(oh no I'm first) It is evident through the existence of censorship of media all around us, such as bleeped swears in video games and blurred sexual content on television, that today’s society is a defensive one. People don’t want to expose anything possibly offensive to moldable minds. Unfortunately, this rule also applies to books. But who's to decide whether 'controversial' literature is smut? Often, the most controversial of books is the one that opens a person's mind the most and introduces them to all kinds of new ideas. Censorship shouldn't hold kids, or anyone, from being able to expand their mind just because the books they want to read are condemned because of a few fearful people. Books should be open to everyone; They shouldn’t be condemned even within a certain limit. After all, it is currently law: the three basic rights covered under the freedom of the press include the right to publish, the right to confidentiality of sources, and most importantly, the right of citizens to access the products of the press. If anything were restricted from the public’s view, the United States would not exactly be a free country. It would be a country parading itself as a free one, all the while hiding books it doesn’t like from its people. This is the equivalent of the Wizard of Oz telling Dorothy not to pay any mind to the mind behind the curtain. Surely, some literature can be disillusioning, but that doesn’t make it any less useful or insightful. People have a right to know that their Wizard of Oz is only a man in control of a big projector device. Of course, some may say that controversial literature such as this may attract young or otherwise easily influenced minds just because they’re controversial. So is banning the solution? It’s actually quite the opposite; banning a book will likely make a person’s interest in it increase. When someone wants to read something offensive, they’re not going to settle for the books that haven’t been banned: they’ll look specifically for the ones that have. It’s because these are the books that have been deemed too ‘extreme’ for society. What other kind of book will young Americans flock to? Many will ask, why not just ban some books to a certain degree? Book banning can be looked at as a lesser of two evils; a way to put a lid on a situation that might otherwise spiral downward into bloodshed because of a controversy that’s spilled over because of a book left unchecked. But that’s a lazy approach to keeping a situation under control. In keeping books away from people just because it might make them angry, the government would also keep other readers from learning things and seeing other perspectives. A better way to ‘keep a lid on situations’ would be to handle them directly, instead of blaming it on certain books, and immediately banning them.
(continued) I myself love many 'controversial' works of literature, such as "Catcher in the Rye" and "Fight Club". They've influenced my writing a lot, and I feel as though they've influenced my character for the better. It's clear to me that the characters who are 'bad role models' in these kinds of books are clearly misguided and meant to be the opposite of the intended message, as often the misguided and pessimistic protagonist maybe isn't so bad at the end. Or maybe he's learned something of importance. It doesn't matter; what does matter is they're providing you an insight. Villains are created to reflect the traits people should avoid, and it's often made obvious. In the novel ‘Fight Club’, a psychologically-imbalanced protagonist begins living life by what he deems to be the most important things in life. He stops living by society’s norms and instead adopts his own. He’s plagued by how far he’s willing to go when he essentially becomes a terrorist, but at that point the reader is expected to know that he is an unreliable narrator and not one that you should look up to. In other words, it’s essential to look at a character’s faults in order to learn about yourself and better yourself. It’s essential that books be open to the public: so that they can learn from the imperfect characters, so they can see others’ perspectives, so they can generally learn more about the world without having to worry about restrictions. Controversial books are often the ones that inflict a wound on ignorant masses. They scare them with awful truths or realistic situations they don’t want to deal with. To those people, a question must be posed: Do you want to read fluffed up nonsense, or would you rather read the truth?
I like the rhetorical question in the intro paragraph. It makes it seem like you know what you're talking about (which I'm sure you do.) I like the idea that the books being censored are the ones that open people up to new ideas! I don't know if including yourself in this essay works, even though it is a piece of evidence that these works aren't making everyone have killing urges. It seems a bit awkward and out of place to me. I love the concluding sentence! Nice job on this draft!
The way you use the rhetorical questions in general is awesome! However I might suggest that using yourself as an example of a nice person might lead the reader to think that you are a bit biased despite your evidence. So just to play it safe just fix that and you should be fine. - whaiiiiiiy
In the 2012 election, President Barack Obama was reelected to serve his second term as president of the United States. He is the first African American president of the United States, and he has rallied support from minority groups like women, young voters, and the middle class. President Obama's standing requires him to represent America's distinctive scopes of interest. However, America's political evolution has resulted in overlooked issues which define their time; slavery, the coinage system, and educational reform, which further entrench America's divisive nature. Although representative democracy is our earliest foundation of government in America, it is not effective. Representative democracy severely limits the political spectrum in Washington D.C., it deters third party participation, and most importantly neglects the needs of those being represented, the people.
Representative democracy developed its political grounding in the post-colonial era. During Washington's Presidency political discussions developed into political bickering, and lastly into political parties. Washington noted the rift between the Federalist and Anti-federalists and how it would damage the uniformity of government. In his Farewell Address1, Washington foresaw the political party warfare that would develop from the " domination of one faction over the other." Washington's Farewell Address was a warning that was overlooked by the continuing development of parties. There was political party consolidation, breakage, and demise, all of which sought to control and concentrate power within their interest. The yeomen farmers under Jefferson, the common man under Jackson, and the industrialists under Lincoln. The cycle of political warfare in Washington D.C. has resulted in the ultimate battle between the Republicans and the Democrats. Which has consolidated the two party system in America. This tug of war between the Democrats and the Republicans has resulted in gridlock. The tug and pull between these two dominant forces has created a partisan atmosphere, defined by the left or the right. The political landscape 2 in Washington D.C. limits the amount of political ideology present in legislation. The race to Congress is dominated by Democrats and Republicans which both hold an upper hand in both houses of Congress. Whereas only two Independents are voting members in the Senate are outnumbered by 250 Democrats and 284 Republicans3 in total. The battle for political power among political parties resulted in the concentration of power in the Democrats and Republicans.
In addition, representative democracy has become a monopoly controlled by the Democrats and Republicans. Thus deterring third parties from actively participating in government and discourages any political dominance. During elections, third parties are subject to guidelines and procedures that must be met in order to have ballot access 4. Guidelines vary by state making it increasingly difficult for third parties to be on every state ballot for general elections and midterm elections. This decreases their popularity among the media. This is exemplified during the televised primary debates, and presidential elections. Both of which are exclusively reserved for the Democrats and Republicans. This in turn, does not increase third party votes. However in the recent 2012 election, Gary Johnson a candidate for the Libertarian Party was able to achieve a 1-3% vote. However, when Johnson's voted are calculated in total for all 50 states, he merely scrapes the one million mark,with 793,957 votes. Whereas Obama the Democratic candidate with California, Oregon, and Washington, headed into the two million mark with 9,057,753 votes. And Republican candidate Romney followed close behind with 7,177,811 votes from Texas, Arizona, and Missouri.5 Although the popularity of third parties, in this case the Libertarian Party, is growing it is steady. Third parties face a disadvantage in numbers and popularity, making it exceedingly difficult to obtain ballot access and participate in legislation. For example, Congress, as of today is made up of 57% Democrats in the Senate, 44% Democrat in the House of Representatives, 42% Republicans in the Senate, and 55% Republican in the House of Representatives, whereas, Independents and other third parties make up .02% of voting members in the Senate, and a startling 0% voting members in the House of Representatives.6 Third parties have been forced into a corner in Congress, limiting the impact of their votes. Resulting in the silence of the weakest minority and also the citizens.
Next, the dominant two party system lump sums voters into two broad coalitions.7 Ignoring the complexities of American voters and their distinguished backgrounds; farmers, businessmen, single mothers, African- Americans, Caucasians, and Hispanics. Forcing upon a party label that detracts the individuality of the voters and the issues. And because the Democrats and Republicans are powered by numbers, it is exceedingly common to find their scopes of interest altered in order to gain access to voter approval, as demonstrated in the 2012 election 8, when both candidate made it a priority to put the middle class first. The two party's excessive entanglements overshadowed issues like immigration and educational reform. This in turn placed interest on a priority list; dominant interest in, weak interests out. This leads to a political party representing a group rather than its individual nature. That being said, politicians have in turn created their own personal following, based on popularity and networks. However, citizens do not want distant politicians, they want leaders committed to the challenges of the average person.9 In the 2012 election, Mitt Romney was far from the average blue collar worker. He attended Harvard Law School and Harvard Business School. He profited from Bain Capital in 1997 in millions of dollars, how much is there for a middle class worker to relate to?
Finally, although representative democracy is the traditional foundation for America's government it is not the most effective. The two party system hides the multitude of third parties that are leveled with the average American. Therefore creating an increase in Independent voters.10 The lack of power invested in third parties impacts the responsiveness of the government and its ability to keep in touch with voters.
I liked how you started your essay which grabbed my attention, and I liked how it transitions into the formation of the United States. Your thorough research is evident throughout your essay.
In a classroom with all girls, there is pictured to be more discipline, better grades, and more educational motivation than in a coed classroom. But outside the classroom, those same girls are socially awkward with the opposite sex, unable to communicate, and the same is likely to happen with an all boys class. As single-sex schools become more common, education systems should begin to realize that, yes it does benefit students’ grades, but it does not benefit their futures. Because students are separated from their opposite sex, they become unaware and incapable of handling difficult situations with them when the time comes. Separating boys and girls for the sole purpose of increasing test scores only benefit’s the schools that these students attend. Yes, it is true that single-sex schools are proven to help students’ grades and learning habits. “Studies show that some students learn better in a single-gender environment…” as stated in an article by the NASSPE (National Association for Single Sex Public Education). But these students will not always be segregated from the opposite sex. Because of these students’ high grades, it’s reasonable to assume that they plan to attend top colleges. All of the top colleges in the U.S. are coed, and if they plan to continue their education, they will need the communication skills to succeed. Not only in college, but after as well. An argument for single-sex education might say that these students can get used to the opposite sex later, when it is necessary, and that its important to focus on their current grades, which gender separation improves. But who is sitting in the seats of a classroom should not determine how a student learns or performs in school. That responsibility is put upon the student themselves and their teachers. As stated by Valerie Strauss in The Washington Post, “learning is best accomplished when the delivery method matches the subject matter. It is the quality of teachers’ training, lessons, and class management practices --and not gender of their students -- that determines how much learning occurs in their classrooms.” Single-sex education has more than one negative impact on the students’ futures. Separating boys and girls in schools can also cause gender stereotyping, a misunderstanding of the opposite sex, and there is evidence that sex segregation in education also legitimizes institutional sexism. “Social scientists have found that labeling and separating students based on almost any characteristic…makes those differences even more [noticeable] to students and produces inter-group bias.” This means that being separated by something as small as eye or hair color can cause unconscious bias in students, and something as big a gender can have a huge negative impact on students’ thoughts about the opposite sex. Since single-gender schools do seem to improve students’ grades and test scores, more families want their children to get that same education. This creates another negative. In an article by Penny Bollin of Demand Media, it was found that because “…the demand for admission is more competitive than at other types of schools.” The demand to get into these single-sex schools raises the tuition fees and prevents families of low income of acceptance and children of a possible better education. Although these schools are a bad idea to begin with, they are also unfair and decline the same quality education to many. This type of education and schooling is becoming increasingly popular, with there being at least 40 in 30 states. Single-sex education is, yes helping students get better grades, but it is depriving students of interactive opportunities, learning experiences, and communication skills that could hurt their future after high school. Coed schools should be the source for education, because in the long run it will have more benefits for students.
