Go to the following website: https://www.procon.org/
Click on Issues We Cover.
Select an issue, don't copy any of your classmates. Summarize the key pros and cons of the issue. Write a short summary of which side you agree with and why.
Issue: “Should Gay Marriage Be Legal?” Some of the pros for gay marriage are denying some people the option to get marry is discriminatory, legalizing gay marriage will not harm the institution of marriage, gay marriage is protected by the U.S. Constitution’s commitments to liberty and equality, and legal marriage is a secular institution that shouldn't be restricted by religious objections. Some of the cons include that the definition of “traditional marriage” is between a man and a woman, gay marriage is contrary to the word of God, marriage is a privilege (not a right), and homosexuality is unnatural and immoral. The side I agree on is the “pro” side because I believe that legalizing gay marriage is not harming those who believe that gay marriage is wrong, in fact the marriage of a gay couple shouldn’t bother anyone else since it is a personal matter between the couple. Also the people who think that gay marriage is wrong are often conservative and have a traditional way of thinking, it is already 2018 so people should have the freedom to marry whoever they want regardless of sex and gender. Overall, I strongly support gay marriage because the legalization of gay marriage is only beneficial and does no harm whatsoever.
Issue: Should Abortion Be Legal? In summary, the key pro-argument to this issue is that the US Supreme Court has declared abortion to be a "fundamental right" guaranteed by the US Constitution with Roe v Wade, reproductive choice empowers women by giving them control over their own bodies, and abortion gives pregnant women the option to choose not to bring fetuses with profound abnormalities to full term. From the other perspective, the key argument for anti-abortion is that abortion is the killing of a human being, which defies the word of God, women should not be able to use abortion as a form of contraception, and abortions cause psychological damage. In my opinion, it makes most sense to be pro-choice and for abortion to be legal. Although many pro-life supporters believe abortion is murder, we should look at the perspective of the mother. It is most likely that the reason why they are aborting is because they made a mistake and they do not want to take care of the child. If we force a mother who lacks the passion to take care of an unwanted child, what kind of life would that be for the baby who will not have a supportive mother, and for the mom who is miserable because she does not want anything to do with the child? It does not make sense for both sides to suffer just because it is "murder." In addition, the cons argue that it defies the word of God. In America, we live in a society where there is freedom of religion protected by the first amendment. Many fail to realize that freedom of religion also includes those who do not believe in any religion at all. Therefore, one cannot use God to justify another's decision because their religion cannot apply to every person, especially if that individual is not even religious. I support pro-choice because in the end, it is up to the couple to make the decision and commitment and no one else including the government.
Natalie Dye, Period 5 Issue: Euthanasia/ Physican assisted suicide The people who think it should be legal defend that people have constitutional safeguards in place that allow them to refuse life saving technology, and this is no different. People see it as compassionate towards the patients in severe cases. Others that don’t believe euthanasia should be legal think that doctors have a responsibility to keep their patients alive according to their Hippocratic Oath. They also believe this could lead to a downturn into murder by insurance companies and target the disabled. I believe that there are ways to protect people from insurance companies, so eithanasia should be allowed with certain restrictions to protect people from corporate greed and potential malicious behavior.
Alwyn joseph 5th period Should the death penalty be allowed The pros to the death penalty is that in a way, it bings justice to the families of the victim, and that it makes sure the criminal would never escape prison and coming the heinous crimes again. Also, it saves tons of tax payer's money, since the prison doesn't have to care for the criminal for the rest of their. Lives. Some cons are that the death penalty gives the government the ability to take life, and that it in a way targets people of color, which is racist. It is also seen as classist since it targets people that can't afford good lawyers. Personally I think the death penalty should be allowed. If my family member was myrdered, I'd want justice for them. Also I don't think don't think tax payers money should be wasted on a murderer.
Issue: Is Refusing to Stand for the National Anthem an Appropriate Form of Protest?
Those who refuse to stand for the national anthem believe that it is appropriate when the US is not living up to its ideals of freedom, liberty, and justice for all. They also praise national figures, such as an NFL player, because it shocks people into paying attention and generates conversation. Moreover, they believe that not standing for the national anthem is a legal form of peaceful protest, which is a First Amendment right. On the other hand, others believe that it shows disrespect for the flag and members of the armed forces. They also see it as an ineffective and counterproductive way to promote a cause that will overall divide our country. I believe that it is a disrespectful act towards our country. The national anthem is a form of respect to the people who risked their lives defending the United States. Therefore, I believe that those who refuse to stand dishonor this country and the men and women who are overseas fighting for our freedom.
Issue: Should students Have to Wear School Uniforms? The pros side included that students will be safer when attending school, as teachers and officials can easily distinguish the students from outsiders. Other pros consisted that school uniforms enhance school pride, as well as community spirit. Lastly, another pro was that students should not be focused on the way they look and should instead be focusing on their own education. On the other hand, the cons suggested merely the opposite of the pros, saying that students can't express their individuality with solid colored/ school clothes. Students are also not able to freely express themselves. Lastly, another con stated that students' performance in school, such as attendance, academic preparedness, or exam results are not improved with a dress code. In conclusion, as a student, I believe that student dress code does not actually help students with anything, other than helping teachers distinguish student's from outsiders, such as school shooters.
The Pros of drinking milk is that milk contains many nutrients, calcium and other bone friendly nutrients found in milk and airy are important in developing bone, drinking milk also reduced risk of childhood obesity, and they are building blocks of proteins. The cons of drinking milk are that cow’s milk is not designed for human consumption, most of these cows are injected with cocktail of hormones, that drinking too much milk will increase the chance of getting prostate cancer, acne, and bone loss. More cons of drinking milk is that this increases the cholesterol and saturated fat of a person’s diet and increases diabetes. Personally, I think that drinking milk is healthy for human being. People have been drinking milk since the beginning of time and there were never any problems. There is no problem back in the days from people that drunk milk so there shouldn’t be a problem now with people asking if milk is healthy.
Issue: Banned books; Should Parents or Other Adults be Able to Ban Books From Schools and Libraries?
Some of the pros for banning books is that parents should be able to control what their children are able to read and make sure it is age appropriate, children should not be exposed to topics that are inappropriate, such as sex and violence, at an early age, and keeping these books with inappropriate content out of libraries actually protects kids and should not limit others from reading them. Some arguments for against banning books is how parents can control what their kids read, but should not restrict others, the exposure to inappropriate topics can help people understand the world and recognize reality, and books are an outlet and allow empathy and social-emotional development. I am against banning books as people should not be controlled on what they read. They should not just take books away due to their inappropriateness. I believe that they can be all organized so that children can read children books in a children's section, while adults can read things in the adult section. Everyone should be able to be exposed to information that they do not know of and have a chance to learn.
The pros of gun control include ,the Second Amendment is not an unlimited right to own guns, more gun control laws would reduce gun deaths, high-capacity magazines should be banned because they too often turn murder into mass murder and many other views. Some cons of gun control include the Second Amendment of the US Constitution protects individual gun ownership, gun control laws do not deter crime; gun ownership deters crime, gun control laws infringe upon the right to self-defense and deny people a sense of safety and many other cons. In conclusion gun control is a highly controversial topic in today's society as it regards the safety of people whether they are the one shooting or getting shot.
Issue: Is Legal Prostitution a Legitimate Business? The pros of prostitution as a legitimate business include the fact that it creates an income that can support five to eight people and contributes to the economy, by admitting that sex work is work they open themselves up to opportunities for sexual health services and true professional managers rather than thugs. The cons include it is sexual abuse and violent, induces emotional trauma, associated with crime, and take advantage of the fact that the workers in prostitution come from the oppressed groups of society such as women and children. I agree that prostitution should not become a legitimate business as it will always be associated with a sexist viewpoint and will induce the bad characteristics of societies. I believe the government should help women and other people involved in prostitution to find other ways to make an income.
Should the Government Allow Immigrants Who Are Here Illegally to Become US Citizens?
The pros of illegal immigration includes: would be authorized to work, wouldn't be subjected to deportation, and would be able to travel in and out of the US whenever they want (most illegal immigrants don't have the ability to do that now)
Cons: They would get the benefits from the government that they're not supposed to (unemployment insurance, etc.) and they would also get special immigration privileges like bring other family members from their country. If they commit a crime, they will not be deported.
I definitely believe that illegal immigrants who have stayed here for a long period of time should become citizens because they obviously can't return to their actually country because of the injustices they face there. I do think they shouldn't be allowed to bring in others from their country because they shouldn't be allowed special privileges (in my personal opinion) because it will only make people angrier and result to violence. I know for a fact that it would improve the unemployment rate and may have even more benefits for America as a whole.
Issue: Should the Drinking Age Be Lowered from 21 to a Younger Age?
Pros: 18 is the age of adulthood in the United States, and adults should have the right to make their own decisions about alcohol consumption. Allowing 18- to 20-year-olds to drink alcohol in regulated environments with supervision would decrease unsafe drinking activity. There are fewer drunk driving traffic accidents and fatalities in many countries with MLDA of 18. There are fewer drunk driving traffic accidents and fatalities in many countries with MLDA of 18.
Cons: Lowering MLDA 21 would be medically irresponsible. The right to drink should have a higher age of initiation because of the dangers posed by drinking. MLDA 21 exerts valuable social pressure on potential underage drinkers and those who may serve them. Lowering the drinking age will invite more use of illicit drugs among 18-21 year olds.
I believe the drinking age should be lowered from 21 to 18. While the MLDA is 21 in all 50 states, in 47 of 50 states age 18 is the "age of majority," which entails having the rights and responsibilities of adulthood. Many other countries already have the age set at 18. Not only that, many teens already drink so there is no point to have that limitation. If they choose not to because of medical reasons then they simply don't have to drink.
While there is no official legal definition of "sanctuary city," the term refers to towns, cities, or counties that protect undocumented immigrants by refusing to cooperate completely with federal detention requests, often with a "don't ask, don't tell" policy.
Pros: Sanctuary cities are safer because they encourage good relationships between undocumented immigrants and law enforcement. Sanctuary policies are legal and protected by the Tenth Amendment. Sanctuary cities are needed to protect undocumented immigrants against federal immigration laws.
Cons: Sanctuary cities harbor criminals, creating a dangerous environment for US citizens. Sanctuary policies defy federal laws to which state and local governments are bound. Sanctuary policies prevent local and state police officers from doing their jobs.
I believe that these sanctuary cities should be protected and should continue to protect citizens and undocumented immigrants. The Sanctuary cities should be preserved because federal immigration deportation policies are unjust because they target undocumented immigrants indiscriminately, deport people who have lived in the United States since childhood, deport people who have committed no crimes, separate families, and cause people to live in constant fear of deportation and its devastating consequences.
Pros: Many of the pros of animal testing that are listed are only pros from human's perspectives. These include the ideas that animal testing has created many life saving medicines, animals allow humans to look at closely related structures and understand how they work, and, lastly, animals can also largely benefit from such testing and research, as seen in the past with a cure for diseases like rabies and feline leukemia.
Cons: Using animals against their will and making them participate in activities forcefully, such as feeding, physical restraint, or lack or food/water, is cruel and inhumane. Secondly, new technology has allowed animal testing to be replaced by in vitro methods. Lastly, another con that can cause concern is that animal testing does not guarantee success when used on humans.
Personally I agree with the cons side of things in that essentially animal testing is not a definitive answer. As said earlier, in vitro (petri dish) can allow for much more accurate results because they can use cells from a human rather than a relatively closely related animal. This would allow for more accurate results as well as safe lives, both human and otherwise, especially since after being tested for something, and animal cannot be used again and is therefore euthanized.
Issue: Are DACA and the Dream Act good for America?
A Pro to The Dream Act includes the fact that having DACA recipients in the U.S. is good for the economy. According to the Center for American Progress, Dreamers are expected to contribute around $460 billion to the American economy over the next decade. If DACA is to be eliminated, both California and Texas, the two most populous DACA states, would lose billions of dollars. Another Pro to the DACA argument is that deporting people is inhumane and cruel. While the median age of DACA recipients enter the U.S. at six years old, the most common age is three years old. By sending Dreamers back to their birth countries, we are sending them back to a foreign location that they may lack any memory or knowledge of. The document argues that sending people back to a country where they may not even speak the language is cruel and unnecessary. However, there are cons to the argument. While DACA can be good, it only encourages more illegal immigration to occur. An estimated 50,000 people annually cross the border from Mexico into Texas illegally. By promoting DACA, the U.S. is only encouraging more illegal immigration to occur. The second con is that amnesty should not be given to law breakers. The Center of Immigration Studies found that Dreamers can be lawbreakers, but are protected by U.S. amnesty. Only when convicted of a crime is a DACA recipients status rejected. Therefore, Dreamers can be led to commit crimes but will no be thrown out unless convicted. Overall, I agree more with the pro side. I think that DACA and the Dream Act are good measures to help children in struggling countries achieve a safe haven. Not only that, I completely agree that it is inhumane to force people who lack knowledge of their home country back to their birth nation.
Issue: "Should Tablets Replace Textbooks in K-12 Schools?"
The article calls into question whether the traditional education via textbook should be adapted and reformed in order to utilize modern technology (which makes the system more economical and functional).
Pros: Learning material tends to be more summarized and is more easily accessible to students online which decreases the time it takes a student to reach a learning objective. Furthermore, digital resources make using and switching between several items much easier and faster than physical copies of materials. E-Books tend to be cheaper than print because of the decreased production expenditures of the textbook companies. Overall, tablets are more adept to the modern world and are an economical choice in comparison to print textbooks
Cons: The initial switch and maintenance of a tech infrastructure (a fast network with a strong internet connection and large bandwidth) is very expensive and requires frequent updates which may out-cost continuing to use print textbooks.Tablets are also far more susceptible to theft because of its broad functionality and value. And most especially, technological access can pose a major distraction leading to the abuse of learning materials for entertainment-undermining the point of the system.
