stance or position is bad but why the argument the debater made doesn’t work. Of course, it
could be the case that for you both are true: you disagree with debater’s position, and you think
the argument is bad. In any case, choose one panelist from the two different debates we
covered—“Free Speech is Threatened”: Wendy Kaminer and John McWhorter, pro position;
Jason Stanley and Shaun Harper, for con position. “Abolish the Death Penalty”: Diann RustTierney and Barry Scheck, pro position; Robert Blecker and Kent Scheidegger—and write an
essay in which you critique the argument as an argument. Here again, your position on the issue
isn’t the point of essay #1. Critique the panelist’s argument as an argument. Here again, choose
one panelist’s argument for the focus of your paper.
II. Structure
A. Introduction: Summary and Conclusion.
Summary: In your introduction, you will have to summarize the debater’s argument in
question. You should focus on the debater’s main premises, and you should consider the
debater’s argument throughout the entire debate, although you only need to include
premises you will challenge in your body paragraphs. So, remember the requirements of a good
summary when you summarize debater’s argument. Please write a new summary for this
assignment.
Conclusion (thesis statement): End your summary with your conclusion, your overall reason on
why you believe the argument didn’t work. You conclusion/thesis should be one sentence, and
should be the last sentence of your introduction. One method of writing a conclusion is this:
issue + stance (because) overview of reason or reasons for stance.
Ex: John or Jane Doe’s argument (issue) failed (stance) because his/her argument was offtopic and superficial.
B. Body Paragraphs
Each body paragraph should focus on a specific premise: (1) Summarize a specific premise; (2)
explain the premise, if you need to, along with any evidence; and (3) critique premise and
evidence. To the best of your ability, show why the premise/evidence doesn’t work.
The body paragraphs are obviously the bulk of your essay, and they are the pay off and defense
of your conclusion. The homework assignments on the four types of argument, I hope, would be
used here. Just as you had to critique specific paragraphs using the rules for each argument, so
you should critique the debater’s premises and evidence. You should consider what type of
argument the debater is using and what rules might be used to critique the argument in order to
support your response. You don’t need to cite specific rules. In fact, please don’t cite the rule or
the number of the rule. Moreover, please don’t feel chained to the rules. Before you consider
types of argument, try to work out your own understanding on what fails with premises and
evidence. Allow the rules and content of Rulebook to strengthen your own ideas and help you
articulate your own ideas. Here again, begin with your reasoning and language on why the
premises and evidence don’t work, and then use Rulebook to help articulate your ideas.
C. Overarching Structure of the Paper
You need to consider how you will arrange the body paragraphs. What body paragraph do you
want to begin with, what paragraph do you want to end with, and what chain of paragraphs do
you want for the middle section of your argument? Each body paragraph should build off of one
another, and you should consider how the overarching arrangement of your body paragraphs
builds your overall argument for the paper. You could arrange paragraphs from weakest
(relatively weak) to the strongest point. But in general, each body paragraph should show a
continuation of thought. Consider transitions when move from paragraph to paragraph.
III. Final Comments
Be sure you read over hand out on structure for essay #1. I posted sample essay, so please review
it. The paper must conform to the MLA style. In other words, the paper must be word-processed
in a 12-point font (preferable Times-New Roman), and must be double-spaced. Your margins
must be 1 inch all around, except for the header. Place your last name and page number ½ inch
from the top on the right hand corner of each page. Remember to type your name, course,
instructor’s name, assignment, and date on the upper left-hand corner of the paper. Please give
your paper a title. Lastly, do not use source material for essay #1. You can use comments or
ideas from other panelists, but no outside sources at all. If you use any source material or any
material that does need in-text citations and works cited, I will send your essay #1 back to you
and you will have to cut the source material from the paper before I can score your essay.
Braich1
Ravneet Braich
Loren Palsgaard
ENGL 3
March 29, 2019
Pros on “Free speech threatened on College Campuses” Debate
Introduction
A debate is a formal discussion process that involves a certain topic. It occurs on
academic institutions, public meetings as well as legislative assemblies of countries. The debate
involves a moderator, debate participants as well as audience. The moderator ensures there is
peaceful debate among the participants. While the participant for the motion gives out the point
that supports the motion, while participants against the motion give points that disagree with the
motion. In this case, the “Free speech threatened on college campuses,” debate was held at Yale
University which was moderated by John Donvan, while Wendy Kaminer and Professor John
McWhorter being the participant towards the motion. On the other hand, Shaun Harper and Jason
Stanley were against for the motion. The main point on this paper is to support the topic as
Wendy and John did in the debate.
Wendy’s and John’s Views
Some of the major points arising to this motion are like protesters shutting down those
who diverge from them and demand defense from views that they find offensive. Some subject
matters have been labeled off the table from the discussion, which leaves no room on campuses
for unlike ideas. Also, students have gone too far with their demands when protesting though
some of the issues being opposed are legitimate concerns. Currently, many complaints have
blown up in most campuses over the country. In these protests, students are speaking of racial
Braich2
injustice which has long been observed in unwelcoming and aggressive environments. However,
these students protest has gone too far which has created intolerance atmosphere for opposing the
viewpoint. The questions are; in these protests, are the protestors silencing free speech or are
they trying only to be heard? Also are the universities, on the other hand, trying to defend
themselves through free speech or suppressing it?
