Respond to Morgan luck’s paper, The gamer’s dilemma: An analysis of the arguments for the moral
distinction between virtual murder and virtual paedophilia.
Structure
12 pt Times New Roman, double spaced
Introduction: Provide a provocative question, or catch your audience’s attention
Provide a provocative question, or catch your audience’s attention (thoughtfully) by introducing the issue at hand, and why the issue is important. Do this
briefly, and signpost what your paper will be doing.
■ Please don’t start your paper with a sentence so vague and uninformative that it adds
nothing to the paper (i.e, “since the beginning of time, people thought different things
about [topic]!”). Be clear. Be precise. Be concise.
■ To Do: (halfway through the intro) — “the goal of this paper is to show that [X
argument] is flawed. It is flawed because [Y premise of argument] is false. It is false
because (one sentence).” Write as painfully clearly as possible. (Don’t copy/paste this,
this is just an example.)
Summary: Summarize the author’s view in a fair, even-handed way. Don’t put words in
Summarize the author’s view in a fair, even-handed way. Don’t put words in anyone’s mouths, do not attack their character, and treat their views with respect and
understanding.
■ Make note of all relevant details, and market their argument as if you yourself were
trying to sell it to someone. Take no more than a third of your paper.
Critique: This is where you present your argument showing that part of your opponent’s
This is where you present your argument showing that part of your opponent’s
argument is flawed. This should take up the bulk of your paper. You are to construct valid,
clear arguments and defend those arguments as sound. When you are making a
counterexample, show how it applies to the problem.
Break down EVERY step of your argument. Nothing is obvious.
Objection + Response: Think of the STRONGEST objection to the argument you bring to
Think of the STRONGEST objection to the argument you bring to the table. What is your greatest weak point? Attempt to overcome this issue. This should not
take more than three paragraphs, and should explain the relevance of the objection to your
argument.
Conclusion: Summarize BRIEFLY what you’ve done throughout your paper. Bring
Summarize BRIEFLY what you’ve done throughout your paper. Bring everything together in full circle. This should not be more than two paragraphs.