I do believe that schools should shift toward more usable online materials considering that print is becoming less and less relevant to adult society. However, the extent that the article implies is too extreme. Instead of literally giving away tablets as an alternative to a textbook and working materials, I believe that a system should be created which digitizes all textbooks as well as most learning materials such that nearly all work can be completed using devices that may already exist (i.e. a student's home computer or electronic devices that the school already owns). Those who feel obligated, may borrow or rent tablets or laptops from the school such that they can still complete the assignment, or non-digital alternatives to the curriculum should be made easily accessible to accommodate students who may lack the resources to procure electronic devices independently.
Issue: Should euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide be legal?
Pros: It ends the excruciating pain sickness brings about. As Faye said, 'It should be considered as much of a crime to make someone live who with justification does not wish to continue as it is to take life without consent.' It only goes with the Hippocratic oath of doing no harm, when the patient is in constant pain. It also eliminates wasted health care money on patients who will not recover or wish to not recover.
Cons: Because it is cheaper to do euthanasia, people might start misusing it and start killing since it is the cheaper option.It could lead to certain groups being targeted and killed. We cannot take the life we are given from a religious point of view. It will serve as a method for people to commit suicide if they lie about their ailments.
I would agree that euthanasia should be legal under certain circumstances. If the family members, patient, and doctor are in agreement, then I don't see the problem. Certain illness inevitably give a slow and painful death and euthanasia simply puts them out of their misery.
Issue:Should the United States keep Daylight Saving Time? Pros:Longer daylight hours make driving safer which lowers rates of pedestrians being hit by cars. Daylight Savings is also good for the economy because people are shopping after work because the sun is still out. Last pro is that Daylight Saving promotes active lifestyles because people usually like to work out after work and probably won’t if it’s dark out. Cons: The first con about Daylight Saving time is losing an hour of sleep is bad for a person’s natural circadian rhythms. Daylight Savings also drops productivity, the Monday after the spring time change as known as “sleepy Monday” is one the most sleep deprived days of the year. Last con is Daylight Saving is expensive Americans lose $1.7 billion in lost opportunity cost. In my opinion Daylight Saving Time is unnecessary and annoying because we are losing an hour of sleep and it gets dark at around 5 o’clock.Which gives you no time to workout at a local park or hang out with friends. I feel Daylight Saving Time is pointless and the United States should absolutely get rid of it.
Issue: Should Any Vaccines Be Required for Children?
Pros: Vaccines can save children's lives, the American Academy of Pediatrics states that "most childhood vaccines are 90%-99% effective in preventing disease." Major medical organizations state that vaccines are safe and adverse reactions to vaccines are extremely rare. Vaccines protect future generations and additionally have eradicated smallpox and have nearly eradicated other diseases such as polio. Vaccine-preventable diseases have not disappeared so vaccination is still necessary.
Cons: Vaccines can cause serious and sometimes fatal side effects due to the threat of an allergic reaction. The government should not intervene in personal medical choices and mandatory vaccines infringe upon constitutionally protected religious freedoms. Diseases that vaccines target have essentially disappeared and most diseases that vaccines target are relatively harmless in many cases, thus making vaccines unnecessary.
I agree with the pro side of the argument that vaccines should be required for children. Children whose parents resist getting vaccines for their children say that they contracted virtually extinct diseases. Additionally, illnesses, including rubella, diphtheria, smallpox, polio, and whooping cough, are now prevented by vaccination and millions of children’s lives are saved.
Issue: Are the Olympic Games an Overall Benefit for Their Host Countries and Cities?
PRO: For starters, local economies are boosted massively by the influx in tourism near and at the host of the Olympics. The Olympics also increase a country's global trade and status in the world. For example, for 1960 Olympics, Italy would join the United Nations and provide greater participation to the UN group. This stimulated not only their own economy but also the other UN members as well. Lastly, the Olympics in general are a way for nations and the host city to boost their patriotism for their own country, and it creates positive vibes when the world can even be in rough times.
CONS: The Olympics patriotism can also lead to violent or harsh actions by viewers to other nations. Nationalism, like in WWII, was a negative influence on the nations dislike for each other. Also the olympics burdens the people who live in the host city because there is a significant increase in the need for housing, food, etc. The infastructure, props, etc. within the Olympics fall to disuse and are basically useless once the games are over. it is a massive waste of money. Lastly, the Olympics just are a huge financial drain for the host countries, and even in the past few years, these countries don't even get close to making back all the money they spent on the games.
Even though both sides are valid points. I do think the Olympics are valuable and necessary to the community of nations. It allows countries to interact in a more friendly way, and it brings a sense of patriotism to the people. Yes, it is a major financial drain and burden to the host, but I do think they're ways to somewhat counteract that. Currently, the games are just a way for countries to try to show off whenever they host, and they set themselves into ruin overspending for the show/ props. My hope is that in the future, countries my be able to become more level headed, and not focus on awing the audience with bright fireworks, huge stadiums, etc. The Olympics unify the earth every few years, and it is something special to see all these different cultures come together and compete. Many people may never pay much attention to other nations, but this is a chance for interaction, good sportsmanship, and other positive attributes that make the Olympics so powerful and special.
Some pros to legalizing marijuana for recreational use is that it boosts the economy, phases out street gangs, and overall makes the whole society in a more safer environment. The marijuana industry in the United States could exceed $24 billion in revenue by 2025. Some of the cons that were stated about legalizing marijuana for recreational use is that it creates steep costs for society and taxpayers and is also harmful and addictive. I believe the pros to this issue outweigh the cons and that legalizing marijuana for recreational use is a great leap towards a more prosperous and brighter economy.
Pro: helps relive chronic pain. Can provide a safer option for those using opiods and possibly reduce the opiod crisis. It is simply not fair to keep a easy solution for pain away from those who need it.
Cons: there is no scientific proof for the “miracle drug.” It may have detrimental health effects. It is not approved by the FDA.
I personally agree with the Pro side. Those who use marijuana medically preach its benefit. If those in pain say it helps them tremendously, those who don’t experience the pain can’t falsify that. It is also unfair to take away something that helps so many overcome chronic pain. Therefor, I am for the use of medical marijuana.
Pros: The Pros of US Drone strikes are that they are safer for US soldiers and that they will have a lager impact when it comes to saving innocent civilians. It also isn't illegal in international law, so it can be used anywhere. Drones also can prevent PTSD as the soldiers will be controlling the drone with a remote rather than going out on the battle field and seeing a man die. Another benefit drones can have are that they are more accurate, and that majority of Americans do support drone strikes as it is safer and effective. Cons: Some cons are that they do kill a large number of civilians and they could traumatize local population that it is striking from. Drones do strike in secret, so they do lack sufficient legal oversight and they do make the US become more emotionally disconnected from the horrors of war and how it feels when a man dies right in front of their face. I am personally on the pro side because when it comes to war I personally feel like if drones can do it more efficiently than let them do their job if it saves more of our soldiers. This is in secret so it might be better if this will take our enemies by surprise as it will be more effective to take them down and have them taken out.
Issue: Is the Use of Standardized Testing Improving Education in America?
Pros: It has been researched that 93% of studies on student testing, including the use of large-scale and high-stakes standardized tests, found a "positive effect" on student achievement. Standardized tests are reliable and objective measures of student achievement. Standardized tests are inclusive and non-discriminatory because they ensure content is equivalent for all students. They are not narrowing the curriculum, rather they are focusing it on important basic skills all students need to master. The multiple-choice format used on standardized tests produces accurate information necessary to assess and improve American schools.
Cons: Standardized tests are an unreliable measure of student performance. Standardized testing has not improved student achievement. They are unfair and discriminatory against non English speakers and students with special needs. Standardized tests measure only a small portion of what makes education meaningful. Standardized testing also causes severe stress in younger students.
I personally agree with the con side because I believe that standardized tests limit a student’s true knowledge and intelligence. Instructors only teach according to what the test will cover which limits the student’s knowledge regarding real life situations. It also discriminates against foreign student who may not know the language very well and could prevent them from getting into their top colleges. It also puts a lot of stress onto the students through pressure from teachers and parents to get a good score.
The Issue: Should the Words "under God" Be in the US Pledge of Allegiance?
Pros: In a world filled with tragedy, cruelty, and the constant threat of war or death, the pledge’s “under god” could help inspire people every day. This could be seen to affirm the strength of faith in America and simultaneously faith in its beliefs constantly. It strengthens some people and inspires them not only for themselves but for their country. Religion plays a great role in this, and helps unite people in our country. Dwight Eisenhower states this in support of this rule. Kevin Seamus says that the pledge reminds us of where our power comes from- while the government cannot confirm who God is or how we believe in him, the acknowledgement that he gives us power and rights. It also helps distinguish us from atheistic nations. Cons: It never started out saying under god- it was not originally written this way. The first amendment states the freedom of religion, and this “under god” undermines that by requiring people to hold a belief in god. Not everyone in America has this belief, and that is entirely okay; it doesn’t make sense to require them to say that they do as a pledge to their country when the goal of the country is to unite everyone, regardless of religious background.
My side: I personally believe it is kind of ridiculous to put “under god” into the pledge of allegiance because while it is okay to pledge to our country, although that is kind of strange as well, it is not okay to exclude people of other religions because perhaps the majority believes in a God. America was not created in order to discriminate against others, and yet we do so on a daily basis by a variety of different ways, and this one is easily solvable by the exclusion of a couple of words in something everyone has to say every day. In addition, schools are technically not allowed to force or teach any sort of religion to anyone, so how could it possibly be fair to make students say a pledge with “under god” in it every morning? The rules contradict one another.
pros:The vegetarian foods have been known for long to protect the body from the different diseases like the cancer, chronic fatigue, cholesterol problems and diabetes.The vegetarian foods are low in the amount of the unsaturated fats and are therefore very healthy to eat.Pity For Animals as animals that are locked in the meat farms needs no introduction.They are mercilessly cramped and locked in the cages. Some of them are also unable to move their bodies an inch.They are also rarely fed and subjected to all forms of torture and mutilation when alive.Development of Strong Bones When there is no adequate amount of the calcium in the body, then the blood extracts them from the bloodstream.This makes the bones to become porous and as a result they become very brittle.This can be supplemented by the intake of the foods that are rich in calcium like the tofu, soybeans, kale, broccoli, collards, turnip greens and other dark green vegetables.The non vegetarians foods are the reasons for the infestation in the stomach.
cons:The major concern that makes the people to abstain from becoming the vegetarians are the fear of not getting sufficient levels of protein.The vegetarian foods seem to be limited. Meat is the most efficient way of getting protein in your diet, and it is also a supply of zinc, iron, and the B vitamins. Meat is the best source for B12. Studies have also found that many vegetarians lack vitamin D. Everybody turning to vegetarianism would not solve world hunger. There is already enough food in the world to feed everyone. The problems are more to do with food distribution, economics and wars.
My side: I personally agree that being a vegetarian is a good idea because killing animals for food is unnecessary in the modern world, when there are vegetarian options easily available. There is no good reason why animals should die in order to meet an arbitrary dietary choice.People who follow vegetarian-style eating patterns are less likely to become obese than individuals who do not follow such patterns. This may be partly the result of higher consumption of lower-calorie, more filling foods, such as vegetables, fruit and beans. Being a vegetarian is beneficial because it doesnt kill other living animals and it helps one maintain their health efficiently.
issue: Are social networking sites good for our society?
Pro: Social media spreads information faster than any other media. 78.5% of traditional media reporters polled used social media to check for breaking news. [190] 59% of Twitter users and 31% of Facebook users polled followed breaking news on these sites. Social media sites are one of the top news sources for 46% of Americans, compared to 66% for television, 26% for printed newspapers, and 23% for radio. Social media users have been responsible for reporting events before traditional media outlets, including the Paris attacks in France on Nov. 13, 2015 (Twitter, Facebook, and Vine), the Ebola outbreak in Nigeria and Sierra Leone in July 2014 (Twitter), the Boston marathon bombing on Apr. 15, 2013 (Twitter), and the Aurora, CO, theater shooting on July 20, 2012 (Twitter and YouTube). President Donald Trump said that the immediacy that Twitter affords him is the reason why he tweets, noting that press conferences and press releases take too long to reach the public.
con: Social media lacks privacy and exposes users to government and corporate intrusions. 81% of people surveyed feel "not very" or "not at all" secure when using social media sites to share private information. 48% of people reported some difficulty in managing their privacy settings. 13 million users said they had not set or did not know about Facebook's privacy settings. The US government submitted 36,812 requests for data from Facebook and 7,036 requests from Twitter in 2015, approximately 80% of which were honored at least in part. The National Security Agency (NSA) can monitor social media activity and read the content of private social media messages simply by entering a person's username into their system. Contego Services Group, which specialize in worker compensation claims, has a unit dedicated to social media monitoring to detect fraud.
I personally believe social media is good for our society because it's a way to reconnect with others. social media helps students to do better at school by discussing educational topics and using sites to talk about the school assignments. its also a quick and easy way to get information and for most people today get info through social media.
Issue: Should Performance Enhancing Drugs be Accepted in Sports
Pros: Sport is for enjoyment and competition, but above all it is to improve. Hence why many argue that there is in fact no difference between increasing skill and performance by training, and taking drugs? If it is the use of personal effort rather than outside help, then what of ropes, crampons and oxygen for climbing? What of dietitians tampering with foods and additives - drugs by any other name - to improve performance? How, exactly, does the spirit of sport forbid gene transfer but not carbo-loading? The [WADA] code doesn't say. It defines the spirit of sport as 'ethics,' 'fair play,' 'character' and a bunch of other words that clarify nothing.
