>>12161
>They’re completely valid questions
Nah.
#1 Gives the impression that a female president and majority congress is some kind of reasonable goal, and not sexist or contradictory to the idea that men and women are equal. As though it were an "agree to disagree" kind of issue and not "holy shit this bitch is crazy". A majority female congress is not a valid idea at all.
#2 "What would it take" or "What would have to happen" has this sense that you are talking about someone stubborn who is making light of a serious situation. Has the feeling of: "how many kids have to die before we HAVE to take all the guns".
#3 almost seems like data mining, but that's probably just me being paranoid. More likely, it feels like the school is trying to single out students and pit them against the radicalized majority. You either disagree and have blue-haired women scream in your face, or you mutter "Nah" just to save yourself the trouble. Doesn't even include a "why or why not?".
#4 "Respond" has the subtle implication that you should make a counter-argument. Remember that long answers tend to be graded better than short ones, even if you technically met all the criteria. Also notice they don't list any anti-gun arguments? Only the right-wing ones are scrutinized.
#5 is desperately trying to be as leading as possible within the limits of what could be plausibly denied as being bias. "Is your generation the one that will..." is a common line associated with positive social change, not to mention "ACTIVISM". And ending it with "Make the case for and against" doesn't really help because it's technically not asking why people SHOULDN'T do something, but why people WOULDN'T do something. "Wouldn't" is more associated with laziness, ignorance and neglect compared to "shouldn't". "Is you generation the one" implies inevitability, if I say "No", it's like "Oh, so it'll be a different generation then?". You have to step out of the boundaries of the question to say "No, and hopefully no generation will", or "No, and no generation should".
<Here, I'll rewrite them to be less bias, or at least flip it around.
1..Do women inherently have different opinions on firearms than men? Why or why not?
2..How would the United States enact FEDERAL comprehensive gun control legislation? Be sure to discuss filibusters.
(I'm not really sure how to change this one, best I could do off the top of my head, I'm not really satisfied with it).
3..<Just remove this question entirely. The contents of my private property are nobodies business.>
4..Explain the meaning behind the following statements. Do you agree or disagree?
A..Guns don't kill people, people kill people.
B..The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.
C..<Insert some leftist talking point. Should be a one-liner like the others, but I can't think of any off the top of my head.>
D..<Ditto>
5..Should our nation's gun laws be changed? For what reasons do you think someone would want to change them, or keep them the same?