2014년 12월 6일 토요일

Peer Review : 권은정

Grade

According to the rubric above, what grade would you give this essay?

5 points, technically perfect. I think she suggested persuasive arguments well.
She follows the classical arguments well
How does this essay need to improve to get a better grade?
I think it doesn't need to improve


Thesis

What is the thesis?

 Korea should concentrate on developing and widening cultural industry for future of Korea
Is the thesis clear and debatable?

Yes

If you (The reviewer) wrote this essay, how would you have written the thesis?

Well, I think I can suggest opposite team's opinion, too.

Any other thoughts?

no

Classical Argument

Can you easily identify the 5 parts of the classical argument? If no, what parts are missing?
I think there are no missing parts.

Does the introduction catch your attention? Does it comfortably lead to the thesis? 
Obviously true. It comfortably lead me to the thesis

Does the narration give all the necessary background information to understand the topic?

Yes
Does the confirmation adequately support the thesis?
Maybe yes

Does the refutation and concession address a realistic counterpoint? Does it adequately dispute the counterpoint, or respond in a reasonable manner?

It was clear and reasonable

Does the conclusion summarize the article and address the larger significance of the thesis? 
Yes, it is good enough to get high score

What suggestions do you have for improving the classical argument structure?
Nothing special I have.

Persuasion
When you started reading the essay, did you agree or disagree with the thesis? 

I agree with the thesis.

When you finished the essay, did you agree or disagree with the thesis?

Of course, agree

If your mind changed, why? What parts of the essay were persuasive?

NO

How could the author enhance the persuasive parts of their essay?

I think it's good enough

Research

Is the author using research effectively? 

Yes

Is the research from appropriate sources?

Of course

Are the sources obvious?
Yes they are quite obvious.

Are the pieces of evidence relevant to the thesis or essay?
Most of them is relevant I think.

Are there any parts of the essay that need evidence to support the claims?
NO

Final Draft

No tolerance for Prisoners

In Korea, there was serious and terrible accident, the sinking of Sewol Ferry, last April. Many people have criticized government's action about this terrible accident. Also, the Commissioner of the Jeju police agency committed sexual assaults and has been criticized. To prevent this corruption of high-ranking government officials, which effort should we put? I think the very answer is that people should elect right person as officials. However, it is clear that there are someone who cannot perform this role to elect right person. I think if someone of the public is of no service to elect right person, they should suffer deprivation. In this case, I regard ‘Prisoners’ who committed lurid crimes as the very person who cannot anything beneficial to our society. Actually, Prisoners who committed serious crimes and were sentenced to more than three years are likely to commit crimes again. Then, should we believe them one more time? I can't believe their judgement and think they can bring confusion in our society. Thus, I believe that prisoners have difficulty in making correct decision and should not be allowed to vote.
 
Before I begin to provide reasonable evidences, I want to analyze government policies concerning right to vote of prisoners in Korea and other countries. In Korea, we can know Korea have limited right to vote of prisoners under Article 18 of Public Official Election Act. However, Constitutional Court decided that prisoners who are on probation can have right to vote. Therefore, prisoners who are on probation voted in this local election. Moreover, Constitutional Court is now trying to allow prisoners who are in jail to have a right to vote from 2016. Actually, prisoners in Canada, South Africa, Israel and Sweden can vote regardless of their gravity of the offence. In other words, they allow all prisoners to vote undiscriminatingly. What I want to bring up in this essay is not prisoners who are on probation, but prisoners under sentence, meaning prisoners who committed a grievous offense. Frankly speaking, I can acknowledge allowing prisoners who are on probation to vote, but to allow prisoners under sentence is nonsense decision.
 
The reason why I believe prisoners are likely to make wrong decisions is because of one research. Last year, Mind Research Network in University of New Mexico proceeded the study to know why prisoners are likely to commit a crime again. As a result of study, if part of brain which are concerned with decision making and behavior activate dully, second conviction is more likely to occur. Dr. Kent A. Kiehl scanned brains of 96 prisoners. Through it, he could understand which parts of brain make that problem. He revealed if ACC(anterior cirgulate corties) of brain activate dully, people who have these brains can behave on impulse and cannot think properly. Moreover, prisoners who committed lurid crimes are more likely to have this peculiarity in their brains. Therefore, Dr. Kent A. Kiehl concluded that because prisoners have that problem in their brains, it can be hard to expect them to think normally and believe they can make correct decisions.
 
