You need this for the argument.

Stock Issues for Claims of Policy

In a Claim of Policy we are asking if something should or ought be done. Because we don’t naturally like change as it is a disruption to our comfort state and there might be some negative resulting ramifications, we need to ask a series of seven very specific questions.

Is there a problem? That is, does a problem currently exist or is it a potential problem we need to address. It might be small now, but is it one that could get more important or dangerous?

Is the problem significant? How important is the current problem? Is it just an inconvenience or is it a major problem? Is the current situation costing you money or time? How much?

Is the problem structural or attitudinal? Is the source of the problem structural (caused by rules or regulations) or is it attitudinal (caused by what people think, their attitudes)?

Can the problem be fixed with the system? Instead of adopting the solution of the claim, can we solve the problem we describe through the current approach we are using? Could actually implement minor repairs or minor fixes to the current system in order to solve our problem?

Is there a workable solution? Can the problem actually be solved? Can the problem be solved in the plan we propose, or is it just too overwhelming to be solved? Do have the technology or knowledge, or resources to solve the problem at this time?

Will the proposed solution actually solve the problem? Does the solution you proposing actually solve the problem or will the problem still exist after you have proposed the solution?

Will the solution create negative ramifications that will the problem being solved? Every solution has “side effects.” What are those “side effects” or ramifications that will occur if the solution is implemented? Do these negative ramifications outweigh the problems that are solved by adopting the claim that is being argued? Think about those t.v. commercials for new medication where they list all the possible side effects. Do some of these side effects make you think you would be better off without the medicine and just sticking with the original problem?

Now I’m sending you 3 files, you chose please which one you want to work.

1. Briefing Material

Topic: Increasing controls on gun ownership

Background:

The United States has 88.8 guns per 100 people, or about 270,000,000 guns,

which is the highest total and per capita number in the world. 22% of Americans

own one or more guns (35% of men and 12% of women). America’s pervasive

gun culture stems in part from its colonial history, revolutionary roots, frontier

expansion, and the Second Amendment, which states: “A well regulated militia,

being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep

and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

Views in favor of increasing controls on gun ownership

Proponents of more gun control laws state that the Second Amendment was

intended for militias; that gun violence would be reduced; that gun restrictions

have always existed; and that a majority of Americans, including gun owners,

support new gun restrictions.

Views opposing increasing controls on gun ownership

Opponents say that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to own

guns; that guns are needed for self-defense from threats ranging from local

criminals to foreign invaders; and that gun ownership deters crime rather than

causes more crime.

2. Briefing Material

Topic: Changing the current use of military drones strategy

Background:

Unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), otherwise known as drones, are remotely-

controlled aircraft which may be armed with missiles and bombs for attack

missions. Since the World Trade Center attacks of Sep. 11, 2001 and the

subsequent “War on Terror,” the United States has used thousands of drones to

kill suspected terrorists in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Yemen, Somalia, and other

countries.

Views in favor of changing the current military drone strategy

Opponents say that drone strikes create more terrorists than they kill. They

contend that drone strikes kill large numbers of civilians, violate international law,

lack sufficient congressional oversight, violate the sovereignty of other nations,

and make the horrors of war appear as innocuous as a video game.

Views opposing changing the current military drone strategy

Proponents say that drones have decimated terrorist networks abroad via precise

strikes with minimal civilian casualties. They contend that drones are relatively

inexpensive weapons, are used under proper government oversight, and that

their use helps prevent “boots on the ground” combat and makes America safer.

3. Briefing Material

Topic: Lowering the Age to be Allowed to Legally Consume Alcohol

Background:

Last month, more than 100 college presidents signed a petition calling for a

debate on whether the minimum legal drinking age should be lowered from 21 to

18.

The statement says in part: “Our experience as college and university presidents

convinces us that twenty-one is not working. A culture of dangerous, clandestine

‘binge-drinking’ — often conducted off-campus — has developed.”

Views For the lowering of the drinking age:

A 2003 study showed that in many countries with lower minimum drinking ages,

15- and 16-year-olds are less likely to become intoxicated compared with teens

in the U.S.

This out-of-control drinking may be fueled by the age-21 laws, which drive

underage youth to drink in clandestine settings and apart from older adults who

might model more appropriate behavior.

Views Against lowering the drinking age:

There have been numerous studies that showed that a higher age resulted in

lower rates of alcohol consumption and traffic crashes.

Keys and Steps for an Effective Final:

Create a claim of policy. Make sure it is worded against the status quo

Focus on the issues that describe the problem, can the problem be fixed within

the system and the ramifications that would result.

Create one sentence contentions.

State which side of the claim you will be arguing.

Prove your contentions with evidence and reasoning.