<p>Topic: "Tell us about a time when you struggled to convince someone of something you believed to be right. How did the process go? What was the end result?" </p>
<pre><code> --"Being from a predominately democratic wealth driven town in Connecticut one can imagine the opposition I faced in Government and Politics as the only conservative. In my eyes, no rational and well thought out opinion is. Since finishing the class, I have begun my college career at East Carolina University where, after a rather tedious study session during finals, a friend (let’s call him Jeff) made the statement “F@$% the troops” which of course left me asking the question: “now why would you say that?”
-- The clock had just stroked midnight however I needed to engage not only for the pure disrespectful nature of the statement but with the fact that there were other members in our group who had not developed their own opinions. I felt it to be necessary to shed light on both sides of the argument so the other group members could have a better scope of possibilities.
-- Jeff’s argument began with his explanation that the no person would willingly kill another person unless they were a serial killer or “blinded by patriotism.” This grew into a more generalized base for the argument: It is not morally okay to kill any person not matter what the state reasons.” This is further compounded by his disgust that we as a nation honor these killers. I take the opportunity to point out to Jeff that his argument is not unlike that of the Vietnam. As they say “this ain’t my first rodeo” so I was prepared to exchange some of my views with Jeff.
-- The first order of business was to address the rather ignorant blasphemy that is “F@$% the troops.” Instead of Jeff’s view, the morals of a soldier may be more in the mindset that it is morally right to protect innocent Americans and their way of life as well free the domestic population from terrorist corruption. It is always important to acknowledge agreed parts of a debater’s argument as to show one’s own open mindedness with the intention of opening the other person’s mind to your view as well. Jeff has fantastic visions of what the world could be. The problem with reform of the world’s nations is the price tag. The 1950s is known as a great time for Americans where the middle class was strong and the wealth gap was small. To get there it took some hard times, a skew from the moral compass, a time known as the industrial revolution. From an economic stand point, we must first gain the wealth to form nation as we wish.
-- By the end of the debate I felt confident in my response to all of Jeff’s points not to mention we managed to kill two hours. My opposition was still unwavering in his opinion as I left him with a summation: “I’ll do the dirty work, you make people happy.” Unfortunately, we do not live in a Utopia but rather a system containing necessary evils for bettering the quality of life for all. I gained a small victory the next morning when Jeff approached me saying “you almost had me last night.” The real victory lies with the other two members of the group, both of whom made their own opinions of the matter. I believe that to lack personal opinion in a country lead by the people erodes the very foundation by which our democracy is constructed on."
</code></pre>
<p>anyone need their essay reviewed?</p>
<p>A lot of grammar issues in your first paragraph; actually, I see a lot more in the next paragraphs as well; did you proofread your own essay yet?</p>
<p>My mistake, I copied the wrong draft, sorry. Here is the correct draft</p>
<p>_<strong><em>Being from a predominately democratic wealth driven town in Connecticut, one can imagine the opposition I faced in Government and Politics class as the only conservative. The opposition was always welcome as long as thoughts were well rational and well thought out. Since finishing the class, I have begun my college career at East Carolina University where, after a rather tedious study session during finals, a friend (let’s call him Jeff) made the statement “F@$% the troops.” This of course left me asking the question: “now why would you say that?”
_</em></strong>The clock had just struck midnight, nevertheless I needed to engage to uphold the honor of fallen heroes. In addition, there were other members in our group who had little direction to develop their own stances. I felt it to be necessary to shed light on both sides of the argument in order to help educate my peers. Unfortunately Jeff’s arguments lacked a proper fact conscious structure.
_<strong><em>Jeff’s argument began with his explanation that the no person would willingly kill another person unless they were a serial killer or “blinded by patriotism.” This grew into a more generalized base for the argument: It is not morally right to kill any person no matter what the state reasons.” This was further compounded by his disgust that we as a nation honor these killers. I took this opportunity to point out to Jeff that his argument is not unlike that of the Vietnam protestors. As they say “this ain’t my first rodeo” so I was prepared to exchange some views of my own.
_</em></strong>The first order of business was to address the rather ignorant blasphemy that was “F@$% the troops.” As a rebuttal I stated that morals of a soldier may be more in the mindset that it is morally right to protect innocent Americans and their way of life in addition to freeing the domestic population from terrorist corruption. I continued to say that we honor said individuals for their selflessness in war and its after affects. It became necessary to acknowledge agreed parts of our arguments to show my own open mindedness with the intention of opening the Jeff’s mind to my view as well.
_<strong><em>Jeff has fantastic visions of what the world could be. The problem with reform of the world’s nations is the price tag. The 1950s is known as a great time for Americans where the middle class was strong and the wealth gap was small. To get there it took some hard times, a skew from the moral compass, a time known as the industrial revolution. From an economic stand point, we must first gain the wealth to form nation as we wish.<br>
_</em></strong>By the end of the debate I felt confident in my response to all of Jeff’s points even though it took two hours. My opposition was and is still unwavering in his opinion as I left him with a summation: “I’ll do the dirty work, you make people happy.” Unfortunately, we do not live in a Utopia but rather a system containing necessary evils for bettering the quality of life for all. A small victory was gained the next morning when Jeff approached me saying “you almost had me last night.” To me, real victory lies with the other two members of the group who both made their own opinions of the subject matter. I believe that to lack personal opinion in a country lead by the people erodes the very foundation by which our democracy is constructed on.</p>