Unformatted text preview: Last week, I chose to write about medical testing on animals. To be more specific, I chose to suggest that there is still a need for them despite the growing objections of people who believe in animal rights. I think I may have tried to offer legitimacy to the animal rights activists in my claim/thesis, which made the paper look more like a middle ground essay than a Rogerian one. Here was my claim: "Continued testing on animals is an unfortunate necessity to minimize human suffering and maximize human life expectancies, but all attempts should be made to create modern alternatives for testing." In retrospect, I believe I should have left off the concession about testing alternatives, and saved it for the body of the paper. This would have more clearly identified my point. As written, there is an acceptance of the other side's solutions in the claim, but I think it makes it look more like a middle ground paper versus a Rogerian essay. I don't believe I would need new sources to alter this claim. As I look back at the Rogerian essay, I tried to give a lot of latitude toward the animal rights activists, with my goal being to assert that animal testing was still necessary. Perhaps I got lost in my own efforts, but I still think it is a decent Rogerian essay because the validity of both sides are raised with. The additional points I go on to make within the body of the essay further clarify the necessity of animal testing, despite my own mixed feelings of having deep compassion for their welfare while having benefited greatly. I suppose some people will characterize my claim as a "middle ground" while others will reject it as such. As my original claim was written, I feel it was probably more of a middle ground claim, and stronger serving in that role. It is a compromise by both sides. My awareness of the so-called middle-ground fallacy troubles me in asserting this. When one side is right and the other side is wrong, a middle ground is still wrong. In this case, there are moral, ethical, emotional, and scientific questions at the heart of the debate. Picking a right or wrong answer isn't easy. NOTE: To be clear; by saying "moral," I am implying a personal definition of right/wrong, and by saying ethical, I am implying a societal definition of right/wrong. I think middle-ground essays shouldn't be written on highly emotional topics. ...
View Full Document
Unlike a traditional debate, wherein each side argues opposing positions on an issue, the middle ground method of argumentation is essentially an attempt to find a compromise. For example, if you were engaged in a debate about allowing prayer in public schools, one side would argue for and the other against. However, the third option would be the middle ground argument in which you would attempt to find a solution that satisfies both sides. The...
Unlike a traditional debate, wherein each side argues opposing positions on an issue, the middle ground method of argumentation is essentially an attempt to find a compromise. For example, if you were engaged in a debate about allowing prayer in public schools, one side would argue for and the other against. However, the third option would be the middle ground argument in which you would attempt to find a solution that satisfies both sides. The most important aspect of middle ground method is that both sides of the argument are given equal consideration, including the need for a solution and potential outcomes.
Using the example from above, your middle ground argument could be that prayer in school is clearly an emotionally charged issue for which there is no easy solution. On one hand, prayer is a very important aspect of many people's lives and they feel strongly that having prayer in school would benefit their children. On the other hand, many people feel that religion has no place in public schools and imposing prayer on children would violate their rights.
Having established the main argument and opposing viewpoints, you would then consider all the implications (legal, social, etc.) of including and excluding prayer in public schools. Your main objective is to find a compromise; therefore, after reviewing the evidence your position (claim) could be that the best possible outcome would be to allow a specific time and private space for students to pray. This should satisfy those that want prayer in school without imposing it on others or violating their rights.
It's worth noting that the middle ground argument probably won't completely satisfy either side, particularly when the issue is divisive. Nevertheless, the goal of the middle ground argument is to find a mutually agreeable solution that both sides can live with.