briefly summarize what the philosophical debate is about

you have to write about the law in philosophy metaphysics. don’t use any other resources besides the ones I am attaching please NO OUTSIDE RESOURCES PLEASE. PLEASE DON’T WASTE THE PAGE FOR NAME AND CLASS I DO NOT NEED THAT PAGE> USE THAT FOR WRITING. you have to follow this prompt—. in the writing please answer all these questions. “laws: Do you think that laws of nature, insofar as they exist in reality, reduce fully to contingent events such that laws contain no necessity? Or do you think that laws cannot be so reduced and are necessary regularities that ‘govern’ events? (If you support anti-realism about laws you can defend that view too, but you may find there is little difference between reductionism about laws and anti-realism since both agree that there are no such things as necessary regularities in nature). Be sure to explain (1) the best argument for your view (it is up to you to determine what argument that is and to explain why you think it is the best), (2) the best argument against your view (also up to do you determine and to justify your choice), and (3) your own response to the argument against your view. Use your own examples and illustrations when possible. Be sure to relate your discussion at relevant points to claims or statements made by Carroll, Schaffer, Hume, and/or any of the philosophers and scientists in the “Closer to Truth” episodes, but don’t feel like you have to rehash or summarize their entire papers/discussions. ”
work TIP:- A good way to organize your paper is to divide it into five sections. In section one, you will briefly summarize what the philosophical debate is about, identify the possible viewpoints, and clearly state your thesis, which should be a direct answer to the question asked in the first sentence of your chosen prompt. In section two, you will present the stronger argument supporting your thesis. You will explain not only how the argument works but why you think it is a persuasive argument. In section three, you will present the strongest argument against your view. Again, you will explain the argument and comment on why you feel it is a powerful argument. In section four, you will respond to the argument you described in section three. This should be the most original paper of your paper. You may of course appeal to considerations or points made by one of the authors, but you should be able to say in your own words why you believe what you do despite the argument you discussed in section three. Finally, in section five,