Cons: Drugs like these alter the body in ways that eating more healthy or doing specific training could ever hope to accomplish. Thus, drug use literally makes these athletes into a whole different level of feats that other athletes could never hope to reach in essence it is like cheating on a test compared to studying. Also if we let athletes use them, then that sets the tone for all younger athletes that using steroids is allowed and welcomed since its the quickest and easiest way to the top, which is a terrible future to even imagine.
I personally believe that drug use in sports should never be allowed at all. There are some people who live their whole life training and striving to become better in a sport, but all that handwork can be simply overtaken by another random just shooting up and pushing his muscles past human limits. Such an possibility spits on both the sportsmanship and athletes everywhere.
Pro: Raising the minimum wage would increase economic activity and spur job growth. Increasing the minimum wage would reduce poverty. A higher minimum wage would reduce government welfare spending. The minimum wage has not kept up with inflation. Improvements in productivity and economic growth have outpaced increases in the minimum wage. Increasing the minimum wage would reduce income inequality. A minimum wage increase would help to reduce race and gender inequality. Increasing the minimum wage would have a ripple effect, raising the incomes of people who make slightly above the minimum wage.
Con: Increasing the minimum wage would force businesses to lay off employees and raise unemployment levels. Raising the minimum wage would increase poverty. A minimum wage increase would hurt businesses and force companies to close. Raising the minimum wage would increase the price of consumer goods. Teenagers and young adults may be shut out of the workforce if the minimum wage is increased. Raising the minimum wage would disadvantage low-skilled workers. Increasing the minimum wage reduces the likelihood of upward mobility. If the minimum wage is increased, companies may use more robots and automated processes to replace service employees. Increasing the federal minimum wage would disproportionately harm the poorest areas of the United States.
I personally believe that while a higher minimum wage would be beneficial to many, i think that there are may more cons associated with raising minimum wage then there are pros. First of all raising minimum wage would lead to a rise in prices in everything so it would not really be beneficial to all. Plus, ideally, minimum wage is not exactly what a person is expected to live off of, it is just meant to help you and is generally ideal for one person not for the whole family to use. Raising the wage thus discourages people from getting a more skilled job, or perhaps even going to college.
Issue: Do Violent Video Games Contribute to Youth Violence?
Pro: About 60% of boys and 40% of girls play rated M games in a developmental stage in their lives. These games cause casual aggression and have been linked to fighting/ bullying behaviors among young teens. More than 98% if all pediatricians in the United States say that over exposure to these games can have negative affects on a child's attitude toward others and their overall aggression. Around 90% of these pediatricians and 67% of parents surveyed also agreed that video games can cause violent tendencies in young people. These groups also argue that the games desensitize the children to violent behavior which leads to them acting out in ways that they have seen in games. Many school shootings have been linked to violent video game use in the past. These games also seem to reward fighting and killing as a way of solving conflict teaching kids and young teenagers that it is okay to physically harm others.
Cons:While there are many pros to this arguement, their are also many cons. The Supreme Court ruled that violent video games do not cause the actions of the people who play the. Also while the number of violent game sales has grown exponentially the young violent crime rate in the United States is on the decline. People also argue that these games allow people to release their stress and anger on a virtual enemy rather than taking it out on the people and things around them. These games also have consequences and teach young people the right from the wrong when it comes to their actions and how they are perceived.
The video game industry has put restrictions on video games via a rating system in response to the belief that violent games desensitize children to violence and make them more likely to contribute to them taking violent actions towards other people. There are others that argue this and have even counter argued that violent video games give aggressive children a way to vent reducing real life violence. There are studies that the social skills of children improve do to playing video games which can keep people from feeling isolated and needing to lash out. I stand on the side of the ladder argument as there are many people who use video games as a tool to unwind and there is no research representing concrete proof towards the argument that video games increase violent tendencies in those that play them. Mitchell Arwine period 4
The argument/ issue is if sexual orientation is determined at birth or a lifestyle choice that gradually comes over time. Many people who argued against the idea that people are born gay believe that it’s a reversible and terrible lifestyle choice. The naysayers believe that being gay is a result from bad parenting or sexual abuse. They also believe being gay comes from parents forcing that lifestyle on them when they were younger. They claim that since they chose this lifestyle that gay people should be denied marriage and societal acceptance and equal rights. The pro-side believes that being gay is a natural thing. That you’re born gay. They believe that it’s determined by natural biological factors and can’t be changed just hidden. My ideas are that being gay is a natural factor. People don’t just wake up saying they want to be gay. Also no one goes through the pain of social rejection without actually believing and feeling that they have attractions toward the same sex. Honestly people should be able to live their lives happily with whoever without being worried about humiliation and being considered an outsider. Therefor being gay is not a choice you make, you’re born that way.
Pros: Tenure protects teachers from being fired for personal, political, or other non-work related reasons. Before tenure, teachers could be dismissed when a new political party took power or a principal wanted to make room to hire his friends. Women were dismissed for getting married, becoming pregnant, wearing pants, or being out too late in the evenings. Tenure prohibits school districts from firing experienced teachers to hire less experienced and less expensive teachers.
Cons: Teacher tenure creates complacency because teachers know they are unlikely to lose their jobs. Tenure removes incentives for teachers to put in more than the minimum effort and to focus on improving their teaching. Tenure makes it difficult to remove under-performing teachers because the process involves months of legal wrangling by the principal, the school board, the union, and the courts.
While there are problems with firing teachers due to their age, personal reasons, or political affiliation, I belive that teacher tenure holds more cons than pros. With tenure, some teachers may feel that they don't need to try as hard in the work place due to the security that they receive from it.
Pros: The crime rate fell every year that Clinton was president and was at a 26-year low by the end of his two terms. he US went from having the largest budget deficit in American history ($290 billion) in 1992 when Clinton was elected to having a budget surplus of $127 billion when he left office in 2001. 22.5 million new jobs were created and unemployment dropped from 7.5% when Clinton took office to 4.0% by the end of his second term, the lowest in 30 years. The poverty rate dropped to 11.8% in 1999, which was the lowest it had been since 1979. Clinton's instructions to NASA in 1993 led to productivity gains and reduced overhead for the International Space Station program, as well as a better research relationship with Russia.
Cons: The number of federal prisoners doubled under Clinton, and 58 percent of them were serving time for drug-related offenses. Clinton gets too much credit for the good economy of the 1990s, which was already growing when he took office. Clinton cut NASA's budget by $715 million in 1995 (about 5%) and did not restore the bulk of the money until three months before he left office. The result was a space program struggling to operate with less money for most of Clinton's time in office.
While there were issues with sex scandals and other drama present in Bill Clinton's presidency, it doesn't deviate from the success he had while as President of the US. Most of the controversy surrounding Clinton was due to his actions but in terms of being a good President, he excelled in the spectrum of politics.
Pros: Felons that have served their time and paid their debt to society by completing their sentences should have all of their rights to voting restored. Preventing ex-felons from voting are unfair, undemocratic, and politically or racially motivated.
Cons: Even after serving time, their pass offenses warrant restrictions. Similar to limitations on age, residency, and sanity, it is necessary to exclude them from this crucial right. Convicted felons show poor judgment and should not be trusted with a vote.
I agree that felons should not be able to vote. Breaking the law is a serious offense and brushing this off lightly is unfair to law-abiding citizens.
Pros: College graduates make more money, more and more jobs require college degrees, College graduates are more likely to have health insurance and retirement plans.
Cons: Student loan debt is crippling for college graduates, Many college graduates are employed in jobs that do not require college degrees, Learning a trade profession is a better option than college for many young adults, College degrees do not guarantee learning or job preparation.
I agree mostly with the cons of college education. Today, more and more job opportunities do not require a college degree. People are better off attending a technical school to learn a skill rather than drowning in debt or student loans of a 4 year college. Every year, tuition has risen quicker than income, making college unaffordable for many. Also, college is not for everyone. Some people may treat it like high school and barely get by, or even drop out.
Issue: Should Student Loan Debt Be Easier to Discharge in Bankruptcy?
Pros: Overall, letting an 18 year old to take massive amount of loans at such a young age, is unfair, because they don't understand the consequences of taking out loans or who were misled, Also student loan discharge can fix a system that disproportionately hurts minority students, where black students typically come out with more debt then white students, placing minorities even further back. Lastly, student loan discharge would encourage entrepreneurship and boost the US economy, allowing them to buy more. Cons: As much as this program can help, it can be easily taken advantage of, allowing people to borrow money carelessly without having intentions of paying it back. Allowing easier bankruptcy discharge could destroy student loan programs and with that people pay less money to support funding for colleges, so it could actually make college tuition even more expensive.
I agree with that student loan debt should be easier to discharge in bankruptcy, because many kids cannot even afford to try and get a better education because of the fear or loaning out money, but being able to claim bankruptcy can allow more kids to go to college and be better off as adults.
Issue: Should Adults Have the Right to Carry a Concealed Handgun?
Pros: Responsible citizens should have the right to arm themselves against criminals with guns. The right to carry concealed handguns is guaranteed by the Second Amendment of the US Constitution. Most adults who carry concealed handguns are law-abiding and do not misuse their firearms.
Cons: Public safety should be left to professionally qualified police officers, not private citizens with little or no expert training. Concealed weapons laws make the non-carrying public feel less safe. Concealed carry application requirements and background checks do not prevent dangerous people from acquiring weapons.
I agree with the pros side of this issue. I believe that we, as citizens, should have the right to protect both ourselves and others in a nation that cannot promise complete safety at all times. Although I do agree stricter gun laws should be enforced, the stripping of the 2nd amendment is an unnecessary violation of rights, with many steps to be taken between resorting to such a radical movement.
Pros: Golf fits the meaning of a sport according to the dictionary. The sport also helps to burn off more calories than a gymnast. Also, another big pro is that colleges and athletic departments consider golf as a sport. Sports agents, sponsors, and sporting goods manufacturers also consider golf to be a sport.
Cons:The fact that golf can be difficult and requires practice and skill to achieve proficiency does not mean it qualifies as a sport.Athleticism does not correlate with performance when it comes to golf. The decision to include golf in the 2016 Summer Olympics is questionable.
I agree with those saying that golf is a sport. I believe that it is a sport because it is something that requires competition and skill. There is also a winner in golf and there is a necessity for athleticism for those who play golf. I do think also that the cons of golf are outweighed by the pros and that it should be practiced more because it is a game that challenges mental toughness and increases many intangibles.
Pros: The advocates for fighting in hockey games (even in NHL) argue that it holds players accountable for themselves and their teammates, actually resulting in a safer game overall. In addition, hockey fighting is believed to reel in more fans with more entertainment value, as well as it being a hockey tradition and unwritten rule of the sport.
Cons: Those against fighting in hockey games claim that it is very dangerous, and can lead to concussions, brain damage, other health issues, and possibly death. Not to mention, if it were to be allowed, it would set bad examples and role models for kids along with glorifying violence.
Ultimately, I would have to agree with the cons side of the issue. Although I can see the positive aspects, it is still very dangerous and could easily be allowed in arenas/situations outside of the NHL and off the ice. In my opinion, the small benefits of potentially allowing fighting in hockey isn’t worth one’s life.
PROS: The United States should maintain the Cuba embargo because Cuba has not met the conditions required to lift it. Ending the embargo before the Cuban government meets the conditions specified by US law would make the United States look weak. The Cuban government has consistently responded to US attempts to soften the embargo with acts of aggression, raising concerns about what would happen if the sanctions were fully lifted. The embargo enables the United States to apply pressure on the Cuban government to improve human rights.
CONS: The United States should end the Cuba embargo because its 50-year policy has failed to achieve its goals. The embargo is a relic of Cold War Era thinking and is unnecessary because Cuba does not pose a threat to the United States. The embargo harms the people of Cuba, not the government as intended. The embargo harms the US economy.
In my opinion, the Cuba Embargo should be lifted because it causes more harm to the US economy and the Cuban citizens. It also prevents opportunities to promote change and democracy in Cuba. They say the embargo hurts international opinion of the United States.
Pros: Obesity meets the definition of a disease by causing impairment, and having characteristic signs and symptoms, and increases harm and morbidity. Obesity can impair normal mobility and range of motion in knees and hips, and obese patients make up 33% of all joint replacement operations. Obesity in adults can lead to three years' loss of life and extreme obesity can even shorten a person's life span of 10 years. Medical Association recognized obesity as "a disease requiring a range of medical interventions to advance obesity treatment and prevention."
Cons: Obesity is a preventable risk factor for other diseases and conditions, and is not a disease itself. Obesity is a preventable risk factor for coronary heart disease, stroke, high blood pressure, type 2 diabetes, cancers, and much more. Obesity is the result of eating too much. The suggested daily caloric intake for 31-50-year-olds is 1,800 calories for women and 2,200 calories for men. In 2009-2010, 30-39-year-old women consumed an average 1,831 calories, which is 1.7% over the recommendation, while men of the same age consumed an average 2,736 calories per day, which is 22% over the recommendation. Obesity is the result of sedentary lifestyles. Compared to 40 years ago, people today spend more time commuting, sitting in front of a computer, watching television, playing video games, and generally exercising less.
Although they believe that obesity is and can be a genetic disease, I have to side with the cons on this one. Comparing to earlier years or our world, obesity is a choice and a lifestyle there are many ways to help prevent this situation. Obesity only leads to more problems and diseases of the human body.
Topic: The Right to Death Pros: In allowing mentally competent and terminally ill patients to designate whether or not they would like to continue treatment protects their civil liberties as a citizen of the US.
Cons: By refusing those the right the government does not see assisted killing, euthanasia, and by extension suicide, as a civil liberty granted to any one citizen.
In my opinion, euthanasia should be allowed to mentally competent and terminally ill patients. By forcing patients to continue treatment which may not cure them, prolonging their unwanted condition we put them through a form of cruel and unusual punishment, something already deemed unconstitutional by law. Euthanasia should be allowed, not as a way of suicide, but as a way to protect patients' right to refuse unwanted and non-helpful treatment.
