Should College Students Take Smart Drugs Essay

In the debate “College Students Should Be Allowed to Take Smart Drugs,” the tram in support of the measure clearly won. This team consists of Dr. Anjan Chatterjee and Nita Farahany. Farahany’s stance is that colleges should empower their students to weigh their options and make their own decisions. Her persuasive and passionate tone is to bring the audience to her view with only a touch of bluntness. The pathos she used consisted of provided fear to the audience of students not being able to choose for themselves and how where that could lead them. Farahany also uses pathos to point out the obvious fact that students already use this drug. Her logos argument uses polls of incoming freshmen which stated that taking smart drugs will enhance students across the board. Farahany’s teammate, Dr. Chatterjee’s argument that people have the right to choose, echoed hers. His tone came across as humorous, easy-going, and personable. He used logos, ethos, and pathos while speaking. Chatterjee’s logos argument included specific medical journals that did not show any added risk of

Eric Racine’s stance on the use of smart drugs is scientifically and morally against allowing them. He His tone was by the book and, dry, and uninteresting. The scientific data Racine used in his logos argument did not support whether smart drugs were harmful or useless. He tried to build his pathos off of the fear of parents for the well-being of their children. This fell flat due to his way of talking. Racine’s partner for this debate Nicole Vincent did not fare better. Her stance was that smart drugs will cause an increase in inequality. Vincent’s tone throughout her time was hurried, concerned, and fear mongering. Vincent’s argument was built using pathos that mostly appealed to the pride and individuality of the crowd. She was particularly using the loss of those things over the audience to convince them to take caution with smart