We are nearing the end as we are in our final preparations of thinking, brainstorming, organizing, and outlining. In class, you had the opportunity to consider arguments and test them out with classmates. In this journal blog, I would like you to share what 1-2 arguments you have found to be the strongest support for your debatable position.
Remember that the best arguments--the most persuasive arguments--are ones that people can relate to. You have stories of real people (sourced possibly from the news or even academic work) that exemplify the point that you're trying to make. If your argument is purely based on your own experience, you should know by now that this doesn't withstand a thoughtful critique. Evidence with support is what gives credibility to your argument. This is your challenge.
Briefly and concisely, state your position and your two arguments that you plan to use to support your position.
Make your first post by Friday. Then,
please respond to two of your classmates and feel free to challenge them on their arguments. Make your response posts by class time next week. Remember to include your ID# in your post.
Aj. M
#6180693 #section7
ReplyDeleteI strongly disagree that Bangkok should rapidly step in urbanization due to 2 main environmental effects which are climate change and air pollution. Constructing buildings in Bangkok is required many acre of empty land, so the best alternation for the land usage is desforestation. The loss of a number of trees rises carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. When it goes up, it lets sunlight or solar radiation come in the globe's surface. Therefore, temperature in bangkok keeps increasing annually. Carbon dioxide does not only impact temperature, but also polluted air. In Bangkok, there a lot of population, so transportation is increased as well. When gas is released from vehicles, it shares smog and dust to lower air quality. It leads to dust problem called PM 2.5 that can fasten mortality. Under 2 environmental impacts, they are affected by too much urbanization.
I see your point that BKK have a lot of issue about pollution. How about the economy in our country? and the facility that people should deserve. BKK is the capital city of Thailand, so makes bkk to be the urbanisation is good. Moreover, i think you should consider about suburbanisation too.
Delete#6180557 #section7
DeleteYes I see that urbanization can cause harm to the environment. But consider this. There are people in Bangkok who live without air conditioning, notably the slums. Slums have high correlation to crime. Hot countries also tend to have higher crime rates. Urbanization could lead to better standards of living for the poor in cities which would include air conditioning, which would lower crime rates in cities. Would this be a good trade-off?
#6180603 #section7
DeleteI somehow agree with your points that urbanization is harmful to the environment. On the other hand, I think there are other ways of living that people can minimize level of pollution. For instance, use the public transport and set limit of construction areas in Bangkok. To clarify, I think the level of environmental impacts can be reduced if people become more aware of this serious impacts and adjust their ways of living.
#6180557 #section7
ReplyDeleteArgument 1: Biomass is the most suitable renewable energy sources in Thailand economically. Biomass energy generation does not require any sophisticated and high-tech technology to convert plant mass to energy. Other renewable energy sources are often too complicated for Thais to use, as well as being too expensive. A solar panel can cost from $11,000 to $14,000 (approx. 340,000 to 440,00 THB) and that’s after tax credits or subsidies. Thailand is definitely not one of the richest countries in the world and even the wealthiest countries in the world have problems with the more expensive green energy sources such as solar, wind and geothermal.
Argument 2: Biomass has been one of the largest renewable energy sectors in Thailand for many years. The agricultural prowess of the country, as well as its specialty in ethanol fuels, methane and bio-diesel, has proven that Thailand already has qualifications to be a central hub for biomass energy. By agricultural prowess, unlike most countries, Thailand’s biomass that just exclusively run on agricultural waste and it would still be enough to provide energy to many of its citizens.
I also agree with you that Thailand using the biomass renewable energy source which has a lower cost than others, and it is more suitable for Thailand. However, you should make sure that this is the largest renewable energy sector.
Delete#6180693 #section7
DeleteI agree that Thailand can use biomass as renewable resources, but biomass is not the best one for me because burning biomass increases carbon in the atmosphere, so it cause to climate change. Thailand climate is normally hot. If biomass is used in the future, I'm sure that Thailand will get hotter.
