Englisch /

pro contra Arguments for argumentative essay

pro contra Arguments for argumentative essay

user profile picture

Lucia-Sophie

107 Followers
 

Englisch

 

11/12/13

Lernzettel

pro contra Arguments for argumentative essay

 13 Affirmative Action helps minorities in
society because they do not get the
same chances. In a lot of cases,
especially white males are g

Kommentare (2)

Teilen

Speichern

41

Pro und contra Argumente zu verschiedenen Themen für ein argumentative essay

Nichts passendes dabei? Erkunde andere Fachbereiche.

13 Affirmative Action helps minorities in society because they do not get the same chances. In a lot of cases, especially white males are getting Affirmative Action:referred, while the unemployment rate is at 6.3 % for it is much higher for ethnic minorities with 12.9%. Against 1. AA is not a fair means because people should be only chosen based on merit and not by race or gender. In Germany, people think that this form of "positive discrimination" suggests that women are in need of help on their way up and that society cannot create conditions in which careers are independent of circumstances that anyone can influence. 2. AA is not a reasonable way of helping minority groups and women as this way of choosing devalues the hard work of many minorities and women who wish to be chosen based on their knowledge and experience. Critics say that it limits the freedom to conduct a business as gender or race become the decisive criteria in hiring for top positions, and, finally, who likes being a quota woman? 3. AA promotes tensions rather than helping culturally diverse societies since highly qualified people might feel discriminated against on another level. At Harvard College, for example, there is an enduring conflict over AA as a lot of white applicants have launched lawsuits against its admission criteria. BLM: Against The BLM movement cannot be seen as a modern Civil Rights Movement as the intentions behind have to...

Mit uns zu mehr Spaß am Lernen

Hilfe bei den Hausaufgaben

Mit dem Fragen-Feature hast du die Möglichkeit, jederzeit Fragen zu stellen und Antworten von anderen Schüler:innen zu erhalten.

Gemeinsam lernen

Mit Knowunity erhältest du Lerninhalte von anderen Schüler:innen auf eine moderne und gewohnte Art und Weise, um bestmöglich zu lernen. Schüler:innen teilen ihr Wissen, tauschen sich aus und helfen sich gegenseitig.

Sicher und geprüft

Ob Zusammenfassungen, Übungen oder Lernzettel - Knowunity kuratiert alle Inhalte und schafft eine sichere Lernumgebung zu der Ihr Kind jederzeit Zugang hat.

App herunterladen

Alternativer Bildtext:

