Introduction:
- Begin by framing the consequences of the issue: That another rock climbing area is likely going to be destroyed/ climbing access will be restricted. I will use an example of this happening in the past (maybe cave rock at lake tahoe, the Virgin River Gorge in Utah, or Little Cottonwood Canyon in Utah.)
Body:
- Major supporting arguments:
- Oak Flat is a rock climbing treasure and should be protected. There is an annual bouldering competition there (Queen Creek bouldering comp). It's one of the main outdoor areas for the Phoenix area.
- The tactics used by McCain and Flake to give the area to Rio Tinto for mining were underhanded and sleezy, not to mention that both get a large chunk of campaign contributions from the mining company
- The mine will destroy a San Carlos Apache spiritual and cultural treasure. This is not ok.
- Major Criticisms:
- The economic benefits of a mine
- Rebuttals:
- The economic benefits don't outweigh the value of the areas a a natural, cultural, and recreational treasure to the San Carlos Apache, the climbing community, the ecosystem, and the people of Arizona.
- Evidence:
- I will take evidence from previous research.
 |
| Webb, Michaela "Oak Flat" 2015 |
Conclusion:
- I will use a call to action to conclude my argument. Climbers need to be more involved in this conversation and fight. If we get all the stakeholders together to fight this, we may be able to win.
It seems like you have a good clear view of how your going to argue this. It seems like your passionate about it. I think that can be its biggest weakness too. You make the statement that the economic benefit doesn't outweigh the climbers feelings and ecosystem. While that might be true, I think you may end up arguing this very fact too since not everyone is emotionally attached to this area or to climbing in general as climbers are. I would try to get your reader emotionally engaged to this location in your introduction to get them to care more.
ReplyDelete