Argument 1: PM2.5 can affect our economy in many ways. To explain, this crisis was caused by constructing more building. However, this can make our country to be moving forward. For example, building more factory in Chang Mai which can cause pollution effects which can cause health issue, but our country will have more factory to produce the goods, so our GDP will get higher. In term of the health issues which is a short term issue, the government has to invest more money in this part which is easier to control. If when we look at the consequence of building more construction, it has a good result. From these reasons will be the long term investment that government should consider in this point of view. Our domestic income will be increased by having more factory in the country.
ReplyDeleteArgument 2: Building a lot of building in our country can increase the employment rate, and domestic income will be increased. Therefore, the population will have a better quality of life not only from their salaries but also from the facility that the government provides for us such as motorway to the North-East of our country, high-speed train. Furthermore, our country can support more immigrant who wants to work in our country in term of labors. Thus, our population will have more chance to work in a better job.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Delete#6180693 #section7
DeleteI see your point that constructing many buildings can improve economy of the country, but a number of population will be dramatically increased. Therefore, there is no land for them to live. To have land usage, people need to destroy some environmental resources like tree. The government can replace new trees by planting, but the trees spend a great deal of years to grow up. I feel that buildings have advantages and disadvantages at the same time, but disadvantages of environment are the main concern for people.
#6180990 #Section7
DeleteI disagree with you that building more factories will affect people’s health in short term. To clarify, as you say more factories can produce more products which is will get higher GDP, it is true. However, it will affect people health in the long term because smoking processes from factories causes the air pollution. This means that people will have a risk about lung cancer. Therefore, it will affect people’s health in the long term, and people should be careful about the consequences of building more factories.
#6180988 #section7
ReplyDelete1st argument : I believe that beside other sectors, there is the media and entertainment industries that can dramatically boost the economic growth in Thailand. By using the Korean industry as a role model, it is a possibly pragmatic solution for Thai industry. As Thailand has a lot of potential to achieve the success. For instance, Thailand supplies many famous actors/actresses and artists which they mostly have global reputation especially among Asia. Plus, Thai media productions are adequately efficient as they got hired by many international companies.
2nd argument : To make this become more practical, Thai governments must support Thai media and entertainment industries in both financially and politically. For an example, many countries did a cooperation with other countries in order to promote their tourism industry. As the media and entertainment products can represent the culture and traditional aesthetic, so it can gain many attraction from foreigner or even from people in the same nation to purchase and consume products and services in that certain countries. But all the previous mentions required government’s support because it will be easier to produce high quality media and advertisement.
#6180557 #section7
DeleteYes I agree that Thai media has grown very stagnant over the past decades. I believe the problem is not that Thai media has received poor funding, but I believe consumer taste has not reached a higher rate of sophistication rate. Because Thai people, at their core, demand the same things over and over again when it comes to entertainment. Which is why studios are so hesitant to produce any high quality or ambitious entertainment because they believe the Thai audience is simply not ready for it yet. Sure, there are some consumers who have much more sophisticated tastes but it is possible that the amount of these consumers are simply not high enough for studios to take risks with.
#6180634
DeleteYes, thai media is fasting growing, however, education should play a major role here by improving the second language (English) in order to cooperate with other countries, and this is really gonna help the country to improve. Thai people have a creative mind, advertising they did very good, unlike other countries, but if they can cooperate with others, this might help the countries as well.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete#6180059 #section7
ReplyDeleteI propose Thailand should pass the law regarding the ban on single-use plastic bags.
Arguments:
1. Plastic pollution: An ocean emergency
The ocean has become one refuse bin for all manner of plastics. Up to 80% of the waste that accumulates on the seashore is plastics. The lightweight and durability of plastic items make a significant environmental hazard. Plastics cannot biodegrade instead break down into smaller pieces. By this reason, marine animals are dying from consuming plastics confusing it is food. Therefore, the Thai government should pass the law banning single-use plastic bags.
