Part 1 Assignment 11 Conflicting Viewpoints Essay

Part 1assignment 11 Conflicting Viewpoints Essay Part Iprewritingw

Part 1 assignment 11 Conflicting Viewpoints Essay Part I prewriting

Part 1 Assignment 1.1: Conflicting Viewpoints Essay - Part I Prewriting When looking for information about a particular issue, how often do you try to resist biases toward your own point of view? This assignment asks you to engage in this aspect of critical thinking by playing the "Believing Game." The Believing Game is about making the effort to "believe" - or at least consider - the reasons for an opposing view on an issue. The assignment is divided into two parts. In Part I of the assignment (due Week 2), you will first read a book excerpt about critical thinking processes: "The Believing Game and How to Make Conflicting Opinions More Fruitful" at [URL or source]. Next, you will review the Procon.org Website to gather information.

Then, you will engage in prewriting to examine your thoughts. Note: In Part II of the assignment (due Week 4), you will write an essay geared towards synthesizing your ideas. Part I - Prewriting: Follow the instructions below for this prewriting activity. Use complete sentences and adhere to standard rules of English grammar, punctuation, mechanics, and spelling. 1. Select one of the approved topics from the Website and state your position on the issue. 2. From the Procon.org Website, identify three premises (reasons) listed under either the Pro or Con section that oppose your position. 3. For each of the three premises opposing your position, answer these "believing" questions: What's interesting or helpful about this view? What would I notice if I believed this view? In what sense or under what conditions might this idea be true? The paper should include an introductory paragraph and a concluding paragraph, with main ideas in body paragraphs supported by topic sentences and supporting sentences. Follow guidelines for clear and organized writing. Formatting requirements: typed, double-spaced, Times New Roman font size 12, with one-inch margins. Citations and references must follow APA style. Include a cover page with the assignment title, student’s name, professor’s name, course, and date. The cover page and references are not included in the page count.

Paper For Above instruction

The first part of this assignment emphasizes the importance of engaging critically with opposing viewpoints through the "Believing Game." By actively considering arguments that oppose our own positions, individuals can develop a more nuanced understanding of contentious issues and foster open-mindedness. The process involves selecting a particular issue from credible sources such as Procon.org, articulating one's own stance, and then exploring three opposing premises. The key is to analyze these premises with an open mind, asking reflective questions about their validity and usefulness, which can help mitigate biases and promote empathetic engagement.

For this exercise, I chose the contentious issue of legalizing recreational cannabis. My position is that recreational cannabis should be legalized, considering its potential benefits in terms of economic growth, reduced criminal justice costs, and personal freedom. I then examined the opposing arguments listed on Procon.org, which include reasons such as concerns over increased youth access, potential health risks, and the fear of normalization of drug use.

From the opposing side, I identified three key premises: First, that legalization may lead to increased youth access to cannabis; second, that cannabis poses significant health risks, including mental health issues and addiction; and third, that legalizing cannabis may contribute to the normalization of drug use, potentially reducing societal resistance to other substances. These premises merit careful examination through the lens of the "Believing Game."

Addressing each premise, I asked myself what might be beneficial or insightful about the opposing view. For example, considering that increased youth access is concerning, I noted that this premise raises awareness of age-specific regulation needed in legal markets. Believing in this premise would mean noticing the importance of strict enforcement of age restrictions to prevent adolescent access. Similarly, regarding health risks, engaging with this viewpoint emphasizes the importance of research and regulation to minimize adverse health consequences. If I believed this claim, I would notice the necessity for public health campaigns and medical oversight. As for normalization concerns, believing in them highlights the societal importance of clear messaging and education about responsible use, which could help mitigate normalization effects.

Furthermore, examining biases, I recognize that my support for legalization may be influenced by group identification with advocates and economic proponents, potentially blinding me to some health or social risks. Conversely, my critical evaluation may also be affected by confirmation bias, seeking information that supports my stance while discounting opposing arguments. My enculturation, shaped by liberal attitudes towards personal freedoms and drug policy reform, also influences my worldview, making me more receptive to legalization arguments.

Reflecting on the process, I find that engaging with opposing premises has enriched my understanding and reinforced my conviction that thoughtful regulation and ongoing research are essential, regardless of my overall stance. While my position remains supportive of legalization, I now appreciate the complexity of concerns raised by opponents and recognize the importance of addressing these issues through policy and education.

References

  • Elbow, P. (2014). The believing game and how to make conflicting opinions more fruitful. Educational Leadership, 71(3), 14-20.
  • ProCon.org. (2023). Should recreational cannabis be legalized? Retrieved from https://www.procon.org
  • MacCoun, R. J., & Mello, M. M. (2015). Drug policing and the public health. Annual Review of Law and Social Science, 11, 415-434.
  • Room, R., Rehm, J., & Tait, R. (2020). Cannabis policy: Moving beyond simple prohibition. Psychology & Public Policy, 20(3), 123-145.
  • Hall, W., & Weier, M. (2015). Assessing the public health impacts of legalizing recreational cannabis use in the United States. Current Opinion in Psychology, 10, 218-224.
  • Hasin, D. S., et al. (2017). US epidemiology of cannabis use and related disorders: Results. American Journal of Psychiatry, 174(6), 567-578.
  • Kalant, H. (2017). Cannabis: The controversy continues. Addiction, 112(11), 1922-1928.
  • Oregon Health Authority. (2020). Cannabis legalization: Public health and safety considerations. Oregon.gov.
  • Swift, W., & Hall, W. (2018). Cannabis: Evolution and public health. International Journal of Drug Policy, 47, 151-161.
  • National Institute on Drug Abuse. (2022). Is cannabis safe and effective for medical use? NSDUH Report.

Related Assignments