The Big Talk

In High school, there was another student in all of my classes, and we never agreed about anything, literally, it could have been about the color of the classrooms, anything. In one of our classes, a world religions course, the teacher was lecturing and discussing about how communities of different identities shape the whole public policy.The other student argued that a city has the right to impose social policies on the whole of the community based on majority. I then posed a hypothetical situation, where in a fictional city there were more people who followed Islam, and the minority in the city were say another religion such as Christianity. Would their overwhelming majority give them right to infringe on the right and customs of other cultures. Yet the other student felt that just like in a capitalist model, you have purchase power, and if you do not like the values, ethics of the city (or rather the policies imposed upon you), it is your responsibility to live with it or leave the community, as you would choose not to buy products from a certain company.

After this statement, I argued that the role of the governments was to balance the needs of all citizens, especially on a social level, to exclude on group on a political level is antithetical to everyone's rights a human beings. Unlike a corporation, or a business, which is much more kinetic and less permanent than a settlement, or a city for that matter, it is not practical for people to relocate based on preferable beliefs. As well the idea of homogeneous state sounds brutally dreary. The discussion went on without any real leeway on either side, on no level did we agree.

This was a "Big Issue" because it pertains to everything we do, and our perception of what we our doing. The expanses of the argument of public inclusivity versus exclusivity were infinite because it is applicative to everything we as humans do in a social sense, for example, as as Saint Louis native, a large debate being sparked around Saint Louis, and even Missouri is the "Right to Pray Bill", this is a pivotal question of how far we are willing to allow on group in the larger scheme of things gain more power than other, and on the other side the extent the government or the community is willing to go to protect the minorities of every situation varying from social, political, etc. That even further can branch out to questions of the nature of man, but I won't go there in this post.

This argument mostly showed signs of mostly Logos, but also a little Pathos. This is because the argument was based on reason, yet the instigator of debate and our opinions is a product of our environment and experiences, so it is fair to say it could possibly be an argument of emotion, because it is probable that certain policies have affected us in the past. Yet in the argument, there was no attempt to cite a credible source, so it probably was not based in Ethos.

I really liked your essay. I liked the fact that there were 3 different views, yours, your teacher's, and the kid you always disagree with. You could play on that idea of 3 different views of your topic.
If I were you I would make it a little more clear as to what your topic is. When I was reading this I was a little confused as to what your topic was, but I got it eventually. Also, I would make it more story like by being more descriptive in regards to the people and setting I guess.

I think that your story is very good. The story aspect of it is very clear and well written. The only thing was that it took me a while to figure out what big topic question you were answering. I agree that you should make that more clear.