During my junior year of high school, I was a member of the Bridgeport FFA Agricultural Issues Forum, a competitive speaking event in which a team of three to seven students composes a fifteen-minute presentation over a current issue in agricultural industries that describes every standpoint (even if they are conflicting) on the issue, and professionally answer educated questions about the issue, without clearly advocating any one side. My team and I chose the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) proposed redefinition of the term “waters of the United States” in the Clean Water Act to be the issue in our presentation. And, although our presentation remained neutral, we were all personally against the EPA’s redefinition. Because of this, we were somewhat anxious when we performed our presentation for the senior policy advisor for agriculture of EPA region six, Eugene Thilsted, and his associates. We weren’t worried that our presentation was too one-sided, for we included equal amounts of substantial information for both sides; however, we were unsure whether they would agree with the validity of all the information, for some of the information we found was given in different manners depending on the bias of the source. If they completely disagreed with the points made in our presentation or those in our …show more content…
It drives us to improve our creations and ourselves so that there are no disagreements. Disagreements kindled the American colonies’ rebellion against Great Britain, and everyone knows what that lead to. Disagreements prove that we are all, in fact, unique beings, for the absence of disagreement would mean that everyone has the exact same opinion on everything in existence. Nothing would ever change in world like that; everything would remain constant. And, though disagreements sometimes cause violence and war, imagine if, for example, nobody disagreed with the Nazi regime or Al-Qaida or even King George