What I want to say in this essay is not prohibiting right to vote of prisoners unquestioningly, but setting a limit to allow prisoners to vote in accordance with the gravity of the offense. Thus, in this essay, I am seeing prison inmates who committed grievous offenses as people who cannot be allowed to vote in any case. Then, I’ll provide some reasons which give validity to my position.
 
First, prisoners already destroyed the social contract by committing crimes. Actually, there are pledges in our society which are made because people live safely and society becomes stable. Thus, there are laws which can protect these pledges. However, prisoners are people who already violated that laws and disturbed the stability of a society. Actually, in Bible, we can find a verse which prohibited a criminal act, “Thou shalt not kill” meaning do not kill anyone. Can we say that prisoners also have right to live as people in our nation even though they already violated rules of society and also violated others’ rule? I want to say that civil rights of prisoners vanish when they violate victims’ rights.
 
Moreover, it is insult to victims to allow criminals. Actually, there is any reason why victims suffer because of a cruel crime. Criminals can be criticized in that they didn’t consider what others suffer if they commit crimes. Then, should we allow them to vote believing they can make a correct decision regarding our society even though they failed to make a correct decision on only one person, victim. If Constitutional Court passed a bill which allows all prisoners to vote without reference to gravity of offenses, it will be apparent affront to victims.
 
Second, candidates may use right to vote of prisoners improperly, creating confusion in our society. If prisoners can vote for public officials, candidates will try to make them cast a vote for them. Then, to make them do that, candidates may suggest favorable laws for prisoners. Finally, criminals will be punished less severely than before, and therefore a crime rate will increase inevitably. It may bring social confusion, and terrible accidents can be reoccur, such as the sinking of Sewol Ferry. Therefore, it is too generous policy to allow prisoners to vote.
 
In fact, many people believe that criminals are also citizens. They say that even though criminals committed felony, they are still citizens of their home country. Of course, they were citizens, but not at all after they commit a crime. Thus, I completely oppose this idea. Criminals destroyed their rights as citizens by committing a crime. Also, they violated other people's right to live like a human being. According to people who believe criminals are also citizens, we should also regard serial killers as citizens and allow them to vote for our president who should look after for five years. I can't agree their opinion at all, and I think criminals gave up their rights as citizens since committing a crime.
 
Moreover, some people say prison has a function of rehabilitation. Thus we need to allow prisoners to vote. I agree prison's function. But need we allow prisoners to vote? In fact, we already allow criminals who get out of prison to vote. In prison term, they can take time for self-reflection and be rehabilitated. Therefore, I think people who get out of prison can think correctly and deserve right to vote. However, prisoners who were monitored in prison and locked away not to do wrong actions need to have some time to rehabilitate themselves. Therefore, allowing prisoners to vote is too early choice.
 
Nowadays, many people in various states insist prisoners also have the right to vote as a citizen. Frankly speaking, I also believed them just lately. However, after learning some serious social issues, I realized that corruption of Korean government are prevalent and these occur because of failure of election. Therefore, I learned we should elect public officials carefully. After thinking like this, I can believe that prisoners in Korea should not be allowed to vote, because prisoners already lose their rights after crimes, prisoners who committed serious and terrible crimes can't think as normal person, thus making wrong decisions and candidates can try to plan favorable laws for prisoners to get votes. What I insist is directly relevant to social stability. Thus to consider it is the right decision is crucial.

Reference

 http://blog.daum.net/correction-in-korea/167
 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11674014
 http://www.wkh.kr/khnm.html?mode=view&artid=201011101607501&code=117
 http://terms.naver.com/entry.nhn?docId=1714671&cid=41706&categoryId=41706                                                                                                                           

Peer Review : 권예원

Grade

According to the rubric above, what grade would you give this essay?

5 points, she explained her arguments logically with persuasive ideas. And I like clear definition of what she want to say. Also it is technically perfect.

How does this essay need to improve to get a better grade?

I think her essay is excellent enough to get a good grade

Thesis

What is the thesis?

Korean wave has problem and Korean cultural diplomacy should solve this problem.
 
Is the thesis clear and debatable?

