english

Recycling is good for the environment, keeping trash out of the oceans.
It means less materials will have to be made, since most recycled material can be reused.
It's easy for the average civilian to do; all they have to do is throw something that's recyclable in the right trash can and people who know what they're doing will take care of the rest.

Despite the benefits of not throwing trash into the environment or landfills, there are environmental drawbacks too- many of the ways of processing recycled material and the machines themselves produce waste and emissions of gasses.
Money has to be put into maintaining the facilities, processing the recycled material, and people who are working there, meaning it's a good possibility that it's not as cost-effective as it seems.
Not everything can be recycled; in fact, there are a lot of plastic and other products that can't be recycled, and even the ones that can can't be reused fully.

https://www.gov.je/Environment/WasteReduceReuseRecycle/WhyRecycle/Pages/Benefits.aspx
https://ecologycenter.org/factsheets/adverse-health-effects-of-plastics/
https://www.epa.gov/recycle/recycling-basics
https://www.epa.gov/recycle/reducing-and-reusing-basics

What are the benefits of recycling?: It helps the environment by keeping trash out of places like oceans, forests, and landfills
What are the negative effects, if any, to recycling?
What resources and planning would be involved in starting a recycling program?
Are there better alternatives to recycling?
What is the difference between promoting recycling and requiring it?

Their argument is that, not only does recycling help the environment by keeping waste out of the natural world, it also helps economically by providing jobs to people and putting money into the economy. I think that because they say things like "recycling has become a big industry" and provide evidence to support that statement, as well as the fact that they finished with "Saving the planet is a noble and worthwhile goal, but it’s also important to recognize the real economic benefits of reusing and recycling."

The main claim that the author makes is that recycling is good for the economy as well as the environment. I would frame my counterargument something like this:

The author's argument doesn't take into account the cost of recycling. Recycling can be expensive; in 2002, New York paid $240 per ton in recycling, which at the time was twice the cost of what it would have been to simply throw it away. Recycling programs cost money, and though New York has since cut back significantly, total revenue does not equal profit. Profit after taking all of these costs into account might be significantly less- in fact, recycling programs often operate at a loss- and individual municipalities may not be able to pay to keep up their programs. Also, money for wages, upkeep of machines, and recycling itself has to come from somewhere, and that somewhere is usually taxes paid by average citizens.

While it is a net cost, the environmental benefits are worth paying the additional cost to recycle rather than just throw it away. If it's thrown away, depending on where you live it could go to a landfill, be burned or buried, or even be thrown into the ocean, which is definitely bad for the environment.

Assuming that debate we saw was all both of the sides had to say, I would say the opposition won the argument. I didn't necessarily agree with their side, and still don't, but I believe that they argued better. The proposition, in my opinion, relied too much on emotion and hearsay, while the opposition used logic and fact to support their claims. Pathos and ethos have their place, of course, but in the constraints of this argument I'd say a mix of logos and pathos or ethos is the best way to go. That being said, if this were an argument on a larger scale and the proposition also used logos instead of only pathos and ethos, I might be more inclined to agree with them.

Benefits of Recycling - This website contains information on the environmental aspects of recycling: saving resources and energy, protecting the environment, and reducing incineration.
Recycling Plastics Can Be Toxic - This site discusses toxic chemicals found in plastic, like lead, mercury, and carcinogens.
Recycling Basics - This website outlines the benefits of recycling briefly, then describes the actual, practical process.
Recycling: Ideas and Benefits - This site goes more into detail than the previous one, as well as providing resources for further reading and donating directly.

I would construct a counterargument for the fourth speaker by talking about how, while I feel bad that his dog was sick, there are many different things that could have made the dog sick. It could have been diet, or the dog could have eaten something weird, or gotten some kind of virus, and it could even be something different but related to the water like bacteria in the water or chemicals from somewhere else.

https://www.cdc.gov/parasites/water.html - This website discusses the kinds of illnesses that can be contracted from swimming in or drinking from natural, untreated water sources; it also explains what can be done to prevent them. The site is credible because it's a well-known authority on health.

https://www.health.state.mn.us/diseases/waterborne/waterborne.html - This site talks about what waterborne illnesses are, what the causes are, some of the symptoms of waterborne illnesses, how they're spread, and how to prevent them. It's credible because it's a government site that routinely deals with waterborne illness.

This argument appeals to emotion, which isn't necessarily bad but is hard to uphold and make effective. The main problem I have with it is that it presents pollution as the definite cause of the dog's illness and recycling as a means to keep the dog safe and healthy. This isn't necessarily true, as neither of those are verifiably accurate. They could be possible, but they're not as strong as simple factual arguments. As the Minnesota Department of Health and the CDC both corroborate, there are numerous health risks associated with drinking and swimming in untreated water. Trying to link untreated water to not recycling is hard to confirm and distracts from the argument itself.