You have very credible sources Amanda your rebuttals,and you did a good job of highlighting the consequences! As a reader though I ask myself what do girls who attend all girl schools are saying. I would of liked to hear the experinece of a girl who had to make the transition from an all girl school to a co-ed one. Keep up the good work
On Friday, December 14, 2012, twenty mothers dropped their innocent children off to school. Two hours later, they returned, surrounded by parents, police, and reporters while waiting for news of their children's survival. They went home that day alone. Earlier that same week, a man from Oregon shot three people at a shopping mall. A few months earlier, a gunman entered a movie theater in Aurora, Colorado and took 12 innocent lives. In fact, according to Slate Magazine about 60 people, in 2012, have passed away due to the misuse of guns. Recently, gun violence like this experience at Sandy Hook Elementary has increased and raised serious questions about firearms. Some ask if gun laws should be stricter and some say they should not. Therefore, gun laws within this country need to be stricter so that death rates decrease. Many people buy guns usually for two main reasons, which is to hunt and for protection; however, guns are misused and abused. Gun laws have already been established like The Second Amendment, The National Firearms act of 1934, Gun Control Act of 1968, and the Crime Control Act. The Crime Control Act was established in order to create “ drug-free school zones” and penalties for criminals discharging a firearm in a school zone (Gun Control Timeline). The National Firearms Act of 1934 was established by the lawlessness and rise of gangster culture during prohibition by President Franklin D. Roosevelt. It gave a 200-dollar tax to firearms. And The Gun Control was designed in order to "provide support to federal, state, and local law enforcement officials in their fight against crime and violence"(Gun Control Timeline). Yes, there are gun laws but the most debatable one is the second amendment. Johns Paul Stevens, who served as an associate justice of the Supreme Court stated, “Guns are used to hunt, for self defense, for sporting activities, and to perform military duties"(Stevens, John Paul). Indeed, guns are used for hunting and for protection because everyone has the rights to own a gun under the second amendment, which is “ the right to bear arms” (U.S. Constitution. Art./Amend. XII, Sec. 3). Yet, people do not understand that the second amendment does not state that one has the right to kill someone with a gun. This is not accurate because “The Second Amendment plainly does not protect the right to use a gun to rob a bank; it is equally clear that it does encompass the right to use weapons for certain military purposes”(Stevens, John Paul). This merely means that the second amendment has only one purpose, which is that one, could own a gun for useful situations and when in need. Many say that guns should not be abolished because it violates the second amendment but people need to realize that there are and will continue to be more shootings if gun requirements re not revaluated. America is in first place of having high death rates- this is not something to be proud of. In fact, the United States has the highest car accidents, gun violence, and drug overdose situations (Travernise, Sabrina). Clearly, younger Americans die earlier because they are either in car accidents or somewhere at the wrong time. Studies have found that, “car accidents, gun violence and drug overdoses were major contributors to years of life lost by Americans before age 50”(Travernise, Sabrina). The rate of firearm homicides is 20 times higher in the United States than in the other countries. Therefore, guns laws needs to be revaluated because death rates are not decreasing.
I really like your introduction; it's a strong hook and it weaves in information effortlessly without it seeming awkward. I like that you included a "though I can agree", I think it's great that you're already incorporating that. Your paragraphs are nicely set up, the information you are using so far is very strong, and your essay is on its way!
Though I can agree with those who say that guns are not a problem because people do the killings not the gun, and that people need guns to protect themselves, but there are more alternatives such as cops, 911 emergency, pepper spray, and Tasers. Pepper spray is safer because “it seems to confirm that pepper spray is a reasonably safe and effective tool for law enforcement officers to use when confronting uncooperative or combative subjects” (The Effectiveness and Safety of Pepper Spray). NIJ, an intern from the security management claimed, “there is no conclusive medical evidence within the state of current research that indicates a high risk of serious injury or death from the direct effects of CED exposure” (Security Management). Therefore, Americans should not feel as if it is the need to use a gun during an emergency because they should own Tasers and pepper spray instead. Also before purchasing a gun, people need to have much more in depth background check before having the gun in their hands. James Alan Fox and Marianne W. Zawitz of the Bureau of Justice Statistics discuss, “ though school shootings continue, though an average of 32 homicides are committed with guns in the United States each day, though dozens of suspected terrorists are known to have passed background checks to legally purchase guns, the gun-control side cannot gain traction”(Sandra M. Alters, Guns and Youth). This indicates that many sneaky people pass background checks and use that same gun to commit crimes. Background checks need to be looked over because people are getting away with killing people with the guns they purchase. There should also be a requirement to go to gun school just like it is going to driving school for one to get their permit. Although some would say that this option limits Americans’ right to the second amendment by only allowing adults to own and carry a gun with strict requirements. But, if anyone at any age were allowed to carry guns, there will be more chaos everywhere. If the second amendment, which is simply “The right to bear arms”, is fully upheld then there will be more incidents like the Aurora Theatre and Sandy Hook Elementary shootings. If unstable or dangerous people have the right to carry guns, things like this happen. Another thing that some people will try to argue against is that people will find ways to go against that law anyway. Like people find a way to do drugs that are against the law, people will find ways to carry and use guns even if that law is made. However, if there was a strict law on how people gain access to guns and who gains that access, there will be much less small and largely horrific incidents with gun use involved. The problem with gun control in America today is that Americans have too much liberty with guns. The requirements to receive guns are not strict enough. There have been incidents, including mass murders with murderers using massive war guns. By increasing the requirements to own a gun, it will decrease death rates in America.
Your intro is great and the research you included fits well, it seems like you put a lot of effort. I like your conclusion. It's short, to the point, and says exactly what you think should be done. Good!
In 1965, the United States upheld the right to privacy in the Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur. The court stated that “freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause.” Marriage is a custom that has been maintained throughout various civilizations for centuries. It still stands in our society, to this day. Today, however, it is often restricted to man and woman. This is in direct contradiction to its previous liberties; Marriage, in the past, has been allowed between man and a man, or women and a women. There’s no plausible reason that it should not be that way today. In today’s world, same sex marriage is seen as an abomination to society with disastrous effects on the minds of people. Not taking into consideration the positive effects that the legalization of same sex marriage can have on society, society itself has isolated itself from the positive effects of same sex marriage and drenched itself with the negative effects. In today’s world, traditional marriage is defined as the conjoining of a man and women in holy matrimony. For millennia, marriage was about property and power rather than mutual attraction. It was a way of forging political alliances, sealing business deals, and expanding the family labor force. For many people, marriage was an unavoidable duty. For others, it was a privilege, not a right. Servants, slaves, and paupers were often forbidden to wed, and even among the rich, families sometimes sent a younger child to a nunnery or monastery rather than allow them to marry and break up the family’s landholding. Andrew Sullivan, a British author, blogger, political commentator, and an editor states that “For 16 centuries, Christianity also defined the validity of a marriage on the basis of a couple’s wishes. If two people claimed they had exchanged marital vows — even out alone by the haystack — the Catholic Church accepted that they were validly married.” Since the start of the Catholic Church, Catholics believed that as long as people were willing to getting married then they were allowed to do so. However, as time passed and homosexuals demanded the right to marry, the Catholic Church, along with the country, accounted an “accurate” definition of a traditional marriage contradicting its previous belief. As time passed by the and the country have both changed their laws and rules in order to benefit them and only allow what they want to allow not accounting for the consequences spread by their actions. Legalizing same sex marriage will have several positive effects on society. Same-sex couples are similarly situated to different-sex couples in terms of their economic status, their family decisions, their interdependence, and their valuing of marriage. It’s no surprise, then, that gay couples eagerly take advantage of the right to marry when they have it. Research shows that gay couples who marry want to express their commitment to each other and to their family and friends. Same-sex couples want to marry to create a firm personal and legal foundation for their own lives and security for their current and future children. Even though they can’t reproduce, there are less than half a million children waiting to be adopted and welcomed into a loving home. Even though same sex marriage will have positive on society, many people don’t believe so. Many people argue that same sex marriage could potentially lead down a "slippery slope” ending with giving people in polygamous, incestuous, bestial, and other nontraditional relationships the right to marry. Others say that marriage should not be extended to same-sex couples because homosexual relationships have nothing to do with procreation. Allowing gay marriage would only further shift the purpose of marriage from producing and raising children to adult gratification. Lastly, people argue that marriage is already threatened with high divorce rates, between %40-%50 of couples are divorcing, and that legalizing same sex marriage will only worsen the problem.
People argue that allowing same sex marriage will give people in polygamous, incestuous, bestial, and other nontraditional relationships that right to marry, but how does this badly affect people? Everyone has the right to privacy and whatever they do on their own time should not matter to other people. Yes it is true that gay couples cannot reproduce, however it does not mean they cannot have children. Gay couples can adopt children and give them a warm loving family. There are about less than half a million children waiting to be adopted. People argue that they can’t reproduce, however they can still raise a family and give children a home. Lastly, people argue that marriage is already threatened with high divorce rates and then legalizing same sex marriage will only worsen it. It is true that high divorce rates are higher than ever before, however legalizing same sex marriage will increase the percentage of people who get married. If people were so concerned with high divorce rate, why don’t they advocate that instead on insisting that same sex marriage will only worsen the problem at hand. Even though same sex marriage will have a positive effect on society, many do not agree. Same sex marriage will help get more children adopted and placed into home with new families. If legalized, gay couples will take advantage of the right to marry and not take it for granted and divorce. By not legalizing same sex marriage, the government is allowing discrimination to happen around the country. Religious beliefs only hold so much ground in the foundation of our countries law making. You can debate theology, and the divide between church and state, the issue of procreation, the red herring of polygamy. But what it all really comes down to is the primary institution of love. The small percentage of people who are gay or lesbian were born with the capacity to love and the need to be loved.
