Challenge: Argue opposing viewpoint 2018

OBnursemom

Wed, Nov 28 2018, 1:10 pm

U.S. military funding for Israel is not in Israel’s best interest. Too many people who wouldn’t normally be anti-Semitic resent it and it erodes support for Israeli positions. The anti-Semites in the U.S. then have to take anti-Israel positions, that wouldn’t be interesting to them if Israel was just another Middle East country with no relevance to their lives. In addition, relying on U.S. money makes them reliant on U.S. opinions- many of which are not helpful from a security standpoint. While many would point out that the U.S. funds important security measures like the Iron Dome, Israel is a very inventive in the high tech domain, and they are better off not being beholden to anyone but themselves.

↑ causemommysaid

Wed, Nov 28 2018, 3:51 pm

ora_43 wrote:

Since marina passed on this one, I'm going to do

Twilight is the literary masterpiece of our generation

What is writing about, really? What makes writing “good”?

I would argue that writing is about communication. A good writer is one who effectively gets their point across, who connects to their readers, and who ultimately leaves them happier for having read.

Twilight accomplished all of the above on a phenomenal scale. Stephanie Meyer’s series captivated hundreds of millions of people. She was the bestselling author in America two years running. Her language might not be “literary,” but it’s clear and compelling.

Should we say it doesn’t have literary merit just because it’s about sparkling vampires? If 100,000,000 people love a story, how can someone come along and claim a much less popular story is “better” based on… what, exactly? It being more serious (ie, less fun)? It having more complex language or more unusual metaphors (ie, harder to read)? It leaving people disturbed or conflicted, rather than happy?

Twilight is a literary masterpiece because readers love it. Nothing more or less.

(Note, too, that the second runner-up for Literary Masterpiece of Our Generation - 50 shades of Grey - was actually inspired by Twilight. Truly, Twilight is the literary gift that won't stop giving.)

And if you think about it, Twilight is a story with a deep message. Sure, it looks like a nitwit teenage girl falling in love with a nitwit vampire for no particular reason. But let’s look deeper.

Who is Edward? A sparkly vampire? That, yes – but he’s also a stand-in for the concept of masculinity, in both the positive sense and the negative. He’s rich, powerful, physically formidable, and capable of extreme violence.

Who is Bella? A girl sadly lacking personality, intelligence or interests? That, yes – but she’s also a stand-in for the concept of femininity.

The books go out of their way to mention how un-special Bella is when it comes to nearly everything – looks, academics, friendships, the ability to move without tripping… But there’s one thing about her that’s very special. She’s compassionate. She makes tremendous sacrifices over and over throughout the series – for her parents, for her friends, for the sparkly undead beast that she loves, for her baby. She is literally willing to give her life for others.

The series tells the story of Bella falling in love with Edward – but underneath that is the story of femininity and compassion gradually winning out over masculinity and violence. By the end, Edward is madly in love with Bella. His raw physical strength and potential for violence is now hers to command. The simple girl who just wants everyone she loves to be OK is ultimately the strongest of all.

The series ends with Bella preventing bloodshed by using her special vampire powers to protect those she loves. A bizarrely anti-climactic ending if you’re reading Twilight as a simple love story. A brilliant statement on the natural connection between femininity, nurturing, and pacifism, if you look beneath the surface.

Twilight isn’t just a love story. It’s a story about the power of femininity, and the power of compassion – something crucial in our generation, which is sadly lacking respect for both.

I laughed the whole way through.

amother

↑ Yellow

Wed, Nov 28 2018, 4:00 pm

Mommyg8 wrote:

Pause, this was brilliant! What a pity I don't know you IRL!

Those were the exact thoughts that were going through my own mind the past few days - how'd you guess?

Obama was the best president ever in United States. he loves Israel so much the first trip he made when he got elected wa sto isreal, he was so respectful to prime minister Netanyahu, and he never pressured Israel to give up land to the Arabs. He was so successfull making peace with Israel and the Arabs and he allways showed favoritism to Israel. He was too strong against Iran and he didn’t let them build up their nuclear weapons because he didn’t agree to make an agreement with them or give them millions of dollars to fund thier terror acts. He helped our economy, he is the one who did it not trump, it doesn’t mean anything that it happened during trumps term Obama still did it. He never was friends with reverend wright the hater of America and he was never freiends with the terrorust Bill Ayers or Valerie Jarrett. He loves America so much. I miss him.

↑ marina

Wed, Nov 28 2018, 4:12 pm

amother wrote:

Oy yellow. I dk how to help you at all with this exercise. Maybe just try and be more sincere. Write only what you believe to be true. But I commend you for trying again and again!

Maybe like this: "Obama was not as terrible as people make him out to be. Although I disagreed with him about his position on Israel, he certainly was critical in getting funding for the Iron Dome..."

Raisin

Wed, Nov 28 2018, 4:56 pm

Brexit (especially a crashing out no deal Brexit) is a really great idea. Why should the British be told what to do by some bureaucrats in Brussles?

True, there may be some short term financial struggles, but in the long term the British will be way better off.

Also, if the EU bans shechita or bris mila, the UK won't be affected. (and French Jews can all come to the UK to eat steak and bris their sons which will be great for the local Jewish economy) Also, the EU hates Israel.

The UK will have more control over immigration, which is good because anti semitism stemming from growing numbers of muslims is a real problem.

Brexit will also probably lead to Northern Ireland becoming part of the Republic, which is a good thing. (Its kind of hypocritical to insist on governing ourself while we still rule over a chunk of another country)

There will be more jobs for real British people once all the Poles, Romanians etc leave.

(oh that was really hard!)

↑ pause

Thu, Nov 29 2018, 11:35 am

marina wrote:

Minorities want nothing more than to be judged for their talents, knowledge, and experience, just like everyone else. Affirmative action disregards this basic need because it encourages consideration of skin color or other protected status. Women, for example, want to get a promotion because of their skill set, not to help an employer meet some criteria about how many females should be in upper management. African Americans and Latino individuals want to be accepted to Ivy League universities for their test scores and grades and essay writing skills, not to help the university meet some sort of quota set by people who don't know the individual applicant and don't really care about him or her.

Affirmative action not only allows peers and coworkers to cast aspersions on a minority colleague's promotion or academic accolades, it also allows people to continue thinking of minorities as victims. This does nothing to help future generations feel or act empowered and instead, simply serves to cement the woe-is-me mentality among some minorities and breed resentment among some members of the majority.

Although affirmative action highlights the fact that minorities are minorities and gives them "special treatment" which is exactly what we're trying to prevent, the fact is that without affirmative action, minorities wouldn't have many of these opportunities. It's so easy to discriminate against minorities by blaming their insufficient skill set, their lack of talent, etc. and it would be difficult to prove that discriminatory actions are taking place. Of course most people would rather hire "their own", people they can more easily associate with and relate to; affirmative action forces diversity which fosters tolerance.

Even more so, many minorities often don't get the same education because of their unfortunate childhoods (which may or may not have been caused by discrimination). How can we get them to break out of the cycle of poverty (and raise children in the same circumstances) if we don't afford them options by which they can be successful? Even if they are slightly less qualified for the position, through affirmative action they will be hired and with additional training they will become qualified. We are giving them the opportunity to reach heights they would not be able to otherwise attain.

How did I do?