Zachary Cothren
Mr.Soeth
February 17, 2011
AP english III

REHUGO-Government

A. The opposing viewpoints I read were: Should the three strikes you're out rule apply to school bullies? Yes and Should the three strikes you're out rule apply to school bullies? No.

B.Articles cited below.

C. a. In Should the three strikes you're out rule apply to school bullies? Yes by Ivegot Sunshine supports the position that despite the fact that the children are often in need of help it is nessesary to remove them from the schooling enviroment in order to preserve the safty of the envimoent as a whole.

b. In Should the three strikes you're out rule apply to bullies? No by Brad Obeill argues that such a rule would take to much power out of the hands of the administrators and such a rigid doctrine would detriment the system as a whole rather than strengthen it.

D. a. Article one relies largely on a pathos based argument, and used the word "broken" almost exsessivly as an attempt to emphasize the fact that it was not entierly the fault of the students that their actions had taken a violent turn. Though this also gives them a certain inhuman aspect, which affirms that such harsh actions can be taken with them. This simple repeating saves the author from seeming cruel while at the same time giving themselves the go ahead to take swift and powerful action. The author then continues the argument and discusses abusive households, and repeats the world "usually", to show that these children are not from "usual" situation and therefore much be treated with unsusually harsh reation.

b. The author uses a much more ethosbased argument, citing several articles on the subject in order to affirm his role as an expert on the subject. The citing of these different "zero tolerance" polices are used in an attempt to show that when such extremism is employed that they hurt the envirment as a whole, and that the principal should be the one making the decision. His diction appears extremely mild, meaning he does not use any confrontational words, which goes well with his overall argiment because he is taking a middle ground for the entire debate. he does not argue either extreme but rather has a firm middle grounds that both sides will be able to compromise to.

E. a. bullying in school is rampant, and the weak are controlled by the strong. Such extreme actions are easy to empathise with and see as a fix all solution in these situation. Such a harsh regeime will most likely cut down exsessivly on the violence seen on the urface of school life.

b. A more mild mannered action can be seen as negligent, for the fact that principals are not always able to predict the actions of their students, and might not be able to stop another Columbine. That if the teacher makes a mistake we could have to be dealing with a blood bath, and not just a broken nose.

F. Though I do not advise such extremism as article one, I do agree with more firm polices than article two. Some middle ground much be reached where there is a set limit for a student will be allowed to do until they are expelled. Instead of the cure all of "it is the principal's decision".

Citation:

Ivegot Sunshine. "Should the three stike rule be applied to school bullies? Yes" Helium, Web. http://www.helium.com/items/1728107-bullying

Brad Oneill. "Should the three strikes rule be applied to school bullies? No" Helium, Web. http://www.helium.com/items/1865447-should-three-strikes-rules-apply-in-highschools