Argumentative Essay Example 1
As online learning becomes more common and more and more resources are
converted to digital form, some people have suggested that public libraries
should be shut down and, in their place, everyone should be given an iPad with
an e-reader subscription.
Proponents of this idea state that it will save local cities and towns money
because libraries are expensive to maintain. They also believe it will encourage
more people to read because they won’t have to travel to a library to get a book;
they can simply click on what they want to read and read it from wherever they
are. They could also access more materials because libraries won’t have to buy
physical copies of books; they can simply rent out as many digital copies as they
need.
However, it would be a serious mistake to replace libraries with tablets. First,
digital books and resources are associated with less learning and more
problems than print resources. A study done on tablet vs book reading found
that people read 20-30% slower on tablets, retain 20% less information, and
understand 10% less of what they read compared to people who read the same
information in print. Additionally, staring too long at a screen has been shown to
cause numerous health problems, including blurred vision, dizziness, dry eyes,
headaches, and eye strain, at much higher instances than reading print does.
People who use tablets and mobile devices excessively also have a higher
incidence of more serious health issues such as fibromyalgia, shoulder and back
pain, carpal tunnel syndrome, and muscle strain. I know that whenever I read
from my e-reader for too long, my eyes begin to feel tired and my neck hurts.
We should not add to these problems by giving people, especially young people,
more reasons to look at screens.
Second, it is incredibly narrow-minded to assume that the only service libraries
offer is book lending. Libraries have a multitude of benefits, and many are only
available if the library has a physical location. Some of these benefits include
acting as a quiet study space, giving people a way to converse with their
neighbors, holding classes on a variety of topics, providing jobs, answering
patron questions, and keeping the community connected. One neighborhood
found that, after a local library instituted community events such as play times
for toddlers and parents, job fairs for teenagers, and meeting spaces for senior
citizens, over a third of residents reported feeling more connected to their
community. Similarly, a Pew survey conducted in 2015 found that nearly two-
thirds of American adults feel that closing their local library would have a major
impact on their community. People see libraries as a way to connect with others
and get their questions answered, benefits tablets can’t offer nearly as well or as
easily.
While replacing libraries with tablets may seem like a simple solution, it would
encourage people to spend even more time looking at digital screens, despite
the myriad issues surrounding them. It would also end access to many of the
benefits of libraries that people have come to rely on. In many areas, libraries
are such an important part of the community network that they could never be
replaced by a simple object.
Argumentative Essay Example 2
Malaria is an infectious disease caused by parasites that are transmitted to
people through female Anopheles mosquitoes. Each year, over half a billion
people will become infected with malaria, with roughly 80% of them living in
Sub-Saharan Africa. Nearly half a million people die of malaria every year, most
of them young children under the age of five. Unlike many other infectious
diseases, the death toll for malaria is rising. While there have been many
programs designed to improve access to malaria treatment, the best way to
reduce the impact of malaria in Sub-Saharan Africa is to focus on reducing the
number of people who contract the disease in the first place, rather than waiting
to treat the disease after the person is already infected.
There are multiple drugs available to treat malaria, and many of them work well
and save lives, but malaria eradication programs that focus too much on them
and not enough on prevention haven’t seen long-term success in Sub-Saharan
Africa. A major program to combat malaria was WHO’s Global Malaria
Eradication Programme. Started in 1955, it had a goal of eliminating malaria in
Africa within the next ten years. Based upon previously successful programs in
Brazil and the United States, the program focused mainly on vector control. This
included widely distributing chloroquine and spraying large amounts of DDT.
More than one billion dollars was spent trying to abolish malaria. However, the
program suffered from many problems and in 1969, WHO was forced to admit
that the program had not succeeded in eradicating malaria. The number of
people in Sub-Saharan Africa who contracted malaria as well as the number of
malaria deaths had actually increased over 10% during the time the program
was active.
One of the major reasons for the failure of the project was that it set uniform
strategies and policies. By failing to consider variations between governments,
geography, and infrastructure, the program was not nearly as successful as it
could have been. Sub-Saharan Africa has neither the money nor the
infrastructure to support such an elaborate program, and it couldn’t be run the
way it was meant to. Most African countries don't have the resources to send all
their people to doctors and get shots, nor can they afford to clear wetlands or
other malaria prone areas. The continent’s spending per person for eradicating
malaria was just a quarter of what Brazil spent. Sub-Saharan Africa simply can’t
rely on a plan that requires more money, infrastructure, and expertise than they
have to spare.
Additionally, the widespread use of chloroquine has created drug resistant
parasites which are now plaguing Sub-Saharan Africa. Because chloroquine was
used widely but inconsistently, mosquitoes developed resistance, and
chloroquine is now nearly completely ineffective in Sub-Saharan Africa, with over
95% of mosquitoes resistant to it. As a result, newer, more expensive drugs need
to be used to prevent and treat malaria, which further drives up the cost of
malaria treatment for a region that can ill afford it.
Instead of developing plans to treat malaria after the infection has incurred,
programs should focus on preventing infection from occurring in the first place.
Not only is this plan cheaper and more effective, reducing the number of people
who contract malaria also reduces loss of work/school days which can further
bring down the productivity of the region.
One of the cheapest and most effective ways of preventing malaria is to
implement insecticide-treated bed nets (ITNs). These nets provide a protective
barrier around the person or people using them. While untreated bed nets are
still helpful, those treated with insecticides are much more useful because they
stop mosquitoes from biting people through the nets, and they help reduce
mosquito populations in a community, thus helping people who don’t even own
bed nets. Bed nets are also very effective because most mosquito bites occur
while the person is sleeping, so bed nets would be able to drastically reduce the
number of transmissions during the night. In fact, transmission of malaria can
be reduced by as much as 90% in areas where the use of ITNs is widespread.