be put into different contexts. The CRM back then was about basic civil rights black people had always been denied whereas the modern movement is mainly about institutional racism which does not have any legal foundation but is a deeply rooted attitude and contempt that has to be fought against. The BLM movement does not really bear similarities to the CRM because a different kind of people is at the front of the movement now. In contrast to the CRM in the 1960s, black women are pushing themselves now to the forefront. The BLM movement cannot be regarded as a modern version of the CRM since the movement is not led by some central figures but rather is a decentralized organization. Due to the internet, way more people can act independently and respond immediately. Back then, there were prominent leaders like Martin Luther King Jr. who had large groups of supporters, Yun law: FOR banning guns 1. SAVING LIVES There were 427 mass shootings in the United States in 2017, and more than 15,000 people were killed in firearm-related incidents, whilst over 30,000 people were injured. It's true that banning (or, at least, heavily restricting) guns from civilian ownership wouldn't eliminate gun violence completely, but it would make it less likely. It would also save tens of thousands of lives. 2. GUNS PROTECTION It's very, very rare for mass shooters to be stopped by an armed civilian. There have. been cases (such as when an Uber driver with a concealed carry permit potentially foiled a mass shooting in Chicago in 2015). However, in the eve 2 in the event of a mass shooting, armed citizens could actually make the situation worse by confusing first responders and people around them about who the shooter is. In addition, gun owners are more likely to accidentally shoot a family member than ey are an intruder. 3. STATES SHOULD HAVE A MONOPOLY ON VIOLENCE Guns are not a defence against tyranny. The rule of law is the only defence against tyranny. The idea that armed militias could overthrow a professional army is laughable; it might have worked in the 18th Century, but the capability gap between civilians with small arms and modern armies with tanks and stealth bombers is now a yawning gulf. 13. Affirmative Action is a fair means because it is needed to compensate minorities for centuries of slavery and/or oppression. (ex.: slavery in the US, Civil Rights Movement) 1. AA is a reasonable way to help minority groups and women as discrimination continues to deny opportunities to minorities and women. to this day. Assuming the same talent and education, it is incomprehensible why women in Germany for example are barely represented in boards of directors and managers. Moreover, companies with mixed managements enjoy a better working environment and are regarded as economically more successful. 2. AA promotes diversity which is a benefit for majority groups, too, since it creates a better learning and work environment. As studies have found out, companies with mixed managements enjoy a better working environment and are regarded as economically more successful. In Favour The BLM movement can be seen as a modern Civil Rights Movement as it is a battle for full civil, social, political, legal, economic and cultural rights. Unfortunately, in the USA, people of color institutional discrimination. are still suffering from police violence and The BLM movement indeed bears striking similarities to the CRM because the killings of black people are in the centre of attention. BLM has responded to killings of African Americans by the police which is similar to the protests which occurred after the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. The BLM movement can be regarded as a modern version of the CRM since it is a kind of revival. Unfortunately, one has to admit that discrimination against people of color has never ended in the USA and thus the protests have never ended. Against The BLM movement cannot be seen as a modern Civil Rights Movement as the intentions behind have to be put into different contexts. The CRM back then was about basic civil rights black people had always been denied whereas the modern movement is mainly about institutional racism which does not have any legal foundation but is a deeply AGAINST banning guns 1. GUNS DON'T KILL PEOPLE... for It's a cliché, but it's true: Guns don't kill people. people kill people. Firearms are a tool, and they can be used for good or ill. It's certainly the case the guns can be used to commit robberies, murder, and yan terrorism. However, there are also legitimate uses guns, hobbyist sports, hunting. including collecting, and personal protection. Getting rid of a particular tool will not stop people committing acts of violence. Instead, we need to address the root causes that drive people to perpetrate violence, including looking seriously at whether the mental health system is performing as it should. Migration: In favor: -The money immigrants sendback home can boost the economy in their home country 2. GUNS PROTECTION Guns are a necessary tool in a violent world. They provide protection from muggings, home invasions, terrorist incidents, and mass shootings. Furthermore, an armed citizenry is (as a last resort) a guarantee against tyranny. Should it ever come to insurrection, then the people would have the means to rise in armed revolt against the authorities and overthrow them. Even if it never comes to that, the threat of armed rebellion will help preserve government from tyranny. 3. BANNING GUNS WON'T PREVENT VIOLENCE We do not ban tools just because they are dangerous. Tens of thousands of Europeans die in car accidents ever year, yet we don't ban cars. Terrorists have used cars and trucks to commit atrocities, yet (again) we don't ban cars and trucks. Indeed, terrorists in Europe have resorted to using knives and cars precisely because guns are so well-regulated across the European Union. So, banning guns does not stop violence. -better economic opportunities for the countries people migrate to -cultural diversity poses an advantage for the development of the society -reduces unemployment in the home countries better perspectives/chances for lots of young people and they can make their dreams come true -when migrants return home they bring money skills and experience with them/ helps to home country -increases tolerance of other cultures and people from other countries Globalisation: Favour: Globalisation enables academics to work together as ongoing exchange is possible and effective. So, during the pandemic, the German institute Biontech and the American institute Pfizer could develop a highly effective vaccine in less than one year.. 2. Poor countries can benefit from globalization because they gain easy access to medicine/important products. ->for example there is a medicine that prevents infected people from spreading HIV 3. Globalization can raise cultural awareness as exchange between countries leads to better cultural understanding ->traveling to different countries seeing different cultures -> for example the princess Latifa raised global attention by publishing a video 4. There are lots of people being oppressed by their state/country leaders they can raise their voices as globalization enables them to use several channels NGOs: yes, they still play a crucial role + 1) help with major political - social transformation- - ex. camps in Turkey / Greece, M. Obama's foundation, UNICEF schools, anti- apartheid-movement, trade union movement 2) provide important help in Africa, ex. medical help provided by Doctor without borders. 3) still raise awareness to global problems, ex. Ads on TV, reports in magazines. Against: -highly educated and skilled people move to other countries which damages the development of certain countries/harms the growth of the home country -many migrant workers are undocumented which is dangerous for them since they can be exploited more easily -immigrants take the job so there is less work for the locals 1 -immigrants destroy economic and political institutions by bringing their bad ideas/ cultures/rules with them for example in countries where women are less worth than men -countries get more crowded 2 Against: 1. Globalization makes it more difficult to differentiate between unnecessary/important info, because there is so much happening all over the world and getting told to us -> fake news - over exaggerating 2. Arsenal data is becoming less secure due to globalization as it is easier to access personal info through the Internet etc. -> for example sample Facebook/ China controls its citizens 3. Civic cultures can get lost due to globalization is different cultures are coming together and mixing with each other -> english - global language, other languages go extinct No, they don't play a crucial role anymore: 1) social media as a big opponent, further possibilities to raise awareness (petitions, church,..) -> Go fund me 2) national governments are also involved in aid programs -> Germany in Syria 3) only important for poorer, developing countries -> Japan, Australia, Hawaii 4) NGOs often are not able to work without additional experts -> cave in Thailand LY) 6 5) NGOs are not independent anymore ->loss of credibility, national interests might be the reasons for certain actions 6) employees jump from job to job/from NGO to NGO 5

