Controversial Issue Paper Cipdr Andrew Pieperone Primary Goa

Controversial Issue Paper Cipdr Andrew Pieperone Primary Goal Of An

Develop critical thinking skills through research and analysis of a controversial issue related to Congress, culminating in a well-reasoned position based on scholarly sources, logical assessment, and respectful consideration of opposing viewpoints.

Paper For Above instruction

Critical thinking is a vital skill to cultivate within social sciences education, especially when addressing controversial political issues that often involve subjective perceptions shaped by media, social identities, and personal biases. The primary objective of this paper is to enhance the ability to analyze complex issues systematically and develop a well-informed stance supported by credible evidence and respectful engagement with opposing arguments. This process involves forming a specific yes/no question related to Congress, researching varied perspectives, and critically evaluating the implications of each position.

The first step involves selecting a focused and realistic question beginning with “Should Congress...,” ensuring that the question is debate-worthy, specifically phrased, and capable of being supported or challenged by evidence. Examples might include policy debates such as “Should Congress pass a flat tax?” or procedural issues like “Should Congress ratify the XXXX Treaty?” Notably, questions related to abortion, gun control, or immigration are excluded. The question must be approved by the instructor after submission by June 22, 2018, with revisions made by June 29, 2018, to ensure clarity and relevance.

The introductory section, spanning 1-2 pages, situates the issue within its current political and social context, discusses its origins, any recent developments such as legislation, court rulings, or social movements, and explains why the debate warrants examination. This background sets the stage for a nuanced understanding of the issue's significance, highlighting partisan divisions or social implications that contribute to its controversy.

The core analysis is divided into two sections, each approximately three to four pages, dedicated to articulating supported positions for both “yes” and “no” sides. Each section involves a comprehensive presentation of supporting philosophies, ideological foundations, relevant data, and variations within each stance—such as differing viewpoints among proponents. Critical evaluation requires respecting each position’s logic and assumptions, exploring the sources’ credibility, and addressing counterarguments with intellectual honesty, avoiding ad hominem language or dismissive judgments. This balanced approach fosters the development of a critical perspective capable of understanding multiple viewpoints.

Following the exploration of both sides, the paper transitions into a concluding personal position, about one to two pages long. This section reflects on the research journey, how insights and evidence influenced perceptions, and articulates a well-grounded stance. The author should synthesize the arguments and evidence, explaining what moved them to favor one side over the other, and whether principles such as fairness, societal values, or empirical data played a decisive role. Importantly, the conclusion should avoid neutrality for its own sake but instead convincingly state the author's reasoned viewpoint, potentially acknowledging nuanced complexities.

The paper must incorporate a robust bibliography, utilizing academic books, journal articles, reputable magazines, and newspapers, with internet sources serving as supplementary material. Critical evaluation of sources is essential—credibility, bias, and relevance should be scrutinized to ensure high-quality evidence supports the argument. A minimum of 8-10 credible sources is recommended, with at least one source representing each side of the issue. In-text citations should be appropriate, and endnotes or alternative citation styles may be used as specified.

Formatting requirements include Times New Roman 12-point font, one title page, double-spaced text of 8-12 pages, and numbered pages. The title page should include the question, writer’s name, instructor’s name, date, course, and contact information. The layout emphasizes clarity, organization, and logical progression from introduction through analysis to conclusion, reflecting critical thinking principles such as clarity, accuracy, relevance, depth, breadth, fairness, and logical coherence.

Throughout this process, the fundamental goal is not just to complete an assignment for grading but to develop a disciplined approach to understanding complex social/political issues. Engaging deeply with diverse perspectives, questioning assumptions, assessing evidence critically, and communicating ideas effectively constitute the core competencies of a thoughtful social scientist. This practice aligns with the goals outlined by the Foundation for Critical Thinking and emphasizes improving the quality of one’s reasoning and argumentation.

References

  • Ennis, R. H. (2011). The nature of critical thinking: An outline of critical thinking dispositions and skills. Inquiry: Critical Thinking Across the Disciplines, 26(1), 4-18.
  • Facione, P. A. (2015). Critical thinking: What it is and why it counts. Insight Assessment.
  • Paul, R., & Elder, L. (2014). The Miniature Guide to Critical Thinking Concepts and Tools. Foundation for Critical Thinking.
  • Kuhn, D. (2010). Teaching and learning science as argument. Science Education, 94(5), 810-824.
  • Lipman, M. (2003). Thinking in education. Cambridge University Press.
  • Norris, S. P., & Phillips, L. M. (1994). The use of sourced-based arguments in science education. Studies in Science Education, 23, 245-267.
  • Scriven, M., & Paul, R. (1987). Defining critical thinking. Critical Thinking: What Every Person Needs To Survive in a Rapidly Changing World.
  • Spring, J. (2014). American Education. Routledge.
  • Willingham, D. T. (2007). Critical thinking: Why is it so hard and can it be taught? American Educator, 31(4), 8-17.
  • Zimmerman, B. J. (2002). Becoming a self-regulated learner: An overview. Theory into Practice, 41(2), 64-70.

Related Assignments