I need a topic for a position paper

[Droopy]

I have to write a two to three page argumentative paper for my philosophy class. I'm having trouble coming up with a topic and my thesis is due next Monday. The paper can be about anything as long as there is an argument involved and I take a position. It can be serious or humorous. Seeing as how the paper is short, I need something that I can easily handle in a few pages. One of the things the professor warned about was picking a topic that had too much material to draw from that couldn't be easily condensed.

So what do you think? Any ideas will be appreciated.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

1. How About A Good Heterodox Position

Abortion and capital punishment are morally wrong because they both involve the taking of human life...


My position is much more nuanced but I think it's a worthy argument.....

[Droopy]

2. Good idea, but I don't know if I could do it

My actual position on abortion might get in the way.

[markses]

5. AVOID abortion and capital punishment arguments!!!!!

As somebody who taught writing for several years at the university level, I can very well assure you that the two most despised topics of anyone reading this stuff are 1)abortion and 2)capital punishment. It is almost a universal joke in the field:

"Got another paper on abortion."
"Oh, lucky you. Lemme guess. Abortion is murder."
"Nah. Abortion is not murder."
"Wire hanger?"
"First paragraph."
"Lovely."

These papers so uniformly suck that they are nearly unreadable. Now, imagine the 9th re-tread, terrible argument on abortion or capital punishment in a stack of 40 papers that you're grading. Ya think the grader's gonna be a little annoyed? Uh, yeah.

Moreover, these topics tend to close off insight and critical thinking, since the writers usually just go ahead with the definitional arguments they already believed, and never take account of their audience (the point of argumentation). Or, the wild analogies start flowing (x does/does not = Holocaust being the most unthoughtful and obnoxious). Please, please, please be kind to your professors. Dump these paper topics post-haste. (I'd also advise you to avoid "gun-control" and, strangely enough, the universally repugnant "motorcycle helmet law" paper. Ick.)

[Rashind]

6. I dunno...

Philosophy professors actually like these topics, but only if you go into the philosophy of it.(oddly enough)

There's a lot of good paternalism discussion in the motorcycle helmet law paper. Gun control would be harder... probably a very long paper in political philosophy.

[Rashind]

3. in line with medical ethics...

How about ageism and the distribution of scarce medical resources? Plenty of good arguments on both sides, 3 pages single spaced should be PLENTY of room for a good exhaustive account.

[Droopy]

4. Thanks for the idea and welcome to DU

:toast:

[Rashind]

7. Thanks for the welcome

I've been waiting for someone to notice. :hug:

I've been lurking for months.

[liberalhistorian]

8. As something medical ethics-related,

but a bit more specific, how about Should medical bills be legally permitted on credit reports? Or, should people lose their houses and everything they've worked for just because they or a family member have or have had a serious or catastrophic medical illness with huge bills not covered by insurance, or they don't even have insurance?

Or, you could talk about the fact that hospitals and doctors charge far more for medical care to those without insurance than to those who are fortunate enough to have insurance. For instance, a hysterectomy is generally around $6,000 for those with insurance, but $20,000 for those without. This is because insurers negotiate discounts with hospitals and doctors, whereas those without insurance don't have that luxury. And the uninsured and poor who don't qualify for Medicaid are far more likely to be sued by hospitals and doctors, and to have liens put on what little they own, or to have their credit ruined even further if they don't have a house or car, etc., than those who are insured or who have a bit more money.

Whew, sorry, as you can tell, universal health care and inequities in health care is my main pet peeve!

[qb]

9. How about media ethics in the post Fairness Doctrine era?

I know there's a lot of material here, but you could focus on how the media ran with unsubstantiated rumors about Clinton (or Gore), while not allowing their side to rebut, convincing millions of Americans that the lies were true.

[kodi]

10. debate the value and use of argumentative debate itself.

"is the use of dialectic the only way to argue?"

that oughta' give your prof a good headache.

its not as clear-cut as arguing if pooper scooper laws are effective, but it gets to the heart of the intent of the clss itself.