Month: May 2024

PLEASE UPLOAD YOUR ENTIRE SECOND DRAFT, INCLUDING YOUR INTRODUCTORY AND CONCESSION PARAGRAPHS FROM DRAFT #1. It’s really important that I see your thesis, especially. If you did not do Draft #1, you may include the intro and concession paragraphs with this draft, or the thesis at the very least.
Please feel free to leave me a comment or question when you submit your draft if there is anything you are concerned about and want me to address. I will not spend time on your introduction and concession paragraphs except to remember your thesis this time around, so please let me know if you revised those paragraphs and want additional feedback on them. Otherwise, I’ll just look at the thesis and move on to the main body paragraphs. The more specific directions you give me regarding your concerns, the more I can customize your feedback.
This draft must be submitted by the 11:59PM grace period on Sunday in order for you to earn points and for me to have enough time to comment on it, so there is no late submission date for this draft. Keep in mind that the more complete this draft is, the more I will be able to offer feedback that will be useful to the final very heavily-weighted draft of this essay. However, if you are only able to submit an outline this time, listing your ideas for your concession, claims, counterclaims and rebuttals, I can still give you some decent feedback, though you will not earn the full points for this draft. Submitting something is better than submitting nothing.
If you want to earn the full 50 points this draft is worth, please do the following:
make sure all paragraphs are included: the intro, concession, first claim, first counterclaim/rebuttal, second claim, second counterclaim/rebuttal (and you don’t have to include the conclusion).
Include your quotations/evidence for every paragraph (minus the introduction)
Show reasonable development, meaning the essay might not be as long as it will be in the final draft, but there will be some analysis included. so the paragraphs show a good start on your thoughts.
Here is some ideas to consider:
Claim ideas if you argue that M and B’s act WAS NOT morally wrong:
It was consensual (research/define consent formally and discuss how consent is such a priority in our society and why – discuss the value of consent for society – present consent as a fantastic value). This is THE BEST and most obvious reason why the act can be argued as NOT morally wrong, so everyone arguing that side will likely use consent as their first claim, which is perfectly fine. It will be a popular first claim paragraph because it’s the best and most obvious reason.  Don’t let that stop you from using this important point.
It was done out of love or spirituality or with no malicious intent (use our encyclopedia piece to define endocannibalism and exocannibalism, focusing on the moral difference between the two, even bringing in examples of infamous murderous cannibalism (such as those acts done by Jeffrey Dahmer) to compare – DON’T FOCUS ON CONSENT because you will likely have already discussed consent in your first claim paragraph – Focus on motivation for the act – consider discussing how Meiwes said he “absorbed” Brandes’ English skills and masculinity after the act, proving a spiritual connection – their bonding over unhappy childhoods could be discussed here, too)
It presented no social harm (research/define “social harm”)  or was no threat to public safety (research/define “public safety”) – no other individual or even society was meant to be harmed – they tried to keep it private (it’s the media and police and courts that made it public and presented any harm in the form of fear to society – M and B left no debts or dependents – their act began and ended with them) 
It was an act of sexual autonomy or it was kink affirmative (look up these terms as well as kink shaming – explain the value of sexual freedom)
The act was not illegal. This isn’t the strongest one, but you could argue that Meiwes didn’t want to kill Brandes and took no pleasure in that part. It’s not as strong, though, because Brandes ended up dead regardless.
It was an act of bodily autonomy (research/define bodily autonomy – establish why this is a positive value (perhaps bringing in current overturning of Roe vs. Wade – AVOID discussing consent again, though. This one has lots of potential to become repetitive of consent, so be careful with this one as a second claim. Maybe focus more on there not being limits to bodily autonomy, even if an act is upsetting to others. 
Claim Ideas if you argue that the act WAS morally wrong:
The consent is invalid (research/define what  factors invalidate consent – I HIGHLY recommend addressing the consensual nature of the act in your CONCESSION paragraph preceding this, which allows you to debunk the consent here) Look up CRISP and/or FRIES to discuss the aspects of consent that require being sober. Meiwes actually violated his own moral code of consent.
Human life is precious (research the value of human life as a universal value – you can discuss how these men had alternatives which would allow them to satisfy their needs and not sacrifice human life – Dutch TV hosts example can work here). Argue that it’s not the eating that’s wrong – it’s the killing. 
It violates the moral code of the society in which they lived (research/define “absolute morality” –  discuss who/what dictates morality – they violated their own society’s definition of morality) Some sources will say morality is subjective, but others will say it’s dictated by the group in which we live. 
The act caused social harm or was a threat to public safety (research these terms). Regardless of who made the act public, it scared many people, even outside of their own communities and made them feel unsafe. It worked against social harmony and community.
It was narrow-minded, cavalier, and disrespectful to human life. There were other alternatives in which they could have satisfied their sexual kinks without killing anyone through vore role-playing.