According to the 2014 US Census Bureau, 33 million Americans in the United States, roughly 10.4% of the population, did not have health insurance. The leaves the U.S, along with Greece and Poland, to be the only countries that are members of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development that does not have universal healthcare.People in favor of universal healthcare argue that by providing healthcare for all, we could put an end to medical bankruptcies, improve public spending and help small businesses. However, others argue that universal healthcare is influenced by socialistic views and should be an individual's personal responsibility. Some of the pros of universal healthcare are that it would lower the cost overall of healthcare in the United States, encourage economic productivity, benefit private businesses, and improve overall public health. Some cons of universal healthcare are that it could lower the quality and availability of disease screening treatment, lower doctors' earnings, and raise taxes. I personally think that easy access to healthcare should be the right of every citizen. The United States is one of the world's only developed nations that does not guarantee universal health coverage for its citizens. By not providing universal healthcare, I think that the government is doing a disservice to its citizens and is violating an internationally recognized human right.
issue: Is the D.A.R.E. Program Good for America's Kids (K-12)? Pros: The main basis of the pros for the Drug Abuse Restriction Education (D.A.R.E.) program revolve around peer-based student evaluations of the program and its impacts on late-elementary and middle school students. Many of these studies fed into the idea the the program educates kids on the harmful potential of drugs and alcohol, therefore reducing substance abuse in children, as well as aiding in bettering relations between students and police official.s Cons: The cons argument against the D.A.R.E. program includes the idea that the program is not truly effective in its purpose of lessening adolescent drug and alcohol use. With claims that the program somewhat normalizes substance use in youths and that the program lulls parents into a false sense of security regarding their children's potential drug use, the arguments state that teens are likely to disregard the information presented in the D.A.R.E. program as they get older. I agree with the cons side of this argument because rather than truly educating students, the program seems to be a short-term solution, as since it mainly takes place in elementary schools. students forget/grow to ignore the risks and potential disadvantages of drug use by the time they are in high school and beyond, thus making the program ineffective in the long run, and, potentially, not worth the financial resources it entails to carry out.
Pros: School uniforms can provide student safety and decrease crime. Uniforms makes it difficult for students to carry any sort of weapons with them to school. Several studies has shown that uniform decreased any kind of sexual attacks. Also, Uniforms help students be focused more on their education than their clothes. Uniforms improve attendance and discipline.It helps save money too. School uniform prevents gang signs, colors etc.
Cons: Negative aspects of uniform consist of restricting students freedom of expression, it puts an extra expense on the parents. One argument is that it may delay the transition of adulthood. Denying students their right to make choices can lead to difficulty in the future. According to the psychologist Erickson, Adolescents confider clothing as a form of identification. Another argument is that school uniforms are very expensive and some parents would not be able to afford it.
I believe that school uniforms should not be in place for many reasons. One reason is that puts a lot of pressure on parents, especially those who are poor. A pair of uniforms cost about $50. Some parents make $50 a day. Uniforms do not stop bullying attacks, it could sometimes increase fights at school. According to Miami county public schools, fights in many middle schools have doubled within one year. Therefore, Uniforms does not help decrease fights or save parents money.
Issue: "Should College Football Replace the Bowl Championship Series (BCS) with a Playoff System?"
Pros:A post-season playoff leading up to the National Championship would replace the subjectivity of human and computer polls with the objective measure of winning or losing a game. Additionally, a playoff system would give each school an opportunity to earn a fair share of the revenue distributed to the 11 conferences in the FBS.
Cons: A playoff system would extend the 13 week regular season by at least a month, which would interfere with athletes' college studies and which could potentially lead to more injuries from playing. Also, the BCS system makes every regular season game crucial for the teams in contention to finish in the top two.
I believe that should be a college football playoff as opposed to the archaic BCS bowl. I believe this because out of the top teams, many are very competitive to win the national title. I do believe that the current system with only four teams should be expanded to eight.
Pros: It has been proven that prescription drug ads had a positive impact on patient compliance. 88% of the physicians who had patients ask about drugs seen in ads reported that the patients had the conditions the drugs treat and were thus able to get treatment because they have been made aware that such a drug like so exists. Drug companies that develop new drugs have a period of market exclusivity before generic drugs can be made by any company.
Cons: 78% of doctors surveyed in 2013 agreed that DTC prescription drug ads increased the cost of healthcare. All other countries ban all forms of DTC prescription drug ads. 81% of doctors surveyed in 2013 say that DTC prescription drug advertising promotes drug overutilization.
The United States and New Zealand are the only two countries where direct-to-consumer advertising of prescription drugs is legal, which indicated that it is not a good form of communicating medication and informing the public on it.
Pros: Helped to combat segregation, cruel or unusual punishment, gay rights, and many other civil liberties. This organization i seen by many to be a public watchdog protecting the civil liberties of U.S. citizens. The ACLU was one of the very first interest groups of its kind aiming to support the constitution and enforce its rules as without someone to enforce said rules, the constitution is powerless. It's said to defend everyone and not one specific group.
Con: Some other s see it as a left-wing group looking to subvert the constitution and is said to only protect certain religions while others should be oppressed. There are also views stating that it's a group looking to enforce it's views upon America by way of laws. Former President Bush Sr. stated that he himself felt that many issues that the ACLU stood for he did not support and gave reasoning such as the ratings on movies are to protect the children.
I believe that if the ACLU is as it says that it is, and is a group for all people and protect all rights for any race, religion or background, then it is a very beneficial group for America and i would support it fully. However, knowing America nad the politics behind the curtains, the group could also state that it is a group for the people by the people to gain support while still acting in its own interests and benefiting a certain group over another and this would be wrong. I will give this group the benefit of the doubt and say that i believe the group is good and i would support it as long as it upholds its honest intentions.
Issue: Can alternative energy replace fossil fuels
Pros: It creates renewable sources of energy as fossil fuels will eventually run out. Alternative energy systems have lower maintinence costs than that of fossil fuels. Most alternative energy sourcce are more eco friendly than fossil fuels and, thus, safer for the environment.
Cons: The current reliance on fossil fuels is too great to over come. Alternative sources have a higher build cost that cannot be met. Alterntive sources cannot compete economically with fossil fuels. Fossil fuels are becoming more environmentally friendly.
I believe the switch to alternative energy sources is possible. It will, however, be a difficult trasition and likely will have to happen very gradually over a long period of time. Fossil fuel will eventually run out and leave a large hole in our economy. A switch to alternative fuels could prevent the large raises in price once our fossil fuel supplies depleat
Pro:Phones do not increase risk of brain injury. Radiation from phones isnt dangerous enough to cause cancer. Radiation levels are tested. Studies show that phones can decrease risk of brain tumors
Cons:Studies show a link between phones and tumors. Radiation in phones has been identified as a possible carcinogen. Long term technology radiation cant be predicted.
I believe that phones' radiation can be dangerous and should be moderated closely. Radiation can lead to very serious problems and we shouldnt take it for granted, even if its just a tiny amount in our phones because we use them every day.
Title: Should the Words "under God" be in the US Pledge of Allegiance?
Pro: The pledge statement "under God" is just acknowledgement of our religious basis on which the nation was founded, and is thus only pertaining to the history of the US, and is considered to be constitutional.
Con:The US is shown to be a Christian country though the US is projected to be a multi-religious nation with no religion that dominates over the others and forces others to assimilate to it's practices.
I personally agree with the con side on the argument that "under God" is seemingly pertaining to the US being a Christian nation. I think that though it could have been interpreted as a historical piece, that saying so would have no significant meaning, thus rendering the phrase useless and unnecessary. Mohammad Ejaz 4th period
Pros: Proponents of social media say that it promotes increased interaction with others, and gives easy access to educational support and materials
Cons: Opponents of social media say that it prevents face-to-face communication, leads to lower grades, stress, and that it spreads unreliable and false information.
I personally agree with the pros side that social media is good for our society. Social media allows anyone to get quick and easy access to information anywhere around the world, it helps people find work easier, and it allows people to reach a wider audience. Despite the cons, I think in general social media is good for our society.
Pros: The advantage for fighting in the National Hockey League argues that it holds players accountable for themselves and their teammates, actually resulting in a safer game overall. In addition, hockey fighting is believed to reel in more fans with more entertainment value, as well as it being a hockey tradition and unwritten rule of the sport.
Cons: Those against fighting in hockey games claim that it is very dangerous, and can lead to concussions, brain damage, other health issues, and possibly death. Not to mention, if it were to be allowed, it would set bad examples and role models for kids along with glorifying violence. Death rate would also go up in America.
I agree with the cons side of the issue. Although I can see the positive aspects, it is still very dangerous and could easily cause outrageous tension and conflicts in the area. In my opinion, the benefits of potentially allowing fighting in hockey isn’t worth taking else somebody’s life.
Stephen Kelly Period 4 Should felons be able to vote? Pro Antiquated laws that prevent ex-felons from voting keep an estimated 5.85 million Americans from fully participating in our democracy. There's no justification for that lingering punishment, especially at a time when voter turnout is woefully low. Maine and Vermont even allow felons to vote while in prison, and have suffered no ill effects.
Con Ex-felons are prevented from doing many things once they leave prison, and for good reason. They have not demonstrated the trust needed to hold public office or work in certain fields like teaching or law enforcement. Voting is one of many rights they should lose after committing a serious crime like a felony.
Is a Two-State Solution (Israel and Palestine) an Acceptable Solution to the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict?
The argument for this being a solution is that it is more equal for both and both benefit without either gaining everything. However, the issue has always been that the Palestinians believe they should have all of the territory instead of just a small portion. The Palestinians possessed the territory until the U.S. and Europe gave the territory to Jews, who had been massacred in the Holocaust and believed Jerusalem to be their land, and made numerous offers to the Palestinians for territory. Neither states want to share the territory. Israel has the most power and support, and that is why the Palestine state is a shadow of its former self. In addition, the solution is fueled by foreign interests in the region that either want democracy and/or an ally. There is far too much hate between the two states and groups of people for their to be peace.
Should Felons Who Have Completed Their Sentence (Incarceration, Probation, and Parole) Be Allowed to Vote?
Pro - Texas' representatives in Congress should support a federal effort that encourages all states to do what Texas already has done: allowing ex-felons to vote after completing any probation or parole. Antiquated laws that prevent ex-felons from voting keep an estimated 5.85 million Americans from fully participating in our democracy. There's no justification for that lingering punishment, especially at a time when voter turnout is woefully low. Maine and Vermont even allow felons to vote while in prison, and have suffered no ill effects. Criminals certainly should be punished for their offenses. But once they have served their time, they deserve a fair chance to rebuild their lives and become productive members of society. In fact, it's hard to think of a valid reason why they should not be allowed to vote again. Restoring their right to vote promptly would be a powerful signal that our government wants them to be part of America's solutions, not its problems.
Con - It's called punishment, and it's perfectly valid. Ex-felons are prevented from doing many things once they leave prison, and for good reason. They have not demonstrated the trust needed to hold public office or work in certain fields like teaching or law enforcement. Voting is one of many rights they should lose after committing a serious crime like a felony. Even so, most states already provide pathways for ex-felons to vote again once they complete certain requirements. That's fair, and there's no reason for Uncle Sam to meddle in state issues. As with many controversies like this, the debate is driven by activists searching for a cause, not the actual "victims." It's also naive to believe that ex-felons are yearning to vote when most of their law-abiding neighbors routinely ignore elections. Want to retain your right to vote? It's easy. Don't commit a felony. In fact, that will pay many other dividends to you throughout your life.
I Want to tell the world about a great man called Dr.Agbazara of AGBAZARA TEMPLE for bringing joy into my marriage after 2years of divorce from my husband and my 4kids, i have don everything to bring them back to my life because i love them so much so a friend introduced me to a spell caster last month who did every thing spiritually and bring them back within 48hours, now we are together and happy even more than we where before. You can contact this great spell caster to solve your own relationship problems via email like i did on: ( agbazara@gmail.com )
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIssue: “Should Gay Marriage Be Legal?”
ReplyDeleteSome of the pros for gay marriage are denying some people the option to get marry is discriminatory, legalizing gay marriage will not harm the institution of marriage, gay marriage is protected by the U.S. Constitution’s commitments to liberty and equality, and legal marriage is a secular institution that shouldn't be restricted by religious objections. Some of the cons include that the definition of “traditional marriage” is between a man and a woman, gay marriage is contrary to the word of God, marriage is a privilege (not a right), and homosexuality is unnatural and immoral. The side I agree on is the “pro” side because I believe that legalizing gay marriage is not harming those who believe that gay marriage is wrong, in fact the marriage of a gay couple shouldn’t bother anyone else since it is a personal matter between the couple. Also the people who think that gay marriage is wrong are often conservative and have a traditional way of thinking, it is already 2018 so people should have the freedom to marry whoever they want regardless of sex and gender. Overall, I strongly support gay marriage because the legalization of gay marriage is only beneficial and does no harm whatsoever.
-Anne Dang, 4th period
Issue: Should Abortion Be Legal?
ReplyDeleteIn summary, the key pro-argument to this issue is that the US Supreme Court has declared abortion to be a "fundamental right" guaranteed by the US Constitution with Roe v Wade, reproductive choice empowers women by giving them control over their own bodies, and abortion gives pregnant women the option to choose not to bring fetuses with profound abnormalities to full term. From the other perspective, the key argument for anti-abortion is that abortion is the killing of a human being, which defies the word of God, women should not be able to use abortion as a form of contraception, and abortions cause psychological damage. In my opinion, it makes most sense to be pro-choice and for abortion to be legal. Although many pro-life supporters believe abortion is murder, we should look at the perspective of the mother. It is most likely that the reason why they are aborting is because they made a mistake and they do not want to take care of the child. If we force a mother who lacks the passion to take care of an unwanted child, what kind of life would that be for the baby who will not have a supportive mother, and for the mom who is miserable because she does not want anything to do with the child? It does not make sense for both sides to suffer just because it is "murder." In addition, the cons argue that it defies the word of God. In America, we live in a society where there is freedom of religion protected by the first amendment. Many fail to realize that freedom of religion also includes those who do not believe in any religion at all. Therefore, one cannot use God to justify another's decision because their religion cannot apply to every person, especially if that individual is not even religious. I support pro-choice because in the end, it is up to the couple to make the decision and commitment and no one else including the government.
