ARGUMENTATION

Many countries like Armenia and Bulgaria restrict the right of those sentenced to imprisonment to vote in elections. Others, like Australia, restrict prisoners’ vote to those serving a sentence of more than three years. Controversy: the right of prisoners to vote

Many countries like Armenia and Bulgaria restrict the right of those sentenced to imprisonment to vote in elections. Others, like Australia, restrict prisoners’ vote to those serving a sentence of more than three years. In Costa Rica, prisoners, as society offenders, should be banned to vote. Main Claim: prisoners should be banned to vote.

Prisoners are irresponsible members of society, so they should only be given the rights of members of society when they are deemed capable of acting responsibly. Explicit argument: Prisoners are irresponsible members of society.

Though some people claim that denying prisoners to vote implies that they are sub-human and damages their dignity, this is not the case. This measure focuses on making prisoners realize and sincerely regret the effects of their actions. Explicit counter-argument: Denying prisoners to vote implies that they area sub-humans and damages their dignity.

Considering prisoners’ situation, they can only be readmitted to society, both physically and in terms of their voting rights, when they have made amends to society by serving their sentence. Conclusion: They can vote after they have made amends to society.

Support for Arguments & Counter-arguments

Statistical evidence Comparing Empirical investigation FACTS

Rationalized belief Belief based on experience Expert’s opinion OPINION

Argumentative Method Undermining Impersonal Debunking Direct confrontation with opponent; it may include offensive language

Conclusion Restatement of the claim Compromising position (50%-50%)

Opposing View Claim: ___________________________ _________________________________ Text Position Claim: Selling human organs should be legal 1. Implied counter-argument: ________ _________________________________ 1. Explicit argument: Organ access will be guaranteed for both the poor and the rich Support 1. It would work the same as blood, which can be donated or sold 2. Explicit counter-argument: ________ _________________________________ 2. Explicit argument: ______________ ________________________________ Support 1. ______________________ ________________________________ Support 2. ______________________ __________________________________ ______________________________ 3. Implied counter-argument: Legal organ sale would not benefit the poor. 3. Explicit argument: ______________ ________________________________ Support 1: They do it in the black market anyways, but only the middle man gets great benefit. Support 2: ________________________________ __________________________________ ______________________________ Argumentative method: Type of conclusion:

Should the sale of human organs be legal? The sale of human organs should be legalized. Firstly, if there are two markets: one for donated organs and one for the one that are sold, then the government can implement a system in which only poor families can get the free organs and those who are rich have to pay. In this way, the needed organ supply can go to both groups much like how blood can currently be acquired by donation or by purchase. Secondly, people who do not support the legalization of human organs argue that it would increase crime. However, crime is the norm in illicit gambling markets but not in legal ones; for example, crime was very common in the alcohol industry when it was banned during Prohibition, but not before or after. Crime only happens because the black market is not regulated and any organ can be sold. If organ selling were legalized, this type of crime would be reduced because the organs will have to be certified. Finally, selling human organs will benefit the poor economically. I see this as a good thing because poor people are selling organs in the black market anyway; however, the prices that they get are too low because the middle man would tries to arbitrage as much profit as possible. If there is an open market, the prices of the organs would be according to a supply/demand mechanism allowing the sellers to gain the most for their organ. Looking at human organ sale from a utilitarian aspect, saying yes to its legalization would benefit mankind as a whole.

