Inherit the Wind

In the note preceding the play, the playwrights imply that the themes of the play are timeless and universal. They understand that there is always something that gets America, or even a small portion of America, riled up. People will never agree on everything because we all have unique opinions that we are entitled to have! Under the first amendment, we are given our basic freedoms of individualism and the freedoms to express those. As in the book, there will always be a battle raging between two parties who cannot seem to reach common ground. This is not wrong, but the playwrights are trying to emphasize the inevitability of this in our society. In the book, the battle was fought over "Darwinism" and evolution. An example in today's society would be the issue of abortion. It is a constant battle that exists due to two extremely different views.
As I stated before, the abortion issue is a great example of how the themes of the book tie in today, especially since both topics are very much based on religion. In Inherit the Wind, the argument is that God created all beings. The other side of the argument states that humans and all beings evolved over time. When applied to abortion, the religious side emphasizes that human life begins at conception and that abortion is murder. The other side believes that a woman has the right to decide what she is going to do with her body.
People are never going to agree on everything, which is why the Scopes trials had to happen and why Roe vs Wade occurred. There are plenty of other examples of opposition in today's society.
It's a fact of life!

Promoting Democracy Abroad

After reading "Should Democracy Abroad Be a Top U.S. Priority?" I agree with the "yes" argument. First of all, the "yes" argument is a very strong argument that states that those countries that democratize experience a sharp increase in economic growth. For example, Poland, Hungary, Bulgaria, Mexico, Senegal, Mozambique, and other countries, all of which switched over to democratic ways, grew more rapidly than Zimbabwe, Cuba, North Korea, Uzbekistan, and Saudi Arabia, all countries with autocratic governments. In addition, Siegle makes the argument that while autocratic countries with incomes below $2,000 averaged 79 infant deaths per 1,000 live births during the '90s, democratizers in the same income category and time frame typically experienced only 62 infant deaths. Also to be noted, democratizing states that strive to establish institutions of shared power tend to develop more rapidly. Those countries such as Botswana, South Africa, Senegal, Slovenia, the Czech Republic, etc. that have established stronger methods protecting against the arbitrary use of power have realized more economic growth than other democratizers whose restraints on political monopolization have been weak. Democratic countries, he argues, also present a good example of the benefits of democracy to those countries who do not currently govern that way. I believe that these examples provide strong support and evidence that democracy anywhere is responsible for increased prosperity and advancement. This can be made evident simply be comparing and contrasting countries with a strong democratic system to those that have a poor democratic system or none at all. Who can argue with infant mortality rates and economic stability?

In reading the "no" argument, I picked up on some weak points in the text. The "no" argument, first of all, does not even really disagree with the "yes" argument-it simply disagreed in the way the spread of democracy abroad was being carried out. What kind of an argument is that? :) This in itself makes for a poor stance (the fact that the author is not supporting the completely opposite point of view). She argues that the spread of democracy abroad is costing us too much money and that our president is not carrying his duties out in the correct way, but she does not really give much of an example. She does speak of how some say that they doubt President Bush really wanted to establish democracy in Iraq in the first place, but she does not back up her argument by giving examples of who, when, why, etc. This is all simply heresay without substantial evidence. Her circumlocution is not beneficial or complementary to her argument whatsoever-it just makes her seem as if she didn't do her "research!"

Justification of Putting Suspected Terrorists Through Torture

After reading "Is it Justified to Put Suspected Terrorists under Great Physical Duress," I sided with the "no" stance. I strongly believe that because the U.S. government allowed for the beating of, many times innocent, people who were suspected terrorists, we were given a bad reputation. Many other countries who had looked up to us previously, now look down upon us as no better than the actual terrorists themselves. This could harm our country in the sense that those who took our side before on very large matters, have left us on our own after this "rendition" sort of uprising. In addition, the beating and torture of people for information teaches our children the wrong things, and it sets up very low standards for our citizens. We can no longer say that we are a morally-correct country, and there is definitely not as much to be proud of if we are defined for our unethical and inhumane treatment of our own race! I do not agree with the "no" argument at all because the author stresses that torturing others for information is essential to protecting our citizens from harm. He also states that we are sending a positive example in standing up for the freedoms and protection of our country. Yes, I agree that our citizens should be kept out of harm's way, but as the "no" argument mentions, how many people actually have information to give us? And how many times have these pressure tactics worked? I will say that I don't believe they are effective at all! We just look idiotic. In conclusion, the "no" argument is a much stronger argument, and I argue with that argument one-hundred percent.