Should refugees be accepted in the US?

Order Description

Final Paper Outline (18-25 pgs, not including Appendices or Works Cited)
(This outline is largely adapted from the Capstone Handbook, but it is not the same. I will be using this outline to grade your papers, not the one from the Handbook. Hint: You can use shortened versions of these outlined points as headers in your paper.)
I. Introduction
A. Introduction to the controversy and opening paragraph(s)
B. Documentation of the social problem(s).
C. Brief introduction of the two sides of the controversy and values.
D. Definitions and explanations (if applicable)
E. Limitations on the project. What may be related, but is not closely relevant, and thus will not be discussed beyond this paragraph.
Establishing the significance and documenting (with a figure or stat) 1-2 related social problems, as identified by your stakeholders, not by you;
Briefly introducing your stakeholders and the values that motivate them
Giving background information and providing explanations of key terms and ideas as they are used by stakeholders in the debate, and discussion of any directly relevant legal, technical, or administrative complexities, such as oversight or regulatory processes.

II. Background and history of the controversy
A. Where, when, how, and with whom the controversy originated
B. Development of the controversy over time
C. Significant milestones in terms of policy, events, developments in culture or theory, etc.
D. Current state of the controversy
Providing a narrative, chronological history that gives a background of your controversy. Spend less time with events further in the past and more time with current developments. You should provide specific dates and names. Developments can include events, court cases, proposed or established laws, founding of relevant important organizations, etc. History should be precise, thorough, and well curated. You must include citations for all research.
III. Presentation of Cases
A. Presentation of Proponent cases
1. Stakeholders holding the position
a. 2 General (need qualifiers such as \”some,\” \”most,\” \”many,\” etc.)
b. 2 Specific (need names, dates, publications, affiliations, etc.)
2. Issues in contention (\”Issues are the broad concerns over which the sides are arguing, such as \”cost,\” \”safety,\” or \”civil rights.\”)
3. Proponent Arguments with supporting evidence (at least 2 arguments with evidence)
a. Proponent Argument 1 with supporting evidence
b. Proponent Argument 2 with supporting evidence
c. Repeat with any additional Proponent Arguments. Be thorough. Repeat for ALL significant arguments discussed by stakeholders.
4. Proposed plans (if applicable)
B. Presentation of Opponent cases
1. Stakeholders holding the position
a. 2 General (need qualifiers such as \”some,\” \”most,\” \”many,\” etc.)
b. 2 Specific (need names, dates, publications, affiliations, etc.)
2. Issues in contention (\”Issues are the broad concerns over which the sides are arguing, such as \”cost,\” \”safety,\” or \”civil rights.\”)
3. Opponent Arguments with supporting evidence (at least 2 arguments with evidence)
a. Opponent Argument 1 with supporting evidence
b. Opponent Argument 2 with supporting evidence
c. Repeat with any additional Opponent Arguments. Be thorough. Repeat for ALL significant arguments discussed by stakeholders.
4. Proposed plans (if applicable)
An organized presentation of specific stakeholder backgrounds and relevance, as well as stakeholder arguments. Arguments should be presented one at a time and include relevant research and evidence. This will likely include statistics, if relevant to the argument. All research must be cited.
IV. Analysis and Evaluation (Begin Paper Two; 5 pgs)
A. Analysis and evaluation of arguments (Keep in mind that your two sides may not address the same arguments/issues. You may not always have 2 perspectives on an argument/issue, though a side\’s failure to address an argument/issue may be a weakness in their case that you need to talk about.)
1. Analysis and evaluation of Proponent Argument 1 (evidence and logic)
2. Analysis and evaluation of Proponent Argument 2 (evidence and logic)
3. Repeat for additional Proponent Arguments if necessary
4. Analysis and evaluation of Opponent Argument 1 (evidence and logic)
5. Analysis and evaluation of Opponent Argument 2 (evidence and logic
6. Repeat for additional Opponent Arguments if necessary
B. Analysis and evaluation of Proponents\’ moral reasoning
1. Values
2. Obligations
3. Potential consequences
4. Normative ethical theory/principle (see NC and St Ed\’s Handbook in Files)
C. Analysis and evaluation of Opponents\’ moral reasoning
1. Values
2. Obligations
3. Potential consequences
4. Normative ethical theory/principle (see NC and St Ed\’s Handbook in Files)
V. Final Position with Full Support (revised from Paper Two Tentative Position; 3-5 pgs)
A. Revised Position and Solution (if applicable) to the Controversy
1. Author\’s position on the controversy
2. Author\’s arguments and evidence
3. Author\’s moral reasoning including relevant normative ethical theory.
4. Response to counterarguments
5. Discussion of solution\’s feasibility (if applicable)
6. Some reservations or questions you still have about your solution (Sub Three only)
B. Conclusion
VI. Appendices (optional)
VII. Works Cited (MLA Format)

