What is a Persuasive Writing?
Persuasive writing, also known as creative writing or an argument, is a piece of writing in which the writer uses words to convince the reader of his/her view regarding an issue. Persuasive writing sometimes involves convincing the reader to perform an action, or it may simply consist of an argument(s) convincing the reader of the writer’s point of view. Persuasive writing is one of the most used writing types in the world. Persuasive writers employ many techniques to improve their argument and show support for their claim. Simply put, persuasive writing is "an essay that offers and supports an opinion".
This type of writing is very common in advertising copy, which is written in an attempt to get consumers to purchase specific products. It is also a form of writing in which someone tries to get readers to agree with a position. Persuasive writing is one of the most used writing types in the world. A well-written persuasive piece is supported with a series of facts which help the author argue his or her point. Many authors also include counterpoint arguments in their pieces which they can debunk, showing readers that they have considered both sides of the argument at hand, and that any arguments which could be raised against the side of the written piece could be dismissed. In addition to facts, authors may include anecdotes and hypothetical situations to build a stronger case.
This type of writing is very common in advertising copy, which is written in an attempt to get consumers to purchase specific products. It is also a form of writing in which someone tries to get readers to agree with a position. Persuasive writing is one of the most used writing types in the world. A well-written persuasive piece is supported with a series of facts which help the author argue his or her point. Many authors also include counterpoint arguments in their pieces which they can debunk, showing readers that they have considered both sides of the argument at hand, and that any arguments which could be raised against the side of the written piece could be dismissed. In addition to facts, authors may include anecdotes and hypothetical situations to build a stronger case.
My Personal Essays:
Censorship
![Picture](/uploads/1/9/3/9/19394983/912667489.jpg)
Have you ever read classics like “To Kill A Mockingbird” By Harper Lee? “The Giver” By Lois Lowry? Literature is a way to freely express your emotions. If we prohibit certain “unnecessary” books/articles you children and further generations won’t be able to comprehend certain mature situations correctly.Subsequently, we should prohibit the censoring of reading material.
One reason we should restrain censorship is books would become a lot less interesting. Since books wouldn't be able to swear, have any violence, be racist, or contain any romance. Without those key components to literature there would be no Fantasy,Romance, and Adventure genres. So it would be like bleeping out the cuss words in a ghetto rap song.It would sound like "Blank and I was like Blank Blank" .Boring! That's one way censorship will change our life for the worst.
Another negative cause of censorship would be youth would get even more curious and sneakily read the concealed books. This will cause the human race to become deceptive, sneaky, and unreliable. We as parents would always have the thought of your/my child doing something erroneous at night. Therefore, we wouldn’t be able to trust our children. That was one of the many drives I thought could really ruin our daily life if we allow book censorship.
A final motive for being contra to restricting books is it doesn’t expose people to real mature situations which may not promote their social skills about reading emotions. If we allow it, it would be almost as if everyone had autism. It would be as if everyone couldn’t understand you. It would most definitely not be healthy. It would be like we weren’t all finished.. 87 out of 100. Does that sound good? No!!!!!!! Get up and start helping the fight!
That's why we should ban the censoring of literature.It's boring,give your children a reason to be deceptive and sneaky, and it is unhealthy. Do you believe that we should free all those mature books just waiting to be released from chains?
