WAYS TO ORGANIZE IDEAS IN A PERSUASIVE PAPER
Not all topics can be dealt with as a straightforward point-counterpoint debate. But most organizational plans involve point-counterpoint debate for at least a part of the paper. In fact, a complex argument may consist of a combination of different point-counterpoint debates. For example, you could use different point-counterpoint debates to consider possible issues, cases, or solutions.
Some topics that have traditionally been treated as single point-counterpoint debates have changed and gotten more complicated over time. A good example of this kind of topic is gun control. Ten years ago, most papers I got on gun control argued either that we should eliminate civilian ownership of guns or we shouldn't. But now, we seem to have accepted the idea that private gun ownership will always be legal in our country. An argument to ban guns altogether has become almost too strange and difficult to defend. The new debate is not about whether we will ban guns or not, but about how we'll regulate their proliferation and try to make them a little less dangerous. Will we require all guns to have child safety locks? Will we require some guns to have child safety locks? Will we raise the age at which a child can legally be taught to shoot, so that at least kids can't be taught how to shoot a family gun before they can drive the family car? Will we make gun owners liable for damages for the illegal use of a gun that wasn't properly locked up? Will we require background checks, and if so, what kind, when, and where?
Another example of an issue that has undergone a similar change is abortion. The old argument was about whether the procedure should be legal. (It is legal, but many people think it shouldn't be.) The new argument is about when it should be, and under what circumstances. Another new argument is about whether abortion is a regular form of health care. This is important because that determines who's required to pay for abortions.
Today, most papers on either of these topics would focus on cases or solutions.
A paper on what to do about the homeless would also probably focus on cases or solutions. It wouldn't take a lot of research on the homeless for you to discover that they aren't all alike, and they don't all have the same problems. Nor do they all pose the same problems to others. At a bare minimum, you'd want to distinguish between the employed homeless and the unemployed homeless. Why? Well, for one thing, many of the unemployed homeless have addictive diseases or mental handicaps. What you want to do to help these people might differ markedly from what you want to do to help the uneducated who can work, but can't get jobs that pay well enough to earn a living. What's appropriate for one group might be highly inappropriate for the other. What's more, politicians and voters wouldn't necessarily want to help both types equally, or at all. Some people might be more willing to help the employed homeless because they seem to be trying harder to help themselves. Others might be more willing to help the unemployed homeless because they seem more helpless and/or more dangerous.
Some students have also chosen more creative topics that require an examination of several different issues. A good example is the paper on images of women in the media and what can be done to improve them.
It's difficult to approach this topic because it's difficult to decide what it really invites or allows you to discuss. Is the paper going to turn into an argument for censorship of sex and violence in the media? Is it going to target those responsible for popularizing an image that may cause eating disorders among young girls? Is it going to compare/contrast definitions of womanhood over time or in different places? Is it going to discuss fashion as a tool used to oppress women? Is it going to discuss religious teachings as a tool used to oppress women? Is it going to discuss feminist ideas as a tool used to oppress women?
Or will the paper be organized in a completely different way? Another possibility is to classify and judge specific characteristics of the Modern Woman (as she's portrayed by the media). A series of point-counterpoint debates could argue the desirability of specific traits. Should the modern woman be super-thin? Why or why not? Should she behave seductively or not? Should she behave aggressively or not? Should she be a leader or a follower, a boss or a helper? Should she serve in combat? If she becomes a mother, should she be first a mother and then a worker, or first a worker and then a mother? Or is this whole discussion pointless because women are individuals, and each one should be whatever she wants to be? If that's the answer, then why are all these other discussions still going on?
Yet another approach would be to come up with a brief thumbnail sketch of "The Modern Woman" that presents obvious problems or is somehow disturbing. Defend the validity of that sketch by alluding to TV and movie characters, dolls, actresses, or what have you that seem to reinforce it. For example, you could see the modern woman as a fusion of Barbie, Madonna, Drew Barrymore, Lucy Liu and Calista Flockhart (sounds disturbing to me!). Once you got the composite you wanted, you could discuss the economic and social changes/factors contributing to this image, and what could be done about those social problems.
A more limited and therefore more viable approach might be to discuss a single popular movie or TV show that seems to resonate strongly with young women today. Since I alluded to two characters from this show already, a possible candidate might be the Fox Monday night seriocomedy "Ally McBeal."