I like this essay, the ending was great, however you seem a bit repetitive in some spots. You could talk a bit about how allowing same sex marriage could install more tolerance and open mindedness in future generations since many kids will be adopted by the gay couples.
Nice thesis Jorge, I really like the diction it is very critical! I suggest you consider expanding upon the argument that the ban of gay marriage violates their fundamental rights because this is one of the most dominant agrguments in favor of legalizing gay marriage. I also recommned you use an example because it would increase not only your logos but pathos to Good work!
I really like that it begins with a rhetorical question. I think overall it's really good but I do agree with Estefani, more examples would definitely make your arguement ten times stronger.
“Stay alive at all costs! Find the key! Kill the bad guys!” This is how one eighth-grader describes the principles of playing video games. Such games might seem like harmless fun, but what if the violence attracts and addicts young players, affecting their behavior and their view of reality? Video games are increasingly being used around the world, mainly by children, adolescents, and young adults. Currently, video games especially violent ones have raised concerns, particularly from concerned parents and health professionals. While video games when played in moderation may have the potential to influence gamers positively, taking into account how many hours the average-American spends playing video games in conjunction with their content, video games result in an increase of aggression, a toll on ones academic success, in addition to creating potential harm to one's health. Some may argue that violent video games have no negative impact on children, adolescents, or young adults, pointing out that video games are entertainment media just like television and that just because one kills in a video game it does not mean that video game players will go on and kill someone in actual reality. However, just because a player does not imitate specific violent acts found in video games such as killing it does not mean that video games have absolutely no short or long term negative impact on a player's behavior. Excessive exposure to violent video games-but not limited to- increases aggressive thoughts, feelings, behaviors and the likelihood of engaging in confrontation. A college student babysat two children who were playing the video game "Mario Cart," which is really not a very violent game and when the younger brother won, the older brother got up and started kicking him and yelling insults. Later on that day, the younger brother was playing another video game by himself and when he could not beat the level, he threw down the controller and screamed at the TV. screen, "Why are you doing this to me...?!" and burst into tears. According to the most comprehensive poll by the Kaiser Foundation, American children aged 8 - 18 play an average of 8 hours of video games per week and playing is heaviest in the 11-14 age group. In addition , the majority of top selling video games and children's favorite games contain strong violence. Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 grossed ~$USD 550 million in the first five days of its 2009 release, at that time more than any other entertainment product in history (movies included). Clearly, a large number of a children and adolescents are regularly exposed to violent video games that are highly addictive. For this reason, violent video games present a threat to a user's physiological health. Geoffrey and Elizabeth Loftus, in their book Mind at Play: The Psychology of Video Games, warned about the dangers of violent video games: “Although we can never be sure in any individual case, a substantial body of evidence indicates that viewing excessive violence on the screen is associated with aggression and violent behavior among children and teenagers." One of the most troubling influences video games have on players is the medium’s remarkable ability to fixate a player’s attention or, referred to by Sherry Turkle’s term as a “holding power.”
The first argument against violent video game effects is that there is little evidence linking the playing of violent video games to very violent behaviors. However , we must reflect on the difference between aggression and violence. "In essence, violence is aggressive behavior that has extreme harm as its goal. Thus, all violence is aggression but not all aggression is violence." There are ways to test links with aggressive behavior, which can be examined ethically in a laboratory. It is disingenuous to suggest that because there are no substantial evidence to prove the link between violent video games and aggression and there are no established negative or anti-social effects. This is like saying that because there are no experimental studies on humans showing that cigarette smoking causes lung cancer, smoking is not a causal risk factor. The causal links between violent video game playing and physical aggression are well established. It is revealed that video games can be a powerful educational and exercise tools but, considering the disproportionate amount of time spent playing video games, video games rob from the importance education and health. As a consequences of spending long hours playing video games children and adolescents perform poorly in school because they routinely skip their homework to play games . Hours spent playing video games eats into time that would normally be spent studying and reading. For example, in a study of 1491 youth between 10 and 19, gamers spent 30% less time reading and 34% less time doing homework. Although there are a variety of games systems that try to promote physical activity, they are not as popular. The state of Utah was acclaimed with the lowest percentage of children overweight, and was found to have the second lowest proportion of children spending 2 or more hours on video game play compared to the District of Columbia, that has the highest percentage of overweight children, and the highest percentage nationwide of children spending an incredible 4 hours plus in front of a screen. It is evident that there is a correlation between the amount of time spent playing and how prone one is to obesity. Addicted gamers tend to sit in one place for a long time so their body practically misses out on any kind of physical activity. Being overweight may increase the risk of developing other ailments in the long run such as high levels of cholesterol, diabetes, hypertension and so on. While video games do have some positive effects, overall video games have much more of a negative influence in a person's behavior, education, and health.
I really like your introduction. You have a really strong intro including your thesis. I think the fact that you went straight into stats was a great technique because as soon as I read what was occurring with the children you added on the amount and it made the argument much stronger. Using more examples like those would make your paper a lot stronger.
The Selective Service makes men ages 18-26 to sign up for the military. However, the Selective Service is not needed at the time, it saps money, and scars families in more ways than one . All this so called service does is ship out barely independent boys off to foreign lands to go die and ultimately lose in wars like Vietnam, and Korea. The United States has an enormous budget, in 2011 alone it spent more than 13 countries combined. Aside from that, the US is the biggest traders in the world, and is part of NATO. In other words, it has nothing to fear.
In New York, the coming veterans from the Middle East came home to a grim welcome. Every veteran has to have a pension right? Well these veterans seemed to be in some alternate universe because aside from being rightfully paid, the veterans had to pay back with some sort of interest! What is this, having a selfless man/woman go out and fight for their country only to be taxed? To think this is to those who willingly went off to war. if this happened during a draft, there might not even be a pension, or an interest so high that the veterans regret their military service entirely! This could lead to a drop in the already below par numbers the military has.
Sure, someone might say that the Selective Service is necessary for protection; that we should have a large number of reserves for any impeding or sudden crisis. Reasonable, yes, but the Selective Service actually saps money! Money that could be used in better things like: education, transportation, or a slight increase in pensions. Why dump money into a service that has barely been used in the past 96 years. Really, with the huge $711 billion dollar budget, advanced weaponry, and the fact that the US is surrounded by two huge oceans; the US has little to nothing to fear. If anything, the Selective Service shows a bit of anxiety within the country. The need of a large reserve of troops is a bit unsettling. Of course with the Middle East, especially Syria, in chaos, and North Korea suspiciously toying with nuclear weapons is alarming. Still with natural borders, some of the best intelligence in the world, and being a provider for most of the world; the US can let the Selective Service rest until needed.
For some the military is glorious, and it opens many avenues that were once inaccessible. However, there are some alternatives that somewhat simulate the military experience. For example, in Russia the men who do not want to be drafted can become firefighters or medics. It is the same danger, and commitment, but home and it directly helps the people. Families can still be proud that their son is off doing a great deed, but has a lesser chance of being killed, captured, or missing. This alternative for the most part keeps families’ together.
Those who still might favor the Selective Service might argue that if an immediate family member of the soldier has passed, they are able to leave. However, is it not better to be with their family through the whole ordeal? It is fantastic that the Selective Service is sympathetic, but should a young man’s father, mother, brother, sister, or whoever to die without seeing their beloved for the last time. This is what was implied earlier. The Selective Service, although not intentionally, scars families. Just thinking of the boy not being able to console his mother after his father, or her husband passed is far from pleasant.
In conclusion, the Selective Service should be shelved temporarily. It saps money, damages families in numerous ways, and is not necessary right now since the US is a world power with an already hefty defense budget. Finally, with natural borders, this land is a fortress with no apparent need for a huge army.
I think that you pose strong points but I feel that your conclusion could be stronger. It seems that you are just repeating what you already said in the essay before. You should end the essay with a "so what" that leaves the readers thinking.
Adding on to Anel's comment about the conclusion I think you should add on an ending that will leave the reader to decide but lean more towards your side of the argument.
Eighteen into is the age where adolescents morph into adults. They have not physically changed, but they do carry more responsibility on their shoulders. They are tried as adults, seen as adults, and left to make adult decisions. Turning eighteen means receiving the rights and responsibilities of adulthood to vote, smoke cigarettes, serve on juries, get married, sign contracts, be prosecuted as adults, and join the military. Adults should get to choose what they do or do not do, whether they smoke or don’t smoke, whether they drink or don’t drink. The drinking age should be lowered to eighteen because at this age they have the power to make their own choices. Just as eighteen year old men have to sign up for the draft and eighteen years olds in general have the right to smoke, alcohol should be a choice and not a taboo topic left to the judgment of a 21-year old mind.
One of the biggest concerns with lowering the drinking age, by far, is what dangers this will bring to society. Statistics including the number of fatalities and injuries are taken into consideration. How will changing this law change the way we live? With statistics like, “Excessive alcohol consumption contributes to more than 4,600 deaths among underage youth, that is, persons less than 21 years of age, in the United States each year,”(Alcohol and Public Health) it is easy to immediately rule out changing the drinking age. These statistics scare people, making them believe the assertions that lowering the drinking age would bring disastrous effects. After all, we have the right to freedom as long as we do not harm those around us, and any change that might do just that is immediately shut down. But it is not right to blame the increase of fatalities on 18-year old drinkers. First of all, lowering the drinking age does not mean that there will be an increased amount of 18 years-old's “excessively consuming alcohol”. The thrill of drinking at an age lower than the legal age is just that; knowing that you are doing something that you should not. Besides that, 18 year old drinkers should not be given the whole blame for accidents. "Higher traffic accident and fatality rates occur during the first few years of legal drinking regardless of age. In 2009, the 21- to 24-year-old age group had the highest percentage of drivers in fatal crashes with blood-alcohol concentration (BAC) levels of .08 or higher – 35 percent. Any increase in traffic accidents or fatalities in 18- to 20-year-old's would be offset by a decrease for those 21 and older." (Asch and Levy) The introduction of alcohol, period, at whatever age it may be, brings the same consequences.