Should the sale of human organs be legal? The sale of human organs should be legalized. Firstly, if there are two markets: one for donated organs and one for the one that are sold, then the government can implement a system in which only poor families can get the free organs and those who are rich have to pay. In this way, the needed organ supply can go to both groups much like how blood can currently be acquired by donation or by purchase. Secondly, people who do not support the legalization of human organs argue that it would increase crime. However, crime is the norm in illicit gambling markets but not in legal ones; for example, crime was very common in the alcohol industry when it was banned during Prohibition, but not before or after. Crime only happens because the black market is not regulated and any organ can be sold. If organ selling were legalized, this type of crime would be reduced because the organs will have to be certified. Finally, selling human organs will benefit the poor economically. I see this as a good thing because poor people are selling organs in the black market anyway; however, the prices that they get are too low because the middle man would tries to arbitrage as much profit as possible. If there is an open market, the prices of the organs would be according to a supply/demand mechanism allowing the sellers to gain the most for their organ. Looking at human organ sale from a utilitarian aspect, saying yes to its legalization would benefit mankind as a whole. Opposing View Claim: ___________________________ _________________________________ Text Position Claim: Selling human organs should be legal 1. Implied counter-argument: ________ _________________________________ 1. Explicit argument: Organ access will be guaranteed for both the poor and the rich Support 1. It would work the same as blood, which can be donated or sold 2. Explicit counter-argument: ________ _________________________________ 2. Explicit argument: ______________ ________________________________ Support 1. ______________________ ________________________________ Support 2. ______________________________________________________ 3. Implied counter-argument: Legal organ sale would not benefit the poor. 3. Explicit argument: ______________ ________________________________ Support 1: They do it in the black market anyways, but only the middle man gets great benefit. Support 2: ________________________________________________________________ Argumentative method: Type of conclusion:

Should the sale of human organs be legal? The sale of human organs should be legalized. Opposing View Claim: Text Position Claim: The sale of human organs should be legalized. The sale of human organs should be illegal / should remain illegal / should not be legalized.

Firstly, if there are two markets: one for donated organs and one for the one that are sold, then the government can implement a system in which only poor families can get the free organs and those who are rich have to pay. In this way, the needed organ supply can go to both groups much like how blood can currently be acquired by donation or by purchase. 1. Implied counter-argument:1. Explicit argument: Organ access would be guaranteed for both the poor and the rich. Support 1. It would work the same as blood, which can be acquired by donation or by purchase. Organ access would be guaranteed only for the rich. / The poor will not have access to organs. / Organ access will not be guaranteed the same for the poor and the rich.

Secondly, people who do not support the legalization of human organs argue that it would increase crime. However, crime is the norm in illicit gambling markets but not in legal ones; for example, crime was very common in the alcohol industry when it was banned during Prohibition, but not before or after. Crime only happens because the black market is not regulated and any organ can be sold. If organ selling were legalized, this type of crime would be reduced because the organs will have to be certified. 2. Explicit counter-argument:2. Explicit argument: Support 1. Support 2. Legalizing organ sale would increase crime. crime is the norm in illicit gambling markets but not in legal ones for example, crime was very common in the alcohol industry when it was banned during Prohibition, but not before or after. Crime only happens because the black market is not regulated and any organ can be sold. If organ selling were legalized, this type of crime would be reduced because the organs will have to be certified.

Finally, selling human organs will benefit the poor economically. I see this as a good thing because poor people are selling organs in the black market anyway; however, the prices that they get are too low because the middle man would tries to arbitrage as much profit as possible. If there is an open market, the prices of the organs would be according to a supply/demand mechanism allowing the sellers to gain the most for their organ. 3. Implied Counter-argument:3. Explicit argument: Support 1: Support 2: Legal organ sale would not benefit the poor. Legal organ sale would benefit the poor. They do it in the black market anyways, but only the middle man gets great benefit. An open market would work according to a supply/demand mechanism allowing the seller to get the most profit

Looking at human organ sale from a utilitarian aspect, saying yes to its legalization would benefit mankind as a whole. Argumentative Method: Kind of argumentative conclusion: Undermining Restatement of the claim

1. The sale of human organs should be legalized………………( f ) a. Comparing a similar phenomenon to support a claim 2. Firstly, if there are two markets […] have to pay…….…( g ) b. Concluding an argument 3. In this way, the needed organ can go […] or by purchase……..( a ) c. Identifying a counter- argument 4. Secondly, people who do not [ …] would increase crime……...( c ) d. Supporting a claim with a rationalized belief. 5. However, crime is the norm […] not before or after….……..( e ) e. Attacking a counter- argument with an example 6. I see this as a good thing because […] as possible……….( d ) f. Introducing an argument 7. Looking at human organ sale […] mankind as a whole………...( b ) g. Introducing a claim supporting the argument h. Debunking the opposition