Englisch /

pro contra Arguments for argumentative essay

pro contra Arguments for argumentative essay

user profile picture

Lucia-Sophie

107 Followers
 

Englisch

 

11/12/13

Lernzettel

pro contra Arguments for argumentative essay

Dieser Inhalt ist nur in der Knowunity App verfügbar.

 13 Affirmative Action helps minorities in
society because they do not get the
same chances. In a lot of cases,
especially white males are g

App öffnen

Teilen

Speichern

41

Kommentare (2)

C

So ein schöner Lernzettel 😍😍 super nützlich und hilfreich!

Pro und contra Argumente zu verschiedenen Themen für ein argumentative essay

Ähnliche Knows

2

Manifest Destiny

Know Manifest Destiny thumbnail

4

 

12

16

Politicians view on Brexit in UK and relationship between UK and EU (Newspaper analysis + mediation)

Know Politicians view on Brexit in UK and relationship between UK and EU (Newspaper analysis + mediation) thumbnail

31

 

11/12

1

Is the American dream still alive? / mündliche Prüfung

Know Is the American dream still alive? / mündliche Prüfung  thumbnail

153

 

11/12/10

4

rhetorical devices

Know rhetorical devices thumbnail

81

 

12

Mehr

13 Affirmative Action helps minorities in society because they do not get the same chances. In a lot of cases, especially white males are getting Affirmative Action:referred, while the unemployment rate is at 6.3 % for it is much higher for ethnic minorities with 12.9%. Against 1. AA is not a fair means because people should be only chosen based on merit and not by race or gender. In Germany, people think that this form of "positive discrimination" suggests that women are in need of help on their way up and that society cannot create conditions in which careers are independent of circumstances that anyone can influence. 2. AA is not a reasonable way of helping minority groups and women as this way of choosing devalues the hard work of many minorities and women who wish to be chosen based on their knowledge and experience. Critics say that it limits the freedom to conduct a business as gender or race become the decisive criteria in hiring for top positions, and, finally, who likes being a quota woman? 3. AA promotes tensions rather than helping culturally diverse societies since highly qualified people might feel discriminated against on another level. At Harvard College, for example, there is an enduring conflict over AA as a lot of white applicants have launched lawsuits against its admission criteria. BLM: Against The BLM movement cannot be seen as a modern Civil Rights Movement as the intentions behind have to...

Nichts passendes dabei? Erkunde andere Fachbereiche.