2. Norm emergency
Single-use plastic bags have represented today’s throwaway culture. It has been more than the century that plastic bag has immersed to Thai consumer’s life. Thai people use plastic in daily life in many aspects - food packaging, straws, water bottles, and plastic bags – even though many companies launched anti-plastic shopping bag campaign. To force them to rethink, the Thai government should pass the law banning single-use plastic bags.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteI get your position, and convenient stores and grocery stores use a lot of plastic (e.g. I don't get it why Banana is 7-11 is using plastic to protect where banana already has their own protection). What i'm trying to say is that some of the unnecessary things should not use plastic. First of all, we all need to use the concept of 3Rs (Reduce, Reuse, Recycle) in order to ease the problems of the plastic pollution. It is not an easy task just to ban plastic directly.
Delete#6180634
DeleteI get your position, and convenient stores and grocery stores use a lot of plastic (e.g. I don't get it why Banana is 7-11 is using plastic to protect where banana already has their own protection). What i'm trying to say is that some of the unnecessary things should not use plastic. First of all, we all need to use the concept of 3Rs (Reduce, Reuse, Recycle) in order to ease the problems of the plastic pollution. It is not an easy task just to ban plastic directly.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Delete#6180603 #section 7
DeleteI see your point that the use of plastic bag causes harmful effects to marine life. On the other hand, there are lots of different places that still use plastic bags when it is not necessary. I think that the Thai government should think of the campaign to minimize single-use of plastic effectively. This can help to make good progress when people get use to it rather than to ban the use directly; which can be a difficult task.
#6180990 #Section7
DeleteActually, I agree with you that the government should be banned on the single-use plastic bags because it affects living things for long term. The government should has a restrict rule about reducing to use plastic bags. However, using plastic bags is very convenience to some people, and maybe Thai people use plastic bags since they were young. In other words, it is not easy to ban to use plastic bag in Thailand because of their habits. Moreover, some people do not care about the effect of using plastic bags at all. Therefore, it is hard to solve this problem if the government does not strict any rules to Thai people.
#6180006 #section7
ReplyDeleteCountries in Southeast Asia should not use hydropower.
Arguments
1. Hydropower destroy the ecosystem and cause global warming.
In order to generate hydroelectric energy, the construction of the dam is needed. To generate the massive amount of electricity, the location has to be a large place where there are lots of water flow through the area. Rainforests is the place where the requirement is completed. By constructing a dam in the rainforest which is the biodiverse place, it comes with a massive genocide for lots of organisms in that area: both plants and animals. The animals could migrate to some other ecosystem, but plants cannot. Other than cutting trees for timber, most of the plants are still in the dam area and get drowned later on. The construction of dams not only destroy the rainforest, but when the drowned plants release carbon to the atmosphere, it will also cause global warming.
2. Hydropower destroy the wildlife and passively destroy its propagation.
From the first argument, the hydropower destroy the rainforest. The direct effect to the wildlife is that the animals got drowned by the dam. However, it is possible that some could either escape or got migrated by humans, but these faunas have to move to the new ecosystem. When the animals migrated to the new area that already has the balance community, competition will occur. Some of the wildlife may not survive. This shows how two ecosystems could be destroyed by only construct one dam. The passive effect to the wildlife is that some of the species could not propagate. Some animals, or even plants have to use the river flow to reproduce themselves, some marine creatures have to swim along the river to go back to their normal habitat. The construction of the dam will block their path to their homeland or newland.
#6180603 #section7
ReplyDeletePosition: I am strongly agree that populist policy threatens economic growth in Thailand due to:
Argument 1: Populism causes hyperinflation which is when the value of the currency has decreased quickly. A result of printing out banknotes without a reasonable purpose. This situation happened in Venezuela when the country did not make progress on economic growth. Therefore, the government had to provide policy to let business sold their goods in cheaper price than capital. Some private business had to shut down due to no ability to compete with others. If this situation happen in Thailand, there will be higher unemployment rate and high cost of living. These effects will provide negative impacts on economic development
Argument 2: Moreover, it slow economic development of the country. The government spent massive amount of financial support though various welfare projects. For instance, rice pledging scheme ran by Yingluck Shinawatra (one of the Prime Ministers of Thailand) resulted in about 600 to 700 billion baht.The reason was that the government offered more costly of the pledging price than in the market. As a result, the famers were not willing to buy their rice back from the government. To summarize, populism negatively affected the economy through liability.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Delete
Delete#6180059 #section7
I agree with you that the populist policy causes hyperinflation in Thailand. How about the government policy to set aside 32 million to stabilize palm oil prices and to give 500 baht to Thais, mostly poor farmers? I also think that these two governmental projects threaten economic growth in Thailand.
