Moving from Uncontroversial Summary to Productive Discussion (Without Being Mean)

Now that we've had two opportunities to get feedback on your thesis for Essay 1, the time has come for us to see what kind of a paper you can get out of the thesis you've chosen.  During the peer-review process, I'm going to ask you to focus on whether your partner's paper 1) arises from a careful study of at least one of our assigned readings, and 2) supports a non-obvious, debatable claim that a rational person could possibly disagree with.

How can you zero in on a small slice of your topic, and really look at the reasons why there is a conflict? People don't conflict because they are evil, they conflict with each other because one person has access to certain facts and interprets them according to certain values, and comes to a certain conclusion that seems rational. Another person, with access to a slightly different set of facts, and a slightly (or greatly) different set of methods for interpreting those facts comes to a different conclusion.

• Do we listen to what activist supermodels say about the environment, or do we listen to what objective scientists say? 
• What if the supermodel is paid millions of dollars to endorse incandescent light bulbs or gas-hungry SUVs? And what if the scientist is paid millions of dollars by an environmental special-interest group?
• Do we listen to what life-long dairy farmers say about cows, or do we listen to what life-long vegans say about cows?

There are good reasons for answering those questions in different ways, and the process of creating and supporting an intellectual argument includes seeking out for yourself the best reasons why a person might disagree with you, and explaining your own opinions in terms that don't make it sound like only an idiot would disagree with you.