Obviously yes.

If you (The reviewer) wrote this essay, how would you have written the thesis?

I am also trying to change current Korean cultural diplomacy if I can wrote this essay.

Any other thoughts?

I have nothing special 

Classical Argument

Can you easily identify the 5 parts of the classical argument? If no, what parts are missing?
I think there are no missing parts.

Does the introduction catch your attention? Does it comfortably lead to the thesis? 
Obviously true. It's really interesting introduction.

Does the narration give all the necessary background information to understand the topic?
OF COURSE

Does the confirmation adequately support the thesis?
YES and YES

Does the refutation and concession address a realistic counterpoint? Does it adequately dispute the counterpoint, or respond in a reasonable manner?

Yes, she mentioned opinions of other people and excellently refuted it,

Does the conclusion summarize the article and address the larger significance of the thesis? 
Yes, it is great,

What suggestions do you have for improving the classical argument structure?
I don't have any suggestion. BUT I really think she correctly point out current situation of diplomacy and want her to become a good diplomat to correct that problem.

Persuasion
When you started reading the essay, did you agree or disagree with the thesis? 

I agree with the thesis.

When you finished the essay, did you agree or disagree with the thesis?

There is no change

If your mind changed, why? What parts of the essay were persuasive?

NO

How could the author enhance the persuasive parts of their essay?

I think it's good enough

Research

Is the author using research effectively? 

Yes

Is the research from appropriate sources?

Of course

Are the sources obvious?
IN my though, they're quite correct sources.

Are the pieces of evidence relevant to the thesis or essay?
Most of them is relevant I think.

Are there any parts of the essay that need evidence to support the claims?
NO

2014년 11월 16일 일요일

Second Draft

Criminals should not be allowed to vote.



In Korea, there was serious and terrible accident, the sinking of Sewol Ferry, last April. Many people have criticized government's action about this terrible accident. Also, the Commissioner of the Jeju police agency committed sexual assaults and has been criticized. To prevent this corruption of high-ranking government officials, people should elect right person as officials. In this situation, should prisoners be allowed to vote? Actually, Prisoners who committed serious crimes and were sentenced to more than three years are likely to reoffend. Then, should we believe them one more time? I can't believe their judgement and think they can bring confusion in our society. Thus, prisoners should not be allowed to vote.
 In January, 2014, Korea government planned to allow prisoners who are on probation to vote in the 6.4 local election. However, convict and criminals on parole should not be allowed to vote as yet. This is actual situation of Korea society. To allow them to vote is at odds with Korean emotion. Prisoners can reoccur wrong decision anytime. Thus, It's too dangerous to allow them vote considering about Korean emotion and what's wrong in Korean society now.
  In 2005, Court of the United Kingdom allowed prisoners to vote. John hirst who committed a terrible crime that he had killed people using ax insisted prisoners are also citizens and have right to vote. Government and citizens of the United Kingdom didn't want to accept his opinion, but John hirst brought this issue to European Court. Finally, he made prisoners in the United Kingdom vote for public officials. However, in United Kingdom there are still some voices that it isn't right to allow prisoners to vote. In fact, in Korea we have only allowed criminals who were released from prison to vote. But I'm afraid that Korea government will also allow prisoners to vote.

 Prisoners always insisted that they are also citizens and have right as a citizen. But I want to say that prisoners already destroyed the social contract by committing crimes. Therefore, they must not mention citizen's rights. Also, prisoners were sent to prison by considering that they cannot function as a normal person and make correct thinking. According to one article, prisoners are sent to prison to be monitored, thus allowing them  to vote is too much treatment for them who committed crimes and were sent to prison.
 Furthermore, prisoners should not be believed that they can also make correct thinking. If they can think correctly, did they commit a crime? Of course, there can be some people who say they can commit the crime inadvertently. It can be. However, if criminals commit a crime inadvertently, they can get free or be sentenced to less than three years after becoming accepted.
 What's more, candidates may use right to vote of prisoners improperly. If prisoners can vote for public officials, candidates will try to make them cast a vote for them. Then, to make them do that, candidates may suggest favorable laws for prisoners. Finally, criminals will be punished less severely than before, and therefore a crime rate will increase inevitably. It may bring social confusion, and terrible accidents can be reoccur, such as the sinking of Sewol Ferry. Therefore, it is too generous policy to allow prisoners to vote.

