We end the course by engaging in a written debate on issues that are raised by the biology of politics. In the second part of the debate (week of May 3), you will read the essay of a classmate who has argued the opposing side to your essay last week. You will then write a response to their argument that is grounded in scientific evidence and clear interpretation, with the broader purpose of explaining societal implications.
Specifically, your task will be to write an essay that responds to each of the points raised by your debate “opponent” using sound reasoning and scientific evidence. That is, you will continue your quest to convince the audience that your original (assigned) position is correct, now given an alternative view on the topic. Your piece should be no more than 500 words in length.
Remember that this was the question that was originally posed for the debate, as well as the two opposing positions:
There is increasing scientific evidence that political attitudes and ideologies are shaped in part by individuals’ biological predispositions. Should knowing about the relationships between our genes, brains, physiology, hormones and our political beliefs lead to greater political tolerance or greater political intolerance? Will advances in research on the biology of politics contribute to increasing or decreasing political polarization in our society?
Position A: Understanding the biology of politics will make people more understanding of their political opponents’ views. If people accept that others have different political views because they are biologically predisposed to believe those things, then politics would be less polarized and more tolerant.
Position B: Understanding the biology of politics will make people less understanding of their political opponents’ views. If people accept that others have different political views because they are biologically predisposed to believe those things, then politics would be more polarized and less tolerant.
Your counterargument will be evaluated on the following dimensions:
Is your response comprehensive? That is, do you clearly respond to each of the points raised by your opponent?
Is your counterargument supported by scientific evidence and sound reasoning? As you did in your opening argument last week, explain clearly how scientific research supports your points. When you cite specific scientific articles, refer to them by the authors’ names, either in-text or as parenthetical citations (but do not refer to them by the title of the article).
Like last week, note that I expect you to go beyond the readings of Week 12 (Schneider, Smith, and Hibbing, 2018; Suhay, Brandt, and Proulx, 2017) in examining scientific support for your argument.
Importantly, note that you should not simply be recycling the exact same arguments and writing from your original argument. Please do not bore your audience! That is, the way that you pull in scientific evidence should be in the following ways:
Evaluate the description and interpretation of scientific evidence that is given by your opponent. Explain whether and why there is a better way to consider this evidence.
Pull in additional scientific evidence and explain its relevance to your counterargument.
And again, does your counterargument clearly consider social and political implications? Draw connections between the research and what kinds of consequences can be expected in society.
