The leading property-related ethical issue centers on the proponents of proprietary software and shareware software. Briefly itemize the key arguments of the opposing sides and give a succinct justification of which side you are standing.
130688
Man, that sounds like a homework assignment.\n\nI think I'll let you do you own!
437473
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Herman%20/Manufacturing_Consent.html\n\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_Consent:_Noam_Chomsky_and_the_Media\n\nhttp://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article12972.htm
570653
i like to use a quote or a short story that deals with the issue.  it gives you some evidence at the very beginning, and it depending on the quote, it can give you a very powerful introduction, which is exactly what you want in a debate.
165239
A good rule of thumb is you have rights to just about any action that doesn't impinge upon the rights of others. Example: you have the right to smoke but not where other people are that don't want to be exposed to second hand smoke, like a restaurant.
338640
1. open with an attention-getting statement about the problem, which is controversial (should or should not be increased to 5 years);\n2. say what you will do in your paper: for example, you may want to provide arguments for and against;\n3. in the development of your paper, compare and contrast both sides of the story, giving good, solid examples;\n4. by the end of the paper, state your own point of view;\n5. in the conclusion, you should recap what you intended to do, showing that you have reached your goals.\n\nIn other words, the introduction should outline each step. It reflects what you will write about. And the conclusion recaps what you have just written.
485310
Well with most thesis statements you have to pick a side of the arguement.  What is your side of the arguement?  Lets start there.  \nWhatever you do...don't make your thesis statement a question.\nIf you need help IM me, not2tall66.  I'm on Yahoo IM most of the day.
428011
Well, there are two cases to consider. The first is the one you spoke of, when they already believe theirs is the right choice. The second is the case of genuine curiosity, wanting to know what fundamental truths support which argument. In the first case, it could be to try to convert others or simply to reassure onesself that the justifications for other faiths are invalid (although this is from a biased perspective). In the second case, asking a question like this would hopefully bring out strong arguments from many sides. It's interesting to weigh these points against one another.
528903
You will probably need to specialize on something. Ethics seems to be a field that is getting a lot of attention lately and lots of corporations, hospitals and organizations are hiring Ethics officers to oversee their policies.
265532
http://www.rscc.cc.tn.us/owl&writingcenter/OWL/Argument.html
417989
i.t.industry has an association for its professionals and they have instituted their own ethics for their members. PS. i have little faith in ethics as recommended by professional associations -- since their main interest is to protect and enhance the interest of their membership. a case in point is the legal profession --yes, they have work ethics -- but try to fight the billing of a lawyer -- and you end up in their associations -- and (while statistics are not made public) in 99 p.cent of the cases the lawyer gets its due. That is a case off your direct question but it gives you an idea for whom the bell tolls! Hope it helps.
133724
Debating ideas \n \n\nThe Five-minute Debate Planner (Mk I)\n\nTopic \n\nIssue and justification \n\n\n\nDefinitions and justifications \n\n\n\n\nCase line \n\n\n\n\nMaterial (arguments) \n\n\n\n\n\n\nRebuttal arguments \n\n\nAllocation \n\n\nAnticipated opposition arguments: \n\n\n\n \n\n\nThe "Five-minute Debate Planner" appears above — it is not unique. Use this sheet on some practice topics, and changed the plan to suit yourself.\n\nUse your version of the planning sheet\n\n\nto plan how you will present each debate, and \nto "capture" the other side's plan during the debate so you can analyse it. \nThe terms used in the sheet:\n\nThe topic is obvious. Just write it down as it is stated, and note what side you are on by writing "Aff" or "Neg" at the end of the line.\n\nThe issue is what the topic is really about. This question is very important if the topic is about a metaphor, like "People who live in glass houses should not throw stones". In this example, the issue is not about throwing real stones, or living in a glass house. You must always take time out to identify the issue.\n\nIn the same section, write down your justification for interpreting the issue this way. This shows briefly why you have chosen what you have chosen as the issue.\n\nNext, you come to your definitions. Mostly, these will come from your interpretation of the issue, and must refer to the issue. Sometimes, the definitions will come from what the "person in the street" would believe, or from the context of the topic. (If the topic is "That we should kill all the lawyers", this does not necessarily mean standing all the solicitors against a wall and shooting them, even if this strikes you as a tempting proposition. It helps to know that this was meant literally when Shakespeare wrote the lines for "Dick the Butcher".) Note down the context, if you know it.