Does this confirm what I know?
Does this add something new to what I know?
Does this interrupt my thinking?
During the next article about child soldiers we read about a boy Khadr, who is serving a jail sentence in Guantanamo bay. After reading this article I began to feel uneasy about my previous idea of why child soldiers should not be prosecuted. One of the quotes, "The men in Guantanamo are dangerous, and they are dangerous because they are in Guantanamo." Really jumped out at me, questioning my state of mind and I my have. I am beginning to think more on the other side of the spectrum. This article did put heavy opinions on why they should be in jail for the crimes they have done and I think I do believe in this cause. But still this statement is still a toss up for me.
Even though this article had many facts, I feel as if I knew this, but the way they presented the argument really got me thinking. So it in-fact confirm some of the thinking I had going into this essay.
But one of the facts which shocked me was that 500 to 600 hours working on Khadr's case for that conclusion, at a cost of several hundred thousand dollars to U.S. taxpayers. Which I think is absurd I possibly use in my essay.
Article of the Memo= Debate Wise
- I began to realize that the introduction for the con side is very strong
- The next point was that they volunteered which I knew but I still agreed with the Pro side
- I actually believed in both sides the next go round. As they both slightly agreed it depends on the scenario is he a victim of this or a fanatic
- But once it started to mention "Revenge for the Victims" and not making a law gives commander a right made it impossible to not agree
- These were the main points which I thought I could use in my essay. So I went head did more research and changed my decision thanks to this article.
Draft
Introduction introduce the topic and my side
Why I care:
Main argument They have done very harsh things and the victims need revenge
Main rebuttal But they did not know that ( education)
Supporting argument #1 We should have a system of punishment put in place. Because, if we don’t the commanders may be encouraged and may think they can get away with it. Since they know they will be no war crimes against them or the child soldiers. Because of this they may think it is totally fine using children to fight wars; they also can sneak away from the cruel crimes they’ve committed. Since the international services can not fight these wars against them. Such examples include the .Convention on the Rights of the Child which protects the children from prosecution recognized by the United Nations(Wikipedia). By us prosecuting the children we will set an clear example that anyone in the act will face prosecution, and maybe we could see a decrease in child soldiers because of this. And because of this we may not even need to debate if the child soldiers should or should be prosecuted.
Supporting argument #1 rebuttal Persecutions happen post war not pre war
Supporting argument #2 We do not know about them and the organization they were part of in order to protect society
Supporting argument #2 rebuttal But the punishments will be cruel to the kids who want to seek help
Supporting argument #3 If we never teach these kids it’s wrong they will never learn
Supporting argument #3 rebuttal But we can do so in a much easier way
Conclusion conclude the and give benefits from the cause
No comments:
Post a Comment