Rather than appeal to emotion alone, it would be better to back up the claim that the dog got sick because of lack of recycling in industrial plants with sure evidence. For example, one could cite studies done on the water in that area, recently built plants, legal records, and other such available resources to back up an appeal to emotion with fact. As it stands, a dog getting sick seems, while unfortunate, unrelated to the argument at hand about recycling. There are also many other possible causes to the dog's sickness, like bacteria such as E. coli and P. aeruginosa, parasites like Cryptosporidium, and chemicals produced by other sources.



>Next assignment

Consider your prior research on the Civil War. What legacy from the war has most affected American society today?

*America's bloodiest war
*Freed slaves
*Cemented the power of the federal government <<<

The Civil War consolidated power in the United States government at the federal level, which has led to overreach on the part of the federal government into affairs that should be handled by the states.

Foner, Eric, and Olivia Mahoney. "America's Reconstruction." Digital History, 2003, https://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/exhibits/reconstruction/index.html.
Evidence: The Civil War and the period after it is still relevant today because the issues it was targeting are still relevant today.

U.S. Department of State. The Consequences Of Union Victory, 1865, January 20, 2001-January 20, 2009, https://2001-2009.state.gov/r/pa/ho/time/cw/106556.htm.
Evidence: The Civil War allowed the federal government to use its power to squash state rights much more easily.

Sheehan-Dean, Aaron. "Civil War." Federalism in America: An Encyclopedia, Center For the Study Of Federalism, 2006, https://encyclopedia.federalism.org/index.php/Civil_War.
Evidence: The Emancipation Proclamation happened, which, while freeing slaves was definitely a good thing, gave the federal government out of necessity powers that many would not have granted it and that it has not given up since the war.

Claim: The federal government's growth has become overreach
Data: Everything Lincoln did
Warrant: He literally used the military to enforce his decisions ;-;
Counterclaim: Some problems are large enough or serious enough that the federal government's growth is justified
Rebuttal: These problems may be serious, but that doesn't justify the infringing upon rights granted by the Constitution

Ethos: morals, "ethics"
When more and more power starts going to the government, inevitably, bad people will get into that powerful position. They'll likely use their power to push their own moral views onto others forcibly, which is objectively bad, and we already have several examples of democracies turning into dictatorships. I'm not saying that will happen soon, nor am I disparaging any specific president, by saying this; I'm just pointing it out.
Logos: logic
The Constitution grants many rights to the states; in fact, it specifically states that every right that is not granted to the federal government and prohibited to the states should be handled by the states. The federal government, in recent years, has taken rights which are not given to it under these conditions.
Pathos: feelings, "Patton"
Many people today also feel this way, like the government has overstepped its bounds. While feeling isn't something to go by simply on its own, it's usually a good idea to at least consider the way people will feel about something, especially in a government system like this where the people are meant to have some form of control.

The Civil War consolidated power in the United States government at the federal level, which has led to overreach on the part of the federal government into affairs that should be handled by the states. This is still very relevant today, as the federal government takes more and more powers that it wasn't given away from the states and the people. Though some of the problems it uses this to face are serious, it violates the rights granted by the Constitution, and the vast majority of the time it doesn't give up the power it snatches, even after the problem is solved. This is bad, because the government can- and likely will, and in some ways already has- control the people far more directly and effectively with this newfound power.

The Emancipation Proclamation, despite its largely good intentions, gave the federal government powers that few would have considered and that it would not let go of. For example, because slavery was sadly a large part of the economy, it gave the government some form of control over the economy that it was not granted. Some may say that, because this was to free slavery, it was a sort of 'necessary evil'; this is false. The US was set up to keep balance of power between the states and the federal government, a balance that this use of power disrupted. The federal government did then, and has since, infringe on the rights of states and the people in them to govern them.

Others might rebutt with the thought that, since this was a long time ago and so, so much has happened since then, this is irrelevant, but this isn't true either. The freeing of slaves, and the establishment of the power of the federal government, has affected every part of US politics. There was the first Reconstruction, an attempt to truly give colored people equal rights, which failed, then the second one, which, depending on one's viewpoint, either mostly succeeded or also failed to truly address the root of the problem. There were also the many other examples of state and federal governments clashing, along with the civil rights advancements that have been made in the years since. As just one example out of many, the Fourteenth and Fifteenth amendments guaranteed black people's civil rights and gave black men the right to vote; some of the states didn't want to cooperate with this, which lead the federal government to enforce their decision using the military.

As the foregoing paragraphs discussed, the Civil War impacted the balance of power in the US, slanting it towards the federal government. While this was a long time ago, and much has happened since then, it still affects us today, as the problems this caused are still being dealt with and the government takes more power for itself. Despite, perhaps, how worthy some of the causes it uses these powers for are, even after the problem is solved it often keeps the power. This deviation from the balance of power intended by the framers of the Constitution allows the federal government to consolidate power to itself, contrary to the intentions of our founding fathers.