Final paper

For the final paper for this course, you'll take one of the debate topics other than your own, and analyse it further. Your paper should:

• Give summaries of each side of the debate as presented. (You can refer to presenters by name or as "the affirmative position", "the negative position" or the equivalent.) Be clear about identifying specific points that they raised (whether rebutted or not).
• Make a clear analysis of the debate issue on ethical and/or citizenship grounds (whether the presenters did or not).
• Add some important new thing, either a fact or a substantially new insight, that did not come up during the debate. (It could be something that came up in online discussion, as long as you develop it appropriately and acknowledge your source.)
• Draw a clear conclusion as to which position you are arguing for (whether or not this is the position of whoever was the stronger debater).

You may, but don't have to, critique the debate performance of the presenters.

The paper should be 4-6 pages long (~1000-1500 words). This may seem like a lot (well, it kind of is), but remember that you should be fully presenting both sides of the question and adding to it. (As before, the page count doesn't include references, figures, or diagrams, if you choose to include those.) Use standard formatting conventions: 12pt, serif font, 1" margins, double-spaced.

The paper, worth 15% of the course grade, will be due at 2pm on the 6th.

Rubric: This is the rubric I plan to use, and may help you polish your paper. This is a 20-point analytic rubric, and most items are either yes or no (what computer scientists call "boolean"); some items leave the possibility of partial credit.

Content:

• Chooses other debate topic and stays on topic from start to finish. 1/0
• Is of the appropriate length, without "fluff" or filler. 1/0
• Presents clear summary of positions as argued by the debaters of the policy question in class... 2/1/0
• ...with one of those positions being, in the end, stronger than the other. 1/0
• Adds additional (relevant and well-sourced) fact not mentioned in the debate, or additional insight not raised in the debate into a (relevant and well-sourced) fact that was mentioned. 2/1/0
• ...so you'll need at least one source. All sources are well-chosen and appropriate. 1/0
  • E.g. not an encyclopaedia, not "some random guy said on a blog"
• Addresses question of ethics/citizenship. 2/1/0

Form:

• Format matches standard academic-paper style. 1/0
  • Double-spaced, 1" margins, 12pt, serif font (such as Times)
  • Your name should be on the top of the first page (at least)
• Micro level mechanics: grammar, spelling, punctuation. 2/1/0
• Macro level mechanics: sentence structure, transitions, flow. 2/1/0
• Outside material is well-integrated into the text. 1/0
  • Avoid "dumped quotes" (aka "dropped quotes")
  • Make sure to cite! Any standard citation format (MLA, APA, Chicago, etc) is fine.
• Introduction introduces topic and its relevance, neither too brief nor ramblingly long. 1/0
• Conclusion summarises main arguments briefly without being unreasonably abrupt. 1/0
• Thesis is clear. 1/0
  • Is it clear which side of the debate you ended up agreeing with?
• Sources appropriately listed at end of paper 1/0
  • Again, any standard format (MLA, APA, Chicago, etc) is fine.
  • But do include the URLs for online-only sources (even though MLA etc do not formally require them anymore)

Strikes (i.e. things not to do!):

• In the course of the paper, present notably false or irrelevant information. (each) −1