Mit uns zu mehr Spaß am Lernen

Hilfe bei den Hausaufgaben

Mit dem Fragen-Feature hast du die Möglichkeit, jederzeit Fragen zu stellen und Antworten von anderen Schüler:innen zu erhalten.

Gemeinsam lernen

Mit Knowunity erhältest du Lerninhalte von anderen Schüler:innen auf eine moderne und gewohnte Art und Weise, um bestmöglich zu lernen. Schüler:innen teilen ihr Wissen, tauschen sich aus und helfen sich gegenseitig.

Sicher und geprüft

Ob Zusammenfassungen, Übungen oder Lernzettel - Knowunity kuratiert alle Inhalte und schafft eine sichere Lernumgebung zu der Ihr Kind jederzeit Zugang hat.

App herunterladen

Knowunity

Schule. Endlich Einfach.

App öffnen

Alternativer Bildtext:

be put into different contexts. The CRM back then was about basic civil rights black people had always been denied whereas the modern movement is mainly about institutional racism which does not have any legal foundation but is a deeply rooted attitude and contempt that has to be fought against. The BLM movement does not really bear similarities to the CRM because a different kind of people is at the front of the movement now. In contrast to the CRM in the 1960s, black women are pushing themselves now to the forefront. The BLM movement cannot be regarded as a modern version of the CRM since the movement is not led by some central figures but rather is a decentralized organization. Due to the internet, way more people can act independently and respond immediately. Back then, there were prominent leaders like Martin Luther King Jr. who had large groups of supporters, Yun law: FOR banning guns 1. SAVING LIVES There were 427 mass shootings in the United States in 2017, and more than 15,000 people were killed in firearm-related incidents, whilst over 30,000 people were injured. It's true that banning (or, at least, heavily restricting) guns from civilian ownership wouldn't eliminate gun violence completely, but it would make it less likely. It would also save tens of thousands of lives. 2. GUNS PROTECTION It's very, very rare for mass shooters to be stopped by an armed civilian. There have. been cases (such as when an Uber driver with a concealed carry permit potentially foiled a mass shooting in Chicago in 2015). However, in the eve 2 in the event of a mass shooting, armed citizens could actually make the situation worse by confusing first responders and people around them about who the shooter is. In addition, gun owners are more likely to accidentally shoot a family member than ey are an intruder. 3. STATES SHOULD HAVE A MONOPOLY ON VIOLENCE Guns are not a defence against tyranny. The rule of law is the only defence against tyranny. The idea that armed militias could overthrow a professional army is laughable; it might have worked in the 18th Century, but the capability gap between civilians with small arms and modern armies with tanks and stealth bombers is now a yawning gulf. 13. Affirmative Action is a fair means because it is needed to compensate minorities for centuries of slavery and/or oppression. (ex.: slavery in the US, Civil Rights Movement) 1. AA is a reasonable way to help minority groups and women as discrimination continues to deny opportunities to minorities and women. to this day. Assuming the same talent and education, it is incomprehensible why women in Germany for example are barely represented in boards of directors and managers. Moreover, companies with mixed managements enjoy a better working environment and are regarded as economically more successful. 2. AA promotes diversity which is a benefit for majority groups, too, since it creates a better learning and work environment. As studies have found out, companies with mixed managements enjoy a better working environment and are regarded as economically more successful. In Favour The BLM movement can be seen as a modern Civil Rights Movement as it is a battle for full civil, social, political, legal, economic and cultural rights. Unfortunately, in the USA, people of color institutional discrimination. are still suffering from police violence and The BLM movement indeed bears striking similarities to the CRM because the killings of black people are in the centre of attention. BLM has responded to killings of African Americans by the police which is similar to the protests which occurred after the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. The BLM movement can be regarded as a modern version of the CRM since it is a kind of revival. Unfortunately, one has to admit that discrimination against people of color has never ended in the USA and thus the protests have never ended. Against The BLM movement cannot be seen as a modern Civil Rights Movement as the intentions behind have to be put into different contexts. The CRM back then was about basic civil rights black people had always been denied whereas the modern movement is mainly about institutional racism which does not have any legal foundation but is a deeply AGAINST banning guns 1. GUNS DON'T KILL PEOPLE... for It's a cliché, but