Jun Hin Loi
Period 4
Natalie Dye, Period 5
ReplyDeleteIssue: Euthanasia/ Physican assisted suicide
The people who think it should be legal defend that people have constitutional safeguards in place that allow them to refuse life saving technology, and this is no different. People see it as compassionate towards the patients in severe cases. Others that don’t believe euthanasia should be legal think that doctors have a responsibility to keep their patients alive according to their Hippocratic Oath. They also believe this could lead to a downturn into murder by insurance companies and target the disabled. I believe that there are ways to protect people from insurance companies, so eithanasia should be allowed with certain restrictions to protect people from corporate greed and potential malicious behavior.
Alwyn joseph 5th period
ReplyDeleteShould the death penalty be allowed
The pros to the death penalty is that in a way, it bings justice to the families of the victim, and that it makes sure the criminal would never escape prison and coming the heinous crimes again. Also, it saves tons of tax payer's money, since the prison doesn't have to care for the criminal for the rest of their. Lives. Some cons are that the death penalty gives the government the ability to take life, and that it in a way targets people of color, which is racist. It is also seen as classist since it targets people that can't afford good lawyers. Personally I think the death penalty should be allowed. If my family member was myrdered, I'd want justice for them. Also I don't think don't think tax payers money should be wasted on a murderer.
Issue: Is Refusing to Stand for the National Anthem an Appropriate Form of Protest?
ReplyDeleteThose who refuse to stand for the national anthem believe that it is appropriate when the US is not living up to its ideals of freedom, liberty, and justice for all. They also praise national figures, such as an NFL player, because it shocks people into paying attention and generates conversation. Moreover, they believe that not standing for the national anthem is a legal form of peaceful protest, which is a First Amendment right. On the other hand, others believe that it shows disrespect for the flag and members of the armed forces. They also see it as an ineffective and counterproductive way to promote a cause that will overall divide our country. I believe that it is a disrespectful act towards our country. The national anthem is a form of respect to the people who risked their lives defending the United States. Therefore, I believe that those who refuse to stand dishonor this country and the men and women who are overseas fighting for our freedom.
Alexis Chan
5th Period
Issue: Should students Have to Wear School Uniforms?
ReplyDeleteThe pros side included that students will be safer when attending school, as teachers and officials can easily distinguish the students from outsiders. Other pros consisted that school uniforms enhance school pride, as well as community spirit. Lastly, another pro was that students should not be focused on the way they look and should instead be focusing on their own education. On the other hand, the cons suggested merely the opposite of the pros, saying that students can't express their individuality with solid colored/ school clothes. Students are also not able to freely express themselves. Lastly, another con stated that students' performance in school, such as attendance, academic preparedness, or exam results are not improved with a dress code. In conclusion, as a student, I believe that student dress code does not actually help students with anything, other than helping teachers distinguish student's from outsiders, such as school shooters.
Rithvik Bommareddy, 4th Period
Issue: Is Drinking Milk Healthy for Humans?
ReplyDeleteThe Pros of drinking milk is that milk contains many nutrients, calcium and other bone friendly nutrients found in milk and airy are important in developing bone, drinking milk also reduced risk of childhood obesity, and they are building blocks of proteins. The cons of drinking milk are that cow’s milk is not designed for human consumption, most of these cows are injected with cocktail of hormones, that drinking too much milk will increase the chance of getting prostate cancer, acne, and bone loss. More cons of drinking milk is that this increases the cholesterol and saturated fat of a person’s diet and increases diabetes. Personally, I think that drinking milk is healthy for human being. People have been drinking milk since the beginning of time and there were never any problems. There is no problem back in the days from people that drunk milk so there shouldn’t be a problem now with people asking if milk is healthy.
Abin Manuel
5th Period
Issue: Banned books; Should Parents or Other Adults be Able to Ban Books From Schools and Libraries?
ReplyDeleteSome of the pros for banning books is that parents should be able to control what their children are able to read and make sure it is age appropriate, children should not be exposed to topics that are inappropriate, such as sex and violence, at an early age, and keeping these books with inappropriate content out of libraries actually protects kids and should not limit others from reading them. Some arguments for against banning books is how parents can control what their kids read, but should not restrict others, the exposure to inappropriate topics can help people understand the world and recognize reality, and books are an outlet and allow empathy and social-emotional development. I am against banning books as people should not be controlled on what they read. They should not just take books away due to their inappropriateness. I believe that they can be all organized so that children can read children books in a children's section, while adults can read things in the adult section. Everyone should be able to be exposed to information that they do not know of and have a chance to learn.
Cassie De Leon
4th period
Issue: Gun Control
ReplyDeleteThe pros of gun control include ,the Second Amendment is not an unlimited right to own guns, more gun control laws would reduce gun deaths, high-capacity magazines should be banned because they too often turn murder into mass murder and many other views. Some cons of gun control include the Second Amendment of the US Constitution protects individual gun ownership, gun control laws do not deter crime; gun ownership deters crime, gun control laws infringe upon the right to self-defense and deny people a sense of safety and many other cons. In conclusion gun control is a highly controversial topic in today's society as it regards the safety of people whether they are the one shooting or getting shot.
Raoof Ali
Period 5
Issue: Is Legal Prostitution a Legitimate Business?
ReplyDeleteThe pros of prostitution as a legitimate business include the fact that it creates an income that can support five to eight people and contributes to the economy, by admitting that sex work is work they open themselves up to opportunities for sexual health services and true professional managers rather than thugs. The cons include it is sexual abuse and violent, induces emotional trauma, associated with crime, and take advantage of the fact that the workers in prostitution come from the oppressed groups of society such as women and children. I agree that prostitution should not become a legitimate business as it will always be associated with a sexist viewpoint and will induce the bad characteristics of societies. I believe the government should help women and other people involved in prostitution to find other ways to make an income.
Ambareen Virani
Period 4
Issue: Illegal immigration
ReplyDeleteShould the Government Allow Immigrants Who Are Here Illegally to Become US Citizens?
The pros of illegal immigration includes: would be authorized to work, wouldn't be subjected to deportation, and would be able to travel in and out of the US whenever they want (most illegal immigrants don't have the ability to do that now)
Cons: They would get the benefits from the government that they're not supposed to (unemployment insurance, etc.) and they would also get special immigration privileges like bring other family members from their country. If they commit a crime, they will not be deported.
I definitely believe that illegal immigrants who have stayed here for a long period of time should become citizens because they obviously can't return to their actually country because of the injustices they face there. I do think they shouldn't be allowed to bring in others from their country because they shouldn't be allowed special privileges (in my personal opinion) because it will only make people angrier and result to violence. I know for a fact that it would improve the unemployment rate and may have even more benefits for America as a whole.
Sarah Sultan
Period 4
Issue: Should the Drinking Age Be Lowered from 21 to a Younger Age?
ReplyDeletePros: 18 is the age of adulthood in the United States, and adults should have the right to make their own decisions about alcohol consumption. Allowing 18- to 20-year-olds to drink alcohol in regulated environments with supervision would decrease unsafe drinking activity. There are fewer drunk driving traffic accidents and fatalities in many countries with MLDA of 18. There are fewer drunk driving traffic accidents and fatalities in many countries with MLDA of 18.
Cons: Lowering MLDA 21 would be medically irresponsible. The right to drink should have a higher age of initiation because of the dangers posed by drinking. MLDA 21 exerts valuable social pressure on potential underage drinkers and those who may serve them. Lowering the drinking age will invite more use of illicit drugs among 18-21 year olds.
I believe the drinking age should be lowered from 21 to 18. While the MLDA is 21 in all 50 states, in 47 of 50 states age 18 is the "age of majority," which entails having the rights and responsibilities of adulthood. Many other countries already have the age set at 18. Not only that, many teens already drink so there is no point to have that limitation. If they choose not to because of medical reasons then they simply don't have to drink.
Cameron Walker
Period 4
Issue: "Sanctuary Cities"
ReplyDeleteWhile there is no official legal definition of "sanctuary city," the term refers to towns, cities, or counties that protect undocumented immigrants by refusing to cooperate completely with federal detention requests, often with a "don't ask, don't tell" policy.
Pros: Sanctuary cities are safer because they encourage good relationships between undocumented immigrants and law enforcement. Sanctuary policies are legal and protected by the Tenth Amendment. Sanctuary cities are needed to protect undocumented immigrants against federal immigration laws.
Cons: Sanctuary cities harbor criminals, creating a dangerous environment for US citizens. Sanctuary policies defy federal laws to which state and local governments are bound. Sanctuary policies prevent local and state police officers from doing their jobs.
I believe that these sanctuary cities should be protected and should continue to protect citizens and undocumented immigrants. The Sanctuary cities should be preserved because federal immigration deportation policies are unjust because they target undocumented immigrants indiscriminately, deport people who have lived in the United States since childhood, deport people who have committed no crimes, separate families, and cause people to live in constant fear of deportation and its devastating consequences.
Zoheb Khawaja 5th
Issue: Animal Testing
ReplyDeletePros: Many of the pros of animal testing that are listed are only pros from human's perspectives. These include the ideas that animal testing has created many life saving medicines, animals allow humans to look at closely related structures and understand how they work, and, lastly, animals can also largely benefit from such testing and research, as seen in the past with a cure for diseases like rabies and feline leukemia.
Cons: Using animals against their will and making them participate in activities forcefully, such as feeding, physical restraint, or lack or food/water, is cruel and inhumane. Secondly, new technology has allowed animal testing to be replaced by in vitro methods. Lastly, another con that can cause concern is that animal testing does not guarantee success when used on humans.
Personally I agree with the cons side of things in that essentially animal testing is not a definitive answer. As said earlier, in vitro (petri dish) can allow for much more accurate results because they can use cells from a human rather than a relatively closely related animal. This would allow for more accurate results as well as safe lives, both human and otherwise, especially since after being tested for something, and animal cannot be used again and is therefore euthanized.
Julianna Hastreiter
Period 5
Issue: Are DACA and the Dream Act good for America?
ReplyDeleteA Pro to The Dream Act includes the fact that having DACA recipients in the U.S. is good for the economy. According to the Center for American Progress, Dreamers are expected to contribute around $460 billion to the American economy over the next decade. If DACA is to be eliminated, both California and Texas, the two most populous DACA states, would lose billions of dollars. Another Pro to the DACA argument is that deporting people is inhumane and cruel. While the median age of DACA recipients enter the U.S. at six years old, the most common age is three years old. By sending Dreamers back to their birth countries, we are sending them back to a foreign location that they may lack any memory or knowledge of. The document argues that sending people back to a country where they may not even speak the language is cruel and unnecessary. However, there are cons to the argument. While DACA can be good, it only encourages more illegal immigration to occur. An estimated 50,000 people annually cross the border from Mexico into Texas illegally. By promoting DACA, the U.S. is only encouraging more illegal immigration to occur. The second con is that amnesty should not be given to law breakers. The Center of Immigration Studies found that Dreamers can be lawbreakers, but are protected by U.S. amnesty. Only when convicted of a crime is a DACA recipients status rejected. Therefore, Dreamers can be led to commit crimes but will no be thrown out unless convicted. Overall, I agree more with the pro side. I think that DACA and the Dream Act are good measures to help children in struggling countries achieve a safe haven. Not only that, I completely agree that it is inhumane to force people who lack knowledge of their home country back to their birth nation.
Rendon Reinarz
Period 5
Issue: "Should Tablets Replace Textbooks in K-12 Schools?"
ReplyDeleteThe article calls into question whether the traditional education via textbook should be adapted and reformed in order to utilize modern technology (which makes the system more economical and functional).
Pros: Learning material tends to be more summarized and is more easily accessible to students online which decreases the time it takes a student to reach a learning objective. Furthermore, digital resources make using and switching between several items much easier and faster than physical copies of materials. E-Books tend to be cheaper than print because of the decreased production expenditures of the textbook companies. Overall, tablets are more adept to the modern world and are an economical choice in comparison to print textbooks
Cons: The initial switch and maintenance of a tech infrastructure (a fast network with a strong internet connection and large bandwidth) is very expensive and requires frequent updates which may out-cost continuing to use print textbooks.Tablets are also far more susceptible to theft because of its broad functionality and value. And most especially, technological access can pose a major distraction leading to the abuse of learning materials for entertainment-undermining the point of the system.
I do believe that schools should shift toward more usable online materials considering that print is becoming less and less relevant to adult society. However, the extent that the article implies is too extreme. Instead of literally giving away tablets as an alternative to a textbook and working materials, I believe that a system should be created which digitizes all textbooks as well as most learning materials such that nearly all work can be completed using devices that may already exist (i.e. a student's home computer or electronic devices that the school already owns). Those who feel obligated, may borrow or rent tablets or laptops from the school such that they can still complete the assignment, or non-digital alternatives to the curriculum should be made easily accessible to accommodate students who may lack the resources to procure electronic devices independently.
Matthew Whaley
Period 4
Issue: Should euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide be legal?
ReplyDeletePros: It ends the excruciating pain sickness brings about. As Faye said, 'It should be considered as much of a crime to make someone live who with justification does not wish to continue as it is to take life without consent.' It only goes with the Hippocratic oath of doing no harm, when the patient is in constant pain. It also eliminates wasted health care money on patients who will not recover or wish to not recover.
