The story of Anne frank and The Holocaust should be taught in middle school because of the history behind it all. Students from this generation need to be informed on what happened during the Holocaust because it is an important part of our history... the Holocaust truly shows how evil people can be. And it shows that there are survivors of bad events. The Holocaust was a vital yet horrid part of our history that must not be repeated. By talking about it with middle schoolers of this generation it add awareness to what happened and it allows us to make sure it doesn't happen again.
A claim of fact makes a statement about something that can be proved or disproved with factual evidence. However, keep in mind the basic quality of claims, that they have to be debatable, and offer an assertion about an issue.
If the narrator of a fictional piece is not a character in the story, the statement about the narrator that is true is that the narrator speaks using an authorial voice.
I'll just post the text where the statement "note an irony in my argument" is found.
The dissenters in the flag-burning case and their supporters might at this juncture note an irony in my argument. My point is that freedom of conscience and expression is at the core of our self-conception and that commitment to it requires the rejection of official dogma. But how is that admittedly dogmatic belief different from any other dogma, such as the one inferring that freedom of expression stops at the border of the flag?
The crucial distinction is that the commitment to freedom of conscience and expression states the simplest and least self-contradictory principle that seems to capture our aspirations. Any other principle is hopelessly at odds with our commitment to freedom of conscience. The controversy surrounding the flag-burning case makes the case well.
The controversy will rage precisely because burning the flag is such a powerful form of communication. Were it not, who would care? Thus were we to embrace a prohibiton on such communication, we would be saying that the 1st Amendment protects expression only when no one is offended. That would mean that this aspect of the 1st Amendment would be of virtually no consequence. It would protect a person only when no protection was needed. Thus, we do have one official dogma-each American may think and express anything he wants. The exception is expression that involves the risk of injury to others and the destruction of someone else`s property. Neither was present in this case.