Why does anyone want to lower the drinking age in the first place? Well, it has something to do with the idea of being an adult. As children we look up to our parents or guardians, the adults in our lives, as powerful beings who are responsible and powerful, as well as independent. Whenever it is our turn to turn eighteen, we feel like we’re carrying the weight of those responsibilities on our shoulders. That is it’s a little puzzling when eighteen year old’s can make their own choices when it comes to drinking. While it is true that some things warrant a higher age of initiation than 18, it is puzzling why being sent off to kill or be killed warrants this ripe age. A court is able to try an 18 year old as an adult. An 18 year old is able to walk into a gas station and buy cigarettes. An adult is able to be drafted to war, the death zone. Excuse me if I think this is a bit ridiculous. How can you deny an 18 year old the right to a beer, but see no problem in letting them go off to die and kill for their country? “It is hard to argue against the “my son/daughter can serve their country for three years without being able to have a legal drink” line of reasoning. If someone is willing to die for their country, why do we assume they aren't responsible to have a beer?” (McConnell)I guess I do see why the drinking age is 21. They will be able to drink at the age of 22 when their four year contract in the service is over. And boy are they going to need something to erase all the traumatizing moments they just faced.
Another big argument for not lowering the drinking age: at eighteen, neither the body nor brain it fully developed, and the level of maturity is lacking.(Nicole) But if you want to look at it that way, it is important to remember, again, the fact that eighteen year old's are sent to war. Drinking alcohol has no level of complexity. But going off to war, where you may possibly be killed and have to kill, with a brain that needs developing and a maturity level that needs to rise is much more dangerous that drinking a couple of beers with friends.
What many people forget to take into consideration is that we do not want to lower the alcohol age to bring another vice; we not only believe that these have the power to make their own choices but realize that this is the age where parents can reach out to their children. They are old enough to understand a lecture from their parents; at age eighteen, most students are in their last year of high school, which at twenty-one, many are in college. If you are in high school, you probably live under your parent's roof. That gives them a chance to speak to their children about the dangers of alcohol, how to drink, how not to drink, and prepare their child. However if your first sip of alcohol is at age twenty-one at a college party with a bunch of crazed, inexperienced drinkers, you’re not going to be well informed. (McConnell) Would you rather your kids learn from you, or some guys at a fraternity party?
Lowering the drinking age is not a matter of giving adults more freedom or trusting them with the responsibility; it is more a matter of letting adults make certain decisions that seem minute when compared to other responsibilities they are given. I cannot understand how I am to trust an 18 year old with jury duty, giving judgment about another person’s case when they can’t even be given the right to drink alcohol.
To some, five seconds could mean nothing. In five seconds there is nothing that can really be done. But when you’re behind the wheel, even taking your eyes off the road for those five seconds could end up changing your life. Each day, more than 15 people are killed and more than 1,200 people are injured in crashes that were reported to involve a distracted driver . Many states have become aware of the dangers of driving distracters, however the laws should be implemented nation wide because there has been an increase in deaths due to driving distracters such as eating, putting on makeup, and using any hand held device. Driving distracted occurred on a day-to-day basis. Define by the website http://www.distraction.gov distracted driving is any activity that could divert a person's attention away from the primary task of driving. All distractions endanger driver, passenger, and bystander safety. These types of distractions include: texting using a cell phone or smart phone, eating and drinking, talking to passengers, grooming, reading, including maps Using a navigation system, watching a video adjusting a radio, CD player, or MP3 player. When driving and full attention is not on the road it is a higher possibility for an accident to occur. In an accident it is putting the life the distracted and others at stake. States have become aware of the some of the danger of distracted driving but have just implemented on texting and driving. Texting and driving has become a major cause of the accident due to driving distracters, however there should be a national law that penalizes those who drive distracted. The texting and driving laws in 39 states include banning texting and driving. Florida, South Carolina, Montana, Arizona and South Dakota are the few states that have no laws against any driving distracter. Some may say “At best, cell phone bans around the country might take years to become effective, just like drunk driving laws before them; at worst they may prove as futile as anti-speeding campaigns of the past.” Just looking at the difference between California which implements a law on a driving distracter, the use of texting, the there was a decrease of 22 percent of deaths after the laws was implemented while in Florida there has been a 4 percent increase in deaths. Now if there were a law that penalized or banned for all driving distracters our lives would be safer. Driving distracted can have a major or a low impact on your life. A testimonial from a conscious driver stated, “Obviously texting while driving is dangerous and should be banned. We shouldn't stop there, though - all distracted driving should be banned. Today while driving down East Bay Drive, I saw a white SUV swerving out of its lane. As I passed, I expected to see the driver texting; instead I saw a woman looking in her rearview mirror putting on her mascara.” This is proof that other driving distracters are also dangerous. There we had a women putting on mascara her full attention was not on the road it even caused herb car to “swerve out of its lane”, this makes it dangerous for those on the other lane. This is something minimal but it can get to even death, In a documentary made by AT&T a young teenager, Patrick, was interviewed “I sent one stupid meaningless text ‘LOL’ and killed a man.” After killing a by bicyclist Patrick spent time in jail, he killed a person due to driving distractedly. It is important that there is a law implemented that penalizes for driving distractedly. There have been many deaths due to this although some believe it will not be as effective as other driving laws, driving distracted has grown into an umbrella taking over simple actions while driving that can take a life away.
I agree with Nirvana about the introduction and also ading rebuttals. I felt like I didn't see enough opposing arguments that would be available to rebutt. Your conclusion was good, but could be tied back to a more general idea about rules and consequences.
Imagine the world we live in fifty years from now. How do you picture your country? Your family? Your planet? Unless your answer to all three is “Absolutely Fantastic!”, it is clear that our future is heading into a dark path. In a country where global warming is rising at an alarming rate and the economy is struggling through a recession, certain measures must be taken. Legalizing the growth of industrial hemp, a strong and eco-friendly fibre, can be the key factor to solving our nation’s major issues.
Industrial hemp is a number of varieties of the Cannabis Sativa plant that is intended strictly for agricultural and industrial purposes. It was introduced to the America’s when the Puritans came to the new world. Up until the 1900’s, hemp fields were tremendously popular. Hemp seeds became popular for their richness of protein, vitamins and omega-3s. It was also used for the production of paper .In fact, the first draft of the Declaration of Independence was printed on hemp paper. After hundreds of years of successfully growing industrial hemp, it was outlawed in 1937.
So why, if it served such useful purposes in the past, does our nation consider it illegal to grow industrial hemp? The biggest concern for many is the close relationship that exist between industrial hemp and marijuana. Since both come from the same cannabis plant, it is often assumed they are the same thing and have the same effect if smoked. However, their levels of tetrahydrocannabinol(THC), the psychoactive component that gives the “high”, and cannabidiol(CBD),that effectively blocks the THC’s psychoactive punch, are nearly complete opposites. While marijuana contains 6-20% THC and minimal amounts of CBD, industrial hemp contains about .3% THC and high amounts of CBD. All you would get if you attempted to smoke industrial hemp would be at most, a bad headache.
Legalizing the growth of industrial hemp would allow the environment a break from the increasing global warming. Cotton, one of our nations major growing crop, uses about 50% of the world’s pesticides, while industrial hemp can grow easily without the necessity of herbicides, fungicides, or pesticides. It grows in about 3 months and nearly the entire plant can be used for a variety of purposes. The typical tree needs at least 10 years to reach usable maturity. If the growth of industrial hemp became legal, there would be less pesticides needed for the production of your typical fibers. As done before in our nations history, industrial hemp could be used for the production of paper because it grows significantly faster and is much stronger. This will diminish the amount of trees that would be cut down allowing for a greener, more eco-friendly environment.
If positive environmental effects isn’t enough to legalize the growth of industrial hemp, the boost in our economy might just do the trick. Although illegal to grow it, it is surely not condemned to import it from other nations. The United States wasted $10 million in 2010 in all importations of hemp labeled products. In fact, the United States is Canada’s top buyer of hemp since it legalized it. With the industrial hemp products increasing day to day, it is only expected that the United States will continue enriching nations like Canada when it could instead save that money if it were to grow it nationally. Industrial hemp produces 250% more fibre than cotton and does so in a much shorter time span. When used as a fabric it is “softer, warmer, more absorbent, and longer lasting than cotton”. This means that you would need to produce a lot less industrial hemp than cotton to create the same amount of products, thus saving the nation money that would otherwise be wasted.
Being such a versatile, strong, long lasting, and eco-friendly fibre, it is difficult to imagine why industrial hemp would become illegal to grow in the first place. The answer could lay in the millionaires of the paper and cotton industry. Could it be that these wealthy men used their power and money to lobby government and give hemp the negative reputation most people have of it? After all, if the demand of paper and hemp produced products were met or even exceeded by hemp growers, the fat cats would be left without business. I can’t help but wonder if this is the same reason it is still illegal to grow in the 21st century?
I like your introduction and how it ties in to the first aspect of why industrial hemp should be legalized, the environment. I feel like you addressed opposing sides once or twice, and could possibly address one more side or issue in order to have another rebuttal to strenghten your argument.
I really liked your intro and your use of rhetorical question. Also if maybe you could add a little more of the opposing side, to make your essay less bias?
Thank you for your feedback. When I read it over, it was very one sided so I will go back and add more opponent opinion to make it less bias. Thank you for your advice.
