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.