Three arguments Essay Example for Free

Three arguments Essay Word critical argument analysis essay, focuses on three professional essays and how these authors construct their arguments using opinion and evidence. There are many different ways in which authors can construct their arguments. In the highly controversial topic of legalizing marijuana I found three very different styles of arguments in which the authors backed up their opinions with facts. In my reading of these arguments each writer had there own style. The first essay by Stephen B. Duke, Cannabis Captiva Freeing the World from Marijuana Prohibition, the second Medical marijuana laws in 50 states: Investigating the relationship between state legalization of medical marijuana and marijuana use, abuse and dependence, and the third Poll: Nationwide Marijuana Legalization Inevitable, each essay had a different way in proving there arguments. The authors all used the same tactics in persuading the audience. Arguing why marijuana should be legalized. In the first Essay written by Stephen B. Duke, Cannabis Captiva Freeing the World from Marijuana Prohibition, the author provides you with historical facts to back up his argument. He starts with how marijuana was used daily in certain cultures and goes through time showing that government abolishment is impossible. He states that government regulating the drug is possible specifically if the ban is lifted. In this argument it shows that the abolishment of alcohol only brought violence, crime and criminal organizations. In this essay it states that in the United States, large criminal organizations maintained by violence and bribery increasingly control the networks that distribute marijuana. By ultimately legalizing alcohol the government could control who it was sold to and the consumer could also rely on the quality of the liquor. By comparing marijuana with alcohol he argued that by abolishing marijuana only causes more problems and creates no way of containment. If marijuana was legalized the government could create sanctions and put control in there hands, creating no need for organized crime. The author used facts in history to support his argument. In this essay, Medical marijuana laws in 50 states: Investigating the relationship between state legalization of medical marijuana and marijuana use, abuse and dependence, the authors took a survey taken by individuals who lived in states where marijuana was legal and residents of states where marijuana was illegal. Cerda (2011)† We combined abuse and dependence into one outcome, since empirical findings indicate that it better captures the underlying prevalence of cannabis use disorders than dependence or abuse alone. While substance use disorders were originally conceived as a bi-axial syndrome with dependence capturing more physiologic dimensions of addiction and abuse capturing more behavioral consequences, there is now substantial evidence to indicate that abuse and dependence criteria, including cannabis use disorder criteria, represent a uni-dimensional construct† (para. 10). In this argumentative essay the writer takes the results of the survey and concludes that there is a strong relationship between use, abuse and dependence in states that have made marijuana legal. This argument shows that by keeping it illegal there are less people who use, abuse and become dependent on it. The author used a survey in which took results of states where marijuana was legal and where marijuana was illegal to support his argument. In the article, Poll: Nationwide Marijuana Legalization Inevitable, the author doesn’t argue a side either for or against marijuana. This article gives the results of a survey taken nationwide regarding marijuana. According to Kwtx (2014) ‘The telephone survey found that 75 percent of respondents — including majorities of both supporters and opponents of legal marijuana— think that the sale and use of pot eventually will be legal nationwide.†(para. 4) In conclusion he states that the results reflect nationwide marijuana legalization is inevitable. Without picking a side he concluded a survey of what people think will happen in the future either for or against its legalization. Although the poll didn’t reflect the fact that full legalization of marijuana is or isn’t wanted it shows you three fourths of a majority think it is inevitable that it will be legalized. This author used a survey without having an argument to support his article. Reference Duke, S. B. (2010). Cannabis captiva: Freeing the world from marijuana prohibition. Georgetown Journal of International Affairs, 11(2), 83-90. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/910990356?accountid=458 Cerda, m. (2011). Science direct. Retrieved from http://www.sciencedirect.com.ezproxy.apollolibrary.com/science/article/pii/S0376871611002742 KWTX. (2014). Retrieved from http://www.kwtx.com/centraltexasvotes/home/headlines/PollLegalization-Of-Pot-Nationwide-Is-Inevitable-253584841.html

