Introducing Congress Term Limits Creative Writing Paper

Subject area is Logic.
For your second writing assignment you should create a dialogue between two citizens, Joe Congress (a Republican) and Free Spirit (an Independent) arguing about whether Congress should have term limits, that is, limiting each U.S. Congressperson to serving only two terms. Joe is arguing against term limits. Free is arguing that the U.S. Congress will function better if elected officials can only serve for two consecutive terms. Here is where you can learn more about Term Limits. During the course of their dialogue, Joe and Free may also argue about various related topics such as the influence of money in politics, etc., but this does need to be one continuous dialogue.
As the dialogue progresses, the characters (between them) should commit at least one example of each of the twenty-two (22) numbered fallacies discussed in Chapter Three of Hurley’s Introduction to Logic.
Note: Even though a few of the numbered fallacies have two or three different versions, you need only create one example of each fallacy.
You may introduce different issues as the dialogue progresses, but this should be one continuous dialogue. Do not create separate exchanges for each fallacy.
The easiest format for this type of dialogue is in the form of a script. After each fallacy is committed, place the name of that fallacy in parentheses at the end of that sentence. As indicated by the example below, more than one fallacy may be committed within one exchange. For example:
Joe: We don’t need term limits. Congresspersons are just learning the ropes by the end of their second term and experience counts for a lot!
Free: You just want the “old boys club” to stay intact with the same tired old men conspiring to keep their power and create laws to enrich themselves. (Straw Man, Ad Hominem)
This assignment should be typed, single-spaced with double-spacing between characters as indicated by the example directly above. You should use a one-inch margin on the top, bottom, and both sides. Words in (parentheses) are the 22 fallacies that need to be in the dialogue
Below is an example of what I need:
Second Writing Assignment – Example
Emma: Having witnessed the recent school shooting in Parkland, Florida, it is clear to me that mass shootings are becoming way too common, largely due to the fact that guns are easily accessible for anyone, including our youth. With the way things are trending, if nothing changes, the shootings will only continue in frequency and gravity, eventually reducing our nation to unlivable conditions and most likely lowering the average mortality rate until we become an animalistic society. (Slippery Slope) Our nation needs more common-sense gun control laws to reduce this threat, or your children could be the next victims. (Appeal to Force)
Nora: I don’t want my children to come to harm any more than you do, but adding more gun restrictions to the ones that are already in place will solve the problem. I would assert that the proliferation of guns is not what lead to the Florida massacre. It’s true that gun sales and ownership has soared in recent years, and mass shootings have become more frequent, but, just as importantly, gun homicide rates have plummeted. This leads me to believe that there is more to this issue than gun availability, and to unwittingly slap more restrictions on guns would be unwise; cars and knives can kill people too, but you wouldn’t outlaw those because they are vital tools that help us in our everyday lives. (Weak Analogy) Guns are no different. If anything, it should be encouraged to keep a gun in every household, especially considering there is no proof that gun restrictions will solve anything. (Appeal to Ignorance) After all, this is supposed to be the land of the free, which includes the right to defend that freedom. If the founding fathers didn’t want us to be free, they wouldn’t have written the constitution. And if they didn’t want us to have guns, they wouldn’t have included that in the constitution, right after the amendments on free speech and religion. (Begging the Question)
Emma: The National Rifle Association is known for being heartless and uncompromising in its pro-gun stance, despite being aware of the perpetual school shootings and other gun-related tragedies, so naturally you are heartless and uncompromising. (Division) Still, I wish you would at least try resist the urge to suggest that more guns are the solution to gun violence. (Straw Man) Moreover, the fact that you would advocate keeping a gun in every household proves to me that you don’t even care about your children, much less everyone else’s children who are endangered, and thus neither does the NRA. (Composition) Seeing as you don’t care about children being in danger and are a terrible mother, your words are meaningless to me. (Argument Against the Person/Ad Hominem Abusive)
Nora: Clearly you like to assume the worst in people. I happen to believe that most people are good, rational beings, and it is only a very few people that actually deserve your judgment. As a member of the NRA, I know a lot of upstanding gun owners who want nothing more than to protect their families, thus, the NRA wants nothing more than to protect children. (Composition) Pushing more restrictions on gun ownership would only render them powerless against any person who poses a physical threat to themselves and their families. (Appeal to pity)
Emma: I personally believe that one should never deliberately hurt another person, so I would never own a gun with that intention, and I won’t be blind-sided by your appeal to pity; despite making your case seem plausible, it is nothing more than a rationalization merely intended to justify your love for something that is responsible for countless deaths of innocent people. (Accident, False Cause) Still, you and your fellow members of the NRA have done a good job of gaining the empathy of our government; your influence has lead our learned legislators to continue to pass policies that protect gun rights, which consequently makes the US, as President Obama put it, “the only advanced country on Earth that sees these kinds of mass shootings every few months.” Thanks to the support and influence of the NRA, there are laws that bar the government from, in Obama’s words, “even collecting data on how we could potentially reduce gun deaths.” If we continue to allow the government and the NRA to mandate our ignorance, we are putting our livelihoods in their hands by giving them the power to have the final say on important issues that affect our quality of life and the safety of our loved ones, rendering us helpless, like sitting ducks senselessly waiting for the next tragedy to strike and tear our families apart. (Appeal to the People/Fear, Straw Man) How can you stand for this? (Complex Question)
Nora: You seem to contradict yourself when you claim to not want the government to take care of you/ render you helpless, yet you insist on leaving your home defenseless and vulnerable, should such a tragedy occur. Guns can be dangerous in the wrong hands, but they also serve to save lives, and have played an important role in our nation’s history. It was with the help of these weapons that America was initially formed as a free and independent country. It was citizens bearing arms and fighting for freedom that sets us apart from the rest of the world. I don’t stand for making people “sitting ducks” as you’ve implied, I stand for the complete opposite: individual rights, and the freedom to defend those rights.