Meiwes acted selfishly and selfishness is immoral. Research the philosophy of selfishness. (Meiwes was impatient and bored and killed Brandes in a way he did not want to be killed.)
Claim Paragraphs Questions for Development 
CLAIM DEVELOPMENT
Each of your claim paragraphs will have two parts to it: a discussion of an abstract concept your claim is based on and then a specific example from M & B’s situation that is relevant to that abstract concept.
Developing the abstract concept:
Use a well-chosen quotation to jumpstart your discussion. Include it soon after the topic sentence. Feel free to use two quotes for this part of the claim paragraph.
You should base your claims on abstract values or concepts. Include a scholarly reputable definition of that abstract idea. Break down the key points in the definition. What do they mean for society as a whole?
Offer praise for our society because we value this idea or because we don’t allow this idea. This will help you follow through on your warrants later on.
Why does society value this concept? Is this a healthy or unhealthy value for us to have? What evidence do we have that we value or don’t value this concept? Offer some specific examples of our behavior or policies that show we do or do not value this concept.
Why is this concept positive or negative? Whom does it protect? Why is that good? What would it be like if we did not value this concept?
Discuss an example, perhaps in history, of this example doing harm or good. Is that something we want to repeat? Why or why not? For instance, what was it like when we didn’t value consent?
Developing the specific example(s):
After establishing the significance of the abstract concept, include an example of this concept clearly relating to the topic of the act between M and B in the form of a well-chosen quotation. Analyze each example before including another one.
Make sure you pick quotes with the most impact. Avoid “lukewarm” quotations and choose only quotations that have potential for analysis. There should be some degree of complexity to the quotations or you will not be able to analyze them. Use only quotations that allow you to “unpack” them.
Avoid using too many quotations. Fewer quotations with more analysis is preferable over many quotations and little analysis. Give the quote any context it needs so your reader can fully understand its significance. Do this BEFORE you present the quotation rather than after.
Why is this quotation important? What exactly is happening in this example? What does it imply? What are the most important words in the quotation? Go back to them and explain their implications.
If the example is wrong, what would be right? Why? If the example is right, what would be wrong? Why?
How does the abstract concept factor into this specific example? Reuse your keywords/phrases from the earlier part of the paragraph to create unity.
Developing the warrant:
Develop your warrant. Conclude that, if the abstract concept is good or bad (as has been established), and it is or is not present in this specific example, then the main argument holds true. For instance, “If our limits on consent are protective and beneficial to all, and it’s clear that Brandes’ consent falls within one of these limitations we have on consent, then his consent is not valid, and the act was a violation of his rights; therefore, it was immoral.” You really need to spell this out for a few sentences at the end of the paragraph for your reader.
Start with your abstract concept, then refer back to the specific example in the case, and then follow through on your main claim. Do this for 2 – 3 sentences.
End the entire paragraph with a reinforcement of your topic sentence argument. 
Counterclaim Questions for Development
Here are some tips for making your counterclaims clear:
The counterclaims are not your opinions. They are not in support of your argument. Rather, the counterclaim is how you predict your opposition would respond to your claim paragraph that precedes each counterclaim.
Use a ​signal phrase ​that lets the reader know that this is not your opinion. Make it clear that this argument comes from the other side of the argument by using a phrase like “Those who believe that ….” or “The opposition would argue…”. or you could say, “Those who believe Meiwes and Brandes’ act was not morally wrong might argue…”  If you don’t use some kind of language like this, it will seem like you are disagreeing with yourself and it could get very confusing for the reader.
Keep counterclaims brief. Don’t let them take over the whole paragraph. Spend only about ​3-5 sentences ​on this part. Do feel free to use a quotation to help present the counterclaim, of course.
Try to include a quotation​ or some kind of specific reference in the counterclaim portion. You can use a quotation from one of the articles or the podcast. If you absolutely can’t find a quote, you can simply present a possible counterclaim in your own words.
When you are presenting the counterclaim, ​DO NOT ARGUE YET​. Present the opposition’s side neutrally and briefly. You will argue and break it apart next in the rebuttal. There is no need to immediately present the counterclaim with a biased tone.
On the other hand, ​don’t present the counterclaim so well that it ruins your argument. ​Do not lead the reader to get confused and think you suddenly changed your mind about your original claim. Don’t say something like “Anyone who would agree to this act must be insane” if you are arguing that the act is not wrong. Instead, say “Those who believe the act was immoral BELIEVE that Brandes must have been mentally ill and would argue that the act was, therefore, immoral.”
Here are some possible ideas for counterclaims if you are arguing that the act WAS NOT immoral:
Anyone who would consent to that must be “crazy” (you can rebut this as a begging the question fallacy and discuss how these men were NOT mentally ill. Plus, it’s irresponsible to “diagnose” people as non-experts.)
