Should refugees be accepted in the US?

Should refugees be accepted in" rel="nofollow">in the US? Order Description Fin" rel="nofollow">inal Paper Outlin" rel="nofollow">ine (18-25 pgs, not in" rel="nofollow">includin" rel="nofollow">ing Appendices or Works Cited) (This outlin" rel="nofollow">ine is largely adapted from the Capstone Handbook, but it is not the same. I will be usin" rel="nofollow">ing this outlin" rel="nofollow">ine to grade your papers, not the one from the Handbook. Hin" rel="nofollow">int: You can use shortened versions of these outlin" rel="nofollow">ined poin" rel="nofollow">ints as headers in" rel="nofollow">in your paper.) I. Introduction A. Introduction to the controversy and openin" rel="nofollow">ing paragraph(s) B. Documentation of the social problem(s). C. Brief in" rel="nofollow">introduction of the two sides of the controversy and values. D. Defin" rel="nofollow">initions and explanations (if applicable) E. Limitations on the project. What may be related, but is not closely relevant, and thus will not be discussed beyond this paragraph. Establishin" rel="nofollow">ing the significance and documentin" rel="nofollow">ing (with a figure or stat) 1-2 related social problems, as identified by your stakeholders, not by you; Briefly in" rel="nofollow">introducin" rel="nofollow">ing your stakeholders and the values that motivate them Givin" rel="nofollow">ing background in" rel="nofollow">information and providin" rel="nofollow">ing explanations of key terms and ideas as they are used by stakeholders in" rel="nofollow">in the debate, and discussion of any directly relevant legal, technical, or admin" rel="nofollow">inistrative complexities, such as oversight or regulatory processes. II. Background and history of the controversy A. Where, when, how, and with whom the controversy origin" rel="nofollow">inated B. Development of the controversy over time C. Significant milestones in" rel="nofollow">in terms of policy, events, developments in" rel="nofollow">in culture or theory, etc. D. Current state of the controversy Providin" rel="nofollow">ing a narrative, chronological history that gives a background of your controversy. Spend less time with events further in" rel="nofollow">in the past and more time with current developments. You should provide specific dates and names. Developments can in" rel="nofollow">include events, court cases, proposed or established laws, foundin" rel="nofollow">ing of relevant important organizations, etc. History should be precise, thorough, and well curated. You must in" rel="nofollow">include citations for all research. III. Presentation of Cases A. Presentation of Proponent cases 1. Stakeholders holdin" rel="nofollow">ing the position a. 2 General (need qualifiers such as "some," "most," "many," etc.) b. 2 Specific (need names, dates, publications, affiliations, etc.) 2. Issues in" rel="nofollow">in contention ("Issues are the broad concerns over which the sides are arguin" rel="nofollow">ing, such as "cost," "safety," or "civil rights.") 3. Proponent Arguments with supportin" rel="nofollow">ing evidence (at least 2 arguments with evidence) a. Proponent Argument 1 with supportin" rel="nofollow">ing evidence b. Proponent Argument 2 with supportin" rel="nofollow">ing evidence c. Repeat with any additional Proponent Arguments. Be thorough. Repeat for ALL significant arguments discussed by stakeholders. 4. Proposed plans (if applicable) B. Presentation of Opponent cases 1. Stakeholders holdin" rel="nofollow">ing the position a. 2 General (need qualifiers such as "some," "most," "many," etc.) b. 2 Specific (need names, dates, publications, affiliations, etc.) 2. Issues in" rel="nofollow">in contention ("Issues are the broad concerns over which the sides are arguin" rel="nofollow">ing, such as "cost," "safety," or "civil rights.") 3. Opponent Arguments with supportin" rel="nofollow">ing evidence (at least 2 arguments with evidence) a. Opponent Argument 1 with supportin" rel="nofollow">ing evidence b. Opponent Argument 2 with supportin" rel="nofollow">ing evidence c. Repeat with any additional Opponent Arguments. Be thorough. Repeat for ALL significant arguments discussed by stakeholders. 4. Proposed plans (if applicable) An organized presentation of specific stakeholder backgrounds and relevance, as well as stakeholder arguments. Arguments should be presented one at a time and in" rel="nofollow">include relevant research and evidence. This will likely in" rel="nofollow">include statistics, if relevant to the argument. All research must be cited. IV. Analysis and Evaluation (Begin" rel="nofollow">in Paper Two; 5 pgs) A. Analysis and evaluation of arguments (Keep in" rel="nofollow">in min" rel="nofollow">ind that your two sides may not address the same arguments/issues. You may not always have 2 perspectives on an argument/issue, though a side's failure to address an argument/issue may be a weakness in" rel="nofollow">in their case that you need to talk about.) 1. Analysis and evaluation of Proponent Argument 1 (evidence and logic) 2. Analysis and evaluation of Proponent Argument 2 (evidence and logic) 3. Repeat for additional Proponent Arguments if necessary 4. Analysis and evaluation of Opponent Argument 1 (evidence and logic) 5. Analysis and evaluation of Opponent Argument 2 (evidence and logic 6. Repeat for additional Opponent Arguments if necessary B. Analysis and evaluation of Proponents' moral reasonin" rel="nofollow">ing 1. Values 2. Obligations 3. Potential consequences 4. Normative ethical theory/prin" rel="nofollow">inciple (see NC and St Ed's Handbook in" rel="nofollow">in Files) C. Analysis and evaluation of Opponents' moral reasonin" rel="nofollow">ing 1. Values 2. Obligations 3. Potential consequences 4. Normative ethical theory/prin" rel="nofollow">inciple (see NC and St Ed's Handbook in" rel="nofollow">in Files) V. Fin" rel="nofollow">inal Position with Full Support (revised from Paper Two Tentative Position; 3-5 pgs) A. Revised Position and Solution (if applicable) to the Controversy 1. Author's position on the controversy 2. Author's arguments and evidence 3. Author's moral reasonin" rel="nofollow">ing in" rel="nofollow">includin" rel="nofollow">ing relevant normative ethical theory. 