Cons: Because it is cheaper to do euthanasia, people might start misusing it and start killing since it is the cheaper option.It could lead to certain groups being targeted and killed. We cannot take the life we are given from a religious point of view. It will serve as a method for people to commit suicide if they lie about their ailments.
I would agree that euthanasia should be legal under certain circumstances. If the family members, patient, and doctor are in agreement, then I don't see the problem. Certain illness inevitably give a slow and painful death and euthanasia simply puts them out of their misery.
Epstein Jacob
Period 4
Issue:Should the United States keep Daylight Saving Time?
ReplyDeletePros:Longer daylight hours make driving safer which lowers rates of pedestrians being hit by cars. Daylight Savings is also good for the economy because people are shopping after work because the sun is still out. Last pro is that Daylight Saving promotes active lifestyles because people usually like to work out after work and probably won’t if it’s dark out.
Cons: The first con about Daylight Saving time is losing an hour of sleep is bad for a person’s natural circadian rhythms. Daylight Savings also drops productivity, the Monday after the spring time change as known as “sleepy Monday” is one the most sleep deprived days of the year. Last con is Daylight Saving is expensive Americans lose $1.7 billion in lost opportunity cost.
In my opinion Daylight Saving Time is unnecessary and annoying because we are losing an hour of sleep and it gets dark at around 5 o’clock.Which gives you no time to workout at a local park or hang out with friends. I feel Daylight Saving Time is pointless and the United States should absolutely get rid of it.
Erin Randle
Period 5
Issue: Should Any Vaccines Be Required for Children?
ReplyDeletePros: Vaccines can save children's lives, the American Academy of Pediatrics states that "most childhood vaccines are 90%-99% effective in preventing disease." Major medical organizations state that vaccines are safe and adverse reactions to vaccines are extremely rare. Vaccines protect future generations and additionally have eradicated smallpox and have nearly eradicated other diseases such as polio. Vaccine-preventable diseases have not disappeared so vaccination is still necessary.
Cons: Vaccines can cause serious and sometimes fatal side effects due to the threat of an allergic reaction. The government should not intervene in personal medical choices and mandatory vaccines infringe upon constitutionally protected religious freedoms. Diseases that vaccines target have essentially disappeared and most diseases that vaccines target are relatively harmless in many cases, thus making vaccines unnecessary.
I agree with the pro side of the argument that vaccines should be required for children. Children whose parents resist getting vaccines for their children say that they contracted virtually extinct diseases. Additionally, illnesses, including rubella, diphtheria, smallpox, polio, and whooping cough, are now prevented by vaccination and millions of children’s lives are saved.
Janice Wilson
Per.5
Issue: Are the Olympic Games an Overall Benefit for Their Host Countries and Cities?
ReplyDeletePRO: For starters, local economies are boosted massively by the influx in tourism near and at the host of the Olympics. The Olympics also increase a country's global trade and status in the world. For example, for 1960 Olympics, Italy would join the United Nations and provide greater participation to the UN group. This stimulated not only their own economy but also the other UN members as well. Lastly, the Olympics in general are a way for nations and the host city to boost their patriotism for their own country, and it creates positive vibes when the world can even be in rough times.
CONS: The Olympics patriotism can also lead to violent or harsh actions by viewers to other nations. Nationalism, like in WWII, was a negative influence on the nations dislike for each other. Also the olympics burdens the people who live in the host city because there is a significant increase in the need for housing, food, etc. The infastructure, props, etc. within the Olympics fall to disuse and are basically useless once the games are over. it is a massive waste of money. Lastly, the Olympics just are a huge financial drain for the host countries, and even in the past few years, these countries don't even get close to making back all the money they spent on the games.
Even though both sides are valid points. I do think the Olympics are valuable and necessary to the community of nations. It allows countries to interact in a more friendly way, and it brings a sense of patriotism to the people. Yes, it is a major financial drain and burden to the host, but I do think they're ways to somewhat counteract that. Currently, the games are just a way for countries to try to show off whenever they host, and they set themselves into ruin overspending for the show/ props. My hope is that in the future, countries my be able to become more level headed, and not focus on awing the audience with bright fireworks, huge stadiums, etc. The Olympics unify the earth every few years, and it is something special to see all these different cultures come together and compete. Many people may never pay much attention to other nations, but this is a chance for interaction, good sportsmanship, and other positive attributes that make the Olympics so powerful and special.
Lauren Chamberlin
Period 5
Kevine Jaimon 5th Period
ReplyDeleteIssue: Should Recreational Marijuana Be Legal?
Some pros to legalizing marijuana for recreational use is that it boosts the economy, phases out street gangs, and overall makes the whole society in a more safer environment. The marijuana industry in the United States could exceed $24 billion in revenue by 2025. Some of the cons that were stated about legalizing marijuana for recreational use is that it creates steep costs for society and taxpayers and is also harmful and addictive. I believe the pros to this issue outweigh the cons and that legalizing marijuana for recreational use is a great leap towards a more prosperous and brighter economy.
Swati Kundra
ReplyDelete5th
Should marijuana be used medically?
Pro: helps relive chronic pain. Can provide a safer option for those using opiods and possibly reduce the opiod crisis. It is simply not fair to keep a easy solution for pain away from those who need it.
Cons: there is no scientific proof for the “miracle drug.” It may have detrimental health effects. It is not approved by the FDA.
I personally agree with the Pro side. Those who use marijuana medically preach its benefit. If those in pain say it helps them tremendously, those who don’t experience the pain can’t falsify that. It is also unfair to take away something that helps so many overcome chronic pain. Therefor, I am for the use of medical marijuana.
Issue: US Drone Strikes Overseas
ReplyDeletePros: The Pros of US Drone strikes are that they are safer for US soldiers and that they will have a lager impact when it comes to saving innocent civilians. It also isn't illegal in international law, so it can be used anywhere. Drones also can prevent PTSD as the soldiers will be controlling the drone with a remote rather than going out on the battle field and seeing a man die. Another benefit drones can have are that they are more accurate, and that majority of Americans do support drone strikes as it is safer and effective.
Cons: Some cons are that they do kill a large number of civilians and they could traumatize local population that it is striking from. Drones do strike in secret, so they do lack sufficient legal oversight and they do make the US become more emotionally disconnected from the horrors of war and how it feels when a man dies right in front of their face.
I am personally on the pro side because when it comes to war I personally feel like if drones can do it more efficiently than let them do their job if it saves more of our soldiers. This is in secret so it might be better if this will take our enemies by surprise as it will be more effective to take them down and have them taken out.
Michael Chan 4th period
Issue: Is the Use of Standardized Testing Improving Education in America?
ReplyDeletePros: It has been researched that 93% of studies on student testing, including the use of large-scale and high-stakes standardized tests, found a "positive effect" on student achievement. Standardized tests are reliable and objective measures of student achievement. Standardized tests are inclusive and non-discriminatory because they ensure content is equivalent for all students. They are not narrowing the curriculum, rather they are focusing it on important basic skills all students need to master. The multiple-choice format used on standardized tests produces accurate information necessary to assess and improve American schools.
Cons: Standardized tests are an unreliable measure of student performance. Standardized testing has not improved student achievement. They are unfair and discriminatory against non English speakers and students with special needs. Standardized tests measure only a small portion of what makes education meaningful. Standardized testing also causes severe stress in younger students.
I personally agree with the con side because I believe that standardized tests limit a student’s true knowledge and intelligence. Instructors only teach according to what the test will cover which limits the student’s knowledge regarding real life situations. It also discriminates against foreign student who may not know the language very well and could prevent them from getting into their top colleges. It also puts a lot of stress onto the students through pressure from teachers and parents to get a good score.
Raina Abraham
5th Period
Anna Mayzenberg
ReplyDelete5th period
The Issue: Should the Words "under God" Be in the US Pledge of Allegiance?
Pros:
In a world filled with tragedy, cruelty,
and the constant threat of war or death, the pledge’s “under god” could help inspire people every day. This could be seen to affirm the strength of faith in America and simultaneously faith in its beliefs constantly. It strengthens some people and inspires them not only for themselves but for their country. Religion plays a great role in this, and helps unite people in our country. Dwight Eisenhower states this in support of this rule. Kevin Seamus says that the pledge reminds us of where our power comes from- while the government cannot confirm who God is or how we believe in him, the acknowledgement that he gives us power and rights. It also helps distinguish us from atheistic nations.
Cons:
It never started out saying under god- it was not originally written this way. The first amendment states the freedom of religion, and this “under god” undermines that by requiring people to hold a belief in god. Not everyone in America has this belief, and that is entirely okay; it doesn’t make sense to require them to say that they do as a pledge to their country when the goal of the country is to unite everyone, regardless of religious background.
My side: I personally believe it is kind of ridiculous to put “under god” into the pledge of allegiance because while it is okay to pledge to our country, although that is kind of strange as well, it is not okay to exclude people of other religions because perhaps the majority believes in a God. America was not created in order to discriminate against others, and yet we do so on a daily basis by a variety of different ways, and this one is easily solvable by the exclusion of a couple of words in something everyone has to say every day. In addition, schools are technically not allowed to force or teach any sort of religion to anyone, so how could it possibly be fair to make students say a pledge with “under god” in it every morning? The rules contradict one another.
issue: Should People Become Vegetarian?
ReplyDeletepros:The vegetarian foods have been known for long to protect the body from the different diseases like the cancer, chronic fatigue, cholesterol problems and diabetes.The vegetarian foods are low in the amount of the unsaturated fats and are therefore very healthy to eat.Pity For Animals as animals that are locked in the meat farms needs no introduction.They are mercilessly cramped and locked in the cages. Some of them are also unable to move their bodies an inch.They are also rarely fed and subjected to all forms of torture and mutilation when alive.Development of Strong Bones When there is no adequate amount of the calcium in the body, then the blood extracts them from the bloodstream.This makes the bones to become porous and as a result they become very brittle.This can be supplemented by the intake of the foods that are rich in calcium like the tofu, soybeans, kale, broccoli, collards, turnip greens and other dark green vegetables.The non vegetarians foods are the reasons for the infestation in the stomach.
cons:The major concern that makes the people to abstain from becoming the vegetarians are the fear of not getting sufficient levels of protein.The vegetarian foods seem to be limited. Meat is the most efficient way of getting protein in your diet, and it is also a supply of zinc, iron, and the B vitamins. Meat is the best source for B12. Studies have also found that many vegetarians lack vitamin D. Everybody turning to vegetarianism would not solve world hunger. There is already enough food in the world to feed everyone. The problems are more to do with food distribution, economics and wars.
My side: I personally agree that being a vegetarian is a good idea because killing animals for food is unnecessary in the modern world, when there are vegetarian options easily available. There is no good reason why animals should die in order to meet an arbitrary dietary choice.People who follow vegetarian-style eating patterns are less likely to become obese than individuals who do not follow such patterns. This may be partly the result of higher consumption of lower-calorie, more filling foods, such as vegetables, fruit and beans. Being a vegetarian is beneficial because it doesnt kill other living animals and it helps one maintain their health efficiently.
Jyotis Joy
Period 5
issue: Are social networking sites good for our society?
ReplyDeletePro: Social media spreads information faster than any other media. 78.5% of traditional media reporters polled used social media to check for breaking news. [190] 59% of Twitter users and 31% of Facebook users polled followed breaking news on these sites. Social media sites are one of the top news sources for 46% of Americans, compared to 66% for television, 26% for printed newspapers, and 23% for radio. Social media users have been responsible for reporting events before traditional media outlets, including the Paris attacks in France on Nov. 13, 2015 (Twitter, Facebook, and Vine), the Ebola outbreak in Nigeria and Sierra Leone in July 2014 (Twitter), the Boston marathon bombing on Apr. 15, 2013 (Twitter), and the Aurora, CO, theater shooting on July 20, 2012 (Twitter and YouTube). President Donald Trump said that the immediacy that Twitter affords him is the reason why he tweets, noting that press conferences and press releases take too long to reach the public.
con: Social media lacks privacy and exposes users to government and corporate intrusions. 81% of people surveyed feel "not very" or "not at all" secure when using social media sites to share private information. 48% of people reported some difficulty in managing their privacy settings. 13 million users said they had not set or did not know about Facebook's privacy settings. The US government submitted 36,812 requests for data from Facebook and 7,036 requests from Twitter in 2015, approximately 80% of which were honored at least in part. The National Security Agency (NSA) can monitor social media activity and read the content of private social media messages simply by entering a person's username into their system. Contego Services Group, which specialize in worker compensation claims, has a unit dedicated to social media monitoring to detect fraud.
I personally believe social media is good for our society because it's a way to reconnect with others. social media helps students to do better at school by discussing educational topics and using sites to talk about the school assignments. its also a quick and easy way to get information and for most people today get info through social media.
Feba Abraham
Period 4
Issue: Should Performance Enhancing Drugs be Accepted in Sports
ReplyDeletePros: Sport is for enjoyment and competition, but above all it is to improve. Hence why many argue that there is in fact no difference between increasing skill and performance by training, and taking drugs? If it is the use of personal effort rather than outside help, then what of ropes, crampons and oxygen for climbing? What of dietitians tampering with foods and additives - drugs by any other name - to improve performance? How, exactly, does the spirit of sport forbid gene transfer but not carbo-loading? The [WADA] code doesn't say. It defines the spirit of sport as 'ethics,' 'fair play,' 'character' and a bunch of other words that clarify nothing.
Cons: Drugs like these alter the body in ways that eating more healthy or doing specific training could ever hope to accomplish. Thus, drug use literally makes these athletes into a whole different level of feats that other athletes could never hope to reach in essence it is like cheating on a test compared to studying. Also if we let athletes use them, then that sets the tone for all younger athletes that using steroids is allowed and welcomed since its the quickest and easiest way to the top, which is a terrible future to even imagine.
