Description In your own words, summarize the prompt and state the question it raises. Introduce briefly two different sides of the issue, i.e. the one that agrees with the conclusion, and the other that rejects the conclusion. State your position on the issue in question and list your reasons starting with the best one. Do not explain your reasons since that comes in the following paragraph. Develop an argument for your position by addressing the reasons that you listed above. Start with stating a reason in the topic sentence, and then explain it. Use separate paragraphs for each reason. Address an argument for the opposing view, and follow the same format: state their reason and then reject it, i.e. show why it is not as good as they think. All points you make in your essay should be connected to the question you are writing about. Your essay will be graded for its content, clarity and grammar. This essay must be your individual work. Prompt: Should the public be shown actual courtroom trials on television? It seems as though the system can easily be corrupted by having cameras in the courtroom. Victims are hesitant enough when testifying in front of a small crowd, but their knowledge that every word is being sent to countless homes would increase the likelihood that they would simply refuse to testify. There is little to no assumed innocence for the accused when their trial is put on television. People do not watch court television because they are concerned about our country’s ability to effectively carry out the proceedings of the judicial system; instead, they are looking for the drama in witness testimony: entertainment. Thus, leave the cameras out of the courtrooms, and let the public view sitcom drama based off of the legal system.
Description Rousseau believed a true democracy exists only when every single adult votes, every single law: that is the only way the "will of the people" speaks. If any subgroup of people, such as elect representatives, make or change law, that is not democracy, since the majority's view is not enacted. So, there are no laws that have not received 51%+ of the vote and every law must receive this to be a law. How can we ensure that every adult citizen votes on every single law, whatever it is, eliminating all elected representatives? Sketch a program. ???What would the book that would be given to every adult each year say about each law? Would it just explain each law? Would it also offer arguments for and against each? Who would write the arguments for and against each law? (Assume that one official book and/or website would have each law listed which shall be voted on by all adults annually.) How does each law get proposed to get into the book/onto the official website annually, to be voted on each year by all citizens? Can anyone propose a law or must a certain number of people vote for that-and how many of these pre-votes can there be each year, to determine which laws will be voted on How would each adult be incentivized to vote? What would happen to those who refuse to vote? And how could society stop the problem of paying people to vote one way or another? (Assume advertising is illegal in this true democracy where everyone votes: then paying for votes becomes the problem.) ???Last: Even the amount of incarceration time for crime x would be voted on. Consider the following law upon which every single adult votes. How would you vote and how do you think the majority of adults would vote? "Every person found guilty of possessing and/or using an illegal substance shall serve a maximum of 3 months in jail."
Description Writing a Philosophy Position Paper provides each student an opportunity: to write on a topic they strongly agree, or not, agree on to apply reasoning skills that support the philosophical position taken reflect on their own reactions to topics they feel strongly about Goal The goal of this assignment is to write a well-reasoned Philosophy Position Paper related to: "Global Citizenship, Human Rights, and the Philosophy of Religion." Parts of the Position Paper Part 1: Formulate a thesis or statement of intention (2 points) Part 2: Write 3 premises (true statements) that support your argument (12 points) Part 3: Choose the most compelling objection to your position (2 points) Part 4: Refute that objection with a convincing reason (2 points) Part 5: Develop a well-stated conclusion (2 points) Part 6: Complete a peer review) (5 points)
Description essay is a bit confusing because you appear to be arguing two different things. You begin by arguing Descartes' mind-body dualism, but then you start to argue his method of doubting, then you go back to the mind-body dualism. To make things easier to understand, I would just argue one. The main idea of your paper seems to be focused on the mind-body dualism. If this is the case, then I would remove the sections about his method of doubting, for it does not seem relevant to the mind-body dualism argument. 2. Make sure you are very clear on the stance you are taking regarding Descartes' mind-body dualism. In several passages you speak of "supporting" Descartes' argument, but then you bring in sources that seem to argue against it. All the philosophers you bring in seem to criticize Descartes' mind-body dualism. So, if your goal is to criticize Descartes, just make that very clear in the introduction. 3. Regarding the philosophers you are using. I wanted you to use only two other philosophers in your paper. You mention two in your introduction, but it appears you are using at least four for the dualism argument (on even more for the doubting argument). If you are having trouble meeting the minimum five-page limit, I will let you use three other philosophers but no more. This means you have to go into much more detail of what each of those philosophers are trying to say. As of now, you briefly mention their position.you need to go into much more detail on how they criticize Descartes and how they prove he is incorrect in his dualism position.
