Opposing Viewpoints

When looking at the debate that comes up when one wants to discuss whether or not to drug-test welfare recipients there has to be a well-rounded discussion. I have chosen to use "Welfare Programs Should Include Mandatory Drug Testing" (Haerens). and "Welfare Programs Should Not Include Mandatory Drug Testing" (Lewis, Kenefick). 

There are many good points to both sides of this debate. The writer approving drug testing gives a personal perspective when she relives memories of an addict mother trading/selling welfare for drugs and money. She doesn't get in to much depth when it comes to research and facts though. It leaves a lot of questions unanswered. She is great at appealing to ethos and pathos but not at the logos of the situation. The writers opposing the drug testing give a great deal of information that relates the logos and are experienced Social Society reseracgers so that gives them ethos. They however don't play to the pathos at all. It give their article an impersonal point of view.

I feel that after reading both articles, I can say that because the first writer (Haerens) is giving moving testimony from a personal standpoint, she is the more believable source. I do think that children suffer when we as a society don't force their parents to do the right thing.

"Welfare Programs Should Include Mandatory Drug Testing." Welfare. Ed. Margaret Haerens. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2012. Opposing Viewpoints. Opposing Viewpoints in Context. Web. 17 July 2016.

Lewis, Matt, and Elizabeth Kenefick. "Welfare Programs Should Not Include Mandatory Drug Testing." Welfare. Ed. Margaret Haerens. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2012. Opposing Viewpoints. Rpt. from "Random Drug Testing of TANF Recipients is Costly, Ineffective, and Hurts Families." Center for Law and Social Policy (CLASP), 2011. Opposing Viewpoints in Context. Web. 17 July 2016.