Example 1, from the Ethics class:
Kant argues that morality is anchored in good beginnings (intent, morals, duty) Mill argues that morality is anchored in good ends (happiness, utility, consequences). Both Kant and Mill believe one should use rules and act for the good of society, but Kant believes that one should never break rules while Mill believes rules only serve as tools to achieve good consequences.
Example 2, from the Social & Political Philosophy class:
Mencius argues that human nature is good, while Xunzi argues that human nature is evil. Both agree that society is necessary for self improvement, but Mencius argues that society is rooted in human nature while Hsun Zi argues that society is corrective to human nature.
Example 3, from the Asian Philosophy class:
Hindus argue that the self/mind/soul is eternal, while Buddhists argue that the self/mind/soul is temporary and mortal. Both agree that karma determines rebirth, but Hindus argue that we always retain our particular individual self while Buddhists argue that extinction of the self and identity with the whole can be achieved through effort and practice.
In taking a position, you can entirely agree with the position, entirely disagree, or somewhat agree and somewhat disagree. If there are opposite positions, you can agree with both equally, agree with both but with one more than the other, or disagree with both entirely. Support your agreement and/or disagreement with examples and connections to other thinkers and schools. These can be drawn from the class material or from anything outside of the class, including your life experience, current events and fiction.
Remember to focus on developing your own thought and argument rather than taking time and space repeating what has already been argued and written by others. The goal of the paper is not to simply take a position, but to take a position effectively and with a new perspective. It is also important to complete the required page length, using the standard 1 inch margins and 11 point font size.