Death Penalty
![Picture](/uploads/1/9/3/9/19394983/165808619.jpg)
Death is a huge factor in life. It is a process in which your body fails to keep you alive and shuts down. It happens to every living thing on this planet. To some religions it is the end of a less greater one, and into a perfect one. To others, it is the end of your body, but the reincarnation of another. Murder is not necessary and does not happen to every living thing on this Earth, but is a chosen form of death. The act of murder can be premeditated or accidental. The United States separates these in to 1st degree murder, 2nd degree murder, and manslaughter. 1st degree murder is a killing which is deliberate and premeditated. 2nd degree is a non-premeditated killing, resulting from an assault in which death of the victim was a distinct possibility. 3rd degree murder (or manslaughter) is the unlawful killing of another human being without justification or excuse. These three categories of murder are all immoral and despicable. To accuse someone of murder, you would have to have very clear evidence, and be absolutely positive that the accused would commit such an undesirable act. In this instance, a prosecutor would not be concerned that the accused was made eligible for the Death Penalty, because she or he was certain of guilt.The Death Penalty is a punishment for an act in which the suspect's conduct is so inhuman and sick, that you kill the person. Even though that person may be so unbearable in your eyes, they are still humans and can repent and change. Subsequently, the death penalty is inhumane and wrong and should be prohibited.
Some proponents believe that the death penalty is right and lawful.They believe this because sometimes you have to give an extreme punishment. Murderers who didn't care about the lives they took shouldn't be treated kindly. They took a life, they should pay for it. Others say, the families in which the murderer killed their relative, they could find peace. Some say it serves due justice, and serving due justice is the number one job of a court of law. It shows that we are tough on crime, and can be able to make our country a better place.Criminals given the Death Penalty have a 0% recidivism rate.The Death Penalty holds killers responsible for the horrible content of their character. This fulfills what Martin Luther King, Jr. always wanted:”I have a dream that my four children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.” The character of these criminals warrants death.It holds the criminal responsible for his actions. Ii is supposedly cheaper. It decreases the prison population, which saves even more taxpayer’s money. Because the Death Penalty is the punishment given by a neutral judge, there is no vengeance in it. Therefore, there is no moral objection to be had with the death penalty.The death penalty defends human rights by establishing a mentality that "we will not tolerate any violation of any innocent person's human right's. Here is why it is wrong:
One reason the Death Penalty is wrong and unlawful is it is worse for their life and not better for the community. 127 people on death row were released because of evidence that they were wrongfully convicted. DNA, available in less than 10% of all homicides, can’t guarantee we won’t execute innocent people.The danger that innocent people will be executed because of errors in the criminal justice system is getting worse. A total of 69 people have been released from death row since 1973 after evidence of their innocence emerged. Twenty-one condemned inmates have been released since 1993, including seven from the state of Illinois alone. Many of these cases were discovered not because of the normal appeals process, but rather as a result of new scientific techniques, investigations by journalists, and the dedicated work of expert attorneys, not available to the typical death row inmate. The death penalty does not prevent murder. No reliable study shows the death penalty deters murders. To deter murders, a punishment must be sure and swift. The process of the death penalty is neither. Homicide rates are higher in states that have the Death Penalty than in those that don’t.We have a good alternative, life without parole, on the books in 48 states. It means what it says. It is sure, swift and rarely appealed. Life without parole costs less than the death penalty.The death penalty doesn't necessarily help families of murder victims. Murder victim family members have testified that the drawn-out death penalty process is painful for them and that life without parole is an appropriate alternative.Problems with speeding up the process. Over 50 of the innocent people released from death row had already served over a decade. Speed up the process and we will execute innocent people.Some ways it’s bad for our community is that religious organizations say that it is never our right to end anyone's life, it is only God's right.Some questions you would have to ask is: Will the victims and their families somehow be made whole? Would the time and money devoted to achieving this person’s death not be better spent on services and law enforcement initiatives meant to repair and prevent the mindless devastation of criminal homicide? Would this man's execution serve an ineffable impulse for justice? If not it would not make the community better but possibly cause a riot, which could chain effect and create more deaths, and more money spent to inject the murderer’s which then could start the process all over again.