I personally believe that drug use in sports should never be allowed at all. There are some people who live their whole life training and striving to become better in a sport, but all that handwork can be simply overtaken by another random just shooting up and pushing his muscles past human limits. Such an possibility spits on both the sportsmanship and athletes everywhere.
Jono Joseph
5th
Issue: Minimum Wage
ReplyDeletePro: Raising the minimum wage would increase economic activity and spur job growth. Increasing the minimum wage would reduce poverty. A higher minimum wage would reduce government welfare spending. The minimum wage has not kept up with inflation. Improvements in productivity and economic growth have outpaced increases in the minimum wage. Increasing the minimum wage would reduce income inequality. A minimum wage increase would help to reduce race and gender inequality. Increasing the minimum wage would have a ripple effect, raising the incomes of people who make slightly above the minimum wage.
Con: Increasing the minimum wage would force businesses to lay off employees and raise unemployment levels. Raising the minimum wage would increase poverty. A minimum wage increase would hurt businesses and force companies to close. Raising the minimum wage would increase the price of consumer goods. Teenagers and young adults may be shut out of the workforce if the minimum wage is increased. Raising the minimum wage would disadvantage low-skilled workers. Increasing the minimum wage reduces the likelihood of upward mobility. If the minimum wage is increased, companies may use more robots and automated processes to replace service employees. Increasing the federal minimum wage would disproportionately harm the poorest areas of the United States.
I personally believe that while a higher minimum wage would be beneficial to many, i think that there are may more cons associated with raising minimum wage then there are pros. First of all raising minimum wage would lead to a rise in prices in everything so it would not really be beneficial to all. Plus, ideally, minimum wage is not exactly what a person is expected to live off of, it is just meant to help you and is generally ideal for one person not for the whole family to use. Raising the wage thus discourages people from getting a more skilled job, or perhaps even going to college.
Kriti Bansal
Period 5
Issue: Do Violent Video Games Contribute to Youth Violence?
ReplyDeletePro: About 60% of boys and 40% of girls play rated M games in a developmental stage in their lives. These games cause casual aggression and have been linked to fighting/ bullying behaviors among young teens. More than 98% if all pediatricians in the United States say that over exposure to these games can have negative affects on a child's attitude toward others and their overall aggression. Around 90% of these pediatricians and 67% of parents surveyed also agreed that video games can cause violent tendencies in young people. These groups also argue that the games desensitize the children to violent behavior which leads to them acting out in ways that they have seen in games. Many school shootings have been linked to violent video game use in the past. These games also seem to reward fighting and killing as a way of solving conflict teaching kids and young teenagers that it is okay to physically harm others.
Cons:While there are many pros to this arguement, their are also many cons. The Supreme Court ruled that violent video games do not cause the actions of the people who play the. Also while the number of violent game sales has grown exponentially the young violent crime rate in the United States is on the decline. People also argue that these games allow people to release their stress and anger on a virtual enemy rather than taking it out on the people and things around them. These games also have consequences and teach young people the right from the wrong when it comes to their actions and how they are perceived.
Dominic Kochen
Period 5
Issue: Violent video games
ReplyDeleteThe video game industry has put restrictions on video games via a rating system in response to the belief that violent games desensitize children to violence and make them more likely to contribute to them taking violent actions towards other people. There are others that argue this and have even counter argued that violent video games give aggressive children a way to vent reducing real life violence. There are studies that the social skills of children improve do to playing video games which can keep people from feeling isolated and needing to lash out. I stand on the side of the ladder argument as there are many people who use video games as a tool to unwind and there is no research representing concrete proof towards the argument that video games increase violent tendencies in those that play them.
Mitchell Arwine period 4
Issue: Is sexual orientation determined at birth?
ReplyDeleteThe argument/ issue is if sexual orientation is determined at birth or a lifestyle choice that gradually comes over time. Many people who argued against the idea that people are born gay believe that it’s a reversible and terrible lifestyle choice. The naysayers believe that being gay is a result from bad parenting or sexual abuse. They also believe being gay comes from parents forcing that lifestyle on them when they were younger. They claim that since they chose this lifestyle that gay people should be denied marriage and societal acceptance and equal rights. The pro-side believes that being gay is a natural thing. That you’re born gay. They believe that it’s determined by natural biological factors and can’t be changed just hidden. My ideas are that being gay is a natural factor. People don’t just wake up saying they want to be gay. Also no one goes through the pain of social rejection without actually believing and feeling that they have attractions toward the same sex. Honestly people should be able to live their lives happily with whoever without being worried about humiliation and being considered an outsider. Therefor being gay is not a choice you make, you’re born that way.
Sydney Sandford
4th period
Elizabeth Stech
ReplyDeletePeriod 4
Issue: Should Teachers Get Tenure?
Pros:
Tenure protects teachers from being fired for personal, political, or other non-work related reasons. Before tenure, teachers could be dismissed when a new political party took power or a principal wanted to make room to hire his friends. Women were dismissed for getting married, becoming pregnant, wearing pants, or being out too late in the evenings. Tenure prohibits school districts from firing experienced teachers to hire less experienced and less expensive teachers.
Cons:
Teacher tenure creates complacency because teachers know they are unlikely to lose their jobs. Tenure removes incentives for teachers to put in more than the minimum effort and to focus on improving their teaching. Tenure makes it difficult to remove under-performing teachers because the process involves months of legal wrangling by the principal, the school board, the union, and the courts.
While there are problems with firing teachers due to their age, personal reasons, or political affiliation, I belive that teacher tenure holds more cons than pros. With tenure, some teachers may feel that they don't need to try as hard in the work place due to the security that they receive from it.
Jubin Joseph
ReplyDeletePeriod 5
Issue: Was Bill Clinton a good President?
Pros: The crime rate fell every year that Clinton was president and was at a 26-year low by the end of his two terms. he US went from having the largest budget deficit in American history ($290 billion) in 1992 when Clinton was elected to having a budget surplus of $127 billion when he left office in 2001. 22.5 million new jobs were created and unemployment dropped from 7.5% when Clinton took office to 4.0% by the end of his second term, the lowest in 30 years. The poverty rate dropped to 11.8% in 1999, which was the lowest it had been since 1979. Clinton's instructions to NASA in 1993 led to productivity gains and reduced overhead for the International Space Station program, as well as a better research relationship with Russia.
Cons: The number of federal prisoners doubled under Clinton, and 58 percent of them were serving time for drug-related offenses. Clinton gets too much credit for the good economy of the 1990s, which was already growing when he took office. Clinton cut NASA's budget by $715 million in 1995 (about 5%) and did not restore the bulk of the money until three months before he left office. The result was a space program struggling to operate with less money for most of Clinton's time in office.
While there were issues with sex scandals and other drama present in Bill Clinton's presidency, it doesn't deviate from the success he had while as President of the US. Most of the controversy surrounding Clinton was due to his actions but in terms of being a good President, he excelled in the spectrum of politics.
Should felons be able to vote?
ReplyDeletePros: Felons that have served their time and paid their debt to society by completing their sentences should have all of their rights to voting restored. Preventing ex-felons from voting are unfair, undemocratic, and politically or racially motivated.
Cons: Even after serving time, their pass offenses warrant restrictions. Similar to limitations on age, residency, and sanity, it is necessary to exclude them from this crucial right. Convicted felons show poor judgment and should not be trusted with a vote.
I agree that felons should not be able to vote. Breaking the law is a serious offense and brushing this off lightly is unfair to law-abiding citizens.
Jenina Bianty
5th
Is College Education Really Worth It?
ReplyDeletePros: College graduates make more money, more and more jobs require college degrees, College graduates are more likely to have health insurance and retirement plans.
Cons: Student loan debt is crippling for college graduates, Many college graduates are employed in jobs that do not require college degrees, Learning a trade profession is a better option than college for many young adults, College degrees do not guarantee learning or job preparation.
I agree mostly with the cons of college education. Today, more and more job opportunities do not require a college degree. People are better off attending a technical school to learn a skill rather than drowning in debt or student loans of a 4 year college. Every year, tuition has risen quicker than income, making college unaffordable for many. Also, college is not for everyone. Some people may treat it like high school and barely get by, or even drop out.
Denise Doyle
Period 5
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIssue: Should Student Loan Debt Be Easier to Discharge in Bankruptcy?
ReplyDeletePros: Overall, letting an 18 year old to take massive amount of loans at such a young age, is unfair, because they don't understand the consequences of taking out loans or who were misled, Also student loan discharge can fix a system that disproportionately hurts minority students, where black students typically come out with more debt then white students, placing minorities even further back. Lastly, student loan discharge would encourage entrepreneurship and boost the US economy, allowing them to buy more.
Cons: As much as this program can help, it can be easily taken advantage of, allowing people to borrow money carelessly without having intentions of paying it back. Allowing easier bankruptcy discharge could destroy student loan programs and with that people pay less money to support funding for colleges, so it could actually make college tuition even more expensive.
I agree with that student loan debt should be easier to discharge in bankruptcy, because many kids cannot even afford to try and get a better education because of the fear or loaning out money, but being able to claim bankruptcy can allow more kids to go to college and be better off as adults.
Michelle Phan
5th Period
Issue: Should Adults Have the Right to Carry a Concealed Handgun?
ReplyDeletePros: Responsible citizens should have the right to arm themselves against criminals with guns. The right to carry concealed handguns is guaranteed by the Second Amendment of the US Constitution. Most adults who carry concealed handguns are law-abiding and do not misuse their firearms.
Cons: Public safety should be left to professionally qualified police officers, not private citizens with little or no expert training. Concealed weapons laws make the non-carrying public feel less safe. Concealed carry application requirements and background checks do not prevent dangerous people from acquiring weapons.
I agree with the pros side of this issue. I believe that we, as citizens, should have the right to protect both ourselves and others in a nation that cannot promise complete safety at all times. Although I do agree stricter gun laws should be enforced, the stripping of the 2nd amendment is an unnecessary violation of rights, with many steps to be taken between resorting to such a radical movement.
Josie Henry
4th period
Issue: Is Golf a sport?
ReplyDeletePros: Golf fits the meaning of a sport according to the dictionary. The sport also helps to burn off more calories than a gymnast. Also, another big pro is that colleges and athletic departments consider golf as a sport. Sports agents, sponsors, and sporting goods manufacturers also consider golf to be a sport.
Cons:The fact that golf can be difficult and requires practice and skill to achieve proficiency does not mean it qualifies as a sport.Athleticism does not correlate with performance when it comes to golf. The decision to include golf in the 2016 Summer Olympics is questionable.
I agree with those saying that golf is a sport. I believe that it is a sport because it is something that requires competition and skill. There is also a winner in golf and there is a necessity for athleticism for those who play golf. I do think also that the cons of golf are outweighed by the pros and that it should be practiced more because it is a game that challenges mental toughness and increases many intangibles.
Naomi Samuel
5th Period
Should fighting be allowed in hockey?
ReplyDeletePros: The advocates for fighting in hockey games (even in NHL) argue that it holds players accountable for themselves and their teammates, actually resulting in a safer game overall. In addition, hockey fighting is believed to reel in more fans with more entertainment value, as well as it being a hockey tradition and unwritten rule of the sport.
Cons: Those against fighting in hockey games claim that it is very dangerous, and can lead to concussions, brain damage, other health issues, and possibly death. Not to mention, if it were to be allowed, it would set bad examples and role models for kids along with glorifying violence.
Ultimately, I would have to agree with the cons side of the issue. Although I can see the positive aspects, it is still very dangerous and could easily be allowed in arenas/situations outside of the NHL and off the ice. In my opinion, the small benefits of potentially allowing fighting in hockey isn’t worth one’s life.
Jackson Stanley | Period 5
Issue: Cuba Embargo
ReplyDeletePROS: The United States should maintain the Cuba embargo because Cuba has not met the conditions required to lift it. Ending the embargo before the Cuban government meets the conditions specified by US law would make the United States look weak. The Cuban government has consistently responded to US attempts to soften the embargo with acts of aggression, raising concerns about what would happen if the sanctions were fully lifted. The embargo enables the United States to apply pressure on the Cuban government to improve human rights.
CONS: The United States should end the Cuba embargo because its 50-year policy has failed to achieve its goals. The embargo is a relic of Cold War Era thinking and is unnecessary because Cuba does not pose a threat to the United States. The embargo harms the people of Cuba, not the government as intended. The embargo harms the US economy.
In my opinion, the Cuba Embargo should be lifted because it causes more harm to the US economy and the Cuban citizens. It also prevents opportunities to promote change and democracy in Cuba. They say the embargo hurts international opinion of the United States.
Isabel Zhou
Period 4
Issue: "Is Obesity a Disease?"
ReplyDeletePros: Obesity meets the definition of a disease by causing impairment, and having characteristic signs and symptoms, and increases harm and morbidity. Obesity can impair normal mobility and range of motion in knees and hips, and obese patients make up 33% of all joint replacement operations. Obesity in adults can lead to three years' loss of life and extreme obesity can even shorten a person's life span of 10 years. Medical Association recognized obesity as "a disease requiring a range of medical interventions to advance obesity treatment and prevention."
Cons: Obesity is a preventable risk factor for other diseases and conditions, and is not a disease itself. Obesity is a preventable risk factor for coronary heart disease, stroke, high blood pressure, type 2 diabetes, cancers, and much more. Obesity is the result of eating too much. The suggested daily caloric intake for 31-50-year-olds is 1,800 calories for women and 2,200 calories for men. In 2009-2010, 30-39-year-old women consumed an average 1,831 calories, which is 1.7% over the recommendation, while men of the same age consumed an average 2,736 calories per day, which is 22% over the recommendation. Obesity is the result of sedentary lifestyles. Compared to 40 years ago, people today spend more time commuting, sitting in front of a computer, watching television, playing video games, and generally exercising less.
