Personally, I would choose this topic:Speech related to violence: You might want to write about limitations on freedom of speech related to violence. Speech that incites violence is not covered by the First Amendment and can result in prosecution in the United States. However, speech that merely supports violence as a political option is not considered a crime.
Part A: As this topic is something that is more of a national issue than one within one single school, I would address the letter to a member of congress. Addressing it to anyone else would do little to actually address the issue.
Part B:
Stance: While freedom of speech allows one to express their opinions publicly, those who engage in speech promoting violence, or hate speech, negatively impact society as a whole as well as on an individual level. As such, speech promoting violence should not be considered under the First Amendment, and those individuals who choose to engage in it should be persecuted.
When you're arguing you want to make your point as objective as possible, for this you have to be impartial so that your proof is strong.
Comparing the opposite side's views to something unpleasant is useless since this kind of comparison holds no proof that your argument is true. <em>Incorrect</em>
If you include only general details the audience will understand, you might not be able to communicate the specific points of your argument, therefore you wouldn't be able to prove it is accurate. <em>Incorrect</em>
To make your argument effective you have to use specific details to refute the opposite side's views. That way you'll present the specific points in which your argument will stand, you will communicate logical and objective ideas about your argument and they will work to prove it. <u><em>Correct</em></u>
If you appeal to emotion, your argument will be subject to possible biases since the way a person or group feels towards something doesn't prove it right or wrong. <em>Incorrect</em>
To me I would say C. is the correct answer