Comparing Death in Do not go gentle into that good night and Death Be N

Death in Do not go gentle into that good night and Death Be Not Proud  Ã‚  Ã‚     Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   The poems "Do not go gentle into that good night" and "Death Be Not Proud" both deal with the subject of death. These poems seem to have contradictory messages about death, yet at the same time have similar attitudes toward it. "Death Be Not Proud" talks about how death really has no power over people, while "Do not go gentle into that good night" says that it is part of human nature to fight against death. Both "Do not go gentle into that good night" and "Death Be Not Proud" see death as an opponent; however, one sees it as an adversary that is already defeated while the other sees it as an enemy that must be defeated. In "Death Be Not Proud" Donne says "those whom thou think'st thou dost overthrow / Die not, poor Death, nor yet canst thou kill me"(lines 3-4). This passage shows Donne's belief that people will always overcome death. In Thomas' poem, he writes "Good men, the last wave by, crying how bright / Their frail deeds might have danced in the green bay, / Rage, rage against the dying of the light" (7-9). Even the "good men" are in the end defeated by death according to Thomas. The tone of both of these poems is one of resentment towards death, although in dissimilar ways. In "Death Be Not Proud" Donne hates death because it thinks it has power over humans and in his opinion just the opposite is true. Donne says that death is a "slave to Fate, Chance, kings, and desperate men." (9). He thinks death has no reason to be proud because he relies on these things for its power, so really people have power over death. Thomas feels almost the opposite, though. He sees death as having power over people, and is saying that people do not ... ...is father do the same. Although "Death Be Not Proud" is seemingly directed at the personification of death, it seems like it could also be directed at the people who treat death like it is "Mighty and dreadful" (2). He wants to get this message across to those that fear and respect death that death is controlled by people, not the other way around. These two poems can each be summed up by one line from each. In "Do not go gentle into that good night" the main point of the poem is "Old age should burn and rave at the close of day" (2), and in "Death Be Not Proud," "death shall be no more; Death, thou shalt die" (14). When one looks at these two lines, the essence of these two poets disagreement on death is typified. Thomas believes one should "not go gentle into that good night," while Donne believes death is the "Rest of their bones, and soul's delivery" (8).

