 |
| "Context Logo". 4/22/09 via Wikipedia. Public Domain License. |
1. Schools of thought on my controversy have a lot to do with environmentalism, tying in with politics. Many people believe that it's politicians' jobs to control the messes that hydrofracking has or has threatened to cause in areas it is being performed. Another school of though is that hydrofracking allows for very cheap energy in very large quantities, which is a main part of the reason this topic is controversial.
2. Major disagreements between these schools of thought is that the anti-fracking side believes no amount of energy is worth damaging the environment as well as putting the lives of people living in these areas in jeopardy. The pro-fracking side disagrees and thinks that cheap energy will do this the world wonders because the demand for energy is continuing to grow.
3. The main point of agreement between these perspectives would be that the world today needs energy to function.
4. Supporters of fracking must value the overall quality of life in a country more than the quality of a few thousand that live in areas where fracking is going on. Those against fracking must value the health and safety of the environment and must also see the big picture and how our actions today affect the future of the world.
5. Those against fracking ask their audience to understand where they are coming from when expressing their concerns over this. They also obviously ask these drilling companies to end fracking unless they can do it safely.
6. The perspective against hydrofracking will be the most useful to me when doing this project because there are lots of layers and reasons why these people are so against it. Protests have been going on for years and there still hasn't been much of a change so the reason for their determination will help me build my own argument.
7. The fact that hydrofracking does bring so much energy from the earth will be a threat to my argument because I don't have any alternatives to how we could be getting the oil and natural gas.
Reflection
I read Stef's blog post and she wrote a lot more than I did when answering the questions, so maybe I should think about analyzing the context a bit further. She seems to really know what she's talking about and is very passionate about health. I hope that's how I sound about my topic. I also read Gabee's blog post and it was much shorter than Stef's and mine. I'm not sure if this is a good or bad thing, but she might want to think a bit more in detail about what exactly the context is and how that will help her formulate her own argument.
I thought your post was very thorough, detailed, and concise. I felt like I talked too much and might have made my topic a bit confusing. I like how yours was concise, but it got the message across. After reading yours, I am going to go back to mine and look over how I could make it sound a little more concise but remain detailed. I think I might have been too specific in mine. However, I think both of ours answered this blog post's question correctly.
ReplyDeleteI enjoyed reading this blog post because we are in very similar situations. I have a debate that is a clear two-sided argument and I have a clear opinion on which side I stand with. Similar to the argument for fracking, the side I do not associate myself with has good arguments that will be difficult for me to disprove.
ReplyDelete