3679 Shares

Argument of fact examples?

Argument of fact examples? Topic: For and against essay global warming
July 17, 2019 / By Arny
Question: Please, I need help and I'm confused. I'm supposed to write a paper on an argument of fact. What are some examples of this type of argument? The books example was, "The winter of 1998 was the warmest on record for the United States." Can you guys give me an easier example that I can write a 2,000 word essay on?
Best Answer

Best Answers: Argument of fact examples?

Unice Unice | 7 days ago
You take any known fact and argue against it. So for instance if you said global warming is affecting the temperature of the Earth, you could argue and reveal points that suggest otherwise. Google controversial topics to get ideas.
👍 282 | 👎 7
Did you like the answer? Argument of fact examples? Share with your friends

We found more questions related to the topic: For and against essay global warming


Unice Originally Answered: Can someone tell me how to refute this Creationist argument with an evolution fact?
There is no DNA Code Barrier, it's also untrue that evolution ever suggested that dogs breed anything but dogs. Anything else would disprove evolution on the spot. What evolution says is that conditions lead to more general species becoming more specific species. Populations of the same species that become reproductively isolated from one another have seperate but initially more or less identical gene pools. As conditions favor different mutations between the two gene pools the gene pools will start to have different proportions of genes within them. New mutations (which science has actually both observed in nature and recreated in laboratories so we know they happen) are unlikely to happen simultaneously in both populations and are even less likely to be selected favorably in both populations if they do happen simultaneously so it's more likely that both populations will accumulate sets of new genes that are not shared at all by the other population. Over several hundred or even thousands of generations the distribution of genes within the two gene pools may eventually become so different that the two species are no longer reproductively compatible with one another, thus we have a speciation event. No one is saying that these are completely different animals, though, they're related the way we are related to our cousins. They share a common ancestral gene pool, but they are no longer the same species. This amounts to specification. A more general gene pool gets divided and adapts specific traits that allow it to remain competitive in new environments or ecological niches, often more general but unnecessary traits are lost or coopted into new beneficial functions. While useful traits are amplified.
Unice Originally Answered: Can someone tell me how to refute this Creationist argument with an evolution fact?
Some interesting points he makes there but he fails to appreciate the fact that all species of plant, animal and human life have such similar DNA when looking at the whole genotype. Humans for example have approximately 80% identical DNA to a daffodil or sea cucumber Gene depletion is one mechanism of mutation but so are individual gene transcription errors and polyploidy (multiple chromosomes) etc. The amount of DNA in a genotype is massive and some of these errors can quite easily "switch on" other bits of the chromosome that might previously been dormant. A lot of creationists seem to think that as humans we must have the most amount of DNA but that's not true at all - it seems to be that the longer a species has been on the planet the more chromosomes it tends to have - Some fern species for example have over 200 chromosomes. Natural Selection does not "remove the genetically weaker mutants" - that's a common mistake. What it actually does is to select for the best adapted mutations for that environment. "survival of the fitttest" is not what it is - it is "survival of the best adapted" Dogs can only produce dogs can they? Dogs is actually quite a good example because mankind itself has been an evolutionary force in breeding different species of dogs - acting as the selecting force selecting for the particular trait in different breeds such that some breeds cannot actually procreate with each other any more. Oh and can lions only mate with lions ? No - they can mate with tigers also and produce viable offspring namely ligers and tigons depending upon which wat the male and female parent. Similar things can occur within the horse / zebra family of animals Now ask him why the human chromosome number 2 is identical in every way to two bonobo chromosomes that have been stuck together - even down to the markers that mark the end of each chromosome which are incorporated in the middle of the human one showing that that must be how it came about.
Unice Originally Answered: Can someone tell me how to refute this Creationist argument with an evolution fact?
Dogs only produce dogs because only the DNA used to do so is "active." However, there are long stretches of "inactive" DNA that isn't used, which theoretically was used to build the dog's ancestors. In addition, 75% of the DNA needed to form a human is also a part of the dog genome. Apes are 96% percent identical to us. Lots of the genetic information to produce different species is universal, you only have to add on parts for a specific species. Mutations can be caused by the loss of a nucleotide. It can also be caused by the addition of a new nucleotide, or the use of the wrong nucleotide (preserving the same number of nucleotides). Natural selection does remove the genetically weaker mutant. But it also lets the genetically stronger mutant survive. Some mutations are helpful and some are harmful. Some are helpful only in certain environments, so those mutants only survive in a certain area, which explains why species split into different branches.
Unice Originally Answered: Can someone tell me how to refute this Creationist argument with an evolution fact?
Russ Miller doesn't seem to understand that evolution (in most cases) takes place over a span of millions of years. Sure, with in the time frame of 1000 to, say even, 10,000 years, a canine gene pool is still going to produce a gene pool similar to it's 1000 year old ancestors. However, over a period time, say of 2 million years, in which any number of factors could have presented themselves, a canine gene pool could easily mutate (evolve) into a species that is unrecognizable as canine. Example: Over a course of 2 million years... Canine species/pack 'X' lives on island 'A' where it survives on a bountiful supply of rabbits. At some point an... earthquake... divides the island and pack in two, making it impossible for the for the divided pack to interbreed. Now you have pack X and pack Z, island A and island B. Pack X still survives off of rabbits on island A... there's no need to adapt or evolve. Island B has limited supply of rabbit but a bountiful supply of fish and shrubbery. Over the course of 2 million years, pack Z adapts to their new environment through a means of natural selections. After 2 million years, pack Z would be an entirely different species than pack X.... say, something similar to a bear. If the two packs were ever reintroduced their gene pool would be so drastically different they would be incapable of interbreeding. There are so many millions of factors that could come into play during the evolution of a species... but one of the most important is TIME. This is something very hard for 'young-earth-creationists' to comprehend.

Unice Originally Answered: Making a fact debatable?
Your statement about the Marshall Plan being necessary is an 'assumption' and not necessarily a 'fact'. Assumptions are virtually always open for debate. Humans often fail to recognize our own assumptions. You may want to read about the dialectical logic of Georg Hegel in preparation for your paper. Karl Marx thought he was following Hegel's logic to the hilt but Marx tripped over his own assumptions and fell prey to preconception. A piece of jargon which is equivalent to 'assumption' is 'a priori' statement(s). Use Charles Darwin's Dialectical approach: Take (the equivalent of) a blank sheet of paper and draw a line down the middle. On one side of the line list the positives and on the other side of the line list those which would be used as arguments contrary to those on the opposing side of the line. Part of this exercise will require imagination prior to research. Next step: research - visit the university library with your 'contrary' side topics and see if there are any political science or other relate journal articles from the time in question described in the Abstracts which can be found in the Reference Section of the library.
Unice Originally Answered: Making a fact debatable?
There was political opposition to the Marshall Plan at the time it was proposed, and you can easily find speeches and writings by politicians who opposed it. There was a great political cartoon by the cartoonist "Herblock" (Herbert Block), who was in favor of the Marshall Plan. He showed the administration trying to send a few million dollars of aid to Europe, but they were being stopped by a bad-guy Congressman who was saying "Nah, let's save the money, let them go Communist, and then spend a few billion dollars fighting them!" That isn't, of course, the argument that the opponents actually made; Herblock was pointing out what he thought the flaw in their argument was. But there were opponents, so research that.
Unice Originally Answered: Making a fact debatable?
'Marshall Aid Prevented Communism Spreading to Western Europe After WW2' You can then put for and against arguments for this in your text,backed up by examples.

If you have your own answer to the question for and against essay global warming, then you can write your own version, using the form below for an extended answer.