correction: '600 to 700 billion baht debt'
Delete#6180990 #Section7
ReplyDeleteI strongly disagree with the new regulation that Thailand will be export Thai elephants legally, which include ivory.
1 argument: Exporting is able to lead elephants to be extinct.
Thailand has been export elephants for a long time. This causes elephants to decrease continuously. For example, the Thai government export Thai elephants for many years, and they face the situation that elephants in Thailand almost gone. From this situation, Thai government banned to export elephants for 10 years. In 2019, the Thai government sign the new law to export Thai elephants to other countries, which means that the Thai government might face the same situation like the past. Therefore, if it is too late to cancel this regulation, Thai people might not have any Thai elephants in their own country.
2 argument: If Thailand exports elephants legally, it is harm to elephants.
Moving elephants to other countries usually use the transportation. There are a lot of elephants that get disease while transporting, which makes some elephants die. Moreover, when elephants have to live in other countries, they have to adapt themselves because of the different weather. Although those elephants taken by experts, experts might not be there for 24 hours to take care of elephants. In other words, it is better to let Thai elephants live in their own country without disturbing from people. Therefore, the Thai government should not trust other countries to take care of Thai elephants because nothing can guarantee that foreigner will treat Thai elephants better than Thai people.
#6180059 #section7
DeleteI agree with you that Thailand should not export the elephants to other countries. I very concern about the elephants welfare because there are many cases that elephants suffer from being in unfamiliar environments and not treat well. In addition, none of the elephants export returned to Thailand.
#6180634 #Section 7
ReplyDeletePosition - Thailand should open the door for the refugees to enter the society.
1. For the countries development.
To explain, when Thailand allow refugees (those who are living in the 9 camps at the north), they are able to obtain a better education, work for low wages, and eventually, this has a probability to create the productivity of the country.
2. For the sake of humanity.
In my research, many of refugees are living without welfare. They get many of the diseases. So if Thailand want to help them, not just keep them at a locked territory,not just help them 50%, but 100%. They all are stressful, get disease, worry about their tomorrow, so why not just let them to become free bird, be independent, so they will appreciate what Thailand has been helping them so they will appreciate the help one day after the settlement in their origin country.
#6180614 #sec7
ReplyDeletePosition: Thailand is not ready for electric cars
1. Thailand have a high tax rate on electric cars
Currently, Thailand have no company sale electric cars that is build locally, all the electric cars in Thailand is an import cars. Thailand collect 200%++ on every imported vehicle. Not only the crazy high import tax it also have to add the local car tax that depend on size of the vehicle.
2. Electric cars price in Thailand is still high
Even though the running cost of electric cars is lower than conventional cars, but the starting price of electric cars is significantly higher. Electric cars in Thailand price start more than 1.6 million baht, and that is out of reach for normal income people. Electric cars price in Thailand can go up to 15 million baht, for that money you can buy a super nice supercar rather than the electric SUV.
#6180922 #sec7
ReplyDelete1. Thai culture and society
Thai people are usually pretty afraid to judge and to voice their feelings to each other for the respect of other people's feeling. Strangely, people are taught and told to not discuss certain topics. Thai people are considered to be confirmative with any situation that is happening and has a bystander effect going on.
2. The Thai System
The Thai system has caused the situation to happen. The way of the power distribution has effected and allow the situation to happen in Thailand. The power distribution has made it hard to adapt over since the army serves the monarchy not the prime minister making the monarchy siting up top with the army serving them then followed by the prime minister.
The journal blog is now closed. Thank you for your participation. Aj. M
ReplyDelete