Synthesis ParagraphTwo articles:

Deborah Temkin – Why Criminalizing Bullying Is the Wrong ApproachMark O’Mara – It’s Time To Outlaw Bullying

A ClaimWhat not to do:

“O’Mara says that we should outlaw bullying but Temkin says we should not”(Who?)

“Bullying is a big problem.”(So? The articles deal with something specific.”

“Should we criminalize bullying or not?”(Almost there)

ClaimWhile bullying is definitely a problem that need to be addressed, how strictly should it be punished?

For a synthesis paragraph like this, a good question sets up the problem and the solution that will be explored.

It’s broad, but that’s okay – we have the big overall question that both articles deal with.

Introducing SourcesWhat not to do:

Mark O’Mara wrote an article called “It’s Time to Outlaw Bullying.”Mark O’Mara, author of the article “It’s Time to Outlaw Bullying,” saysIn “It’s Time to Outlaw Bullying,” Mark O’Mara

Don’t quote entire titles(This title does get to the point, but you can still say it better)

Introducing SourcesMark O’Mara, a writer for CNN,Mark O’Mara, a writer and family lawyer,Mark O’Mara, a writer for CNN and a lawyer,

Avoid weak verbs (“says, talks about”)

I’ve put the relevant information in commas, setting it apart, but still clarifying who he is

USE STRONG VERBS (They Say I Say pp. 39-40)

The first sentence introducing research should set up the argument clearly and specifically

While bullying is definitely a problem that need to be addressed, how strictly should it be punished? Mark O’Mara, a lawyer and writer for CNN, argues that bullying should be outlawed.

That’s short and sweet, and it gets to what his title says without the long quote

The no-quoting title rule is more of my preference than a hard and fast rule. You might say:As his title suggests, Mark O’Mara, a lawyer and writer for CNN, argues “It’s Time to Outlaw Bullying.”

(I just don’t like that as much – it’s a bit wordier)

Now we need to summarize the articleHe writes, “It’s not a little harmless schoolyard razzing. Bullying is the systematic harassment of an individual with the intent to cause substantial emotional distress.” He describes heartbreaking examples of suicides and the “invisible pain” associated with bullying. Though he states “we don’t want to outlaw childhood,” O’Mara contends that the best way to stop bullying and its effects is through strict laws.

Three solid sentences – I’ve used- A quote- Parts of a quote- Parts of another quote

It makes sense to the reader. There are things I’ve left out(the details of the laws, the “sticks and stones” part, the details of the photo project)

But that’s okay – for a summary paragraph, we’d get into it. In a synthesis paragraph, we don’t have that much space.

Now let’s move to the other writerBUT –

You don’t have to end thereWe could say a little bit more about O’Mara’s point and comment on them.My thought: because the writers disagree on such a specific point, I want to introduce Temkin immediately, because she has a valid argument. Then I’ll deal with them both at the end. That’s the They Say, I Say model, and it’s a good one.

Moving to a new authorUse a good transition! (From The UNC Writing Center)

So here’s how I startHowever, Deborah Temkin of the Huffington Post states that “criminalizing is a misdirection.”

I’ve decided to quote her here, because it clearly sums up her opposition to his point, and I’m going to develop this.

Maybe you would say something like like “DT of the HP disagrees that criminalization actually solves the problem of bullying.”

But both get the point across fairly well.

Next more summaryIt does not help those who are bullied, and the definition of bullying is “amorphous.” Instead, Temkin proposes that we must “work to prevent bullying before it starts by creating safe and supportive school climates and providing consequences that help restore and repair relationships and environments.”

Temkin’s quotes are so good that I can let them stand for themselves. Also, as you’ll see below, I’m writing this paragraph as though I agree with her.

Also: O’Mara has summed up a problem that she’s responding to, so I don’t need to spend as long on the point of criminalization, just her argument against it.- BUT, you could spend more time on Temkin than O’Mara, that’s up to you.

Here’s where I am so far:

1. CLAIM: While bullying is definitely a problem that need to be addressed, how strictly should it be punished?

2. EVIDENCE 1: Mark O’Mara, a lawyer and writer for CNN, argues that bullying should be outlawed. 3. He writes, “It’s not a little harmless schoolyard razzing. Bullying is the systematic harassment of an

individual with the intent to cause substantial emotional distress.” 4. He describes heartbreaking examples of suicides and the “invisible pain” associated with bullying. 5. Though he states “we don’t want to outlaw childhood,” O’Mara contends that the best way to stop

bullying and its effects is through strict laws.6. EVIDENCE 2: However, Deborah Temkin of the Huffington Post states that “criminalizing is a

misdirection.” 7. It does not help those who are bullied, and the definition of bullying is so “amorphous.” 8. Instead, Temkin proposes that we must “work to prevent bullying before it starts by creating safe

and supportive school climates and providing consequences that help restore and repair relationships and environments.”

NOW, I have three sentences to analyze these points.