Another way The Death Penalty is despicable and should be prohibited is it is expensive. The death penalty costs much more than life in prison, mostly because of the legal process which is supposed to prevent executions of innocent people.The death penalty isn't reserved for the worst crimes, but for defendants with the worst lawyers. It doesn't apply to people with money. When is the last time a wealthy person was on death row, let alone executed?The death penalty is much more expensive than life without parole because the Constitution requires a long and complex judicial process for capital cases. This process is needed in order to ensure that innocent men and women are not executed for crimes they did not commit, and even with these protections the risk of executing an innocent person can not be completely eliminated.Assessment of Costs by Judge Arthur Alarcon and Prof. Paula Mitchell (2011, updated 2012) in California.
The authors concluded that the cost of the death penalty in California has totaled over $4 billion since 1978:
- $1.94 billion--Pretrial and Trial Costs
- $925 million--Automatic Appeals and State Habeas Corpus Petitions
- $775 million--Federal Habeas Corpus Appeals
- $1 billion--Costs of Incarceration
The final reason The Death Penalty is contra to our society: it causes our society to become hypocritical. Our State and Federal Legislature lists the consequences of murderering.”Murder, as defined in common law countries, is the unlawful killing of another human being with intent (or malice aforethought), and generally this state of mind distinguishes murder from other forms of unlawful homicide (such as manslaughter). As the loss of a human being inflicts enormous grief upon the individuals close to the victim, as well as the fact that the commission of a murder permanently deprives the victim of their existence, most societies both present and in antiquity have considered it a most serious crime worthy of the harshest of punishment. Typically a convicted murder suspect is given a life sentence or even the death penalty for such an act.”If they are christian like some of them say they are, the Ten Commandments say “ thou shalt not kill.” If you kill you are breaking the big rules of life. Buddhists believe to have peace, and not to murder.Jews also listen to The Ten Commandments and “thou shalt not kill.”If our government says it is wrong to kill and murder , then why are they doing it themselves? They might say “ It’s a sacrifice for a greater good in our society.”But, once a great philosopher said,”Stealing a cookie from the cookie jar is the same as killing a man.They are all sins, and in God’s eyes they are no different.”So even though they are killing a man “for the greater good” it’s still the same sin as him/her committing murder.
Dress Codes
Uniforms are a big long cloak to one’s personality. They stop that one person from being itself and living the life they want to, how they want to. If we permit uniforms we will all be clones. Wearing the same thing everyday for the rest of the school year. Being allowed to freely express yourself through clothing can help ones mind. The universal colors are yellow for happiness, mad for anger, and blue for sad. If one is mad that day before going to school, that person might wear red and be able to express his/her opinions without hurting anyone's feelings.Students should be able to freely express themselves at school and not be forced to wear uniforms.
One way uniforms would be bad to our society is with uniforms, you can't really express yourself! if everyone looks the same, it makes a very boring school! the teenage years are all about finding who you are, and experimenting with different styles and looks. if you can't express who you are, then you're more likely to do worse in school, and you're more likely to grow up not fun! you have to be able to express who you are, and most people show that off in their clothes.
Another way I am contra to uniforms is uniforms are meant to help keep students focused on their school work and prevent the distractions of looking at what everyone else is wearing. The problem is that school uniforms tend to be made from uncomfortable material, which may distract students more than any short skirt and low-cut blouse could.
A final reason clothes don’t help is some kids might not have the money to go and buy them rather than wearing what they already have. Because if it gets dirty or wrecked you have to buy more but with normal clothes you have a lot. Some polos which are the mostly worn school uniform shirts range from 30-98 dollars. Most kids going to public school probably can’t afford to have like 5 shirts equaling around $200. That’s just shirts!Most khakis are 30-120 so 5 are about $375.
That is why uniforms shouldn’t have to be forced upon students. It doesn't let them express themselves, they won’t be as focused, and kids may not be able to purchase them.
Genetically Modified Foods
![Picture](/uploads/1/9/3/9/19394983/450725497.jpg)
Picture a green, luscious field with red, ripened strawberries. We all think of this when we are gazing at the strawberries in their bin at the supermarket.Due to genetically modified foods this is not the case. The United States consent with genetically modified foods will damage the nation and our economy, and subsequently should be prohibited.
