The debate rages on – we’ve looked at the for side, but it would be a very one-sided debate if we didn’t look at the other side too.
It’s important to show the reader that you’re thinking carefully about both sides before you make your conclusion, so make sure you give a roughly equal amount of space to the other side.
Likewise, you’ll need the same features for the other side too – facts to back up the points and those debate text sentence starters and conjunctions.
Most importantly, even if you already know what your conclusion is and don’t agree with the other side, try to remain balanced, you want to keep the reader thinking about which side your conclusion will be. Try not to give it away too soon!
My example was about “Should trophy hunting be banned?” I did the ‘for’ or ‘yes’ side, so now the complete opposite.
First Reason Against:
Looking at it another way, hunters argue that trophy hunting payments are important in funding conservation efforts in African countries. For instance, many point out that hunting licence fees, tags and taxes go towards conservation. Hunters say that it is not in anyone’s interest to let the animals go extinct – if there were no more lions, nobody could hunt them for any amount of money. By putting a premium price on these endangered animals, it encourages landowners in Africa to protect the habitat where they live.
Second Reason Against:
In contrast, trophy hunters maintain that their type of hunting is the most ethical way to manage the population of predators like lions or leopards, who would otherwise threaten local farmers sheep and cows. Without managed trophy hunting to put a top price on hunting lions, opponents of a ban believe poaching becomes the only way of managing a large, dangerous big cat which could hurt children and animals. In Kenya and Zambia, bans on hunting were followed in a huge rise in poaching. In Kenya for instance, wildlife populations in 2013 were half what they were before the hunting ban.