Emma: As a law-abiding gun owner, you have a duty to do what is right, and we have the constitutional right to defend the innocent. Therefore, you have a duty to stand with your fellow law-abiding citizens and demand common sense gun control laws that will help keep guns out of the hands of those who may pose a threat to the innocent. (Equivocation) Despite this, you refuse to act, and consequently guns continue to find their way into the hands of the worst members of our society, and the mass shootings continue to grow in frequency… (False Cause) I hope your conscience can handle it.
Nora: This issue is one of either respecting or not respecting the constitution. (False Dichotomy) The second amendment to the Constitution states that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Any law that in any way inhibits my right to bear arms is infringing on that right, which makes it unconstitutional. (Suppressed Evidence) It is regrettable that you choose to fight against the constitution in order to infringe on my constitutional rights. (Straw man)
Emma: You’ve neglected to acknowledge the portion of the 2nd Amendment that states, “A well- regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state…” In other words, the constitutional right to bear arms is related to the preservation of a well-regulated militia, and laws on gun control are in fact constitutional. After this previous shooting, the President of the NRA himself publicly acknowledged, “We all want gun violence to stop”. Thus, even he is recognizing and coming to terms with the need for tighter gun legislation. (Amphiboly)
Nora: I might point out that guns are not the instigators of violence, but the citizens who wield them; a good portion of the mass shooters of late are young white males, so we should be wary of the young white males in our vicinity and consider what is causing them to behave so erotically. (Hasty Generalization, Missing the Point) President Trump, who has great familiarity with the issue, said “Guns, [or] no guns, [it] doesn’t matter. You have people that are mentally ill and they’re going to come through the cracks and they’re going to do things that people will not even believe are possible.” Based on Trump’s statement, it is clear that gun accessibility should not weigh in when considering what drives these mass shootings. (False Authority) Rather, the root of the problem most likely resides in things about our American culture that could be negatively affecting the mental health of young white males across the country. It’s commonly known that mental health issues are often intertwined with substance abuse and addiction, so all the evidence seems to point to drugs as the most likely cause of these mass shootings. (Red Herring, Missing the point)
Emma: Trump is completely biased on this issue as he is a pro-gun fanatic. People like him and you who stand for having guns in the household lack a sense of altruism, because everyone who is altruistic would not be content to keep such a dangerous weapon in their household, so easily accessible for the populous. (Begging the Question)
Nora: A common theme in every individual I’ve encountered who are pro-gun control is that you’re all so stuck on the idea that guns are the source of America’s problems, that you tend to ignore many other factors that form the bigger picture of what could truly be the true source of America’s issues. (Hasty Generalization) Why just focus on gun-related deaths? Gun deaths are not even among the top 10 leading causes of death in America! Most of the top 10 leading causes of death are health related, the number one cause being diabetes, which is mostly brought on by the unhealthy standard American diet. (Red Herring) It is apparent that eating fast food and living a generally unhealthy lifestyle is much more dangerous than a gun.
[NOTE: You may have noticed that in this example, the student created more than one example for a few of the fallacies. You may do that if you are not confident that your example works and you want to add another example, just in case. However, you will only receive credit for one of any duplicates. The most number of fallacies you will receive credit for is 22.]