 In fact, many people believe that criminals are also citizens. They say that even though criminals committed felony, they are still citizens of their home country. Of course, they were citizens, but not at all after they commit a crime. Thus, I completely oppose this idea. Criminals destroyed their rights as citizens by committing a crime. Also, they violated other people's right to live like a human being. According to people who believe criminals are also citizens, we should also regard serial killers as citizens and allow them to vote for our president who should look after for five years. I can't agree their opinion at all, and I think criminals gave up their rights as citizens since committing a crime.
 Moreover, some people say prison has a function of rehabilitation. Thus we need to allow prisoners to vote. I agree prison's function. But need we allow prisoners to vote? In fact, we already allow criminals who get out of prison to vote. In prison term, they can take time for self-reflection and be rehabilitated. Therefore, I think people who get out of prison can think correctly and deserve right to vote. However, prisoners who were monitored in prison and locked away not to do wrong actions need to have some time to rehabilitate themselves. Therefore, allowing prisoners to vote is too early choice.

 Nowadays, many people in various states insist prisoners also have the right to vote as a citizen. Frankly speaking, I also believed them just lately. However, after learning some serious social issues, I realized that corruption of Korean government are prevalent and these occur because of failure of election. Therefore, I learned we should elect public officials carefully. After thinking like this, I can believe that prisoners in Korea should not be allowed to vote, because prisoners already lose their rights after crimes, prisoners who committed serious and terrible crimes can't think as normal person, thus making wrong decisions and candidates can try to plan favorable laws for prisoners to get votes. What I insist is directly relevant to social stability. Thus to consider it is the right decision is crucial.


Bibliography
1. http://blog.daum.net/correction-in-korea/167
2. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11674014
3. http://www.wkh.kr/khnm.html?mode=view&artid=201011101607501&code=117

2014년 11월 15일 토요일

Research 4

Source : http://www.hani.co.kr/arti/society/society_general/621866.html

My topic : Prisoners should not be allowed to vote.

Note :
1. Prisoners who are on probation can vote in a 6.4 local election.
2. Convict and criminals on parole should not be allowed to vote as yet. But soon they are considered about their right to vote.
3. There was a Constitutional nonconformity about right to vote of convict and criminals on parole.

Final thought :
Nowadays, Korea do not allow convict and criminals on  parole as yet. But government try to pass the bill which allows them to vote. I think this action can be dangerous decision because of criminals' uncertainty.

2014년 10월 30일 목요일

Self Evaluation

1. What score do you think you deserve? 

I think I could deserve 1 point. I observed my time limit and completed a first draft that demonstrates an understanding of the classical argument. However, I failed to search meaningful materials which can be good grounds of my argument.

2. What did you do well?

- I think I searched various countries' examples for my grounds.
- I think I really tried hard to concatenate my argument with today's issue.

3. What could you have done better?

- I think I could start my introduction more creatively, using another examples.
- I think I could find more statistical evidence, but I failed to do it.

4.Which part of the classical argument did you use the best?

 I think my refutation and concession part is the best. Because actually my topic is very controversial, I think I need to refute opponent's opinion effectively to improve my argument. Therefore, I really tried to make it better hard.

5. Which part of the classical argument did you use the most poorly? 

 I think my narration part is most poor. Actually, I think I failed to understand its own purpose to be used effectively.

6. What's your strategy to make your second draft better?

I need to reconsider my position about this topic. I always think my argument can be most convincing. However, there are lots of opposing opinion unexpectedly. And, I should also reinforce my research more and more. 

2014년 10월 25일 토요일

First Draft

Prisoners shouldn't be allowed to vote in Korea

 In Korea, there was very serious and terrible accident, the sinking of Sewol Ferry, last April. Many people have criticized government's action about this terrible accident. Also, the Commissioner of the Jeju police agency committed sexual assaults and has been criticized. To prevent these corruption of high-ranking government officials, people should elect right person as officials. In this situation, should prisoners be allowed to vote? Actually, prisoners who committed serious crimes and were sentenced to more than three years are likely to reoffend. Then, should we believe them one more time? I can't believe their judgement and think they can bring confusion in our society. Thus, prisoners should not be allowed to vote.
  In 2005, Court of the United Kingdom allowed prisoners to vote. John hirst who committed a terrible crime that he had killed people using ax insisted prisoners are also citizens and have right to vote. Government and citizens of the United Kingdom didn't want to accept his opinion, but John hirst brought this issue to European Court. Finally, he made prisoners in the United Kingdom vote for public officials. However, in United Kingdom there are still some voices that it isn't right to allow prisoners to vote. In fact, in Korea we have only allowed criminals who were released from prison to vote. But I'm afraid that Korea government will also allow prisoners to vote.