Part Five Chapter XI

XI Howard had told Shirley that he did not feel well, that he thought he had better stay in bed and rest, and that the Copper Kettle could run without him for an afternoon. ‘I'll call Mo,' he said. ‘No, I'll call her,' said Shirley sharply. As she closed the bedroom door on him, Shirley thought, He's using his heart. He had said, ‘Don't be silly, Shirl', and then, ‘It's rubbish, bloody rubbish', and she had not pressed him. Years of genteel avoidance of grisly topics (Shirley had been literally struck dumb when twenty-three-year-old Patricia had said: ‘I'm gay, Mum.') seemed to have muzzled something inside her. The doorbell rang. Lexie said, ‘Dad told me to come round here. He and Mum have got something to do. Where's Grandad?' ‘In bed,' said Shirley. ‘He overdid it a bit last night.' ‘It was a good party, wasn't it?' said Lexie. ‘Yes, lovely,' said Shirley, with a tempest building inside her. After a while, her granddaughter's prattling wore Shirley down. ‘Let's have lunch at the cafe,' she suggested. ‘Howard,' she called through the closed bedroom door, ‘I'm taking Lexie for lunch at the Copper Kettle.' He sounded worried, and she was glad. She was not afraid of Maureen. She would look Maureen right in the face †¦ But it occurred to Shirley, as she walked, that Howard might have telephoned Maureen the moment she had left the bungalow. She was so stupid †¦ somehow, she had thought that, in calling Maureen herself about Howard's illness, she had stopped them communicating †¦ she was forgetting †¦ The familiar, well-loved streets seemed different, strange. She had taken a regular inventory of the window she presented to this lovely little world: wife and mother, hospital volunteer, secretary to the Parish Council, First Citizeness; and Pagford had been her mirror, reflecting, in its polite respect, her value and her worth. But the Ghost had taken a rubber stamp and smeared across the pristine surface of her life a revelation that would nullify it all: ‘her husband was sleeping with his business partner, and she never knew †¦' It would be all that anyone said, when she was mentioned; all that they ever remembered about her. She pushed open the door of the cafe; the bell tinkled, and Lexie said, ‘There's Peanut Price.' ‘Howard all right?' croaked Maureen. ‘Just tired,' said Shirley, moving smoothly to a table and sitting down, her heart beating so fast that she wondered whether she might have a coronary herself. ‘Tell him neither of the girls has turned up,' said Maureen crossly, lingering by their table, ‘and neither of them bothered to call in either. It's lucky we're not busy.' Lexie went to the counter to talk to Andrew, who had been put on waiter duty. Conscious of her unusual solitude, as she sat alone at the table, Shirley remembered Mary Fairbrother, erect and gaunt at Barry's funeral, widowhood draped around her like a queen's train; the pity, the admiration. In losing her husband, Mary had become the silent passive recipient of admiration, whereas she, shackled to a man who had betrayed her, was cloaked in grubbiness, a target of derision †¦ (Long ago, in Yarvil, men had subjected Shirley to smutty jokes because of her mother's reputation, even though she, Shirley, had been as pure as it was possible to be.) ‘Grandad's feeling ill,' Lexie was telling Andrew. ‘What's in those cakes?' He bent down behind the counter, hiding his red face. I snogged your mum. Andrew had almost skived off work. He had been afraid that Howard might sack him on the spot for kissing his daughter-in-law, and was downright terrified that Miles Mollison might storm in, looking for him. At the same time, he was not so naive that he did not know that Samantha, who must, he thought ruthlessly, be well over forty, would figure as the villain of the piece. His defence was simple. ‘She was pissed and she grabbed me.' There was a tiny glimmer of pride in his embarrassment. He had been anxious to see Gaia; he wanted to tell her that a grown woman had pounced on him. He had hoped that they might laugh about it, the way that they laughed about Maureen, but that she might be secretly impressed; and also that in the course of laughing, he might find out exactly what she had done with Fats; how far she had let him go. He was prepared to forgive her. She had been pissed too. But she had not turned up. He went to fetch a napkin for Lexie and almost collided with his boss's wife, who was standing behind the counter, holding his EpiPen. ‘Howard wanted me to check something,' Shirley told him. ‘And this needle shouldn't be kept in here. I'll put it in the back.'