Wendy Kaminer in her pros on the motion “Free speech threatened on college campuses,”
stated that allowing free speech is on campus, enables the right to free speech has and is
significantly increasing in diminishing. On Wendy opening statement, she said that it is
empirically unquestionable on various universities that speech is termed as unpleasant to less
privileged students as a manifestation of discrimination. In her conclusion statement, Wendy
described the case of a speaker at “Williams College” who had his invitation revoked due to
allegations he had made on racist remarks. This made the student, who was prominent of free
speech to be denounced and threatened on campus as well as spoken to in the vassal dialects. In
most cases, when people want to regulate expression, they mostly call it ‘verbal conduct.’
To silence the relatively powerless, free speech is used as a privileged instrument. Thus,
justness needs the unequal distribution of speech rights. It also denotes that the power of listeners
not to be offended can be evaluated over the right to speak, saying that the right to talk may
depend on the forecasted individual responses of the audience while free speech cannot contain
what people do not mind hearing what is said. Words are weapons that can be used against
fighting others and cause violence, and that is why in most cases, words are protected.
Weaponized speech can be an ideal form of nonviolent political combat. Some of the cases
where the ‘weaponized speech’ has been used are like students protests about discrimination on
campuses.
Braich3
However, according to Wendy, the problem with the protests is that it aims to punish and
suppress other people’s speech by labeling them as ‘microaggressions’ forms of discrimination.
It is not a wonder to find in campuses, contentious speakers being unwanted in response to
student protests. There are also so many speech codes that prevent various form of harsh speech,
which in many cases are enforced by the students. Is there a need for students to protest in
everything they feel like to protest against depending on the civilized term they want? The
answer to this is yes. The reason for this is that such protest assists them in ensuring an
agreement and avoids processes of being discriminated. Hence, when the expression of
unpopular views is demonized, a community of frightened conformists is created.
John McWhorter in his support for the motion he emphasized that situations such as the
“Williams College scenario” as described by Wendy, they are happening on campuses currently
in an increased frequency. John stated that the current propensity is to eliminate or bring down
those people who do not share or support political or cultural issues. In his conclusion, John
emphasized on how the word racist silences people. According to McWhorter, speech has been
problematic in campuses mostly to those who tend to go against the cultural issues of the college.
In campuses, justice can be complicated, and students should be careful with terminologies they
use such as “microaggressions” or racism. These terminologies always hurt those being referred
to in one way or another. The problem occurs when the idea supported by others get opposed by
some, who are viewed as ignorant at best as well as immoral at worst.
As John stated that “Instead, I’m afraid what we see on one campus or another is an idea
that shaming people and shutting them down by the ample use of buzzwords, slogans, and
sonorous cadence is somehow okay when it comes to espousing a leftist agenda. It’s as if we’re at
Braich4
the end of ideas.” Therefore, if a person mostly in America could want to shut another person
down, calling him a racist is enough, but only the bravest people would enjoy the argument.
Additional Evidence to the Motion
Also, to support the motion, there are examples which we can relate to in support of the
motion. The free speech in campuses is threatened by different directions like; police agents,
passionate administrators, and the intolerant students of dissent. Also, activists threaten the
statement when they agitate for speech codes and sections for professors or even the students
who tend to disapprove with them. Also, those who push to disinvite speakers due to their
viewpoints also threaten free speech. Moreover, those who shut down others or events to avoid
people from speaking also participate in threatening free speech. But both Stanley and Harper
could not view t how much free speech is in threat since they defended the speech codes or being
blind on the degree and number of threats to speech.
Besides, professors, as well as students in campuses, see those that are around them being
punished for their way of thinking and decide to keep quiet instead of speaking their minds. If
students or professors are asked about the scenarios, it is not a wonder to hear them talking it out
of how their speech gets chilled. The reason as to why they feel or decide to keep quest is
because they fear that their place at the school can be endangered. This can happen mostly if they
open honestly about the controversies of campus. Another reason for them being or keeping
quiet is because they do not want to be targets of intolerant activists.
Conclusion
It is clear from the above that free speech is threatened on college campuses. Through
the points given by Wendy and John in the debate held at Yale University and others added in
the process, no one cannot stand and defend that free speech is not threatened in campuses.
Braich5
However, doubters who cannot correctly distinguish the evidence ought to look at appropriate
material thoroughly before abandoning free-speech concerns. Harper, as well as Stanley among
other doubters, should look at the proof and join others who are already engaged in this case.
Therefore, free speech is threatened; evidence on campuses is overwhelming.
Braich6
Work cited
Intelligence Squared Debates (Mar 7, 2016) “Free Speech Is Threatened on Campus,” Retrieved
from; https://youtu.be/VrD_tSdWv4w

Purchase answer to see full
attachment