 Prisoners always insisted that they are also citizens and have right as a citizen. But I want to say that prisoners already destroyed social contract by committing crimes. Therefore, they must not mention citizen's rights. Also, prisoners were sent to prison by considering that they cannot function as a normal person and make correct thinking. According to one article, prisoners are sent to prison to be monitored, thus allowing them  to vote is too much treatment for them who committed crimes and were sent to prison.
 Furthermore, prisoners should not be believed that they can make also correct thinking. If they can think correctly, did they commit a crime? Of course, there can be some people who say they can commit crime inadvertently. It can be. However, if criminals commit a crime inadvertently, they can get free or be sentenced to less than three years after becoming accepted.
 What's more, candidates may use right to vote of prisoners improperly. If prisoners can vote for public officials, candidates will try to make them cast a vote for them. Then, to make them do that, candidates may suggest favorable laws for prisoners. Finally, criminals will be punished less severely than before, and therefore a crime rate will increase inevitably. It may bring social confusion, and terrible accidents can be reoccur, such as the sinking of Sewol Ferry. Therefore, it is too generous policy to allow prisoners to vote.

 In fact, many people believe that criminals are also citizens. They say that even though criminals committed felony, they are still citizens of their home country. Of course, they were citizens, but not at all after they commit a crime. Thus, I absolutely oppose this idea. Criminals destroyed their rights as citizens by committing a crime. Also, they violated other people's right to live like a human being. According to people who believe criminals are also citizens, we should also regard serial killers as citizens and allow them to vote for our president who should look after for five years. I can't agree their opinion at all and I think criminals gave up their rights as citizens since committing a crime.
 Moreover, some people say prison has a function of rehabilitation, thus we should allow prisoners to vote. I agree prison's function. But need we allow prisoners to vote? In fact we already allow criminals who get out of prison to vote. In prison term, they can take time for self-reflection and be rehabilitated. Therefore, I think people who get out of prison can think correctly and deserve right to vote. However, prisoners who were monitored in prison and locked away not to do wrong actions need to have some time to rehabilitate themselves. Therefore, allowing prisoners to vote is too early choice.

 Nowadays, many people in various states insist prisoners also have right to vote as a citizen. Actually, I also believed them just lately. However, after learning some serious social issues, I realized that corruption of Korean government are prevalent and these occur because of failure of election. Therefore, I learned we should elect public officials carefully. After thinking like this, I can believe that prisoners in Korea should not be allowed to vote, because prisoners already lose their rights after crimes, prisoners who committed serious and terrible crimes can't think as normal person, thus making wrong decisions and candidates can try to plan favorable laws for prisoners to get votes. What I insist is directly relevant to social stability. Thus to consider it is really right decision is very important.












The Conclusion

Nowadays, many people in various states insist prisoners also have right to vote as a citizen. Actually, I also believed them just lately. However, after learning some serious social issues, I realized that corruption of Korean government are prevalent and these occur because of failure of election. Therefore, I learned we should elect public officials carefully. After thinking like this, I can believe that prisoners in Korea should not be allowed to vote, because prisoners already lose their rights after crimes, prisoners who committed serious and terrible crimes can't think as normal person, thus making wrong decisions and candidates can try to plan favorable laws for prisoners to get votes. What I insist is directly relevant to social stability. Thus to consider it is really right decision is very important.

The Refutation and Concession


1. What it my thesis

Because of irrationality of their decisions, prisoners should not be allowed to vote

2. What is the opposite position

Criminals also have human rights, thus we should allow them to vote.

