Analyzing Context

1) In my debate/controversy there are a couple different perspectives on the issue. One viewpoint is that the land on Mauna Kea is the most sacred land to Hawaiian Natives and their culture. It is also environmentally sensitive, making many people believe that TMT should not be built here due to the sacred land along with the environmental issues. The other perspective is from people who Mauna Kea as an astronomical piece of land. It has great conditions for telescopes and their are already 13 there. They believe that TMT needs to be built here and that it will give to the community in Hawaii, and also bring new information to astronomers that can be very useful. 

2) The major points of disagreement here is that the native Hawaiians, and many others, believe that it is not right to build on sacred land where their culture began. It is the origin of their culture and they don't want anyone stepping on it, even though their are already 13 other telescopes in the same area! Another point of disagreement is who should have ownership of the land. As of right now it is the University of Hawaii, but that may be changed as challenges have been sent to the supreme court. Who should decide what can be built or not built on this land?

3) The points of agreements are that Mauna Kea is sacred land and also has great astronomical benefits. Other than the idea that the land has both of these meanings and conditions, the opposing sides don't agree on much else. Many do agree that TMT will be a great source for new findings in astronomy, but they don't agree on the location of where it should be built. 

4) Both perspectives respect the each others views and importances, but each side values their own more. One perspective believes in culture and following the footsteps of ancestors with respect, while the other perspective focuses on the future and moving forward in our world, but as said before both sides still respect each others beliefs. 

5) The perspective of saving Mauna Kea and shutting down TMT wants their audience to fight for the sacred land and its ownership. They want their audience to fight for their past and culture, making the Natives have the decisions of weather or not this telescope can be built here. The opposing perspective want their audience to acknowledge the significance of the culture on Mauna Kea, but more importantly understand how important it is for this telescope to be placed here. They want there audience to understand the importance of TMT and make it public to show everyone how it can change our world. 

6) The people who view TMT as an important role in our future will help with my argument. The viewpoint of respecting culture but also focusing on the future will help back up my opinion on this controversy. I chose this side of the argument because its what I believe in and what I think is right. These perspectives will contribute to the credibility in my opinion by showing many others out there support the TMT project on Mauna Kea. 

7) The native Hawaiians perspective will be a huge threat to my argument because it is their home land and culture that I am fighting against. When I say fighting against I don't mean as of way of dissing their culture. I respect it and believe that everyone should embrace their past and origins, but when I'm arguing that this project should/needs to be built on their sacred land, my viewpoint will most likely not be accepted by them. Also the people that are worried about the environmental issues on Mauna Kea. They will most likely disagree with my statements because I believe that TMT is okay for the land that they are worried about.