One reason genetically modified foods should become prohibited is , it may spoil faster. If there is an undernourished child on the streets of NYC that finds a spoiled genetically modified pear. Since this child is undernourished, he may eat the rotten pear, and therefore die.That is one reason genetically modified foods are bad to our society.
Another reason genetically modified food shouldn't be supported is : it may cause an allergic reaction. I f you extract a blueberry gene into a blackberry , a person that is allergic to blueberries my eat the black berry unaware that blueberry genetics are in the blackberry, and have a reaction or negative consequence. It may be a rare allergy, but there must always be something new in life.
Finally, the aftermath are unclear. Modifying food may forever change that living systems deoxy-ribonucleic acid. It could start a disease. Lower your heart rate. It may start a allergen that affects all people no matter the race, age, height, weight, or sexual orientation.We have no known idea of what may happen.
Just because a lot of consequences aren't clear yet, it doesn't mean there isn't going to be one.So , are genetically modified foods a pro or are they a con? (hint con!!)
One reason genetically modified foods should become prohibited is , it may spoil faster. If there is an undernourished child on the streets of NYC that finds a spoiled genetically modified pear. Since this child is undernourished, he may eat the rotten pear, and therefore die.That is one reason genetically modified foods are bad to our society.
Another reason genetically modified food shouldn't be supported is : it may cause an allergic reaction. I f you extract a blueberry gene into a blackberry , a person that is allergic to blueberries my eat the black berry unaware that blueberry genetics are in the blackberry, and have a reaction or negative consequence. It may be a rare allergy, but there must always be something new in life.
Finally, the aftermath are unclear. Modifying food may forever change that living systems deoxy-ribonucleic acid. It could start a disease. Lower your heart rate. It may start a allergen that affects all people no matter the race, age, height, weight, or sexual orientation.We have no known idea of what may happen.
Just because a lot of consequences aren't clear yet, it doesn't mean there isn't going to be one.So , are genetically modified foods a pro or are they a con? (hint con!!)
Gun Control
![Picture](/uploads/1/9/3/9/19394983/328606255.jpg)
Imagine a fellow pupil of yours burst into your classroom with an automatic handgun shooting people. Now imagine that no longer being possible. That irascible scheme can’t happen if we make handguns illegal. Subsequently, handguns must convert to become illegal.
One reason handguns should be illegal is: there would be a smaller percentage of children becoming violent. Why that is, is the environment would be a more trustworthy for the child/children. No one would be walking around with a gun to make that child/children feel that that is an acceptable action. There is also less of an influence. No one saying, “Hey go do this” with a gun pointed at them.
Another way it would benefit handguns becoming illegal is: it would prevent murders and suicides. Without guns Adam Lanza couldn’t have shot 20 children and 6 adults. If you don’t have a gun how will you shoot someone? If handguns were illegal Seung-Hui Cho couldn’t have gotten the gun to shoot other students at Virginia Tech. They would have to go to another country to get it and somehow sneak it back without the Border Patrol finding that person. It would take too long for a temporary feeling.
The final and most dominant purpose is it would be easier to pinpoint the shooter/criminal. That is because the criminal has a scarce and illegal resource. They would now have more than just a physical description of the perpetrator. So then, more delinquents would be in jail because say if criminal A goes into Bob and Lucy’s house armed. Bob gets injured while Lucy sees what type of gun criminal A has. After Bob is wounded criminal A tries to steal a valuable item. Lucy jumps out and scares him. Subsequently, he escapes! Bob and Lucy go tell a police his gun. Police listens and tells them that they have seen him once before. The next day the police come and tell them that they found criminal A thanks to their gun description.
So now that you know why handguns should be illegal let’s look at this again. Imagine a fellow pupil of yours burst into your classroom with an automatic handgun shooting people. Now imagine that no longer being possible. Should handguns become illegal?
Rap Music