What not to do next“Both Temkin and O’Mara make good/interesting points.” (boring!)“Temkin and O’Mara have different views on bullying and how it can be solved” (also boring)“Temkin says that criminalization is wrong while O’Mara says that it is right” (you’ve said that!)“There are two sides to every coin” (no!!!!!!!)“Bullying is a big problem that needs to be solved (you’ve said that)

Don’t be too vague – here’s where you can intervene.

Who do you agree with?Mark O’Mara, a lawyer and writer for CNN, argues that bullying should be outlawed. He writes, “It’s not a little harmless schoolyard razzing. Bullying is the systematic harassment of an individual with the intent to cause substantial emotional distress.” He describes heartbreaking examples of suicides and the “invisible pain” associated with bullying. Though he states “we don’t want to outlaw childhood,” O’Mara contends that the best way to stop bullying and its effects is through strict laws.

However, Deborah Temkin of the Huffington Post states that “criminalizing is a misdirection.” It does not help those who are bullied, and the definition of bullying is so “amorphous.” Instead, Temkin proposes that we must “work to prevent bullying before it starts by creating safe and supportive school climates and providing consequences that help restore and repair relationships and environments.”

Part of the issue is with how it’s presented. As you can tell, there’s a little bit of bias in the way I presented this. It sounds like I’m agreeing with Temkin.

http://www.softwarethinktank.com/wp-content/uploads/Unbiased-Software-Selection1.jpg

You are going to be biased. You’re going to be partial to one argument over another. That’s okay.

You shouldn’t tell the other side they’re just flat wrong, but deal with the argument you want to make.

But try to avoid using first person here. Make it sound like smart analysis.

AnalysisBoth Temkin and O’Mara believe the problem is in the “climates” that let bullying happen.

Here, I’m focusing on an issue that both writers tend to agree with, and I’m going to go from there.

But, think about this – does what O’Mara propose really deal with changing the “climate” that much? His solution is punishing offenders, to get them out of the climate. Does that stop future bullies? Maybe. Temkin disagrees. I’m going to side with Temkin for the rest of this paragraph.

Finishing up – Agreeing with an Opponent(1) But O’Mara’s argument that criminalizing bullies will stop them does not deal with the reasons bullying happens, as they only address them after the fact with strict penalties. (2) While penalties are necessary, it is equally valuable to understand the problems behind bullying as it is to figure out effective punishments.

- Sentence 1: agrees with Temkin- Sentence 2: agrees with Temkin and goes further

What I haven’t done

(1) I think O’Mara’s argument that criminalizing bullies will stop them does not deal with the reasons bullying happens, as they only address them after the fact with strict penalties. (2) I think penalties are necessary, it is equally valuable to understand the problems behind bullying as it is to figure out effective punishments.

I haven’t used first person. I’ve let the argument speak for itself.Make an argument: I’d rather disagree with you than just have you tell me

that you think something

Here’s what I have:1. While bullying is definitely a problem that need to be addressed, how strictly should it be punished?2. Mark O’Mara, a lawyer and writer for CNN, argues that bullying should be outlawed. 3. He writes, “It’s not a little harmless schoolyard razzing. Bullying is the systematic harassment of an individual with the

intent to cause substantial emotional distress.”4. He describes heartbreaking examples of suicides and the “invisible pain” associated with bullying.5. Though he states “we don’t want to outlaw childhood,” O’Mara contends that the best way to stop bullying and its

effects is through strict laws.6. However, Deborah Temkin of the Huffington Post states that “criminalizing is a misdirection.”7. It does not help those who are bullied, and the definition of bullying is so “amorphous.”8. Instead, Temkin proposes that we must “work to prevent bullying before it starts by creating safe and supportive

school climates and providing consequences that help restore and repair relationships and environments.” 9. Both Temkin and O’Mara believe the problem is in the “climates” that let bullying happen. 10. But O’Mara’s argument that criminalizing bullies will stop them does not deal with the reasons bullying happens, as

they only address them after the fact with strict penalties. 11. While penalties are necessary, it is equally valuable to understand the problems behind bullying as it is to figure out

effective punishments.

And here’s the paragraphWhile bullying is definitely a problem that need to be addressed, how strictly should it be punished? Mark O’Mara, a lawyer and writer for CNN, argues that bullying should be outlawed. He writes, “It’s not a little harmless schoolyard razzing. Bullying is the systematic harassment of an individual with the intent to cause substantial emotional distress.” He describes heartbreaking examples of suicides and the “invisible pain” associated with bullying. Though he states “we don’t want to outlaw childhood,” O’Mara contends that the best way to stop bullying and its effects is through strict laws. However, Deborah Temkin of the Huffington Post states that “criminalizing is a misdirection.” It does not help those who are bullied, and the definition of bullying is so “amorphous.” Instead, Temkin proposes that we must “work to prevent bullying before it starts by creating safe and supportive school climates and providing consequences that help restore and repair relationships and environments.” Both Temkin and O’Mara believe the problem is in the “climates” that let bullying happen. But O’Mara’s argument that criminalizing bullies will stop them does not deal with the reasons bullying happens, as they only address them after the fact with strict penalties. While penalties are necessary, it is equally valuable to understand the problems behind bullying as it is to figure out effective punishments.