Although they believe that obesity is and can be a genetic disease, I have to side with the cons on this one. Comparing to earlier years or our world, obesity is a choice and a lifestyle there are many ways to help prevent this situation. Obesity only leads to more problems and diseases of the human body.
Lauryn Weller
4th period
Kale Wicks
ReplyDeletePeriod 4
Topic: The Right to Death
Pros: In allowing mentally competent and terminally ill patients to designate whether or not they would like to continue treatment protects their civil liberties as a citizen of the US.
Cons: By refusing those the right the government does not see assisted killing, euthanasia, and by extension suicide, as a civil liberty granted to any one citizen.
In my opinion, euthanasia should be allowed to mentally competent and terminally ill patients. By forcing patients to continue treatment which may not cure them, prolonging their unwanted condition we put them through a form of cruel and unusual punishment, something already deemed unconstitutional by law. Euthanasia should be allowed, not as a way of suicide, but as a way to protect patients' right to refuse unwanted and non-helpful treatment.
Issue: Right to Healthcare
ReplyDeleteAccording to the 2014 US Census Bureau, 33 million Americans in the United States, roughly 10.4% of the population, did not have health insurance. The leaves the U.S, along with Greece and Poland, to be the only countries that are members of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development that does not have universal healthcare.People in favor of universal healthcare argue that by providing healthcare for all, we could put an end to medical bankruptcies, improve public spending and help small businesses. However, others argue that universal healthcare is influenced by socialistic views and should be an individual's personal responsibility. Some of the pros of universal healthcare are that it would lower the cost overall of healthcare in the United States, encourage economic productivity, benefit private businesses, and improve overall public health. Some cons of universal healthcare are that it could lower the quality and availability of disease screening treatment, lower doctors' earnings, and raise taxes. I personally think that easy access to healthcare should be the right of every citizen. The United States is one of the world's only developed nations that does not guarantee universal health coverage for its citizens. By not providing universal healthcare, I think that the government is doing a disservice to its citizens and is violating an internationally recognized human right.
Shweta Mathews
4th Period
issue: Is the D.A.R.E. Program Good for America's Kids (K-12)?
ReplyDeletePros: The main basis of the pros for the Drug Abuse Restriction Education (D.A.R.E.) program revolve around peer-based student evaluations of the program and its impacts on late-elementary and middle school students. Many of these studies fed into the idea the the program educates kids on the harmful potential of drugs and alcohol, therefore reducing substance abuse in children, as well as aiding in bettering relations between students and police official.s
Cons: The cons argument against the D.A.R.E. program includes the idea that the program is not truly effective in its purpose of lessening adolescent drug and alcohol use. With claims that the program somewhat normalizes substance use in youths and that the program lulls parents into a false sense of security regarding their children's potential drug use, the arguments state that teens are likely to disregard the information presented in the D.A.R.E. program as they get older.
I agree with the cons side of this argument because rather than truly educating students, the program seems to be a short-term solution, as since it mainly takes place in elementary schools. students forget/grow to ignore the risks and potential disadvantages of drug use by the time they are in high school and beyond, thus making the program ineffective in the long run, and, potentially, not worth the financial resources it entails to carry out.
Radhika Daru
period 5
Issue: " School Uniforms "
ReplyDeletePros: School uniforms can provide student safety and decrease crime. Uniforms makes it difficult for students to carry any sort of weapons with them to school. Several studies has shown that uniform decreased any kind of sexual attacks. Also, Uniforms help students be focused more on their education than their clothes. Uniforms improve attendance and discipline.It helps save money too. School uniform prevents gang signs, colors etc.
Cons: Negative aspects of uniform consist of restricting students freedom of expression, it puts an extra expense on the parents. One argument is that it may delay the transition of adulthood. Denying students their right to make choices can lead to difficulty in the future. According to the psychologist Erickson, Adolescents confider clothing as a form of identification. Another argument is that school uniforms are very expensive and some parents would not be able to afford it.
I believe that school uniforms should not be in place for many reasons. One reason is that puts a lot of pressure on parents, especially those who are poor. A pair of uniforms cost about $50. Some parents make $50 a day. Uniforms do not stop bullying attacks, it could sometimes increase fights at school. According to Miami county public schools, fights in many middle schools have doubled within one year. Therefore, Uniforms does not help decrease fights or save parents money.
Ayana Mathew
4th period
Issue: "Should College Football Replace the Bowl Championship Series (BCS) with a Playoff System?"
ReplyDeletePros:A post-season playoff leading up to the National Championship would replace the subjectivity of human and computer polls with the objective measure of winning or losing a game. Additionally, a playoff system would give each school an opportunity to earn a fair share of the revenue distributed to the 11 conferences in the FBS.
Cons: A playoff system would extend the 13 week regular season by at least a month, which would interfere with athletes' college studies and which could potentially lead to more injuries from playing. Also, the BCS system makes every regular season game crucial for the teams in contention to finish in the top two.
I believe that should be a college football playoff as opposed to the archaic BCS bowl. I believe this because out of the top teams, many are very competitive to win the national title. I do believe that the current system with only four teams should be expanded to eight.
Alan Cummins
Delete4th Period
Issue "Prescription Drugs"
ReplyDeletePros:
It has been proven that prescription drug ads had a positive impact on patient compliance. 88% of the physicians who had patients ask about drugs seen in ads reported that the patients had the conditions the drugs treat and were thus able to get treatment because they have been made aware that such a drug like so exists.
Drug companies that develop new drugs have a period of market exclusivity before generic drugs can be made by any company.
Cons:
78% of doctors surveyed in 2013 agreed that DTC prescription drug ads increased the cost of healthcare. All other countries ban all forms of DTC prescription drug ads.
81% of doctors surveyed in 2013 say that DTC prescription drug advertising promotes drug overutilization.
The United States and New Zealand are the only two countries where direct-to-consumer advertising of prescription drugs is legal, which indicated that it is not a good form of communicating medication and informing the public on it.
Pamela Gheriafi
Period 4
Issue: Is the ACLU Good for America?
ReplyDeletePros: Helped to combat segregation, cruel or unusual punishment, gay rights, and many other civil liberties. This organization i seen by many to be a public watchdog protecting the civil liberties of U.S. citizens. The ACLU was one of the very first interest groups of its kind aiming to support the constitution and enforce its rules as without someone to enforce said rules, the constitution is powerless. It's said to defend everyone and not one specific group.
Con: Some other s see it as a left-wing group looking to subvert the constitution and is said to only protect certain religions while others should be oppressed. There are also views stating that it's a group looking to enforce it's views upon America by way of laws. Former President Bush Sr. stated that he himself felt that many issues that the ACLU stood for he did not support and gave reasoning such as the ratings on movies are to protect the children.
I believe that if the ACLU is as it says that it is, and is a group for all people and protect all rights for any race, religion or background, then it is a very beneficial group for America and i would support it fully. However, knowing America nad the politics behind the curtains, the group could also state that it is a group for the people by the people to gain support while still acting in its own interests and benefiting a certain group over another and this would be wrong. I will give this group the benefit of the doubt and say that i believe the group is good and i would support it as long as it upholds its honest intentions.
Bryce Del'Homme
5th period
Wesley Cherry
ReplyDeletePeriod 4
Issue: Can alternative energy replace fossil fuels
Pros: It creates renewable sources of energy as fossil fuels will eventually run out. Alternative energy systems have lower maintinence costs than that of fossil fuels. Most alternative energy sourcce are more eco friendly than fossil fuels and, thus, safer for the environment.
Cons: The current reliance on fossil fuels is too great to over come. Alternative sources have a higher build cost that cannot be met. Alterntive sources cannot compete economically with fossil fuels. Fossil fuels are becoming more environmentally friendly.
I believe the switch to alternative energy sources is possible. It will, however, be a difficult trasition and likely will have to happen very gradually over a long period of time. Fossil fuel will eventually run out and leave a large hole in our economy. A switch to alternative fuels could prevent the large raises in price once our fossil fuel supplies depleat
Topic: Cell Phone Radiation
ReplyDeletePro:Phones do not increase risk of brain injury. Radiation from phones isnt dangerous enough to cause cancer. Radiation levels are tested. Studies show that phones can decrease risk of brain tumors
Cons:Studies show a link between phones and tumors. Radiation in phones has been identified as a possible carcinogen. Long term technology radiation cant be predicted.
I believe that phones' radiation can be dangerous and should be moderated closely. Radiation can lead to very serious problems and we shouldnt take it for granted, even if its just a tiny amount in our phones because we use them every day.
Bryan Ta
4th Period
Title: Should the Words "under God" be in the US Pledge of Allegiance?
ReplyDeletePro: The pledge statement "under God" is just acknowledgement of our religious basis on which the nation was founded, and is thus only pertaining to the history of the US, and is considered to be constitutional.
Con:The US is shown to be a Christian country though the US is projected to be a multi-religious nation with no religion that dominates over the others and forces others to assimilate to it's practices.
I personally agree with the con side on the argument that "under God" is seemingly pertaining to the US being a Christian nation. I think that though it could have been interpreted as a historical piece, that saying so would have no significant meaning, thus rendering the phrase useless and unnecessary.
Mohammad Ejaz
4th period
Issue: Social Media
ReplyDeletePros: Proponents of social media say that it promotes increased interaction with others, and gives easy access to educational support and materials
Cons: Opponents of social media say that it prevents face-to-face communication, leads to lower grades, stress, and that it spreads unreliable and false information.
I personally agree with the pros side that social media is good for our society. Social media allows anyone to get quick and easy access to information anywhere around the world, it helps people find work easier, and it allows people to reach a wider audience. Despite the cons, I think in general social media is good for our society.
Tom Joseph
4th Period
Fighting in Hockey
ReplyDeletePros: The advantage for fighting in the National Hockey League argues that it holds players accountable for themselves and their teammates, actually resulting in a safer game overall. In addition, hockey fighting is believed to reel in more fans with more entertainment value, as well as it being a hockey tradition and unwritten rule of the sport.
Cons: Those against fighting in hockey games claim that it is very dangerous, and can lead to concussions, brain damage, other health issues, and possibly death. Not to mention, if it were to be allowed, it would set bad examples and role models for kids along with glorifying violence. Death rate would also go up in America.
I agree with the cons side of the issue. Although I can see the positive aspects, it is still very dangerous and could easily cause outrageous tension and conflicts in the area. In my opinion, the benefits of potentially allowing fighting in hockey isn’t worth taking else somebody’s life.
Stephen Kelly
ReplyDeletePeriod 4
Should felons be able to vote?
Pro
Antiquated laws that prevent ex-felons from voting keep an estimated 5.85 million Americans from fully participating in our democracy. There's no justification for that lingering punishment, especially at a time when voter turnout is woefully low. Maine and Vermont even allow felons to vote while in prison, and have suffered no ill effects.
Con
Ex-felons are prevented from doing many things once they leave prison, and for good reason. They have not demonstrated the trust needed to hold public office or work in certain fields like teaching or law enforcement.
Voting is one of many rights they should lose after committing a serious crime like a felony.
Is a Two-State Solution (Israel and Palestine) an Acceptable Solution to the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict?
ReplyDeleteThe argument for this being a solution is that it is more equal for both and both benefit without either gaining everything. However, the issue has always been that the Palestinians believe they should have all of the territory instead of just a small portion. The Palestinians possessed the territory until the U.S. and Europe gave the territory to Jews, who had been massacred in the Holocaust and believed Jerusalem to be their land, and made numerous offers to the Palestinians for territory. Neither states want to share the territory. Israel has the most power and support, and that is why the Palestine state is a shadow of its former self. In addition, the solution is fueled by foreign interests in the region that either want democracy and/or an ally. There is far too much hate between the two states and groups of people for their to be peace.
Robert Slaybaugh
4th Period
As an exemption, an agent may have the capacity to play out this change for a companion who has passed on. Amended Tax Return Form
ReplyDeleteShould Felons Who Have Completed Their Sentence (Incarceration, Probation, and Parole) Be Allowed to Vote?
ReplyDeletePro - Texas' representatives in Congress should support a federal effort that encourages all states to do what Texas already has done: allowing ex-felons to vote after completing any probation or parole.
Antiquated laws that prevent ex-felons from voting keep an estimated 5.85 million Americans from fully participating in our democracy. There's no justification for that lingering punishment, especially at a time when voter turnout is woefully low. Maine and Vermont even allow felons to vote while in prison, and have suffered no ill effects.
Criminals certainly should be punished for their offenses.
But once they have served their time, they deserve a fair chance to rebuild their lives and become productive members of society. In fact, it's hard to think of a valid reason why they should not be allowed to vote again.
Restoring their right to vote promptly would be a powerful signal that our government wants them to be part of America's solutions, not its problems.
Con - It's called punishment, and it's perfectly valid. Ex-felons are prevented from doing many things once they leave prison, and for good reason. They have not demonstrated the trust needed to hold public office or work in certain fields like teaching or law enforcement.
Voting is one of many rights they should lose after committing a serious crime like a felony. Even so, most states already provide pathways for ex-felons to vote again once they complete certain requirements. That's fair, and there's no reason for Uncle Sam to meddle in state issues.
As with many controversies like this, the debate is driven by activists searching for a cause, not the actual "victims."
It's also naive to believe that ex-felons are yearning to vote when most of their law-abiding neighbors routinely ignore elections.
Want to retain your right to vote? It's easy. Don't commit a felony. In fact, that will pay many other dividends to you throughout your life.
Sainath Krishnamurthy
Period 4
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI Want to tell the world about a great man called Dr.Agbazara of AGBAZARA TEMPLE for bringing joy into my marriage after 2years of divorce from my husband and my 4kids, i have don everything to bring them back to my life because i love them so much so a friend introduced me to a spell caster last month who did every thing spiritually and bring them back within 48hours, now we are together and happy even more than we where before. You can contact this great spell caster to solve your own relationship problems via email like i did on: ( agbazara@gmail.com )
ReplyDelete