Imagine you are a young man – Daniel - who had been secluded from civilization for five years, you finally make a friend – Joel - and he gets captured by the Romans who are taking over your country. It would be a very risky task to try to get him back when all you are armed with is a small band of untrained boys. Most people agree that they decided to try, some people think that it was a good idea to get him back, other people think Daniel should have given him up. I think that Daniel should’ve rescued Joel for three reasons, Joel was Daniel’s first friend, the small team of zealots needed Joel, and for Joel’s family.
The first reason that I think that Daniel should have saved Joel is because he was Daniel’s first friend. Daniel did not want to …show more content…
Joel was one of the founders of the small band and consequently one of the leaders, he was essential to the team.
The third reason that Daniel should have recaptured Joel is for his family, his mother, father, and sister. His mother and father would no longer have a son. His sister would no longer have a brother. It would leave a gaping hole in the family.
Some people think that Daniel should have forgotten about Joel. They argue that it was too dangerous, that they wold get captured for sure, and regret it immediately. This proof is inadequate because even though it was very dangerous, they wanted Joel back so much that this barely mattered to them.
In addition people argue that Daniel should have given up on Joel because it would be better to lose one man rather than to risk losing all of them to the Romans or to death, however this proof is inadequate because although there was risk, the whole band of zealots had agreed to take the risk
Neither of these arguments – that it was too dangerous, and that it would be better to lose one man rather than many – would give Daniel a significant reason to leave his only friend for
The first reason that I think that Daniel should have saved Joel is because he was Daniel’s first friend. Daniel did not want to …show more content…
Joel was one of the founders of the small band and consequently one of the leaders, he was essential to the team.
The third reason that Daniel should have recaptured Joel is for his family, his mother, father, and sister. His mother and father would no longer have a son. His sister would no longer have a brother. It would leave a gaping hole in the family.
Some people think that Daniel should have forgotten about Joel. They argue that it was too dangerous, that they wold get captured for sure, and regret it immediately. This proof is inadequate because even though it was very dangerous, they wanted Joel back so much that this barely mattered to them.
In addition people argue that Daniel should have given up on Joel because it would be better to lose one man rather than to risk losing all of them to the Romans or to death, however this proof is inadequate because although there was risk, the whole band of zealots had agreed to take the risk
Neither of these arguments – that it was too dangerous, and that it would be better to lose one man rather than many – would give Daniel a significant reason to leave his only friend for