Description Reflection offers you the opportunity to consider how your personal experiences and observations shape your thinking and your acceptance of new ideas.  High-stress levels can negatively affect health. Recall a time when you were under stress and how it impacted your physical and mental health. The purpose of this essay is to take your reflections on your experience to the next level and start thinking about future growth. Support your experience and recommendations with research. Instructions Carefully follow the instructions and the Grading Rubric for this assignment. Create a Reflective Essay using a Word Document file. Use APA 7th edition formatting and include a title and reference page. Write a 4 pages double-spaced reflective essay sharing your experiences with how stress can impact mental and physical health and your recommendations on how to cope with stress. Make sure to include the following along with your experience: Explain why stress occurs.  Give at least 3 reasons. Elaborate on at least 3 biological consequences of stress, emotion, and cognitive outlook on overall health. Explain at least 3 ways stress can help to motivate someone to change their behavior.
Description Each journal entry is a paragraph on one of the assigned readings, and each entry discusses a different reading assignment. Each journal entry must include at least one quote from the reading assignment. Select a quote that makes a claim you have an opinion about, explain the quote in the context of the article it came from, and then express your opinion about it. For example, you may think the author is right, or wrong, or leaving out something important, etc. To receive full credit, you must express an opinion and give a reason for that opinion. The goal of the journal entry is NOT to summarize the reading. Rather, the goal is to think about what the reading says, whether on the whole or in some specific part. For example, you could dispute an author's interpretation of an example, critique a particular argument or conclusion, discuss how the author's view applies -- or fails to apply -- to your own experience, relate the material to a TV show or movie, etc.  What you think is up to you, but you must be sharing your own thoughts as opposed to just summarizing or saying generic things like "the author raises profound issues."
Description Practicing the philosophical life. Over the last few weeks, we've learned from various philosophers about what it means to live the "philosophical" life. A central theme in all of these works is moderation, which is achieved through various practices. Sometimes, the philosopher recommends forms of abstinence (Plotinus), some recommend meditation (Aurelius), and others recommend taking a new perspective on things that make you angry (Seneca). To complete this discussion you must first attempt to apply one of these practices for 5 days. You can either 1) Abstain from something you enjoy (Netflix, Social Media, your favorite food, etc.) 2) Spend one hour a day meditating like Marcus Aurelius (Remember this form of meditation is different than the relaxing type one finds in yoga. Instead you want to spend an hour thinking about how you can live a happier life. What things are standing in your way? What can you do to change your own attitudes? Are you living in harmony with the universe or are you fighting against it? Are you performing your service to others and society well?) 3) Identify the thing in life that makes you angry. Try to change your perspective so that thing no longer makes you angry. (For example, expect traffic to be bad and plan to make a long commute enjoyable) After you've attempted to complete one of these tasks for 5 days, submit an essay that is at least 350 words and create a video response of your experience. Tell me how it went. Was it hard or easy? Was it a helpful exercise? Would you do it again? Is there a way to make these kinds of practices part of everyday life? etc. If you don't want your face on the video. Film a contemplative location and just talk over the video. If you don't want to talk maybe figure out how to add text to your video.
Description Workshop Exercise Set 10, PART II Page 482 in textbook LINK TO TEXTBOOK IF NEEDED: https://library.lol/main/10C82D0D35FE260F3B2240ABF... Answer these two questions #11 A metallurgist added eight substances in various combinations to seven samples of molten aluminum for the purpose of producing aluminum alloys. The metallurgist was interested in producing an alloy that had a special resistance to corrosion. The samples were distinguished by the following characteristics. Samples 1, 2, and 3 contained both tin and copper, but only samples 1 and 2 were resistant. Samples 6 and 7 contained both silver and iron, but only sample 7 was resistant. Samples 4 and 5 contained sodium, but only sample 5 was resistant. In addition, samples 1 and 7 contained zinc, silicon, and nickel. Sample 2 contained sodium, iron, and silicon, and sample 5 contained silicon and copper. Finally, sample 3 contained nickel, and sample 4 contained zinc. Assuming no interaction occurs among these eight additives, what conclusion can the metallurgist draw about these addi- tives? Construct a table that supports this conclusion. Which one of Mill’s methods did the metallurgist use? What sense of causality is involved in the conclusion? #12 A doctor has five patients who suffer from an unusual form of cancer. The patients are distinguished by the following living conditions. Davis, Jones, and Ellis live in a smoggy area near high-voltage power lines, and Smith and Frank smoke cigarettes and live downwind from a company that produces chemi- cal defoliants for the military. Frank also lives near the nuclear power plant. Davis, Smith, and Ellis eat red meat every day and live near the nuclear power plant. Jones smokes cigarettes and lives downwind from the chemical defoli- ant company. Smith lives in a smoggy area, and Davis and Ellis live down- wind from the defoliant company. What can the doctor conclude is the cause of the cancer? Construct a table that supports this conclusion. Which one of Mill’s methods did the doctor use? What sense of causality is involved in the conclusion?