Pubs. Restaurants. Parks. Hospitals. There are only some of the places where taking a breath with a hint of second-hand smoke is nothing out of the ordinary. The people coming in and out of these places include children, the sick, the elderly, etc. many of whom should not be exposed to more toxic chemicals as it is. Second-hand smoke or ETS (Environmental Tobacco Smoke) that comes from individuals making decisions about their own health becomes a part of public air and public health, now posing a threat to the health of others including the most vulnerable, children and those with health conditions that all can be avoided by a public smoking ban. “Smoking is all about and should continue to be about a choice.” Most active smokers have to argue that a smoking ban would be some kind of infringement on a right to make a choice about one’s health. Many of those who have the same reaction argue that “most smokers already step outside of a restaurant to have a cigarette. But nonsmokers also have a choice the choice not to go into a restaurant or pub that allows smoking.” While it is true that non-smokers have a choice of not going into a restaurant that allows smoking, it’s also a matter of choice for them as to which restaurant they want to go to. People should be able to go to the restaurant of their choice without being exposed to detrimental health effects to which they have no control over. Non-smokers should be able to keep from the exposure to these chemicals they have decided not to intake. A writer in the New Straits Times warns about the exposure to second-hand smoke when she says,” IF you are a smoker, you know you are a prime candidate for heart trouble. So, if you are not a smoker, don't let these tobacco addicts blow smoke in your direction, warns Annie Freeda Cruez. For if they smoke and you don't, you become a "passive smoker", someone who comes into contact with "second-hand" smoke.” The second-hand smoke present in places like restaurants or even the work place where there sometimes isn’t a choice, one forcefully becomes the “passive smoker”.
The debate about whether second-hand smoke or being this “passive smoker” really endangers people’s health is ongoing. One doctor, Dr. John Dunn, writes in Boise Weekly, “"Based upon my medical training, my knowledge of proper scientific research, and my review of studies and policy making addressing second hand tobacco smoke or environmental tobacco smoke (ETS), I can say with confidence that second hand smoke may irritate some, but it does not kill anyone, anytime and it does not cause disease or death. I say that with reasonable medical certainty or probability.” ETS, or Environmental Tobacco Smoke, is defined as inhalation of smoke by persons other than the intended “active” smoker”. On the contrary, there have been studies proven to show that there is absolutely no safe level exposure of ETS or second-hand smoke. According to the World Bank, exposure to second-hand smoke causes an estimated 5% of the global burden of disease, slightly higher than the direct use of tobacco (4%), but this is largely concentrated in a few countries. About one third of adults are regularly exposed to second-hand tobacco smoke, and that accounts for just the adults, not other age group populations.
(con't.) The detrimental effects of smoking to the smoker are obvious. But are they to the “passive smokers”, those who only intake second-hand smoke? After proposing a new Anti-Smoking Law in San Francisco an article published that a 2003 study published in a British Medical Journal “found that the relationship between secondhand smoke and lung cancer in non-smokers is just as weak, concluding that. The opponents of a public smoking ban argued that this study proved that there was not a link strong enough to prove that second-hand smoke was a cause of lung cancer. However, a report in The Business Wire including surgeon general warning, explained that “even a brief exposure to second-hand smoke has immediate adverse effects on a person's cardiovascular system.” Breathing in an amount of this smoke for even a short period of time is able to cause adverse effects on a person’s health which is easier when it is open to the public.
The most harm second-hand smoke can do is to the population of children. Without a smoking ban, more children are exposed to ETS when in public. According to WHO (World Health Organization), “every year 600,000 children die in the world because of SHS. WHO also states, “Implementation of a smoking ban at public places is the single most important step any country can take to decrease the burden of tobacco-related diseases.” A public smoking ban would be the first step in reducing the amount of these tobacco-related diseases. In the same report by the Business Wire it is stated that, “Children exposed to secondhand smoke are at an increased risk for sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS), acute respiratory infections, ear problems, and more severe asthma.” Children are more vulnerable to tobacco smoke, because they breathe faster than adults, and because of their size the amount of toxic chemicals ingested is higher, affecting development as well as respiratory, immune, and nervous systems. By beginning to implement a smoking ban, the amount of children afflicted with tobacco-related diseases would drop. In The European Wire, it was published that, “"The number of children admitted to hospital with symptoms of asthma has fallen since the ban on smoking in enclosed public places came into effect, a study has found. Research shows there was a 12.3% fall in admissions in the first year after the law came into place in July 2007, and these have continued to drop in subsequent years." A public smoking ban in Europe proved to aid in the decline of tobacco-related diseases in children and has continued to do so, suggesting that the same result could happen in other places. A public smoking ban has been and continues to be an issue of debate, not only in the United States, but around the world. The opponents of the ban argue that it infringes on the right to smoke in public areas and doesn’t really hurt anyone. Extensive research has proven that second-hand smoke is linked to several diseases, not only in adults and children. As to the argument that it takes away from certain rights, it doesn’t. A public smoking ban does not call for a complete stop of smoking, because that’s left up to the individual to make a choice, but when it starts to affect those around us who can’t make that decision yet, it’s important to keep in mind if it’s fine to give up something so small for the better of our fellow humans.
I agree with Anel the way you tied it back was good. However your second paragraph seems alittle repetitive, the whole smoking, non-smoking restaurant and choice. Overall its a good first draft.
I like how engaged your reader with the intro. I really like how you used a quote in your first body paragraph and how you tied the conclusion to the bigger picture. Good Job
My parents divorced during the time I took the SAT. My concentration on the test was poor, my sleep erratic, and I didn’t care about the results of the test. Are colleges able to know this by just looking at SAT scores?” Tammy Stoner, one out of many students who suffered the unfortunate timing of problems during the SAT test. The Admission Offices also may not know that Johnny who scored a 1900 guessed on some parts of the test and he got lucky. The truth is there really isn’t a way for the Admission Offices to know about personal problems by just looking at test scores, or if someone got lucky and guessed. These cases may not pertain to everyone else, for others the SAT scores are seen as a tool to achieve college admission. Thousands of students nationwide stress and prepare for SAT tests every year. SAT scores have been known as a crucial part of the admission process into college. However, SAT scores are not distinguished by social class. They are viewed equally in the eyes of the admission offices. Which means that students who are lower income are compared to wealthy kids who took private SAT classes, and students who had more resources than others.Which creates a disadvantage and will result in more low income students to be rejected for their low scores.
SAT scores do not determine college admissions. They are seen as accessory that helps your application look more decorative and appealing for colleges to accept a student into their college. Director of admissions for Harvard College in Cambridge, Massachusetts claims, “Admissions officers rely on all the elements of your application to paint a picture of you. The biggest factor is your high school record, particularly your willingness to take and ability to succeed in demanding courses.” Admission officers may say SAT scores do not determine college admission, but they do determine college admission when other applicants have similar grades, background, and similar extracurricular activities. They will use SAT scores and determine who gets rejected and accepted. SAT test have been proven to increase the stress level for students that can significantly impact their scores on the test, or even worse push some students to cheat. This case affects particularly high income class students who might feel pressured to pay someone to take their test to get a high score. On November 23, 2011, fifteen students from the Great Neck area, were implicated in the latest round of charges. Prosecutors said 15 high school students hired five other people for anywhere from $500 to $3,600 each to take the SAT or ACT for them. The impostors - all of them college students who attended Great Neck-area public and private high schools - fooled test administrators by showing up for the exams with phony ID. Students feel the pressure and stress more as the years continue to pass because every year schools are becoming more competitive to get in and will require higher scores that some students won’t be able to provide.
In addition, some may say the SAT actually shines a spotlight on the inequities in education by putting every student on equal footing. The notion that the differences in test scores among different groups of students is somehow the result of testing bias is an idea that is “universally rejected within mainstream psychology,” according to University of Minnesota researchers. Although it may seem that SAT tests are fair and provide everyone with an equal chance, students with families with higher incomes tend to do better because of resources available to them. “The SAT is slanted in favor of privileged children—“a wealth test,” as Harvard law professor Lani Guinier calls it. The SAT has been proven to favor students who have high incomes. Most of them are able to afford private classes that can show them the tricks to gain a high score. Whereas a low income student will most likely not be able to afford a such a class. Generally speaking, the wealthier a student’s family is, the higher the SAT score. For the critical reading section, the average score for student’s families income of $20,000 and less was around 434. For other students whose family income was $60,000-$80,000 the average score was 503. Students with high family income have more resources and are able to have a better education than low income students.
SAT scores help colleges determine how successful a student might be in college. Demonstrated success in advanced placement and honors classes in addition to good test scores tell admission officers that your overall ability to achieve is excellent. The higher the SAT scores of students, the greater the likelihood that they not only returned for a second year of study but eventually earned a bachelor degree as well. SAT scores may show that a student is able to think critically and if further interpreted do good in college, but some students learned tricks to help get a high SAT score. “While the SAT serves a purpose, strong GPAs, high school rigor, teacher recommendations, and personal essays are stronger indicators of success at Montclair State,” Terry said. “Utilizing a variety of assessment factors, the university has seen greater student achievement and a rise in graduation rates. This explains why more and more prestigious small colleges, such as Middlebury and Bennington, are making the SAT optional.Therefore, using or basing college success on SAT scores alone doesn’t necessarily mean that a student will achieve success in college.
SAT test have shown many downfalls for students. It is a test that not only is not fair, but also puts a lot of stress for students who take the test. SAT scores had the purpose to serve as an asset for a student's application, instead they have served as a distinction between low income and high income students. They should be abolished as they serve a purpose for discriminating against low income students. Colleges should look at AP scores or SAT Subject Tests that would help provide more what a students is actually learning.
I like your hook. Even though it isn't relatable to everyone, many can relate to taking the SAT test and the way you feel after it. also you have good credibility
I really like your quote in the introduction it was a good hook! But I didn't know it was a quote until the end because it doesn't have quotation marks in the beginning. I also liked how in the conclusion you provided alternatives of the test providing more support to your argument. I think that what could be worked on a little more is a little more analysis and it would be a lot stronger. Good job!
After a long day at school or work all you want to do is indulge yourself with a refreshing ice cold soda, eat you favorite bag of chips, and that delicious chocolate bar you picked up at the local 7-11. With moderation none of these things can come of any potential harm, but considering that over 25 percent of Americans consume fast foods every day health issues are bound to rise. Junk food and soft drinks are both of very low nutrition. Junk food is one of the leading causes for the 32 percent of children that are obese and overweight in the United States. Because of this taxes on junk food and soft drinks should be increased. This would not only improve the health of people, but also allow for healthier foods to be of a lower price. If taxes on junk food were to be increased it would allow for healthy food prices to go down. The idea of ‘fat tax’ was first introduced in 1942 by a U.S. physiologist A. J. Carlson, but it was not payed much attention to, In the 1980 it was re-introduced by Kelly D. Brownell who is the director of the Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity at Yale. Brownell proposed, “ revenue from junk-food taxes be used to subsidize more healthful foods and fund nutrition campaigns.” Increasing in fattening foods would help decrease the taxing on healthy foods. Also "Junk Food Taxes Pay Off, Study Finds; Food-pricing strategies can reduce dietary inequalities, researcher says”. By increasing junk food taxes healthier food sold at a store like Whole Foods would be more wallet friendly.