4. Response to counterarguments 5. Discussion of solution's feasibility (if applicable) 6. Some reservations or questions you still have about your solution (Sub Three only) B. Conclusion VI. Appendices (optional) VII. Works Cited (MLA Format) Note: Bias and Neutrality: Even though you will now take a position, and decide which side’s arguments are stronger, you should still strive for objectivity. In weighin" rel="nofollow">ing the arguments, it is likely that you know which side you prefer by now, but just for that reason, you will seem a more thoughtful and unbiased guide to the issue if you acknowledge that not every advantage will be on one side. Be brave—the best arguments are those which acknowledge (and address) their own weaknesses fairly and impartially. Even if you are passionate about your issue, your goal is not to WIN the debate (this almost never happens in" rel="nofollow">in controversies), but to reasonably consider the positions and values of your stakeholders and decide which are more persuasive to you based on the evidence, arguments, and your own prin" rel="nofollow">inciples. This in" rel="nofollow">in turn will make your fin" rel="nofollow">indin" rel="nofollow">ings more persuasive. Though you are now makin" rel="nofollow">ing evaluative statements, work through the arguments one by one as objectively as possible, makin" rel="nofollow">ing your decisions strictly on their merits, like a judge or jury might do. Analysis of Argumentation and Evidence (about 2 pp.): In this section, your job is to weigh, critically, the arguments and evidence presented by the sides. Your main" rel="nofollow">in task is not to consider each argument alone and in" rel="nofollow">in a vacuum, but as much as possible, to weigh the sides’ arguments again" rel="nofollow">inst each other, clearly takin" rel="nofollow">ing sides. You should clearly state where the argument is strong and where the argument is weak, then provide a statement on the overall strength/weakness of the argument. Thin" rel="nofollow">ink of each major argument as a question you need to answer based on the case you presented for that side in" rel="nofollow">in Paper One: does it seem true? Was it compellin" rel="nofollow">ing? • IS the cost of universal healthcare likely to rise? • ARE civil liberties violated unacceptably by this policy? • IS the number of unin" rel="nofollow">insured children too high? • IS the rate of complain" rel="nofollow">ints about police violence above national standards? Did the side make their case on each argument persuasively, and support their argument with current, credible evidence? Or does the other side make an argument that outweighs the first one? Work through each issue on each side, comparin" rel="nofollow">ing arguments where you can, though the sides do not always address each other’s arguments. If an argument seems strong, explain" rel="nofollow">in why. If it seems weak, explain" rel="nofollow">in that as well. Here are some questions to help you identify weaknesses in" rel="nofollow">in arguments: • Is the argument supported, with valid, current, and authoritative evidence? • Is the argument powerful and persuasive to you in" rel="nofollow">in a way you can articulate, or do you fin" rel="nofollow">ind it weak in" rel="nofollow">in relevance, weak as a prediction, weak as an in" rel="nofollow">interpretation of evidence or events, or overly reliant on spin" rel="nofollow">in (that is, a stretch)? • Is the argument outweighed by an argument made by the other side? Explain" rel="nofollow">in how. Does it ignore some real world fact or a counterargument raised by the other side? • “Consider the source”: is the arguer trusted and neutral, or a heated partisan whose claims should be taken with a grain" rel="nofollow">in of salt? All stakeholders are biased to some degree, but you should be aware of different degrees of objectivity between, say, govt. agencies, thin" rel="nofollow">ink tanks, academic researchers, and advocacy groups. Do they stand to gain" rel="nofollow">in from their advocacy? Are they in" rel="nofollow">in pursuit of ideological aims or respected, objective researchers? You might look at blogs or in" rel="nofollow">in news accounts to try to get a feel for the trustworthin" rel="nofollow">iness of a stakeholder. For example, a federal agency like the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) are regarded as neutral and cited by each side, while others are accused of “spin" rel="nofollow">innin" rel="nofollow">ing” data for the current admin" rel="nofollow">inistration. • Is the argument fallacious or logically valid? That is, is it relevant? Does it make false presumptions? Does it rely, perhaps in" rel="nofollow">intentionally, on some ambiguity? Does it overly rely on emotion? • Is the argument deceptive in" rel="nofollow">in some other way, ignorin" rel="nofollow">ing acknowledged facts? Ultimately, you need to decide which side’s argument is more substantial, complete, current and unbiased, which is better supported by the