Anti Argument

AntiThesis: Cities should not be allowed to seize private property under the laws of eminent domain to give to a private developer for their use.

Cities can sometimes make mistakes in their judgement towards whether or not the use of eminent domain to create new economic development. Much like Gregory Ramirez noted in his article Texas Rice Land Partners, LTD. V. Denbury green pipeline-Texas, LLC: A probability of future use by the public as a key to exercising eminent domain it is up to the affected citizens to stand up to that particular power and fight back for their constitutional rights not to be violated, by private industry (Ramirez). The Supreme Court of Texas overruled the Texas Court of Appeals in the decision that that the seizing of private property for the Denbury green pipeline-Texas, LLC was constitutional. The Texas Supreme Court instead ruled it unconstitutional and the homeowners kept their land. 

Ramirez, Gregory S. "Texas Rice Land Partners, LTD. V. Denbury green pipeline-Texas, LLC:     A probability of future use by the public as a key to exercising eminent       domain."Creighton Law Review 41.1 (2012): 89-114. Web. 26 Mar. 2013.

The Debate

The purpose of the Jon Stewart v. Bill O’Reilly debate was to present the issues from the 2012 Presidential race to people who would find this form of debate more entertaining. Its motives also include satirical humor, from both players, to strike down one another’s ideas and immediately strike back with your own argument. Bill O’Reilly audience is generally an older crowd so he used more obscure references and even used the cards as a point of focus for his arguments. Jon Stewart, on the other hand, used his talent as an actor and stand up comedian to improvise on the subjects that were brought up because his audience watches comedy central and connects more with humor.  Both parties did become at fault with a misunderstanding or misuse of the information they had memorized. The issue that Bill O’Reilly misunderstood was that most people on welfare do not like being on welfare, nor do they find it an alternative to working. He is making a generalization because there are those few individuals who take advantage of the system and its benefits and know how to play that particular field in a crummy way. This is a small percentage of people within this system.  Jon Stewart's fault came when he misunderstood the difference between our debt and our deficit. This is an example of a non sequitur because he had the information on the deficit correct but failed to have a conclusion that followed the premise of a deficit. I believe the debate was worthwhile because it let people who may not have been following the elections see the issues presented in an understandable way. Debating is necessary and we all do it in everyday life whether we mean to or not. Debating happens when choosing between options.

Letter Reaction

He is lumping all people on Medicaid in with this one individual. He is attacking every aspect of her life and only pointing out the issues that he took to heart. It's illogical because one person is not a representative to an entire community. He makes giant generalization because he feels she doesn't need free healthcare, while he is using it to illustrate his own deep-seated opinion on the issue.

The second draft of the letter contains more "details" showing why the conclusions from the first draft were jumped to. It still contains the same generalizations and the same appeal to authority as well as to a belief. It appeals to emotion more by describing things within a cinematic set up. 

New Tentative Thesis (New Topic)

Broad Topics: Government power; Use of eminent domain; Ethics.

Tentative Thesis: City government should have the power to use eminent domain and turn the seized properties over to private developers, as long as it is good for the public as a whole.

Explain: My original thesis was something to do with term limit enforcement on all Senators and Representatives of the Congress of the United States of America. I started doing research and found that most of the links I wanted to try and use were inactive or expired. I started working on a couple other ideas for the paper but none of them had enough research behind them for them to resonate well enough for a good paper. These ideas included the ethics of using Medical Marijuana to treat young children suffering from forms of autism (would have asked permission), and the use of electronic cigarettes as a "safer" alternative to the real thing. We ended up talking about eminent domain in my URBS 100 class and I noticed how conflicted the room became with peoples differing opinions. I worked out a problem within the idea of eminent domain that was controversial, turning seized properties over to private developers. I found a case study done by Gregory S. Ramirez, published in Creighton Law Review, about the choice of a city to turn over land to the Texas Rice Land Partners, and how they planned to use the land unethically based on the law of eminent domain. I also remembered something a friend told me about Pfizer doing something similar but they actually benefited the community so I intend to find a source for that.

Sources: 

Ramirez, Gregory S. "Texas Rice Land Partners, LTD. V. Denbury green pipeline-Texas, LLC: A probability of future use by the public as a key to exercising eminent domain."Creighton Law Review 41.1 (2012): 89-114. Web. 26 Mar. 2013.

Mears, Bill. "Supreme Court Examines Limits of City's Eminent Domain Powers." CNN.com. CNN, 23 Feb. 2005. Web. 26 Mar. 2013.