@annarmills Gave me a fun research problem - the goal was to get GPT-3 to construct its own critical assessment of an argumentative essay. Video below:
Here’s an example output. It’s a bit repetitive but the video was running long. With some refinement, I think it could get quite a bit better.:
Anna Mills argues that illegal immigration is not unethical, and that treating migrants with empathy and respect is the just thing to do. She posits that if most people were in the same circumstances as those who cross the border illegally, they would do the same. Mills believes that a wall or detention center cannot be on the side of justice.
Mills makes a compelling case for her position. She provides a reasonable hypothetical situation to demonstrate that people in desperate circumstances would do whatever they could to improve their lives, even if it meant breaking the law. Her argument would be even stronger if she provided more concrete examples of people in similar situations. However, she does provide some food for thought regarding immigration policy and how we treat those who cross the border illegally.
Eligan argues that the current debate over immigration policy is based on a false dichotomy–either one believes in the rule of law or one believes in helping those in need. The author first States their belief in the rule of law, but then immediately questions it.
The strength of this argument is its ability to provoke critical thinking about a complex issue. The author challenges the reader to consider whether the current system is just, and whether there might be another way to balance security concerns with the needs of migrants.
A weakness of the argument is that it does not offer concrete solutions to the complex problem of immigration. The author relies too heavily on hypothetical scenarios, which makes the argument feel less persuasive. Another weakness is the author’s assumption that most people would break the law if they were in a desperate situation. This is not necessarily true, and it oversimplifies the issue.
The author begins by asking if illegal immigration is actually wrong and if it is unethical to cross a border without permission. She argues that if she were in a situation where her children were impoverished and living in a third-world country plagued by violence, she would take the opportunity to cross the border illegally so her children could have a better life. The author then asks if most of us, under desperate circumstances, would cross the border without permission and feel no moral qualms about doing so, then we must recognize this crossing as an ethical, reasonable act. If it is ethical and reasonable, then how can either a wall or a detention center be on the side of justice? We must find a policy that treats migrants as we would want to be treated–with empathy, respect, and offers of help.
The author makes a compelling argument that illegal immigration is not actually wrong and that it is ethical to cross a border without permission if one is doing so in order to improve their life circumstance. However, the author does not offer a clear solution to the issue of immigration policy. While she argues that a wall or a detention center are not on the side of justice, she does not offer an alternative that would be more effective in regulating the border.
The author’s main point is that there are ways to regulate the border without criminalizing people. This is a valid point which is supported by the example of parents who would cross the border without permission in order to provide a better life for their children.
The author’s argument is persuasive because it is based on empathy. It is reasonable to expect that people would want to be treated with respect and offered help if they were in a difficult situation.
However, the author does not have a clear vision of what the right border policy would be. This is a weakness of the argument because it does not provide a definite solution to the problem.
Wouldn’t We All Cross the Border by Anna Mills is an article that argues that illegal immigration is not wrong and that people who are driven by need and good intentions should not be criminalized.
The strength of this argument is that it is based on empathy and understanding. The author points out that if they were in a desperate situation, they would themselves try to cross the border illegally in order to give their children a better life. This highlights the importance of treating migrants with respect and understanding, as they are simply trying to improve their lives and the lives of their families.
However, the argument also has some weaknesses. Firstly, the author does not provide any concrete solutions to the issue of immigration. They simply state that the current system is unfair and that there must be a better way to regulate the border. Secondly, the author does not address the potential security risks that come with completely open borders. This leaves the reader wondering how exactly the author envisages this policy change being implemented.
The author’s argument is compelling in its appeal to empathy and reason. It is reasonable to think that, if faced with desperate circumstances, most people would try to cross a border illegally in order to provide a better life for their children. The author’s use of personal pronouns (“I would try to cross a border illegally so my children would get enough to eat”) is effective in driving home this point.
However, the argument is somewhat weakened by its lack of specificity. The author does not provide concrete examples of how a more open border policy could work in practice. Additionally, the use of personal pronouns throughout the essay gives the impression that the author is speaking from a position of privilege (for example, “If I were raising children in an impoverished third-world community plagued by violence”).
Wouldn’t We All Cross the Border? by Anna Mills is an argument in favor of more humane immigration policies. The author points out that many people who are critical of illegal immigration would likely do the same if they were in the same desperate circumstances as those who are currently migrating. The author concludes by saying that we must find a policy that treats migrants with empathy, respect, and offers of help.
One strength of this argument is that it is based on empathy. The author imagines herself in the position of someone who is struggling to make a better life for her family. This makes it easier for readers to understand and empathize with the author’s position.
A weakness of this argument is that it does not fully consider the security risks of open borders. The author acknowledges that open borders would be a security risk, but does not provide any solutions to this problem.
Overall, this is a persuasive argument for more humane immigration policies. It is based on empathy and provides a potential solution to the problem of security risks.