My research inquiry project is morphing into an informative piece, I think. I’m not sure if that was my intention, but I have been pushing away from going with a definite opinion on how these sites should be handled (ethical banning vs freedom of speech allowing), and instead I am giving both sides of the arguments equally. I suppose that, based off of my research and my takes on the nuggets, my main goal is to provide the information on what these sites are for the readers so they see the crucial points of both sides and then maybe conclude somewhere in the middle of that. I may need some guidance from there.
I’m going to my fellow students’ projects, Jayden (I think I found the name?), Tiera, and Maddie to compare/contrast:
First off, I like all if the topics they chose and I think they have a definite idea of a focused question they are looking into, while I’ve moved away from that a bit and become more neutral and interested in information sharing on the potential arguments I could go for. All of the students I chose had nuggets that built off of each other and supported each other which was awesome to see the backup and fleshing out of support for their arguments. My two nugget topics differed a bit as they were explaining the opposing arguments. The commonality between us all is that we all are building up information, whether supporting or opposing, to have stronger support and backing.