Taking Sides: Clashing Views in American Foreign Policy

by Andrew Bennett, George Shambaugh (Editor)

This Fourth Edition of Taking Sides: Clashing Views in American Foreign Policy presents current controversial issues in a debate-style format designed to stimulate student interest and develop critical thinking skills. Each issue is thoughtfully framed with an issue summary, an issue introduction, and a postscript. An instructor's manual with testing material is available for each volume. Using Taking Sides In The Classroom is also an excellent instructor resource with practical suggestions on incorporating this effective approach in the classroom. Each Taking Sides reader features an annotated listing of selected World Wide Web sites and is supported by our student website.

400 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 2005

Reviews

[Slam Hanson · Rating 4 out of 5]

To attempt a format of contrary organization as this series does is impressive on the reader in of itself. I support the idea of teaching students there are always two sides to an argument, and that a fundamental principle of free speech is hearing both of them.

That being said, while a majority of the argument pairs featured in the text were interesting and properly balanced, there were a few cases in which one side was a rigorously researched journal article published in well known publications, and the other was some sort of academic-passing take down piece that relied on jarring hyperbolic assertions and half-baked hypothetical syllogisms to get its flaming-hot point across. I recognize It’s difficult to find a professional work on why the United States should ignore climate change or how outsourcing production of goods to those with comparative advantage is a bad idea, but the gap between the logical strength of a few of them almost made me laugh out loud.

[Sam · Rating 2 out of 5]

Clashing views indeed. It was quite easy to tell where the author's opinion lay; often I found that the opposing point of view was virtually impossible to argue based on the article alone, as it was ridiculously biased, i.e. torture.