Use your controversial article chosen earlier to write an argumentative essay about the topic YOU chose.
Write both sides of the argument. Do not include your opinion.
Below is an example of what is expected for this assignment. Should you have questions, please reach out! Thank you.
Response example written & shared with permission from Jonas Cadena:
I stand with the side that agrees this is a little ridiculous.
This part of my argument will be for the purchase of books for the public. A book should only ever be banned if it is explicitly expressing racist, sexist, or terrorist ideas. When I say this, I mean the book should be banned if it says "Black people should still be slaves, women serve only to cook and reproduce, and I want to make sure the airplane doesn't miss the Pentagon this time." Obviously these topics are awful and those statements go against our rights in the constitution, so if any book holds these they should be banned. However, I am sure if any books did say this, the publisher would not have printed this on their printing presses for obvious reasons, so having stated this, no book should ever be banned. If a book ever reaches this level of filth, it will likely never reach the shelves; if a book is on the shelves it should never be taken off the shelves if it doesn't reach these levels. The books can be approaching this level of filthy or bigotry due to the bias of the author, but if it is done in a respectable manner, for the sake of an argument, or to express their controversial opinions, the books should be allowed on the shelves to the readers' discretion.
This part of the argument will be for the books available to children in school or public libraries. Referring to the controversial books in the first part of my argument, I still say they should be available to the public, but I do agree that not all of these books should be available to all ages of children. It seems to me that the people who first created this issue don't know how to filter the more adult books from the others that might be acceptable to kids. The only way their argument works is if they bundle all explicit books together. For example, they would ban both of these books in a school library. Book 1: The plot is about a 17-year-old boy taking a 17-year-old girl to the senior prom and kissing her at the end of the book. Telling the story of two innocent high school sweethearts. Book 2: The plot is about two well-matured adults sharing their story as married swingers that like to enjoy sexual and kinky experiences with strangers. Telling an explicit story of all the body parts used and touched.
To the people who want to ban books in school libraries, these two filthy books are the same and their evil text should not be a middle schooler's hands. This argument falls apart when you can't tell the difference between these two works. I agree that the middle schooler should not have the book about explicit sex, but I stand with the idea that they should be able to read the book about the two high school sweethearts. But! Notice how I said a middle schooler should not have the book about sex. Maybe in a case where the student is mature, such as a high schooler, they should be able to read the story about sex. It might be for research, they enjoy the author's work, they like the genre of the books or any other reason the reader has to read the book. Who am I to judge why they are reading it. If they are causing no harm by reading it, should be allowed. But! If they aren't mature, the school doesn't buy the book because why would their students need to read this, or the library doesn't have those books, then the high schooler can't read that book. But! notice once again that I have yet to say the student cannot read that book because it is banned. The book is not banned, and it exists elsewhere. If they really want to read it, the student should be able to find it. Under no circumstances should a book be banned from anyone to read. In any case, anybody should be allowed to read any book with the supervision of their superiors given the fact that they are not to read certain books yet because they are not mature enough.
My main argument is as above, but this is just another obstacle I would like to place in front of my opponents. Let us say the sex book was in a middle school library. Let us say it is in a faraway corner of the library and at the top of the shelve. Why can the book not rest there? Of course, there is a chance an under-aged audience finds the book and wants to check it out. But what is stopping the librarian from simply denying the underage reader? Isn't that their job? To oversee the obvious issues in the library.
Furthermore, books are not dangerous in showing explicit content. Picture this. Same library. Same middle schooler. Same book. If the student has the book in his hands. Do my opponents think his mind will be immediately flooded with naughty images of two adults. No. Of course not. The kid would have to sit down, open the book, read multiple pages, have the intelligence to know what the author is talking about, have the intelligence to create a picture of the scene in his mind, and have to interpret the knowledge of the book in his head for it to do any damage. This cannot possibly be a greater threat than the internet. Easily, the middle schooler could click a link, it opens a page, and bang he's staring a picture of naked women on the internet. This is the real danger. This way, all he has to do is click one button, and there is no thinking involved. With the book, he would have to follow the story and imagine the woman's delicate parts. With the internet, one-click, and he no longer has to imagine because he can see them on the screen. If my opponents want to ban something, they should go after a more serious threat. A web page can do more harm to a middle schooler's mind than any book can.