What Was the Sino-Soviet Split

It would seem natural for the 20th centurys two great communist powers, the Soviet Union (U.S.S.R.) and the Peoples Republic of China (P.R.C.), to be staunch allies. However, for much of the century, the two countries were bitterly and publicly at odds in what is called the Sino-Soviet Split. But what happened? Essentially, the split actually began when  Russias working class under Marxism rebelled, while the Chinese people of the 1930s did not — creating a divide in the fundamental ideology of these two great nations that would eventually lead to the split. Roots of the Split The basis of the Sino-Soviet Split actually goes back to the writings of Karl Marx, who first put forth the theory of communism known as Marxism. Under Marxist doctrine, the revolution against capitalism would come from the proletariat — that is, urban factory workers. At the time of the 1917 Russian Revolution, middle-class leftist activists were able to rally some members of the small urban proletariat to their cause, in accordance with this theory. As a result, throughout the 1930s and 1940s, Soviet advisers urged the Chinese to follow the same path.   China, however, did not yet have an urban factory worker class.  Mao Zedong had to reject this advice and base his revolution on rural peasants instead. When other Asian nations such as North Korea, Vietnam,  and Cambodia began to turn to communism, they also lacked an urban proletariat, so followed a Maoist path rather than the classical Marxist-Leninist doctrine — to the Soviets chagrin. In 1953, Soviet Premier Joseph Stalin died, and Nikita Khrushchev came to power in the U.S.S.R. Mao considered himself now the head of international communism because he was the most senior communist leader. Khrushchev did not see it that way, since he headed one of the worlds two superpowers. When Khrushchev denounced Stalins excesses in 1956 and began de-Stalinization, as well as the pursuit of peaceful coexistence with the capitalist world, the fissure between the two countries widened. In 1958, Mao announced that China would take a Great Leap Forward, which was a classic Marxist-Leninist approach to development at odds with Khrushchevs reformist tendencies. Mao included the pursuit of nuclear weapons in this plan and disparaged Khrushchev for his nuclear detente with the United States — he wanted the P.R.C. to take the place of the U.S.S.R. as the communist superpower.   The Soviets refused to help China develop nukes. Khrushchev considered Mao a rash and potentially destabilizing force, but officially they remained allies. Khrushchevs diplomatic approaches to the U.S. also led Mao to believe that the Soviets were a potentially unreliable partner, at best. The Split Cracks in the Sino-Soviet alliance began to show publicly in 1959. The U.S.S.R. offered moral support to the Tibetan people during their 1959 Uprising against the Chinese. The split hit the international news in 1960 at the Romanian Communist Party Congress meeting, where Mao and Khrushchev openly hurled insults at one another in front of the assembled delegates. With the gloves off, Mao accused Khrushchev of capitulating to the Americans during the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis, and the Soviet leader replied that Maos policies would lead to nuclear war. The Soviets then backed India in the Sino-Indian War of 1962. Relations between the two communist powers had completely collapsed. This turned the Cold War into a three-way standoff among the Soviets, Americans, and Chinese, with neither of the two former allies offering to aid the other in taking down the rising superpower of the United States. Ramifications As a result of the Sino-Soviet Split, international politics shifted during the latter half of the 20th century.  The two communist powers nearly went to war in 1968 over a border dispute in Xinjiang, the Uighur homeland in western China. The Soviet Union even considered carrying out a preemptive strike against the Lop Nur Basin, also in Xinjiang, where the Chinese were preparing to test their first nuclear weapons. Oddly enough, it was the U.S. government that persuaded the Soviets not to destroy Chinas nuclear test sites for fear of sparking a world war. However, this would not be the end of the Russian-Chinese conflict in the region. When the Soviets invaded Afghanistan in 1979 to prop up their client government there, the Chinese saw this as an aggressive move to surround China with Soviet satellite states. As a result, the Chinese allied themselves with the U.S. and Pakistan to support the mujahideen, Afghan guerrilla fighters who successfully opposed the Soviet invasion.   The alignment flipped the following year, even as the Afghan War was ongoing. When Saddam Hussein invaded Iran, sparking the Iran-Iraq War of 1980 to 1988, it was the U.S., the Soviets, and the French who backed him. China, North Korea, and Libya aided the Iranians. In every case, though, the Chinese and the U.S.S.R. came down on opposite sides. The Late 80s and Modern Relations When Mikhail Gorbachev became the Soviet premier in 1985, he sought to regularize relations with China. Gorbachev recalled some of the border guards from the Soviet and Chinese border and reopened trade relations. Beijing was skeptical of Gorbachevs policies of perestroika and glasnost, believing that economic reforms should take place before political reforms. Nonetheless, the Chinese government welcomed an official state visit from Gorbachev late in May of 1989 and the resumption of diplomatic relations with the Soviet Union. The world press gathered in Beijing to record the moment. However, they got more than they bargained for — the Tiananmen Square Protests broke out at the same time, so reporters and photographers from around the world witnessed and recorded the Tiananmen Square Massacre. As a result, Chinese officials were likely too distracted by internal issues to feel smug about the failure of Gorbachevs attempts to save Soviet socialism. In 1991, the Soviet Union collapsed, leaving China and its hybrid system as the worlds most powerful communist state.