3. What arguments can I anticipate

a) public opinion in the United Kingdom
b) social issues in Korea

4. How I counter those arguments

a) Criminals lose their right by committing a crime.
b) Criminals who committed a terrible crime cannot be believed to think correctly and carefully
c) Candidates for public officials may suggest advantageous laws for prisoners to get votes from prisoners


The Refutation and Concession

 In fact, many people believe that criminals are also citizens. They say that even though criminals committed felony, they are still citizens of their home country. Of course, they were citizens, but not at all after they commit a crime. Thus, I absolutely oppose this idea. Criminals destroyed their rights as citizens by committing a crime. Also, they violated other people's right to live like a human being. According to people who believe criminals are also citizens, we should also regard serial killers as citizens and allow them to vote for our president who should look after for five years. I can't agree their opinion at all and I think criminals gave up their rights as citizens since committing a crime.
Moreover, some people say prison has a function of rehabilitation, thus we should allow prisoners to vote. I agree prison's function. But need we allow prisoners to vote? In fact we already allow criminals who get out of prison to vote. In prison term, they can take time for self-reflection and be rehabilitated. Therefore, I think people who get out of prison can think correctly and deserve right to vote. However, prisoners who were monitored in prison and locked away not to do wrong actions need to have some time to rehabilitate themselves. Therefore, allowing prisoners to vote is too early choice.

The Confirmation

1. What it my thesis

Because of irrationality of their decisions, prisoners should not be allowed to vote

2. What types of source am I using to defend my thesis

I used public opinions and some exact articles. 

3. Are my arguments mostly based on evidence, logic or emotion

In fact I think my arguments are mostly based on emotion. Because of today's serious social problems I selected this topic and decided people to remind this topic, However I think appealing to emotion can be also good strategy, Of course, my arguments have some evidences and a little logic.

My Confirmation

 Prisoners always insisted that they are also citizens and have right as a citizen. But I want to say that prisoners already destroyed social contract by committing crimes. Therefore, they must not mention citizen's rights. Also, prisoners were sent to prison by considering that they cannot function as a normal person and make correct thinking. According to one article, prisoners are sent to prison to be monitored, thus allowing them  to vote is too much treatment for them who committed crimes and were sent to prison.
 Furthermore, prisoners should not be believed that they can make also correct thinking. If they can think correctly, did they commit a crime? Of course, there can be some people who say they can commit crime inadvertently. It can be. However, if criminals commit a crime inadvertently, they can get free or be sentenced to less than three years after becoming accepted.
 What's more, candidates may use right to vote of prisoners improperly. If prisoners can vote for public officials, candidates will try to make them cast a vote for them. Then, to make them do that, candidates may suggest favorable laws for prisoners. Finally, criminals will be punished less severely than before, and therefore a crime rate will increase inevitably. It may bring social confusion, and terrible accidents can be reoccur, such as the sinking of Sewol Ferry. Therefore, it is too generous policy to allow prisoners to vote.

The Narration

My persuasive argument thesis is 

Because of irrationality of their decisions, prisoners should not be allowed to vote

1. What do people already know about my topic

I think all people in Korea know today's terrible social issues. And, there are some countries which allow their prisoners to vote. However I think they didn't know exactly about if Korean prisoners can vote.

2. What research has already been done about my topic 

a) http://www.okmedia.or.kr/news.php?code=&mode=view&num=1893&page=
-It's old thing, but it said exactly what I want to know.
b) http://blog.naver.com/ofon/220070444082
-It's very nice research about right to vote

3. What are the implications of my argument (What if I'm right? What if I'm right and people ignore me?

Prisoners cannot have right to vote. Therefore candidates do not make favorable laws for them. Other people can be guaranteed  for their rights by depriving prisoners of voting right. If people ignore me, prisoners can vote making wrong decisions. Improper people can be public officials and terrible accidents reoccur.

My narration

 In 2005, Court of the United Kingdom allowed prisoners to vote. John hirst who committed a terrible crime that he had killed people using ax insisted prisoners are also citizens and have right to vote. Government and citizens of the United Kingdom didn't want to accept his opinion, but John hirst brought this issue to European Court. Finally, he made prisoners in the United Kingdom vote for public officials. However, in United Kingdom there are still some voices that it isn't right to allow prisoners to vote. In fact, in Korea we have only allowed criminals who were released from prison to vote. But I'm afraid that Korea government will also allow prisoners to vote.