Some opponents may say that increasing junk food taxes would not help lower health issues because it is a persons choice what they eat. Imposing a fat tax would help decrease health issues such as obesity, since most of the people that are obese tend to be of certain demographics, like low income minorities. “Growing up I was a skinny and average-weight child, never really had any problems weight-wise. I played football for a recreational league in Georgia and worked hard at becoming a great player. Family issues arose, and I quit playing football. The coaches begged me to come back, but I never did. I was used to the excercise and training, but I was also used to the appetite I gained from doing that. I ate like I was a football player, and along with the family issues, I ate even more because it made me feel better. I was never a social person, so I just stayed indoors and played video games and ate food the majority of the day. I was like this all throughout high school; despite being called the "fat kid," I still continued to eat. I finally reached 260 pounds a little after my graduation date. I got a great job and worked there for about six months, then they fired me for something absolutely outrageous. As time went by, bills were piling up and searching for jobs began to become extremely stressful.” The fat tax would help in the long run of people lives. By increasing fast foods people would eat healthier and be able to live a more productive life. The fat tax would not only help peoples health but also the environment. "I was pleasantly surprised that senators looked into this issue," he said, "but I think this amendment does not go far enough. They should have at least brought up the fact that using this oil also causes environmental problems." Gontier is referring to the fact that some palm oil plantations are responsible for deforestation and other environmental issues in countries that produce it such as Indonesia and Malaysia. Most people are unaware that what they put into their body is so unhealthy, it even causes environmental issues. Increasing the fat tax would allow us to make up for the environmental damage we have cause in other countries. Both opponents and proponents make strong points about increasing or not the fat tax. Even though the fat tax has failed in countries like Denmark and even in trials like California, and Maryland economic specialist should promote Kelly D. Brownell’s idea of decreasing healthy foods. This would balance the loss of junk food loss in revenue. Fat tax has more positives such as having less costly healthy foods, a decrease in prices of healthy foods, and the environment being safer.
I like your hook, I think it fits well with the rest of your paper. I also think the pathos you have in here is compelling, but I think you should try to add more statistics.
I really like your hook! It is what many Americans do. I also really like your evidence. It is very strong and straight to the point but I feel that more analysis on it would make it that much stronger. Overall, it was really good!
I really liked your hook I was agreeing with it until you mentioned the negative side of junk food. Which means you hook really worked. Your evidence was strategically picked especially the source where the person comparing their life before as young and after their lack of exercise.
Brownell, Kelly D. "Get Slim With Higher Taxes." New York Times 15 Dec. 1994. Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web. 25 Feb. 2013.
"Fast Food." Doctors, Patient Care, Health Education, Medical Research. Palo Alto Medical Foundation, n.d. Web. 21 Feb. 2013.
Klein, Sarah. "I Lost Weight: Matthew Quiles Committed To Healthy Eating And Lost 80 Pounds." The Huffington Post. TheHuffingtonPost.com, 13 Aug. 2012. Web. 12 Feb. 2013.
"French Senator Proposes 'Nutella Tax'." PRI's The World 13 Nov. 2012. Gale Student Resources In Context. Web. 6 Feb. 2013.
I like your introduction, it catches the reader. When you say "but it was not payed much attention to" i think you can put " but it was ignored" I like how you incorporated not only the states in the U.S but also other countries..
The facts are terrifying and are slowly causing more damage to the world than we can imagine. “Children on average, watch between two and four hours of television every day. American youth view more than 1,000 murders, rapes, and assaults each year.” And that is only what has been recorded. The rise of violence seen in the U.S. has sparked many controversies. Some say the increase in these crimes have been due to amount of violence shown on television, while others disagree. Unfortunately, research shows that what people watch on television has a direct impact on people’s actions and thoughts. One may say that the ban of violence and sex on television will bore people and will have no entertainment, leading to more chaos and disaster. A local journalist, Conrad Angula stated, “I think it is childish and unfortunate. Maybe he (the president) is going to bore people to death. It’s definitely a bad move.” Although one may say it is a bad move, the facts are prevailing. “Sadly, by the time our children leave elementary school, they will have seen on average 100,000 acts of violence on television.” This means that children are exposed to these violent acts and are witnessing them more than we can imagine. Facts are shown that “the occurrence of violence on television has increased by 75% since 1998 and has increased across the board on all five of the major broadcast networks” If every year, the violence keeps increasing, later violence and sex is the only thing that will be on television. Not only will it be on television but on people’s minds as well since that is what they will see all the time. The more they have it on their minds, the more prone they will to commit a violent act.
Others say that “Under our Constitution, the proper response is plain, even though it is not simple: give parents more power to control what their children see. But Congress's attention at this time seems instead to signal an intent to involve the Federal Government more deeply in what we are allowed to see on our television sets. The FCC [Federal Communications Commission], for instance, has suggested that Congress "time channel" certain shows to late night time slots or implement a government-run ratings system. Such attempts to restrict free speech would be grave mistakes—and ones that the courts are unlikely to tolerate.” Although there may be an intent by the FCC to run shows at a late night time slot, we can see that television is crucial in the lives of American families. “An average American household has the television set turned on 8 hours and 11 minutes daily, and children watch on average between two and four hours of television every day. Depending on their age, one to two thirds of children have televisions in their bedrooms. By the time most children begin the first grade, they will have spent the equivalent of three school years in front of the television set.” This is extremely devastating. Since many children have televisions in their bedrooms, they can watch whatever they want at whatever time they please, meaning that violence and sex will most likely be on since children are in their bedrooms mostly at night. Not only are children learning about violence and sex at a young age but the media is inducing fear in these children that could be severe and long-lasting. “A survey of more than 2,000 elementary and middle school children revealed that heavy television viewing was associated with self-reported symptoms of anxiety, depression, and post-traumatic stress. Watching more than six hours of television a day put children at greater risk for scoring in the clinical range of these trauma symptoms. A survey of nearly 500 parents of elementary school children found that the children who watched television just before bedtime had greater difficulty falling asleep, were more anxious at bedtime, and had higher rates of nightmares.” These studies demonstrate that not only are kids learning to be more active in these ideas of violence and sex but their brains and bodies are suffering as well with symptoms of anxiety, depression, and trauma. The violence on television is causing many children to be traumatized and is not helping them develop as healthy as they could be causing them nightmares and having bad thoughts throughout the day. This then makes them not perform at their best at school.
Americans believe that with the advanced technology, parents are able to block channels that children should not be exposed to. “At the same time, parents have gained unprecedented control over the tube. Since 2000, all new TV sets have come equipped with a government-mandated "V-chip," which allows parents to automatically block specific programs based on violence, language or sexual content ratings. The typical TV or cable/satellite box includes other controls as well that allow the blocking of channels and restrict access to the set.” But unfortunately, not always do parents know how to block channels and not always is there an option like that for everyone. A parent states, "Our kids are surrounded by these brutal representations of girls and women, and it is no wonder that women and young girls are the victims of male violence. No wonder that 20% of college girls will be sexually assaulted by guys they know in school. And it is no wonder that boys as young as 14 are capable of raping little girls as young as 11. How else are they to perceive girls if they are inundated daily with images of half-humans, half-living women, looking "sick and sexified," as Kesha's new song ["We R Who We R," 2010] goes.” Media is glamorizing violence and sex, making children think it is a good thing since that is all they hear about now. It is as if all those being sexually assaulted and being raped is ok because the media is justifying it with the different videos that are made and different television shows that are on air. Parents in West Virginia stated that “children’s behavior is now becoming more aggressive and at times crude or explicit, and that they blame television for much of the problem.” This provides that the television shows aired now, are of no educational experience for these young children but are only hurting their behavior. Violence and sex on television is not bringing a good outcome on the world as a whole. The violence occurring in America has sprouted from the ideas brought about from television. Not only has that violence caused great problems but, it is a tremendous issue for children. They are becoming traumatized by violence and sexual things they see on television and becoming more and more violent and disobedient themselves.
Your first piece of evidence was not cited, but i don;t know if u did that on purpose or not. I like how you abbreviated and then explained what the abbreviations meant. through out your essay you keep mentioning words like "devastating, terrifying" i think by doing this, it helps your position on the issue.
Vanessa Herrera is currently working shifts and taking care of her one year old baby. She was accepted to Cal State Dominguez last spring but denied the admissions. She gave up the chance to continue her education after high school because she knows that there are more schools that she can apply to without feeling rushed to apply to a college and be able to spend time with her daughter without the stress of school work. Herrera is part of a recent upward trend with many students on who have decided to not immediately enter school after graduation, otherwise known as a gap year. There are many that disagree with students not continuing their education after high school, but they are not taking in consideration the motives of the students on why they have decided to approach a gap year. Even though many students do rush to college after high school because that is what students are expected to do, students should break from that expectation and enjoy their surrounding such as have job experiences, having a fuller understanding of themselves and survey closer their college major before entering the arduous life of college. A gap year does not have to be a year. Sometimes its more or less than a year, it’s depending on the person taking it. According to Macca Sherifi, travel editor for gapyear.com, the gap year took an appearance in the United States in the 1960s when youth were experimenting freedom of speech and independence. Many started to take these gaps because they wanted to adventure out of there homes and explore places of need and bring global awareness, well that has changed over the years. Not only do students take a gap year to help developing countries in building structures or teaching english but also because they have seen the pressure of stress take a toll on them and want to step away from it for awhile, long enough until they think its time to continue onto college. The only problem is that not many students are aware of the opportunity of taking a gap year. There are not flyers around high schools informing students about the advantages of gap years and counselors would not mention it unless they are asked about it, so students should be given information of gap year prior graduating from high school.