evidence cited, which seems more spin" rel="nofollow">in than substance, and which is better supported by credentialed experts and authoritative evidence. Note on emotional arguments: emotion in" rel="nofollow">in itself does not in" rel="nofollow">invalidate an argument. Rather, you should consider whether emotions are appealed to in" rel="nofollow">in an unwarranted or manipulative way, or if the emotion conceals a lack of sound arguments or evidence. It is likely that both sides will have some “win" rel="nofollow">innin" rel="nofollow">ing” arguments. That is fin" rel="nofollow">ine—you only have to weigh these, not establish complete domin" rel="nofollow">inance for one side. In fact, your ability to acknowledge the strength of arguments you disagree with is helpful in" rel="nofollow">in establishin" rel="nofollow">ing your own authority as a fair-min" rel="nofollow">inded researcher and critic of your issue. NOTE on “backfillin" rel="nofollow">ing” and development: In this process, you also might discover you ignored important arguments, so be ready to go back and rewrite or remove those sections of Submission Two that you now fin" rel="nofollow">ind extraneous or less important, or add other more powerful and relevant issues. This is known as development, which happens through substantial revision, and through returnin" rel="nofollow">ing often to your draft. I also recommend that you preserve the old draft, and start a new one usin" rel="nofollow">ing Save As. In your analysis of argumentation, make sure you review EACH major argument you discussed in" rel="nofollow">in Submission Two, and evaluate the evidence provided. Moral Reasonin" rel="nofollow">ing (about 2 pp.): Here you will need to consider the obligations and values that motivate your stakeholders. The main" rel="nofollow">in poin" rel="nofollow">int of this section is to explain" rel="nofollow">in how your stakeholders DIFFER in" rel="nofollow">in their moral reasonin" rel="nofollow">ing, even if they use a similar word. One- or two-sentence considerations of these matters are in" rel="nofollow">insufficient: this is not a list, but a prose discussion considerin" rel="nofollow">ing a complex moral dilemma, so DEVELOP your analyses for each side, and contrast them with those of the other side. Usin" rel="nofollow">ing the Handbook will be vital to scorin" rel="nofollow">ing well on this part of the paper. And many people simply forget to analyze major elements, so be complete to get those poin" rel="nofollow">ints. • Obligations, Values, and Potential Consequences: For each issue or major argument, determin" rel="nofollow">ine the obligations, values, and consequences that motivate your stakeholders—to whom in" rel="nofollow">in the controversy do they feel most obligated, and why? Obligations are social: they are not to thin" rel="nofollow">ings, or to values, but to particular people and groups. Then discuss the values that are most important to them, especially those values relatin" rel="nofollow">ing to political ideology. Fin" rel="nofollow">inally, discuss the potential consequences, and potential moral dilemmas, of each side's position. • You will then use the handbook to identify a normative theory/prin" rel="nofollow">inciple that applies to each side of your question. You are not expected to be a philosopher or ethical theorist, so you may keep this section brief. As long as it is clear and appropriately addresses the paper requirement, you will be fin" rel="nofollow">ine. Tentative Solution/Position (about 1 page): After performin" rel="nofollow">ing your analysis, briefly present your own tentative solution/position to the controversy, and discuss the main" rel="nofollow">in arguments and evidence that you feel are most persuasive for your own solution. Then, address what you know from your research are the major objections opponents will have towards your solution. These are known as counterarguments, where you address, refute, or even concede, some of the most central drawbacks to your solution. After makin" rel="nofollow">ing the case (in" rel="nofollow">in about ½ page) discuss some elements of your moral reasonin" rel="nofollow">ing (the obligations, values, and consequences) that you fin" rel="nofollow">ind persuasive in" rel="nofollow">in adoptin" rel="nofollow">ing this solution. Thin" rel="nofollow">ink of the tentative solution as a quick sketchin" rel="nofollow">ing out of your position, to be revised in" rel="nofollow">in the longer, more completely argued fin" rel="nofollow">inal conclusion of the paper. Sin" rel="nofollow">ince this section will require you to offer your own views, feel free to use the personal “I” in" rel="nofollow">in your discussion. You might also identify areas in" rel="nofollow">in your argument about which you have reservations, or are undecided. These will be helpful in" rel="nofollow">in preparin" rel="nofollow">ing for your in" rel="nofollow">interviews with experts. Be sure to in" rel="nofollow">include each of the required elements: • A feasible solution/position • 1-2 major supportin" rel="nofollow">ing arguments • 2 counterarguments to likely objections to your solution • Some moral reasonin" rel="nofollow">ing of your choice • Suggested: some reservations or questions you still have about your solution. ------------------- Please note as you doin" rel="nofollow">ing research could you please upload your research files? Please try to use .org sites as well. No media Need an annotated bibliography and the research proposal worksheet completed as well. The question: Should Refugees be Accepted in" rel="nofollow">in the US? Thank you!