http://www.science20.com/challenging_nature/humananimal_chimeras_mythology_biotechnology I will make this very short and to the point today, because I don’t feel like taking forever on an introduction. Because aren’t long intros detrimental to the attention of you people reading this blog post, but then again, I don’t think anyone is ignorant enough to actually believe that anyone will read this for any reason other than grading it or, at the very least, making sure it is done. So why should I actually care whether or not I have your attention because you probably don’t even care by the time you get this far down in the list, so you know what, screw it I’ll make this intro over 120 words long Oh wait...it already was. Well you know what, I’m good with it the way it is and this blog starts now. This blog post is about the article that brought me to this essay and has given me the arguments to use in my essay of chimeric life forms made from biotechnological advances. This article states that there is no reason that its uses for organ transplants and experimentation are numerous. But he does realize that there should be lines drawn, although I do not agree with that. What i do agree with is that these are still animals and aren’t and never will be humans. This post online is probably the greatest and most logical source of information I can find without paying 20 dollars to read science babble I will not understand. And that is such a reason as to why I will adopt this as my mentor source.
Now for all of you wondering what thisbessay is about die to the incredibly amazingly ambiguous title. This essay is about how to write an argumentative essay from, the expert on the subject, none other than me.
That's actually one of the first things I would advise you against doing in an argumentative essay, you should probably aboid calling yourself an expert on the subject, I mean if you really did go to that prestigious college and got that prestigious doctorate in your early 30's then yeah you're an expert, but chances are you just spent 5 minutes (or less if you're one of the lower hanging fruits) browsing wikipedia; so no, you aren't an expert. Anyways moving onto the next topic.
The next point you have to make is to make sure you don't use 'muh feelingz' subjective words, because you saying 'I feel, I believe' and what other subjective stuff you say won't tell them you are right, it will tell them that you're a stupid blogger who should stay in special snowflake tumblrland.
Another important thing to have in an argumentative essay is sources. In fact, as an example, let me post the source I used, that I'm definitly not just shoehnorning in so that way I get a better grade on this blogpost.
Now as you see, it was not from wikipedia or a blogger website. It was from a credible website that is specialized in the subject I am writing about. websites such as bogger pages, politically motovated webpages, and especially websites like Wikipedia. The other thing you can never do is put in google as a source; google is the engine used to find the website, not the website itself
Now with so many things you have to avoid. What should you make sure to do? That's a good question that definitly wasn't asked by myself because I have little to no friends and I'm all alone on this blog page. But I digress, one o the biggest things you need to do is compress all of your information down into 1 sentance summing up the entire essay, argument, and points you make. That is called a thesis statement and it usually is placed at the end of the 1st paragraph.
And that is the best information I can give you on this subject. The rest you must find on your own little tadpole. Take your destiny into your own hands.
What makes a human, human? That is a question that philosophers and scientists have wondered for hundreds of thousands of years. One may wonder why I bring up that question, so do you? Of course you don’t because the reason you are probably reading this is to make sure that I actually did do the assignment; so therein, you already know the assignment guidelines. But I digress, the question is whether or not there are or should be ethical/philosophical qualms about the progression of science. And my answer is a firm no. Because right now, let’s start at the basic forms in which we are talking, cloning a person’s brain and using it as a spare for if the other one goes wrong. This one is feasible but it wouldn’t be practacal to use it on people other than newborns as the replica would not