Bias and Neutrality: Even though you will now take a position, and decide which sides arguments are stronger, you should still strive for objectivity. In weighing the arguments, it is likely that you know which side you prefer by now, but just for that reason, you will seem a more thoughtful and unbiased guide to the issue if you acknowledge that not every advantage will be on one side.
Be bravethe best arguments are those which acknowledge (and address) their own weaknesses fairly and impartially. Even if you are passionate about your issue, your goal is not to WIN the debate (this almost never happens in controversies), but to reasonably consider the positions and values of your stakeholders and decide which are more persuasive to you based on the evidence, arguments, and your own principles. This in turn will make your findings more persuasive.
Though you are now making evaluative statements, work through the arguments one by one as objectively as possible, making your decisions strictly on their merits, like a judge or jury might do.
Analysis of Argumentation and Evidence (about 2 pp.): In this section, your job is to weigh, critically, the arguments and evidence presented by the sides. Your main task is not to consider each argument alone and in a vacuum, but as much as possible, to weigh the sides arguments against each other, clearly taking sides. You should clearly state where the argument is strong and where the argument is weak, then provide a statement on the overall strength/weakness of the argument.
Think of each major argument as a question you need to answer based on the case you presented for that side in Paper One: does it seem true? Was it compelling?
IS the cost of universal healthcare likely to rise?
ARE civil liberties violated unacceptably by this policy?
IS the number of uninsured children too high?
IS the rate of complaints about police violence above national standards?
Did the side make their case on each argument persuasively, and support their argument with current, credible evidence? Or does the other side make an argument that outweighs the first one? Work through each issue on each side, comparing arguments where you can, though the sides do not always address each others arguments. If an argument seems strong, explain why. If it seems weak, explain that as well. Here are some questions to help you identify weaknesses in arguments:
Is the argument supported, with valid, current, and authoritative evidence?
Is the argument powerful and persuasive to you in a way you can articulate, or do you find it weak in relevance, weak as a prediction, weak as an interpretation of evidence or events, or overly reliant on spin (that is, a stretch)?
Is the argument outweighed by an argument made by the other side? Explain how. Does it ignore some real world fact or a counterargument raised by the other side?
Consider the source: is the arguer trusted and neutral, or a heated partisan whose claims should be taken with a grain of salt? All stakeholders are biased to some degree, but you should be aware of different degrees of objectivity between, say, govt. agencies, think tanks, academic researchers, and advocacy groups. Do they stand to gain from their advocacy? Are they in pursuit of ideological aims or respected, objective researchers? You might look at blogs or in news accounts to try to get a feel for the trustworthiness of a stakeholder. For example, a federal agency like the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) are regarded as neutral and cited by each side, while others are accused of spinning data for the current administration.
Is the argument fallacious or logically valid? That is, is it relevant? Does it make false presumptions? Does it rely, perhaps intentionally, on some ambiguity? Does it overly rely on emotion?
Is the argument deceptive in some other way, ignoring acknowledged facts?
Ultimately, you need to decide which sides argument is more substantial, complete, current and unbiased, which is better supported by the evidence cited, which seems more spin than substance, and which is better supported by credentialed experts and authoritative evidence. Note on emotional arguments: emotion in itself does not invalidate an argument. Rather, you should consider whether emotions are appealed to in an unwarranted or manipulative way, or if the emotion conceals a lack of sound arguments or evidence. It is likely that both sides will have some winning arguments. That is fineyou only have to weigh these, not establish complete dominance for one side. In fact, your ability to acknowledge the strength of arguments you disagree with is helpful in establishing your own authority as a fair-minded researcher and critic of your issue.
