Implications Of Arguments As Tools For Evaluation

Implications Of Arguments Can Be Used As Tools For Evaluating And Asse

Implications of arguments can be used as tools for evaluating and assessing arguments. These can help you decide whether you want to accept or support an original argument or not. In this assignment, you build on the skills you used in M3: Assignment 2, and go one step further. Review the following articles: Eastland, T. (2011, January 17). We the people. The Weekly Standard, 16 (17), 7–8. Retrieved from Cohen, N. (2013, December 15). Surveillance: Cozy or chilling?. The New York Times, p. SR.6. Retrieved from. Using these articles, complete the following: Summarize two of the authors’ arguments (one argument from each article). Identify and discuss one further implication of each of those arguments. Assuming the author is “right,” what sorts of claims or facts would follow from that argument? Support your statements with scholarly references. Be sure to use concepts from your readings that are relevant to the assignment. Write your initial response in 300–400 words. Apply APA standards to citation of sources.

Paper For Above instruction

The exploration of arguments and their implications plays a crucial role in critical thinking and debate, especially in evaluating contemporary societal issues. The selected articles by Eastland (2011) and Cohen (2013) provide contrasting perspectives that stimulate discussion about civic engagement and surveillance, respectively. Summarizing the core arguments and analyzing their implications reveal transformative insights into public policy and individual rights.

Eastland’s (2011) article, “We the People,” advocates for increased civic participation, emphasizing that active engagement in democratic processes sustains constitutional values and ensures government accountability. He argues that a disengaged populace weakens democracy, making it more susceptible to corruption and authoritarian tendencies. The author contends that civic responsibility is fundamental to maintaining the integrity of the American political system, highlighting the importance of informed voting and community involvement.

Cohen’s (2013) article, “Surveillance: Cozy or Chilling?” examines the implications of government surveillance on personal privacy and civil liberties. Cohen argues that while surveillance can enhance security, it risks infringing on individual privacy rights and fostering a climate of fear and mistrust. He questions whether the security benefits outweigh the potential damage to democratic freedoms, suggesting that unchecked surveillance practices could lead to authoritarianism and social conformity.

Building upon Eastland’s argument, one significant implication is the potential for increased civic literacy and engagement to foster a more resilient democracy. If citizens understand their civic duties, policies, and the importance of oversight, they may be more motivated to participate actively, thereby reinforcing democratic institutions. Research indicates that higher levels of civic education correlate with increased voting rates and political involvement (Galston, 2001), strengthening democratic accountability and resistance to corruption.

In Cohen’s case, if his argument about the dangers of surveillance is correct, then a logical consequence is the formulation of stricter legal frameworks and oversight mechanisms to regulate surveillance activities. This could include independent review boards and transparency measures to ensure that security does not override civil liberties. Studies show that effective checks and balances in surveillance practices enhance public trust and uphold democratic ideals (Lyon, 2003). Moreover, recognizing the potential chilling effect of surveillance on free speech suggests that policies must balance security interests with privacy rights to prevent authoritarian drift (Richards, 2015).

In conclusion, the implications derived from these arguments underscore the importance of fostering civic engagement and regulating surveillance to preserve democratic values. If both arguments hold true, society would benefit from active citizen participation and robust protections against encroachments on privacy, ensuring the sustainability of democratic governance in an era of technological complexity.

References

• Galston, W. A. (2001). Political knowledge, political engagement, and civic education. Annual Review of Political Science, 4(1), 217–234.
• Lyon, D. (2003). Surveillance as social sorting: Privacy, risk, and digital discrimination. Routledge.
• Richards, N. M. (2015). The dangers of surveillance: The case for oversight. Harvard Law Review, 128(1), 177–210.
• Eastland, T. (2011, January 17). We the people. The Weekly Standard, 16(17), 7–8.
• Cohen, N. (2013, December 15). Surveillance: Cozy or chilling?. The New York Times, p. SR.6.