Taking Sides Discussion Directions: Consider the following questions about taking sides. Write notes to share with the whole class. Be sure to update your notes as new ideas come up.

Why do we take sides?

When is it important to choose sides?

How do we decide which side to take?

What are the advantages and disadvantages of remaining neutral?

Is there always a “right” or “wrong” side? Explain.

No we don’t. Sometimes you are forced onto a side in an argument or debate but you don’t have to take a side if you don’t wish to.

Think about a real world example. That of the diplomat. The job is to expressly not take sides so that the issue can be resolved.

There are many situations where you are forced to take a side or create a third position. Take a couple who are breaking up. You were friends with one of them first and then became friends with the other person. The initial friend then tells you to pick a side, which is their side. You don’t want to lose either as friends so create a third ‘side’. The tricky bit here is that you have sided against the initial friend but not necessarily with the second friend.

There are times when you have to take sides though. If you have a set of morals. Whatever those morals are will often mean that in certain situations you have decided you are going to pick a side. You will have decided this beforehand as far as the broader topic is concerned. When you enter into conversations or actions that are directly related to the topic you have already unconsciously picked a side.

What people often find is that when a decision has to be made that has two outcomes they need to pick a side. Take politics as an example in this. If no-one ever picked a side then no-one would vote. No decisions would be made.

Over all we don’t always have to pick sides but often we have to whether we want to or not as that is simply decision making.

Explanation:

no,

explanation:

because they are likely to use their corrupted thought process to get what they want. not what is better for the another reason they shouldn't is since they abused their rights as a us citizen they should have certain rights stripped away from them as punishment, such as the right to vote. due to the lack of proper behavior exemplified   from their actions , it would be hard for people to trust them because of their criminal record.   either directly (in the case of a referendum or ballot initiative) or indirectly (by choosing lawmakers and law enforcers). in fact, we do have certain minimum, objective standards of responsibility and commitment to our laws that we require people to meet before they are given a role in the solemn enterprise of self-government. people who have committed serious crimes against their fellow citizens don’t meet those standards. and those crimes can include such “non-violent felonies” as, say, treason and espionage, or voter fraud and public corruption, white-collar crime and felonies merely “concerning drugs” — like trafficking in fentanyl-laced heroin and selling it to minors, for example. if you’re not willing to follow the law, then you should not have a role in making the law for everyone else.