NOTE on backfilling and development: In this process, you also might discover you ignored important arguments, so be ready to go back and rewrite or remove those sections of Submission Two that you now find extraneous or less important, or add other more powerful and relevant issues. This is known as development, which happens through substantial revision, and through returning often to your draft. I also recommend that you preserve the old draft, and start a new one using Save As. In your analysis of argumentation, make sure you review EACH major argument you discussed in Submission Two, and evaluate the evidence provided.
Moral Reasoning (about 2 pp.): Here you will need to consider the obligations and values that motivate your stakeholders. The main point of this section is to explain how your stakeholders DIFFER in their moral reasoning, even if they use a similar word. One- or two-sentence considerations of these matters are insufficient: this is not a list, but a prose discussion considering a complex moral dilemma, so DEVELOP your analyses for each side, and contrast them with those of the other side. Using the Handbook will be vital to scoring well on this part of the paper. And many people simply forget to analyze major elements, so be complete to get those points.
Obligations, Values, and Potential Consequences: For each issue or major argument, determine the obligations, values, and consequences that motivate your stakeholdersto whom in the controversy do they feel most obligated, and why? Obligations are social: they are not to things, or to values, but to particular people and groups. Then discuss the values that are most important to them, especially those values relating to political ideology. Finally, discuss the potential consequences, and potential moral dilemmas, of each side\’s position.
You will then use the handbook to identify a normative theory/principle that applies to each side of your question. You are not expected to be a philosopher or ethical theorist, so you may keep this section brief. As long as it is clear and appropriately addresses the paper requirement, you will be fine.
Tentative Solution/Position (about 1 page): After performing your analysis, briefly present your own tentative solution/position to the controversy, and discuss the main arguments and evidence that you feel are most persuasive for your own solution. Then, address what you know from your research are the major objections opponents will have towards your solution. These are known as counterarguments, where you address, refute, or even concede, some of the most central drawbacks to your solution.
After making the case (in about page) discuss some elements of your moral reasoning (the obligations, values, and consequences) that you find persuasive in adopting this solution. Think of the tentative solution as a quick sketching out of your position, to be revised in the longer, more completely argued final conclusion of the paper. Since this section will require you to offer your own views, feel free to use the personal I in your discussion. You might also identify areas in your argument about which you have reservations, or are undecided. These will be helpful in preparing for your interviews with experts.
Be sure to include each of the required elements:
A feasible solution/position
1-2 major supporting arguments
2 counterarguments to likely objections to your solution
Some moral reasoning of your choice
Suggested: some reservations or questions you still have about your solution.
Currently 3 writers are viewing this order

Place a similar order with us or any form of academic custom essays related subject and it will be delivered within its deadline. All assignments are written from scratch based on the instructions which you will provide to ensure it is original and not plagiarized. Kindly use the calculator below to get your order cost; Do not hesitate to contact our support staff if you need any clarifications.

Type of paper Academic level Subject area
Number of pages Paper urgency Cost per page:

Whatever level of paper you need – college, university, research paper, term paper or just a high school paper, you can safely place an order.

Last Completed Projects

# topic title discipline academic level pages delivered
Writer's choice
1 hour 32 min
Wise Approach to
2 hours 19 min
1980's and 1990
2 hours 20 min
pick the best topic
2 hours 27 min
finance for leisure
2 hours 36 min