I think the end could be a little stronger: it’s slightly repetitive, but it’s a start, and it gets the major ideas down, as well as a take on those ideas.

BUT – what if I agree with O’Mara?Let’s start the same way:

While bullying is definitely a problem that need to be addressed, how strictly should it be punished?

It’s the same question, right?

BUT this time . . .I’m going introduce Temkin first:

Deborah Temkin, a writer for the Huffington Post, argues that we should understand why bullying happens rather than punish with something as drastic as criminalization. She proposes that we must “work to prevent bullying before it starts by creating safe and supportive school climates and providing consequences that help restore and repair relationships and environments.” Criminalizing bullying does not help those who are bullied or the bullies themselves.

Why?

Sometimes it’s good to begin with your opponent’s argument, so you can set it up before challenging it later. That way you end with the strong point – the one you agree with.

On the other hand, you could begin with the stronger argument and dismiss your opponent’s argument after it.

It’s up to you – when you look over the paragraph, think about how it’s working! This is where revising comes in!

Moving to O’MaraHowever, Mark O’Mara, a lawyer writing on CNN, argues that bullying should be “outlawed” because “It’s not a little harmless schoolyard razzing. Bullying is the systematic harassment of an individual with the intent to cause substantial emotional distress.” He describes the heartbreaking images in a photo project dedicated to ending bullying, as well as a recent suicide involving a girl who was shamed on Facebook whose attackers charges were dropped because bullying is not a crime. O’Mara suggest that many opponents of criminalization take the “sticks and stones” approach, and have “never had the chance to witness bullying.”

See the part I’ve highlighted? I’m trying to get a response out of the reader by emphasizing a powerful part that – in the other paragraph – I overlooked.

Now a conclusionThough Temkin is right that everyone involved should work to stop bullying before it starts, the only way to stop it from happening is by letting bullies know that their actions will not be tolerated. Temkin’s point that bullying is “amorphous” because it has no clear definition is fair, but lawmakers should work to define this rather than letting it stop them from doing anything at all. In the photo project O’Mara describes, the brutal and sad images are reminders of the actual damage that bullying causes every day. Treating it too leniently will do little to stop it, and criminalization must be considered.

I’m coming down on the other side. I’m dealing with the strengths of O’Mara’s argument rather than the weaknesses. Temkin is too soft; O’Mara is stronger. In the other argument, I said O’Mara was being strong but not effective, while Temkin was getting at what really mattered. See the difference?

While bullying is definitely a problem that need to be addressed, how strictly should it be punished? Deborah Temkin, a writer for the Huffington Post, argues that we should understand why bullying happens rather than punish with something as drastic as criminalization. She proposes that we must “work to prevent bullying before it starts by creating safe and supportive school climates and providing consequences that help restore and repair relationships and environments.” Criminalizing bullying does not help those who are bullied or the bullies themselves. However, Mark O’Mara, a lawyer writing on CNN, argues that bullying should be “outlawed” because “It’s not a little harmless schoolyard razzing. Bullying is the systematic harassment of an individual with the intent to cause substantial emotional distress.” He describes the heartbreaking images in a photo project dedicated to ending bullying, as well as a recent suicide involving a girl who was shamed on Facebook whose attackers charges were dropped because bullying is not a crime. O’Mara suggest that many opponents of criminalization take the “sticks and stones” approach, and have “never had the chance to witness bullying.” Though Temkin is right that everyone involved should work to stop bullying before it starts, the only way to stop it from happening is by letting bullies know that their actions will not be tolerated. Temkin’s point that bullying is “amorphous” because it has no clear definition is fair, but lawmakers should work to define this rather than letting it stop them from doing anything at all. In the photo project O’Mara describes, the brutal and sad images are reminders of the actual damage that bullying causes every day. Treating it too leniently will do little to stop it, and criminalization must be considered.

While bullying is definitely a problem that need to be addressed, how strictly should it be punished? Mark O’Mara, a lawyer and writer for CNN, argues that bullying should be outlawed. He writes, “It’s not a little harmless schoolyard razzing. Bullying is the systematic harassment of an individual with the intent to cause substantial emotional distress.” He describes heartbreaking examples of suicides and the “invisible pain” associated with bullying. Though he states “we don’t want to outlaw childhood,” O’Mara contends that the best way to stop bullying and its effects is through strict laws. However, Deborah Temkin of the Huffington Post states that “criminalizing is a misdirection.” It does not help those who are bullied, and the definition of bullying is so “amorphous.” Instead, Temkin proposes that we must “work to prevent bullying before it starts by creating safe and supportive school climates and providing consequences that help restore and repair relationships and environments.” Both Temkin and O’Mara believe the problem is in the “climates” that let bullying happen. But O’Mara’s argument that criminalizing bullies will stop them does not deal with the reasons bullying happens, as they only address them after the fact with strict penalties. While penalties are necessary, it is equally valuable to understand the problems behind bullying as it is to figure out effective punishments.