Eating human flesh could make one sick (you can rebut this as a red herring – Plus, Meiwes didn’t get sick, so it’s a moot point. Plus, risk does not equal immorality.)
We owe respect to the dead – (To NOT do what Meiwes did would be disrespect since, if we owe the dead anything, it was what they asked for when they were alive. It would only be disrespect if the dead had no idea this would happen. This could be discussed as a false analogy/false comparison.)
This act could encourage others to do the same (The majority of people are never going to do this and don’t want to. You can rebut this as a slippery slope)
Even Meiwes changed his mind about his act and regrets it. (you could rebut this as a confirmation bias fallacy. Plus one’s own opinion about their act is irrelevant.)
Here are some ideas for counterclaims if you are arguing that the act WAS morally wrong:
These men were practicing their sexual freedom ( you can rebut this as a false dilemma – one can express sexual freedom without dying or killing someone – We don’t have to make a choice between being ok with death or else we are not in support of sexual freedom. There were other options, such as vore forum role playing or even what the Dutch TV hosts did.)
This was an assisted suicide (you can rebut this as a false analogy since Meiwes is not a doctor and Brandes was not terminally ill)
It didn’t hurt anyone else (you could argue that the act caused public fear and disgust and that we owe mental safety to society)
It’s an isolated incident and began and ended with these two men. (This is not necessarily true. They might not encourage a lot of people to do the same, but there have been other cases like this since M and B’s act. Look them up and argue that this should not be encouraged because, while EVERYBODY won’t do it, those already inclined might.)
Here is an example of a counterclaim portion of a paragraph. The overall argument would be that the act WAS NOT morally wrong, and this counterclaim would be “predicting” what the opposition who thinks it was wrong might say. Imagine that the idea of the act being a spiritual endeavor was just argued in a claim paragraph. This is what may follow that as the counterclaim. Of course, there would be a topic sentence before this and lots of rebuttal after it. This is only the counterclaim portion of the paragraph:
While those who believe Meiwes and Brandes’ act was morally wrong may agree that the act was a spiritual endeavor, they would, likely, argue that the act is disrespectful to the dead, stating, “cannibalism violates the general principle that we ought to respect the dead, and hence, cannibalism is morally reprehensible” (Wisnewski 19). They would insist that eating any dead body oversteps natural boundaries and shirks our duty to protect the dead. They would view the cutting up, saving, cooking, and eating of a corpse to be an egregious and reprehensible act, and, therefore, would still feel that what Meiwes and Brandes did was morally wrong, despite its being motivated by bonding between the two men. 
(Notice that this is only three sentences, and it does only what it needs to do: It makes it clear that the writer of the essay is not of this opinion, and it very briefly and neutrally explains the opposing point of view.)
Sources: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/episode-49-dinner-with-a-cannibal-armin-meiwes/id1250599915?i=1000413193065. The other sources are in the attached file name as “Cannibalism articles”.
Note: This is the second draft of the essay so please review the comment from the professor and and then continue with the instructions above, don’t forget to take a look to the slide that I provide.

PROMPT B: EXTENDED DEFINITION
Extend the definition of one of the following words beyond either the dictionary’s definition or a societal understanding of the word:
Family
Success
Courage
Art
Beauty
In the introduction of your draft, briefly explain how the dictionary or society defines the word you’ve selected, and then explain the extended definition of the word in a single-sentence thesis towards the end that outlines the main points of extension. In the body paragraphs, provide unique examples and explanations to support these points of the extended definition.
Your thesis must inform your readers of the extended definition and, because you are writing in the informative mode, you must use objective language. For this essay, writing in the informative mode means avoiding writing in the first-person and/or framing personal examples using objective language.
Draft an extended definition essay that defines or redefines a word or concept.
Step 2. Think About Your Writing
As a part of your completed draft, complete the color-coding activity and include answers to all of the questions below your draft.
PART 1: Color-Coding Activity
Using the color codes provided, evaluate your draft as follows:
Use red text to indicate your thesis statement.
Use green text to indicate the topic sentence of each body paragraph.
PART 2: Reflection Questions
What is the significance of your essay? Why should readers care about what you have written? (2-3 sentences) Sophia says: Think about why you decided to analyze this particular image, or why you picked the word you chose to define. Your interest in your subject matter should be clear to readers.
Which areas of your draft do you think will benefit most from revision? (2-3 sentences) Sophia says: Consider the organization, style, focus, development, and conventions of your draft. Which areas did you struggle to complete?
Consider the strengths and weaknesses of your writing. How can you capitalize on your strengths and improve on your weaknesses in future essays? (3-4 sentences) Sophia says: Think about what was easy about writing the draft, and what was more difficult. For example, if you write paragraphs with strong topic sentences, but repeatedly use the same type of sentence to provide supporting details, you can improve your paragraphs by varying sentence structure.