\n\nNext comes your case line. You need a quick statement of how the debate will go from your side.\n\nThen comes a brief points-form listing of your material, the arguments that your team will put forward.\n\nAs a separate section, note down rebuttal arguments. These are things that you need to remember and plan for, but which you plan to bring out in rebutting the other side's arguments.\n\nNext comes your allocation for the first two speakers. This divides up the caseline into a neat and logical division that gives each speaker a reasonable amount of material to work with.\n\nFinally, note down what you expect the other side to argue. Watch out: there may be more than one way of arguing either side of a case!!\n\nSample topics\n\nThese topics are roughly graded in terms of difficulty. In training, you will sometimes be required to take on a task which is easier or harder than your ability and age. Note that even the hardest topic can be debated at a simple level, and a very simple topic can be debated brilliantly!\n\nEasy\n\nThat homework should be banned.\n\nThat school uniforms are good for us.\n\nThat television is too violent.\n\nThat television does more harm than good.\n\nThat terrorism can be justified.\n\nThat the earth can look after itself.\n\nThat the IOC made the wrong decision for Sydney.\n\nThat a woman's place is in the home.\n\nThat Australia is a nation of bigots.\n\nThat the car is a luxury we can do without.\n\nThat all our woes have come from science.\n\nThat people who live in glass houses should not throw stones.\n\n \n\nJunior\n\nThat the Olympics are a five-ring circus.\n\nThat spectator sports are a waste of time.\n\nThat organised team sport is legalised violence.\n\nThat we are Uncle Sam's nephews and nieces.\n\nThat the law is an ass.\n\nThat education is the key to success.\n\nThat education starts after school.\n\nThat there is strength in diversity.\n\nThat peace depends on fear.\n\nThat we should try, try, try again.\n\nThat we should be vegetarians.\n\nThat we should
532795
I am a Realtor and I am also a Corporation....Now sure why.....That is just what my accountant said would be best....That way if I get sued they can only go "personally" as deep as my Corporation and not my cut me through my personal (protects my family)....Talk to your accountant about it....IT is a nice protection to have.....
404722
Option 1: take a controversial topic and defend one side. (like abortion, immigration, national security, homosexuality, etc.)\n\nOption 2: take a ridiculous topic and defend one side (like "the sky is purple" "people should eat elephants" "convicts should eat each other" "Canada should annex Zimbabwe" etc"\n\nOption 3: take a mediocre topic and talk about it (like "people are good" "I should have an A on this presentation" etc.)
436583
If you argue with a fool, take care you don't become one.  I think the right of a debate at any venue may have to be a majority decision or in this case the decision of the University Board of Governors who may have to stand aside from mob rule and decide what is best for a place of learning not conflict and that might mean giving a platform to a controversial group in the spirit of free exchange of views.  Being pragmatic though they would probobly take the view that there would be rabble rousers there hell bent on causing a riot to make some misguided point
627310
Five paragraphs are easy - 1st is intro, 2nd is your first reason, 3rd is your 2nd reason, 4th is your 3rd reason and the 5th is your conclusion.\n  In the Intro you want to lay out the issue - give "both" sides and then, without using "I" or any other reference to 1st person, explain that the side you are writing about is the "only logical conclusion" (or your words) based on the three reasons below.  Each body paragraph is a reason, which you tie back to the crux question.  You want to give the reason and explain how/why it's an important one.  In the conclusion try to avoid simply re-stating what you've said above - but refer to your arguments.\n       You didn't say if there was to be research involved or if you were to use quotations from texts... I'd still use the same essential format as above, but I would suggest a few modifications.\n     Just so you know, I've been teaching for 7 years.  I completed a couple graduate degrees and always did well on papers, i.e., I'm not talking out of my a**.  Good luck!
529753
you'll have to request one the advocates who has softwares designed for them. One that I've seen in use was called "The Laws", it contains various judgements and other legal stuff. You can just take printouts of any judgement for yourself. The software is too expensive to buy and I don't think you get pirated version of the same.  \n\nI'm not in the legal profession, but just sharing whatever little info I know.
488441
This is more an ethical question than a legal one.