In an extensive study done by Karl Haigler, director of the Adult Literacy Initiative for the U.S Department of Education, and Rae Nelson, who has served eight years on the White House policy staff such as Associate Director for Education Policy, they have found several propositions of the effects of a gap year and one being job experience. According to Haigler and Nelson, “88 percent of Gap Year graduates report that their Gap Year had significantly added to their employability.” There are many students that do not want to waste any time during their year of break, so many start to work either to start saving up for tuition fees or to have extra money in their pockets. Those students that do start working during their gap year will gain experience working and can aggregate it to their resume. Additionally, students that do have job experience are more likely to get hired and the jobs they worked for can hire them back. I can agree that having job during the gap year can bring a positive outcome, but there are students that prefer not to work and end up wasting their year of break. Houston Dougharty, vice president of student affairs at Grinnell College in Iowa, explains that there are time that students have taken a gap year and not used the time effectively, and it does not help them either in terms of maturing or developing skills or being more ready for college. However, I cannot agree that a gap year is ineffective. There are students that take a gap year because they are not prepared to endure college life. A USA Today article stated that there are colleges that are encouraging students to take a gap year in order to mature emotionally and intellectually before entering college. By taking this gap year, students will be able to grow out of their comfort zones and have experiences that they did not have while in school. Also, students will be able to find themselves after the stressful years of doing work. Students are stuck in the mode, when in high school, to study, write, complete assignments, do test and repeat, but once they are out of that habit during the year of break they are able to think clearly. A gap year would let the student get away from the previous atmosphere and be able to get prepared mentally for the future.
Students that do take a gap year have to deal with finances, and sometimes it can be expensive. There are some students that apply to college prior to taking their gap year, but they ask for a deferral for the first year of college. These deferrals can cost the student from $300 to $1,000 and not refundable. Additionally, those students that prefer to travel during the gap year can pay up to $15,000 to $30,000 and these payments usually do not come from the students themselves but sometimes from their parents and if parents do not have the sufficient money themselves then they have to secure money elsewhere such as loans. Finances for a gap year can be hefty, so sometimes students decide not make that choice. When a student takes a gap year, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics found that postponing school takes people off a more traditional path, and it’s sometimes challenging to get back on. According to my opposition, students tend to take their mentality away from academics so when time comes to continue with their education, students cannot because their mentality forgot what it is to be in school. However, a gap year can further a students perspective on their intended major. When applying for college, students have to choose their intended major sometimes only knowing basic information about the major. With the gap year, students will be able to further explore the major choice and explore others as well. According to Haigler and Nelson, “for most students, gap experiences have an impact on their choice of academic major and career...60% said the experience either “set me on my current path/academic major” or “confirmed my choice of career/academic major.” By taking a gap year, students would not feel pressured into selecting a major without further investigation. More and more U.S. high school graduates are following the British trend of taking a gap year between high school and college because if its many practical benefits. Becoming more focused on a goal, more mature, and better job prospects after graduation are just a few of the great reasons to take a year off. A gap year can reduce the stress pile-up from high school, and way to cool off than to take a break.
Males have naturally dominated aspects of society; sports have been especially known to fall under the category of male supremacy. Created under the Johnson administration in 1967, Title IX was meant to prevent sexual discrimination in educational programs and activities in schools that receive federal funding. Title IX has been condemned as a discriminatory act in disguise; it has been unrightfully accused of providing advantage to females at the expense of males. However, it was created with the purpose to expand the possibilities of success for women in male dominated areas. Title IX has been the main factor that has increased the number of opportunities available for female athletes. Federally funded schools have to abide by one of the three prongs of the three-prong test to be considered compliant, and to keep receiving funding. The three-prong test includes: “providing athletic participation opportunities that are substantially proportionate to the student enrollment, demonstrating a continual expansion of athletic opportunities for the underrepresented sex, and accommodating the interest and ability of underrepresented sex.” The prongs are not difficult to fulfill, and are fair to women. The overwhelmingly success of Title IX demonstrates its beneficial effects to women participating in sports. At the high school level, Title IX has generated a growth of 847 percent (Mervis). Participation at the college level has increased by 545 percent (Waldron). The number of women active in sports is dramatically increasing each year. Progress made because of Title IX is absolutely undeniable. The huge percentage jump would be unimaginable back in the 70’s before Title IX was created. Not only has participation increased, but also the different types of sports women can compete in. In a study conducted in 2008, it was illuminated that 98.8% of NCCA schools offered women's basketball, 95.7% offered women's volleyball, and 92% offered women's soccer (Miller). The high percentages prove schools’ willingness to accommodate female athletes and make them feel equal to men. The more schools offer sports, the more likely women will engage in one of the ample options provided for them. While the success women have encountered is grand, men have become collateral damage in the struggle for equality. According to a New York Times article, “the unintended consequences of Title IX have contributed to the elimination of more than 800 men's teams in the past two decades.” While I do agree that the sizeable cuts issued upon men’s teams are unfair, the cuts pale in comparison to the benefits of Title IX and the discrimination women still face. “At the Division I level, men's basketball head coaches average $149,700. By contrast, women's basketball head coaches average $91,300 or 61 cents to the dollar paid to head coaches of men's basketball.” (Women’s Sports Foundation). This reveals the advantages males still own in the athletic field; they receive a greater salary than women for working the same job. Men cannot protest to the cuts made to their teams, if women are not obtaining the same salary as them.
Title IX is responsible for allowing the women admired and respected in sports to thrive. “I like to tell people, ‘Title IX gave me a national championship ring,’” Wambach told ESPN. As a soccer legend, Abby Wambach’s appreciation for Title IX reveals it truly should be praised; she attributes Title IX for her success. Additionally, Brenna shines a light on an important point: “Consider this: If there were no Title IX, there would be no women's national soccer team, nor college scholarships for the female stars of the U.S. Olympic swimming and track and field teams, among many others.” Many of the talented athletes who inspire young girls would not exist today if not for Title IX. Girls would not be as likely to strive towards being an athlete because they would not have role models to mimic. Women have thrived in male dominated areas because of the assistance given by Title IX. Although it is extreme, under the circumstances it is proper. The success of woman under Title IX overshadows what is taken away from men.
When considering animal testing the first thoughts are about harming poor animals. No real regards are given to the sock child dying from cancer, the man with HIV/AIDS, or even an animal itself dying from heartworms. Products, treatments and other medicines are brought to the surface after careful observations and testing on animals. Every single day thousands of lives affected lethal diseases are saved thanks to these discoveries. Animal research has increased the number of drugs and vaccines that increase people’s life spans. As medicine is advancing, people have become increasingly able to put up a fight against incurable diseases that unfortunately kill millions on a daily basis.
The Animal welfare act of 1966 states, “All centers participating in the humane handling, care, treatment, and transportation of regulated animals used for research or exhibition purposes, sold as pets, or transported in commerce must demonstrate that his or her premises and any animals, facilities, vehicles, equipment, or other premises used or intended for use in the business comply with the regulations and standards set forth”. All places where biomedical research takes place are under careful watch to protect the lives of all animals used. Such inspections done by the United States Department of Agriculture Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, which carefully analyze any and all action done by these laboratories. Besides routine inspection check-ins by the USDA, all medical centers are subject to annual reports, which do or do not award certificates to allow these locations to remain open.
Animal testing has served humans with great benefits, which include one of the most important: safety and efficiency. Without animal research humans would be the first subjects to experience all products and medicines without knowing the outcome. Despite not all products being dangerous, treatments and vaccines can be. Even in a study that took place two years ago in which two human patients were injected with embryonic stem cells in the eyes for blindness, they were first tested on rats. After testing on the animals they discovered that the injected cells are increasingly dangerous and need more research. “Embryonic stem cells have a disturbing propensity to form tumors. Animal research has indicated that it takes only two growing embryonic stem cells to generate a tumor. And while injected cells have supposedly stopped growing, some animal experiments show that such embryonic stem cell derivatives can begin growing again to form cancerous lesions” (Prentice). If the stem cell injections had not first been tested on rats the outcome could have been several human testers with tumors.
A common misconception is that testing on animals is not the best solution because human trials are just as effective and the lives of animals should be spared. “Animal tests are so unreliable, they make those human trials all the more risky, of the small percentage that are approved for human use, half are relabeled because of side effects that were not identified in animal tests”(PETA). Furthermore, the beliefe is that if human trials were used as first options rather than the preferred use of animals the results would be more reliable and successful.
Despite that concern, taking into account the fact that not all animal trials are one hundred percent successful, a huge amount of the tests have actually helped improve medicine. “There are already some lifesaving medical breakthroughs that are the result of animal testing, like open heart surgery, organ transplants, effective insulin, vaccines for deadly diseases. Human harm is reduced and human lives are saved but also animal lives are saved because of animal testing” (Vanhaute). Several unanswered questions in medicine can still only be answered by studies on animals. Animal research gives millions who are affected by serious life-threatening conditions such as Alzheimer's, strokes, cystic fibrosis and infections like malaria, which still exist in many locations the help they need to live healthier and safer lives.
Animal research has contributed to many of the medical advances present today. Without several of these tests we would not have many vaccines and medicines that help rid people of illnesses. The lives of millions are placed in the hands of doctors and scientists, and these animals help save lives. The importance of animal testing has increased severely as medical research of any kind is taking place. While new medicines and health services are provided many of them would not be as successful or even exist if it were not for the constant and stable help by testing on animals.
Should women be allowed to the front line is a debatable question that still cannot be answered. The constitution states that “All men are created equal” however, this does not apply to women in the case. Although some may argue that women are able to reach men’s physical ability, women are emotionally weaker than men. Women are also the heart of life, which means they were not made for killing but instead to create life, therefore women should not be allowed to fight into combat. Women tend to be emotionally weaker than men, and this can affect the front lines of combat. As said by a study of everyday health, “Women reported experiencing love and anger much more intensely than men did in another assessment of gender differences in emotional response. These women also smiled more when recalling memories of happiness or love.” This proves that women have a weaker heart than men, causing them to feel more love for others. That can lead to women being more flexible with the way they handle the enemy. This also means that women will become a distraction to men. According to a study published in Social physiological and personality science, “testosterone levels increased in men when attractive women were present. Since testosterone is a sex hormone, and has also been shown to play a role in fight-or-flight responses and risk-taking behaviors, this result is not surprising”. Women become a distraction to men and it affects the way they perform. As a man and a woman become more attracted, it can lead to sexual desire and want of the opponent. It is against the military that women and men in combat have a relationship. However, when there is attraction between them nothing will be able to stop them. Even when a couple uses a condom or any contraceptives, accidents can happen which leads to a pregnancy. The female has the job of carrying the baby in the womb for nine months. Women are the heart of life. Without the existence of women no one would be here today. As that occurs, they are not allowed into camp and they are forced to be immediately sent home for their own safety. This causes us to lose an official for almost a year if not more, which can eventually affect the way they fight.