The Introduction

My Introduction

In Korea, there was very serious and terrible accident, the sinking of Sewol Ferry, last April. Many people have criticized government's action about this terrible accident. Also, the Commissioner of the Jeju police agency committed sexual assaults and has been criticized. To prevent these corruption of high-ranking government officials, people should elect right person as officials. In this situation, should prisoners be allowed to vote? Actually, prisoners who committed serious crimes and were sentenced to more than three years are likely to reoffend. Then, should we believe them one more time? I can't believe their judgement and think they can bring confusion in our society. Thus, prisoners should not be allowed to vote.

1. Attention grabber

 I attracted the audience by suggesting some serious social issues in Korea.

2. Explains the topic

 After attention grabber, I saw the actual cause of this social issues is wrong election, especially prisoners who can't make rational decisions.

3. My thesis

 My topic is Prisoners should not be allowed to vote in Korea. I think there can be no tolerance to make society stable.

Classical Argument Outline

1. The introduction

 I will start by suggesting social issues, such as Sewol Ferry. Because it was very serious problem in Korean society, it can attract readers easily. Then, I'll shift attention to responsibility of citizens by considering irrational government as cause of these social issues. I will end my with my thesis, "Prisoners should not be allowed to vote" because of irrationality of their cognitive skills.

2. The narration

 I will explain fault of government in social issues. Also, I will remind readers of importance of correct election of government officials. Then, I'll tell you about permission to vote for prisoners in the United Kingdom.

3. The confirmation

 I will start by examining that criminals who committed serious crimes cannot make rational choices and therefore their right to vote should be prohibited. I will examine some cases that criminals who had committed terrible crimes reoffended. Also, I want to tell readers that criminals who required right to vote already violated other people's right. Therefore they should not be allowed to vote .

4. The refutation and concession

 I will concede there are also some criminals who can make rational and reasonable decisions, but I will strongly insist that criminals violated other people's rights and therefore their rights also shouldn't be considered. I can believe some criminals who committed pretty crimes can be rehabilitated but I can't believe criminals who already committed serious crimes, such as sexual assaults and murders, can be rehabilitated.

5. The summation

 I will close with a summary of my previous opinions, then I want to ask readers that can you believe government absolutely? Actually, there are lots of corruption cases of government and also wrong behaviors of officials. We should elect correct and right person as a government officials.

2014년 10월 24일 금요일

Research 3

Source :
http://www.wkh.kr/khnm.html?mode=view&artid=201011101607501&code=117

My topic :
Prisoners should not be allowed to vote

Note :
1. John Hirst who committed murder using ax insisted right to vote of prisoners. But the United Kingdom Court didn't agree with him. Therefore he brought to this problem to European Court. Finally, the United Kingdom Court allowed prisoners to vote.
2. Hirst said "From now on, murderers and rapists will get right to vote because it is human right." Against him, many conservatives criticized this law and were infuriated about his saying.
3. Defenders of this idea said that depriving them of right to vote can violate their human right. And also, prisons have a function of rehabilitation, thus prisoners also can vote properly.
4. Opponents of this idea said that criminals already destroyed their social contract by committing crimes. Therefore they are disqualified to get a right to vote.

Final Thoughts :
I agree prisons have good function, like rehabilitation and monitoring prisoners. However I only want to say that people who got out of prison can vote but prisoners shouldn't. It's too premature to give right to vote to prisoners. Also, strictly speaking, they gave up their right to vote by committing a crime.

2014년 10월 9일 목요일

Articulation

1. My argument

 Nowadays, I am really interested in Korea government and their erroneous actions. Then, I think that because people elected wrong people as public officials, such social confusion may arise. Especially, thoughtless permission of right to vote is the most serious problem I think. Therefore, I want to tell everyone that this problem should not be taken lightly and try to prove that criminal's cognitive ability is too dangerous to believe they are making right choices.

2. How I found my argument

I have thought many problems of government come to the fore in recent years. Moreover, I have agonized that this problem may occur because of people' wrong decision. Especially, I think criminals who made serious offenses are likely to make wrong choices. It's why I choose this as my argument.

3. New research question

 I have several questions that need to be solved.
a) Are criminals' choices always wrong?
b) Does corruption of government occur because of people's wrong decision?
c) Are criminals' rights also be considered.
d) How can I make a decision outcome will be better?
I'll continue to do research to make sure this problems are all solved logically and keep going to make these researches posted on the blog.

