Pulley 1

Emily Pulley

Jackie Burr, Instructor

English 1010, Section 7

15 May 2018

Arguing on Paper

I love to learn and form logical arguments for my opinions. Some might think that this

means I would love class debates in school. Quite the contrary; class debates make me mad. That

was especially so in the eighth grade. I had the same experience over and over again in both my

English and History classes. My teachers claimed they believed in being unbiased, and giving us

both sides of every issue, and they would give us two articles: each promoting opposite sides of

the same controversial topic.

One day we were researching the minimum wage. One article explained how inflation

works and discussed raising the minimum wage with inflation. The other article vaguely

explained how this would negatively affect the economy. It was badly written and did not even

touch the main reason conservatives disagree with a minimum wage: the minimum wage hurts

the people it is supposed to help. For the school assignment, I was supposed to write an essay

defending my position, but all my facts had to be found in one of the sources she had given me.

It was impossible to write an essay on why we should get rid of the minimum wage with the

articles given. Every couple weeks this would repeat, with a different topics. The students were

not allowed to think for themselves, do other research, or even form their own opinion. The

easiest way to get an A was to agree with the teacher politically, rewrite the essay in your own

words, and not actually think critically about the topic.

 Pulley 2

When we get in groups and “discuss” the topic most of the people choose to debate

against me because (A) they already agreed with the teacher beforehand (B) all they know about

the topic is these two “sources” and the other side obviously looks like the right one or (C) they

can tell the teacher is on the other side, and they think it will get them a better grade. Then I’d be

left with a few other stragglers to be shot down by everyone on the other side trying to explain

my side to no avail.

I love to listen to political podcasts, and lectures on how to form good arguments. I study

facts behind issues, and enjoy discovering what I think about different issues. As the quote

attributed to E. M. Forster said, “How do I know what I think until I see what I say.” This meant

that I loved the transition from eighth grade argumentative essays, to ninth grade ones. Although

sometimes we did class “discussions” and I was a bad orator, now we mostly wrote essays. Also,

in the ninth grade we did our own research instead of using sources supplied by the teacher.

When writing, I can think about the best way to say things, and take my time explaining on paper

without the class staring me down. Throughout the ninth grade, I learned to love logic and reason

even more, and then to use it to my advantage.

When I was assigned to write a research paper on the Armenian Genocide in my human

geography class, I had never even heard of it before. Although, or perhaps because, it was

appalling, I was fascinated with this fresh topic. Watching documentaries, reading witness

accounts, and grimacing through pictures, I was horrified. The essay was not written as well as it

could have been, but I was very proud of my research. My incredibly short paper had six works

cited and over two-thirds of it was in quotes. After all the research I did, the paper almost wrote

itself. I never pondered the issue. I knew that the genocide did happen because of the vast
 Pulley 3

amount of evidence that I found. I decided that the genocide happened after I read the essay I

wrote explaining the evidence.

Afterwards, in my biology class, I was assigned to write a research paper on genetically

modified organisms, or GMOs. Like with the last paper, I knew nothing of the topic before I

started the assignment. I started with an open mind. I was ready for another experience where I

found more and more mounting logical evidence, except, there was no evidence. I looked for a

scientific reason why GMOs were awful. All I found were emotionally charged articles and

videos of people eating gross food blindfolded. Logical evidence of sickness or disease? None.

After digging deeper, I found evidence of the dangers of specific modifications in specific

organisms. Some modification could cause harm, and some could do much good, depending on

what the modification was designed to do. Nothing was there to indicate that all modifications

were bad, just because they were done in a lab. Genetic engineering itself is under attack based

on emotion. Thus, most of my research focused on the pros and cons of very specific genetic

modifications such as “Round-up Ready” or “Terminator Seeds” or “Golden Rice.” This

experience taught me to be wary of emotional arguments.

Later, when I was assigned to write an argumentative essay on something of my choice in

my English class, I knew exactly what I wanted to write about. My school, Elk Ridge Middle,

had a no-backpack policy; only purses and string bags were allowed. I thought that this was a

huge injustice. The only bags allowed hurt my shoulders immensely and daily I wished this rule

was abolished. I dove back into research, this time with an agenda in mind. I found doctors’

opinions on how string bags were bad for the back and I explained how this long-lasting pain is

worse than the hazards of a crowded hallway. I found every reason I could why backpacks
 Pulley 4

should be banned and debunked it logically and calmly. When I got my essay back, on the top

read “100%” and a scrawl from my teacher reading, “I agree, it is a stupid rule.”

This message motivated me to try to get the rule changed. Other students had been trying

years, but this year we had a new principal, and I thought I had a chance. After school I put the

essay into a manila envelope and handed it to my principal as he was bidding farewell to students

at the front of the school. My friend and I decided to make a petition and we went around for two

or three weeks and collected signatures. I don’t remember how many names we got, but it was

around two hundred. I knew that wasn’t a lot compared to the entire student body, but it was a

quite an accomplishment for a shy person like me. When my friend and I took the petition to the

principal, he took and glanced over it. He sighed and told us apologetically that the rule would

probably not change.

I was surprised. Every point he could possibly make I had refuted logically. He explained

that because it was his first year as the principal, he didn’t want to make drastic changes until he

knew why the rule was in place. My friend exclaimed, “but what about next year!” He made a

small noncommittal gesture and said he just didn’t know. Then he asked why we even cared

about next year, we would be in high school then. I looked right at him in the eyes and

exclaimed, “but my sister will be here next year!” As he looked at me, I saw something in his

expression shift. I have never forgotten how he looked at that moment. Logos hadn’t worked,

ethos hadn’t worked, but pathos did. He still said he wasn’t sure, but I knew he was on my side.

He always smiled at me whenever I saw him after that. Before the next school year, a letter

appeared in the mail explaining that Elk Ridge Middle now had an open backpack policy.
 Pulley 5

Roger E. Olson, a professor of theology at George W. Truett Theological Seminary, said,

“Before saying, ‘I disagree,’ be sure you can say, ‘I understand.’” This perfectly describes what

argumentative writing has taught me. I learned how to understand people who differ with me,

and how to teach people to understand me. I would have never gone to the principal if I thought

he might have a valid reason why we should keep backpacks that I had not already considered,

researched, and refuted. I always do my best to know everything I can before trying to debate

someone on a topic.

Works Cited

Olson, Roger E. ​Against Calvinism​. Zondervan, 2011.