Format

Lately, the issue of ____________ has generated a lot of debate. Some people believe
that using ____________ gives more favorable outcomes, while others argue that it has more
disadvantages. According to the argument, _________ is better supported because he/she/it
provided substantial evidence to verify his/her/its claims, and his/her/its reasonable/credible
sources of information convince the readers to believe him/her/it. __________ should/shouldn’t
be used because it gains/lacks/causes ____________ ,__________ and __________.
Firstly, ________’s argument is better supported because the writer includes
scientific-based information to support/help the idea.( ________ said that _________ are better
than _______ because they/it can do things _______ can not.)* For example, ________
mentions that “_________________”. Although ___________(opponent’s name) said that
___________, he/she/it did not have enough information. Therefore, ________’s point is more
credible than the other position.
Secondly, ________’s argument is more reliable when he/she /it states that
______________. __________ discusses that ______________. For this reason, he/she/it
mentions that ____________. However/On the other hand, the other party argues that
__________________. Hence/Thus, ________’s side/idea is more convincing than its
counterpart.
Finally, ________’s argument is more convincing/logical because _________________.
To clarify/In other words, _______________________. Therefore, ______________________.
In conclusion, as the two slides considered, _______’s argument is more
convincing/better supported; he/she/it has more vital/robust evidence than the opponent. It is
better than other other processes, which are __________________. (other evidences) All in all,
the government should let the people use ____________.

Examples
Bioethanol From Corn

Lately, the issue of corn ethanol has generated a lot of debate. Some people believe that using
this ethanol gives more favorable outcomes, while others argue that it has more disadvantages.
According to the argument, Miriam is better supported because she provided substantial
evidence to verify her claims, and her reasonable sources of information convince the readers
to believe her. Bioethanol from corn should be used because it helps reduce pollution, can be
used as a low-priced alternative fuel, and can help farmers.

Firstly, Miriam's argument is better supported because the writer includes scientific-based
information to support the idea. Miriam said that fuel ethanol is better than others. For example,
Miriam mentions that "ethanol helps reduce pollution, which emits fewer greenhouse gas
emissions." Although Kristin said that shipping and exporting corn ethanol is expensive because
of its pipeline costs, he did not have enough information. Therefore, Miriam's point is more
credible than the other position.
Secondly, Miriam's argument is more reliable when she states that the citizens could use
ethanol as a low-priced alternative fuel. Miriam discusses that corn ethanol has been critical to
the U.S. economy for 30 years, with the use of bioethanol about 10% out of which 90% of
bioethanol coming from corn. For this reason, she mentions that corn is an indissoluble
resource. However, the other party argues that corn ethanol can be exported to other countries
and planted in the area to reduce trade deficits. Hence, Miriam's side is more convincing than its
counterpart.

Finally, Miriam is more logical because bioethanol from corn will help farmers. In other words,
farmers can plant more corn, so they have more jobs. For example, when farmers can sell
more, it means that they will get more money. Therefore, encouraging people to use bioethanol
from corn can help farmers.

In conclusion, Miriam's argument was more convincing as the two sides considered that she
had more vital evidence than the opponent. It is better than other processes, which are shipping
and using bioethanol alternatively, as the harmful effects of the economy grow by giving people
more jobs. All in all, the government should let the people use this fuel.

Robotics

Lately, the issue of robotic applications has generated a lot of debate. Some people believe that
using robots gives more favorable outcomes, while others argue that it has more disadvantages.
According to the argument, Michael is better supported because he provided substantial
evidence to verify his claim, and his credible sources of information convince the readers to
believe him. Robots should be used because they can do things humans can’t, will return profits
for companies, and can increase efficiency.

Firstly, Michael's argument is better supported because the writer includes scientific-based
information to support the idea. Michael said that robots are better than humans because they
can do things humans cannot. For example, Michael mentions that "robots can work in complex
processes, so it is safer for workers." Although Amy said that robots could lead to
unemployment, she did not have enough information. Therefore, Michael's point is more reliable
than the other position.

Secondly, Michael's argument is more reliable when he states that robots will return profits to
camera companies. Michael discusses how robots can reduce labor shortages as robots never
become unwell. For this reason, he mentions that the company can reduce time and employee
salaries within beware of costs. On the other hand, the other party argues that it is hard to get
back the profit because the company will have to pay the maintenance fee for robots. Thus,
Michael's idea is more convincing than its counterpart.

Finally, Michael is more convincing because he corroborates that robots can increase efficiency
in the production process. To clarify, a robot can be programmed to prevent human error. In
other words, when assembling a car, humans could forget to put some parts in the vehicle.
Therefore, robots can decrease errors in the production process.

In conclusion, as the two sides considered, Michael's argument was better supported; he had
more robust evidence than the opponent. It is better than other contradictory processes, which
are profits that the company will make after seven years; robots can work efficiently to replace
humans, and then being free from human harm can be a task. All in all, the government should
let people use these robots.