 |
| Adam Knight. "Rainforest Pyramid." July 31, 2006 via Flickr. Public Domain Dedication. |
1. What are the key perspectives on the debate you are studying?
Essentially, there are only two views in the GMO debate. There are those who oppose the production and selling of genetically modified organisms and there are those that are in favor of GMOs. Those opposed generally believe GMOs are bad for not only personal health but also our environment. Those in favor generally believe GMOs are beneficial and help create sustainable farming.
2. What are the major points of contention among these perspectives?
Personal health is the biggest point of contention. Some people are wary of the effects of genetically modified organisms; however, we do not have enough research to prove whether or not they are detrimental. Another point of contention would be labeling laws; some feels as though they have no idea whether or not they are consuming genetically modified organisms and many major companies have not implemented labeling requirements. Regulation and selling of GMOs can also be considered a major point of contention.
3. What are the possible points of agreement among the differing viewpoints?
They possible point of agreement could be qualities to classify products as genetically modified. In addition, these two sides could agree on prices of products containing genetically modified organisms. Also, they could agree that genetic breeding has been going on for centuries, regardless if it is done synthetically.
4. What are the ideologies between differing perspectives?
Those opposed believe in personal health and the right to knowledge about the contents of their products. Those in favor do not feel as strongly about personal health and knowledge. Those in favor of GMOs could also be big businesses, which have a business mindset and disregard the individuals of our society; whereas, those opposed to GMOs care about the individual rather than a more broad, business-like perspective.
5. What specific actions do their perspectives ask their audience to take?
Generally, neither side asks their audience to do anything. Groups in opposition to GMOs have created organizations and might encourage people to join and make lifestyle changes, however, they do not specifically demand anything of their audience.
6. What perspectives are useful in supporting your argument? Why?
I will be using the viewpoints of the group in favor of GMOs because their evidence is more logical. In addition, there is not enough evidence to defend the ban of GMOs, so it would be hard to create an argument without any support.
7. What perspectives do you think will be the greatest threat to your argument? Why?
The biggest threat to my argument will be the lack of evidence for either side. Nobody really knows the specific outcome of GMOs or whether or not their are detrimental/beneficial. Because of this, it might be a little challenging to fully defend genetically modified organisms.
Reflection:
Morgan had a different context than mine. Her differing viewpoints had a more clear common ground and it was a little harder for her to separate the groups. However, in my project, the groups are more distinguished but the common ground is harder to find. Also, her view on spanking is different than mine so I am excited to see what she writes about and how she defends her argument. Alyssa has a similar context in her project. However, her controversy focuses on religion and my project focuses more on the rights of individuals. Also, we will both be using scientific evidence to support our arguments, which I feel will be most effective for our projects.
I also had only two points of contention as my topic was pretty clear-cut. I thought the ideologies involved were interesting. Since my topic is more "personal health" (it's about ice baths) there are not really any ideologies involved. But I think that it is really interesting that although your topic is focused on the health of the individual, there are factors that make it more "messy" than that- like businesses.
ReplyDeleteOur topics are different, especially when it comes to who is involved. Your argument is individual people vs. big companies, and mine is more individual against individual. I don't know a lot about what research is being done of the effects of GMO usage, so it will be interesting to read your final project!
ReplyDeleteHi,
ReplyDeleteI thought it was interesting to read through your contextual analysis. My topic is similar because there are only so many sides the audience can take. The two major groups are those that think fracking is bad and those that think it is good. I think with large scale issues like GMOs and environmental issues the articles about these subjects don't really ask the audience to do anything, they're more informative. Good luck with your project!
Savannnahhh. Again our topics cross in this post as I talk about the benefits of geoengineering and you about the benefits of GMOs. I think the points you've laid out for your argument are very justifiable. Understanding the processes of technology and engineering is vital in our projects and reading through your post, I have no doubt your argument will be very persuasive.
ReplyDelete