it's true: Guns don't kill people. people kill people. Firearms are a tool, and they can be used for good or ill. It's certainly the case the guns can be used to commit robberies, murder, and yan terrorism. However, there are also legitimate uses guns, hobbyist sports, hunting. including collecting, and personal protection. Getting rid of a particular tool will not stop people committing acts of violence. Instead, we need to address the root causes that drive people to perpetrate violence, including looking seriously at whether the mental health system is performing as it should. Migration: In favor: -The money immigrants sendback home can boost the economy in their home country 2. GUNS PROTECTION Guns are a necessary tool in a violent world. They provide protection from muggings, home invasions, terrorist incidents, and mass shootings. Furthermore, an armed citizenry is (as a last resort) a guarantee against tyranny. Should it ever come to insurrection, then the people would have the means to rise in armed revolt against the authorities and overthrow them. Even if it never comes to that, the threat of armed rebellion will help preserve government from tyranny. 3. BANNING GUNS WON'T PREVENT VIOLENCE We do not ban tools just because they are dangerous. Tens of thousands of Europeans die in car accidents ever year, yet we don't ban cars. Terrorists have used cars and trucks to commit atrocities, yet (again) we don't ban cars and trucks. Indeed, terrorists in Europe have resorted to using knives and cars precisely because guns are so well-regulated across the European Union. So, banning guns does not stop violence. -better economic opportunities for the countries people migrate to -cultural diversity poses an advantage for the development of the society -reduces unemployment in the home countries better perspectives/chances for lots of young people and they can make their dreams come true -when migrants return home they bring money skills and experience with them/ helps to home country -increases tolerance of other cultures and people from other countries Globalisation: Favour: Globalisation enables academics to work together as ongoing exchange is possible and effective. So, during the pandemic, the German institute Biontech and the American institute Pfizer could develop a highly effective vaccine in less than one year.. 2. Poor countries can benefit from globalization because they gain easy access to medicine/important products. ->for example there is a medicine that prevents infected people from spreading HIV 3. Globalization can raise cultural awareness as exchange between countries leads to better cultural understanding ->traveling to different countries seeing different cultures -> for example the princess Latifa raised global attention by publishing a video 4. There are lots of people being oppressed by their state/country leaders they can raise their voices as globalization enables them to use several channels NGOs: yes, they still play a crucial role + 1) help with major political - social transformation- - ex. camps in Turkey / Greece, M. Obama's foundation, UNICEF schools, anti- apartheid-movement, trade union movement 2) provide important help in Africa, ex. medical help provided by Doctor without borders. 3) still raise awareness to global problems, ex. Ads on TV, reports in magazines. Against: -highly educated and skilled people move to other countries which damages the development of certain countries/harms the growth of the home country -many migrant workers are undocumented which is dangerous for them since they can be exploited more easily -immigrants take the job so there is less work for the locals 1 -immigrants destroy economic and political institutions by bringing their bad ideas/ cultures/rules with them for example in countries where women are less worth than men -countries get more crowded 2 Against: 1. Globalization makes it more difficult to differentiate between unnecessary/important info, because there is so much happening all over the world and getting told to us -> fake news - over exaggerating 2. Arsenal data is becoming less secure due to globalization as it is easier to access personal info through the Internet etc. -> for example sample Facebook/ China controls its citizens 3. Civic cultures can get lost due to globalization is different cultures are coming together and mixing with each other -> english - global language, other languages go extinct No, they don't play a crucial role anymore: 1) social media as a big opponent, further possibilities to raise awareness (petitions, church,..) -> Go fund me 2) national governments are also involved in aid programs -> Germany in Syria 3) only important for poorer, developing countries -> Japan, Australia, Hawaii 4) NGOs often are not able to work without additional experts -> cave in Thailand LY) 6 5) NGOs are not independent anymore ->loss of credibility, national interests might be the reasons for certain actions 6) employees jump from job to job/from NGO to NGO 5