solid topic for arguement research paper?

Question

I have a few in mind, but I want to see what you all come up with. I need a distinctive arguement, not political or religious in nature. Must have two distinctive sides. what cha got?

The teacher has ruled out...

gun control
legalization of marijauna
abortion
stem cell research


everything else is fair game.
if you feel you have a good topic, please share. I am not looking for over-the-top, i am looking for a solid, dependable A with little to no time invested. I am very busy. thank you for all the responses.

Answer 1

Why be Moral?

In our culture, many people are asking the same questions. What makes me better than you? Who says I have to treat you that way? Why does America think it is better than any other country? All of these questions arise from the same question: what are morals? This question leads to another relevant question: why be moral? What, if anything, makes man a moral creature and thus makes him responsible? However, is there any way we can really know that there are certain inherent laws which govern man, and behind these laws is there a Lawgiver that holds men accountable to these laws?

I believe that all these questions can be answered through careful observation and logical thinking. Let us first look at the one thing we know for sure and that is man. We can know this for sure because we are men so we would know how we act. When we associate with others, we do so with some rules of fairness in mind. We treat others in a certain way and expect them to treat us in the same way or we say it is "unfair" or "selfish." We just expect the other person to know that such an act is wrong and that they must play by the same rules that we are. Why do we expect this though? They did not grow up the same way you did. They were not raised by the same parents or even in the same household. So why should one expect them to know the same rules of fairness that you know. If the only basis for your assumption that they should know the rules is because you think the rules are right, then you have no reason to expect them to act that way. However, the other person does indeed know these rules. If they did not, when challenged as to why they did not follow the "rules," people would not immediately make excuses of why what they did was not going against these rules. If someone hits another person, their response is not "it is not wrong to hit someone," it is something like "if you knew how much they were bugging me, you would know why I hit them." People are so concerned about breaking these rules they are constantly making excuses. Why would they be so concerned if there was no inherent law given to men when they are created?

We can also look at cultures throughout history for evidence of this law. If one looks at history, they would be able to see that there are certain good and vices common to all civilizations throughout history. There are always small differences in the morals of civilizations, but there are certain one's that are common to all. For example, it has never been thought that cowardice was a virtue or that honesty was bad. Besides this fact, the differences in morals between these civilizations are also scrutinized by outsiders. One can not make a distinction that one culture's morals are any better than another's unless they are admitting there is a real Right that one cultures morals are closer to than the others. There must be this real Right and real Wrong standard in order for any two to be judged by. Where does this moral standard come from? It was not made up by men, so why are men so compelled to follow it?

Men are under the influence of a variety of laws all the time. Almost all the laws are scientific laws which men cannot break even if they tried their hardest. The moral law however, is the only law in which man is free to break. There is nothing that strictly makes a man do the right thing, only an influence telling the man to do the right thing.

There is another thing that needs to be mentioned here. Urges that men get are not the law in themselves. As C.S. Lewis's example goes, if a man falls through the ice, a person will have two urges. One urge is to help the person, and the other urge is an urge for you to remain safe. These two urges cannot be the law because not only are they in conflict with one another, there arises a third factor that causes a man to decide between the two courses of action. This third thing cannot be either of the two impulses themselves. It must be wholly separate and thus be an impartial judge of the right thing to do. This law is not a matter of convenience either. The right thing is not always what is in the benefit of a person or a group of persons. Traitors in war are seen by both sides as useful, but they are also seen by the country that uses them as bad men nonetheless. This shows us that decent behavior is not that which is useful to us.

Since there is this moral code that governs men and that men are compelled to follow, it must be determined where this code came from and what compels men to follow it. There must be something behind the law that made it up and enforces it, because behind every law there must be a lawmaker or lawgiver. A law cannot just create itself and it cannot be what determines if it is good. Since there are forces in our world that determine what laws are right or wrong there must be a force behind this moral law making it good. This force must also be the reason for the law so it is the lawgiver. This lawgiver thus rules the affairs of men by this universal law and has made it known to all men. The lawgiver must have a purpose behind this law because it is known to all men.

One purpose of the law is so that men know how to act and behave in a productive manner toward each other and to the environment in which they live. However, there is another more pressing reason for this law. How could a being of another dimension make itself known to a place it has created? It could not present itself as a created object like a tree or rock, so how would it be able to make itself known to a world full of men? It could imprint upon them a code that they are to live by which also gives a glimpse as to what the lawgiver is like. Just as an architect does not become a wall or a doorway, the lawgiver cannot become its creation to express itself; it must impart something onto its creation to make itself known. This is what we see in men. There is a compelling force inside men telling them the way they should act. It is directing men in the way to do right and causes them to feel bad when thy do wrong. The law imparted upon men not only gives them a way to live, but a way to learn about the lawgiver that created them.

I believe that this is the reason that men try to act morally. They feel inside them a force that compels them to act a certain way. This force has been present and consistent throughout history as one looks at the morals of different cultures and notices their overwhelming similarities. Some relativists do not see this because they pick out too specific of examples. As C.S. Lewis writes again in his book Mere Christianity, cultures have disagreed on one wife or four, but they have never believed that a man could have any woman he wanted. Relativists just look at the issue of having one wife in one culture and four in another culture. Because of this force, men feel a need to uphold certain qualities or virtues in their every day lives in order to uphold this code and not to break it. When they do break it, they usually get a distasteful feeling and attempt to explain why their actions did not go against this law. From the fact that there is this law in men, that men attempt to follow, we can conclude that there must be a something behind the law that made the law and enforces it. With every law comes a lawmaker. This lawmaker has given this law to men to give them a way to live and an idea of what he is like so that they have a conscious knowledge of him. This is the reason that people act moral. They feel the need to fulfill the moral law that is written in their hearts so as to not go against their maker. That is the reason that men are moral creatures. It is because they are made to be moral so they know how to act and live. It is what separates them from animals because they know the law and they have the ability to break it as they choose. This gives men their purpose in life, which is to follow the guidelines set by the lawgiver and to live a decent life by these inherent rules. This is why we can say that one thing is better than another because it comes closer to the law written in our hearts. It is sometimes why countries go to war. One feels the other is not doing the right thing so the first country decides to take action to correct the wrong. It is why we made laws on earth. We make laws based on what we feel is right or wrong. There would be no reason to make a law against stealing unless we felt that stealing was wrong. If we did not have the law within us that tells us that everything does not belong to us, we might as well be able to steal because there would be no reason not to. If there was no lawgiver there would be no law, but there obviously is this governing law in men that compels them to do certain things and not do others. If there were not consequences for these actions, anything would basically be moral right. If there was not a being behind the law to enforce it, there would be absolutely no real right or wrong. Everything would be relative, but it is not. There are things that everyone agrees are absolutely good, and absolutely bad. There is no other way around it. The lawgiver has given man a purpose and a reason for life, and it is man's moral obligation to fulfill that purpose by upholding the law given him.

Sorry it's so long.

Answer 2

Could you give a little more info? Hard to do that without touching on politics at all...

Answer 3

Do somthing you like

Answer 4

Gun control.