4. Connections to the Harvard Sampler

In human mind, the author try to explain excellence of brain by mentioning human's cognitive skills. Then I wondered that human's cognitive skills are also be wrong in some cases, like criminals' offenses. Therefore, I try to choose the most interesting topic about criminals' right, the right to vote. Maybe doing research on this topic, I can progress the exact consideration of human's cognitive skills.

2014년 9월 25일 목요일

Research 2

Source:

UK prisoners' right to vote
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11674014

My topic:

Prisoners should be allowed to vote.

What I hope to learn from this source:

 Since what I try to research is different opinions of other people to reinforce my position, I focus on public opinions. This source is an interview which is about reality of UK prisoners' right to vote. I hope to learn practicality of this policy from this interview.

Note:

1, The government is set to allow prisoners the vote but it wants the right limited to those sentenced to a year or less, rather than the four years previously considered.
2, Having initially said prisoners serving up to four years would get the vote, ministers now plan to give the vote to only those prisoners sentenced to serve a year or less. However, they are aware this policy will be tested in the courts and they might lose again.
3, In 13 European countries, electoral disqualification depends on the crime committed or the length of the sentence. Italy, Malta and Poland, for example, ban those deemed to have committed serious crimes. In Greece, anyone sentenced to life receives a permanent voting ban.
4. "It has been the view of successive governments, including this government, that persons who have committed crimes serious enough to warrant a custodial sentence should forfeit the right to have a say in how the country is governed while they are detained."
5."If convicted rapists and murderers are given the vote it will bring the law into disrepute and many people will see it as making a mockery of justice," 

Final thoughts:

 Actually, I support con side of this opinion. I don't think prisoners can make sensible choices. If the government allows them to vote, it can bring great confusion to our society. However, I can know there are lots of grounds which confirm it is not necessarily that. Thus, I think I should consider my opinion carefully. 

Research 1

Source:

The right to vote of gefangene, which is wise?
http://blog.daum.net/correction-in-korea/167

My topic:

Prisoners should be allowed to vote.

What I hope to learn from this source:

I want to know other people's opinion about this problem. Moreover, I want to try to research many examples of different countries which can help to reinforce my position.

Notes : 

1, In United Kingdom, allowing prisoners to vote is to violate victims of crime.
2, Prisoners lose their citizenship  by committing crime, therefore they also should not be allowed to vote.
3, If he serves out his sentence, he should be allowed to vote.
4, People believe prison's rehabilitation function, thus they can make right choices.

Final Thoughts:

This source showed lots of opinions of different people. From this, I can find lots of supporting ideas, but I'm afraid of its accuracy. Because I can see this source is a little out of data, I can't unquestioningly accept this. Therefore, although this source has lots of meaningful data, I think they need to be identified by experts or lots of studies.

2014년 9월 18일 목요일

Research Proposal

Topic : The prisoners should be allowed to vote.

What is my current topic?

  We live in liberal democracy. Also, we have a right to have freedom. But should we allow prisoners to vote? Nowadays, the topic, 'The prisoners should be allowed to vote', is controversial. Because prisoners are also citizens that can practice their rights, some people say allowing prisoners to vote is not that bad. On the other hand, if prisoners vote wrong person, it can bring confusion in our society. Therefore, I think to consider and try to find resolution for this controversy is important.

What are my guiding questions?

Do they really make a bad choices?
What are the pro and con's opinion about this topic?
Does not giving a right to vote violate prisoners' rights?

What are my current thoughts?

 Actually, I'm confused between both sides, but now I think the prisoners shouldn't be allowed to vote for stability of society.

What is the opposition?

 Some people argue that prisoners also have a right to express their opinions and not giving the right to vote to them is unfair. They also say true democracy should embrace its citizens.

2014년 9월 11일 목요일

Brainstorming

1, Is dream interpretation reliable?

2, The invention of wheel is most innovative ever.

3, Can we see optical illusions as a part of evolution?

4, Is capitalism always better than socialism?

5, Is zero tolerance on school bullying necessary?

6, Is 'Local Talent Hiring System' fair?

7. Prisoners should be able to vote