Because money is so scarce in Sub-Saharan Africa, the low cost is a great benefit
and a major reason why the program is so successful. Bed nets cost roughly 2
USD to make, last several years, and can protect two adults. Studies have shown
that, for every 100-1000 more nets are being used, one less child dies of malaria.
With an estimated 300 million people in Africa not being protected by mosquito
nets, there’s the potential to save three million lives by spending just a few
dollars per person.
Reducing the number of people who contract malaria would also reduce poverty
levels in Africa significantly, thus improving other aspects of society like
education levels and the economy. Vector control is more effective than
treatment strategies because it means fewer people are getting sick. When
fewer people get sick, the working population is stronger as a whole because
people are not put out of work from malaria, nor are they caring for sick
relatives. Malaria-afflicted families can typically only harvest 40% of the crops
that healthy families can harvest. Additionally, a family with members who have
malaria spends roughly a quarter of its income treatment, not including the loss
of work they also must deal with due to the illness. It’s estimated that malaria
costs Africa 12 billion USD in lost income every year. A strong working
population creates a stronger economy, which Sub-Saharan Africa is in
desperate need of.
Argumentative Essay 3
As college sports continue to be hugely popular and the National Collegiate
Athletic Association (NCAA) brings in large amounts of revenue, people have
revived the debate on whether college athletes should get paid.
There are many ways payments could work. They could be in the form of a free-
market approach, where athletes are able to earn whatever the market is willing
to pay them, it could be a set amount of money per athlete, or student athletes
could earn income from endorsements, autographs, and control of their
likeness, similar to the way top Olympians earn money.
Proponents of the idea believe that, because college athletes are the ones who
are training, participating in games, and bringing in audiences, they should
receive some sort of compensation for their work. If there were no college
athletes, the NCAA wouldn’t exist, college coaches wouldn’t receive there
(sometimes very high) salaries, and brands like Nike couldn’t profit from college
sports. In fact, the NCAA brings in roughly $1 billion in revenue a year, but
college athletes don’t receive any of that money in the form of a paycheck.
Additionally, people who believe college athletes should be paid state that
paying college athletes will actually encourage them to remain in college longer
and not turn pro as quickly, either by giving them a way to begin earning money
in college or requiring them to sign a contract stating they’ll stay at the university
for a certain number of years while making an agreed-upon salary.
Supporters of this idea point to Zion Williamson, the Duke basketball superstar,
who, during his freshman year, sustained a serious knee injury. Many argued
that, even if he enjoyed playing for Duke, it wasn’t worth risking another injury
and ending his professional career before it even began for a program that
wasn’t paying him. Williamson seems to have agreed with them and declared his
eligibility for the NCAA draft later that year. If he was being paid, he may have
stayed at Duke longer. In fact, roughly a third of student athletes surveyed
stated that receiving a salary while in college would make them “strongly
consider” remaining collegiate athletes longer before turning pro.
Paying athletes could also stop the recruitment scandals that have plagued the
NCAA. In 2018, the NCAA stripped the University of Louisville's men's basketball
team of its 2013 national championship title because it was discovered coaches
were using sex workers to entice recruits to join the team. There have been
dozens of other recruitment scandals where college athletes and recruits have
been bribed with anything from having their grades changed, to getting free
cars, to being straight out bribed. By paying college athletes and putting their
salaries out in the open, the NCAA could end the illegal and underhanded ways
some schools and coaches try to entice athletes to join.
People who argue against the idea of paying college athletes believe the practice
could be disastrous for college sports. By paying athletes, they argue, they’d turn
college sports into a bidding war, where only the richest schools could afford top
athletes, and the majority of schools would be shut out from developing a
talented team (though some argue this already happens because the best
players often go to the most established college sports programs, who typically
pay their coaches millions of dollars per year). It could also ruin the tight
camaraderie of many college teams if players become jealous that certain
teammates are making more money than they are.
They also argue that paying college athletes actually means only a small fraction
would make significant money. Out of the 350 Division I athletic departments,
fewer than a dozen earn any money. Nearly all the money the NCAA makes
comes from men’s football and basketball, so paying college athletes would
make a small group of men--who likely will be signed to pro teams and begin
making millions immediately out of college--rich at the expense of other players.
Those against paying college athletes also believe that the athletes are receiving
enough benefits already. The top athletes already receive scholarships that are
worth tens of thousands per year, they receive free food/housing/textbooks,
have access to top medical care if they are injured, receive top coaching, get
travel perks and free gear, and can use their time in college as a way to capture
the attention of professional recruiters. No other college students receive
anywhere near as much from their schools.
People on this side also point out that, while the NCAA brings in a massive
amount of money each year, it is still a non-profit organization. How? Because
over 95% of those profits are redistributed to its members’ institutions in the
form of scholarships, grants, conferences, support for Division II and Division III
teams, and educational programs. Taking away a significant part of that revenue
would hurt smaller programs that rely on that money to keep running.
While both sides have good points, it’s clear that the negatives of paying college
athletes far outweigh the positives. College athletes spend a significant amount
of time and energy playing for their school, but they are compensated for it by
the scholarships and perks they receive. Adding a salary to that would result in a
college athletic system where only a small handful of athletes (those likely to
become millionaires in the professional leagues) are paid by a handful of schools
who enter bidding wars to recruit them, while the majority of student athletics
and college athletic programs suffer or even shut down for lack of money.
Continuing to offer the current level of benefits to student athletes makes it
possible for as many people to benefit from and enjoy college sports as possible.