People argue that women are no different than men. Regardless women have been fighting in the military since ancient times. It is studied and said that,” there were women in the Civil War who donned men's clothing and fought alongside their buddies, only to be found out once they were slain in battle. This is by way of explaining that women in combat are nothing new, but have been in existence since ancient times”. Women can have the ability to be as strong and as fast as a man. This is true to a certain extent. The percentage of women that have the ability to keep up with a man’s physical action is very tiny. As stated by a man during an interview, whose name was not mentioned, who was in the military and trained with women, “They were great but physically there wasn’t a single one of them who can complete a force march, there wasn’t a single female who can keep up even among the weakest guys there… women’s standards are also loosened up compared to men’s”. Women’s availability to fight is met because they are “easier” on them. This is only harming those women because during combat it will all be equal. No matter how hard a female works and trains, men have the physical advantage. Women claim, if they worked hard enough they could be physically equal to men. Women train extremely hard to “equalize” themselves to men. It is extremely rare for there to be a case where women can be successful after boot camp. Sergeant Nanette Lugo is one of the rare females who serve’s in the military. Sgt Lugo mentioned that, “she spent her whole summer preparing for boot camp. The requirement of running 3 miles in 30 minutes was her greatest obstacle”. Luckily, and after a lot of training she passed boot camp. However, having women in the military can become a disadvantage to the U.S. The U.S is known for having one of the strongest military systems. The military has strength, integrity, courage, and uniformity. This would be ruined if women are allowed into the military. Women will become a temptation/ distraction to men and the military will slowly break apart. Even though this contradicts the strong and lengthy fighting women have done for equality for hundreds of years, the military is a place where equality is not a choice for women.
i can see you did your research, but it seems as if you had too much information and tried to fit it into your essay. you need to develop each one of your points and have a clear transition between them. don't be afraid to elaborate on you're research as well. great job!
A lot of things come to mind when people are asked what they think of America. Freedom. America the great. Liberty. Equality. Hard work. Justice. The American dream. America is number one. Number one at what exactly? Because it certainly isn’t education or freedom. While the U.S. may be one of the better countries to live in, it is not the greatest. In fact it is far from the greatest; America needs much improvement economically, politically, and socially.” Things that America offers such as freedom and opportunity, can now be found in other countries. America needs vast improvement in order to claim the title of, “Greatest Country in the World.” Americans pride themselves on the fact that their nation was built on the principle of freedom. In fact it used to be one of the main reasons; immigrants in the early 1900s came, with the belief that they would be given freedoms in America that they could not find in their home country. Which is partially true, America did have freedoms back then that no other country offered. America has a whole document protecting the freedoms of Americans, the Bill of Rights. The first amendment of the Bill of Rights is that it gives the citizens the freedom of religion, freedom of petition, freedom of assembly, freedom of speech, and freedom of press, and throughout the years there would be various rights protected such as freedom of association, symbolic speech, and privacy. While Americans are entitled to these rights to these freedoms, they are not the ultimate level of freedom and have many restrictions. In fact Americans is far from having the greatest level of freedom. The U.S ranks 47th in terms of press freedom according to Reporters without Borders, with much censorship and restrictions put on the press by the government. Overall the U.S. was ranked just seventh in terms of personal freedom, by Fraser Institute and Germany's Liberales Institut . The same research institution also revealed the United States has slipped to 18th in the world when it comes to economic freedom. Economic freedoms are understood to include property sovereignty and "individuals' engagement in voluntary transactions." Some might argue that ideas and principles such as freedom, liberty, happiness, and justice cannot be measured in numbers, but if that is so then how did Americans come to a conclusion that they had a great amount of freedom in the first place? “We’re number one! We’re number one!,” the mindless and vague chant can be heard at venues throughout America. Number one at what exactly? Because it certainly is not education or freedom or happiness. Then what is America number one at exactly? America is number one at only a few things. America is number one in military spending, the United States spends 58 percent of the total defense dollars paid out by the world's top 10 military powers, which combined for $1.19 trillion in military funding in 2011. With its unparalleled global reach, the US outspends China, the next-biggest military power, by nearly 6-to-1. America is number one in a number of categories a country does not want to be number one in , such as having the highest number of assaults by firearms, and car theft. America ranked last (or first, depending on how you look at it) in infant mortality, injury and homicide rates, teen pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases, AIDS, drug abuse, obesity and diabetes, heart disease, lung disease, and disabilities. America is also number one at the number of it’s citizens incarcerated. The United States has 2.3 million criminals behind bars (almost a quarter of the world’s prisoners), more than any other nation, according to data maintained by the International Center for Prison Studies at King's College London.
It’s no secret that America is currently struggling economically, with a deficit of more than $16 trillion dollars. As President Barack Obama is set to begin his second term, Patricia Dunham, a mother of three, works two minimum wage jobs and earns $32,137.50 for working 61.5 hours a week, 50 weeks a year, before tax withholdings, struggles to pay bills and feed her family. Dunham is just one of the 50 millions Americans who live in poverty. America’s currently has 16% of its population living in poverty, the highest it has been in decades, to find higher rates one would have to go as far back as the Great Depression. America cannot say that it is the greatest country to live in when such a large portion of its population is living in poverty. Some might say that the issue of poverty in inevitable and all countries have poverty, with some countries having a larger poverty level. Yes while that is true ,that does not justify the fact that the poverty level is getting alarmingly large. People should also not find consolation in the fact that there are other countries with a larger poverty, apart from the fact that those countries are non-developed countries, America still does not have the smallest poverty level .
Americans has much to work on before it can boast about being “the greatest” or about being “number one.” America needs much improvement to win the title of “Greatest Country in the World.” This not to say America is the absolute worst county in the world because that is not true. There are just as many reasons that America is a great country to counter the not so great parts about it. America is a great country but it is far from the greatest.
As a child I recall watching my fair share of violent movies that have been deemed as unacceptable to children of my age. I would stay up late at night laying in the darkness listening for the shrill snores of my father signaling the start to my movie marathon that would sometimes end up with my hiding under my covers; the only impenetrable field to the monsters that lurked in the shadows of my room. The studies that have been done have concluded that these movies I and many others have watched could have had a psychological impact so profound that it would “desensitize” us and makes us more “likely” to be more “aggressive.” Movies with any indication of violence have been targeted by many groups of people who claim they are what are wrong with our society. Acts of rape, killing, and stealing have been connected to movies by researchers, parents and concerned citizens looking for a scapegoat to their problems. In times of great adversity people look for who is to blame. But movies aren’t the only scope goats of civilization; television, books, the media and many more have been blamed for the unfortunate crimes of our society but there is no one source of all our problems. Violence has always existed and it will continue to do so, with or without movies. “Think of the children!” is what most would say when debating the dangers of graphic violence on our screens. The possibilities of influential effects are greatest when considering the mind of children. At a young age children will believe anything you tell him, we read to them bedtime stories of dragons and witches where everyone lives happily ever after, and tell them that if they’re naughty an overweight man in a fuzzy red suit won’t bring them the presents they wished for. Nobody knows the world of fantasy quite as well as infants, not the video game nerds and certainly not the science fiction geeks. We have led children into a world of fantasy for so long yet for some reason people have recently paused and thought, “Gee, maybe movies are to blame.” I’m not going to lie, movies will affect children. A crazed madman in a hockey mask and a machete hacking a busty blonde babe to death as blood spurts out of her will definitely affect a kid, but then again so will losing a pet or a grandparent as well as walking in on their parents promiscuous activities. So after admitting the fact those movies indeed do affect children’s minds, I bring up the question “to what extent?” many studies have been done concerning links to violence, so naturally movies were tested as well. Most of these studies include showing the subjects a variation of peaceful movies and movies that are known to contain an extensive amount of violence. If you took the time to read some of these studies you would find just as I did that the majority of them end in the same conclusion. “Researchers concluded that this desensitization could mean these children were more likely to use aggression with others.” This conclusion is usually reached through a set of questioners where they conclude “children found that those who witnessed violence, including television violence, were more likely to consider it "normal”.” So exactly what is normal? Violence is. People love violence, action movies are at the top of box offices and events like boxing and wresting never seem lose popularity. Human beings have always been a species that have sought out excitement and violence in their lives ever since the beginning of civilizations. Sociologist Elias called this "civilizing process," this process basically implies that the lives of people have become boring and drool due to our lives
being to civilized and monotonous, so we seek excitement. Humans have done this for thousands of years, from the ancient Roman Empire that held gladiator battles in coliseum to the public executions in the 1860´s. in a world where violence has been sought and considered normal since the beginning of civilization why would it come as a surprise now? Violence has existed not only in our television sets and movie theatres but in books as well; this includes children’s fairy tales. The brave and courageous knight never politely asked, ”may I please pass´”, he slayed the dragon and went on his merry way. Movies aren’t the source of the problem, society is. To reverse all the years of violence and other inappropriate concepts from our society, it would take a lot more than banning a movie or a television program. Looking through all the possible arguments of movies being linked to violence, the most important and controversial topic to take into consideration are the killing sprees inspired by movies. The most known shooting that everyone is familiarly with is the Virginia tech shooting. A senior attending Virginia tech named Seung-Hui Cho shot and killed 32 students and wounded 17 others. This story received a lot of media attention and naturally the first question that came to mind after all the panic is “why?.” the search for the source of blame had begun and one of those justifications for blame fell upon a movie known as old boy. Cho didn’t own the movie and it was never proven that he ever saw it but it was insinuated by a picture of him holding a hammer. If by any chance cho actually did watch this movie he seriously mistook the point. The director Chan-wook Park says, “My films are the stories of people who place the blame for their actions on others because they refuse to take on the blame themselves” Old boy revolves around the plot of revenge and in this case so was the Virginia tech shooting, But this shooting wasn’t inspired by a simple movie, a movie cannot corrupt a lifetime of morality and blur the lines of right and wrong. Cho was a deeply troubled kid. He showed signs of autism at a young age but never really got the help he truly needed. Instead he remained an isolated person who was described as a “loner” who was apparently bullied a great deal in his life for being different. The fact that some people has insinuated that this shooting came from a movie or a video game is really troubling. The real problem that is overlooked was that this boy needed help and he never got it. I don’t blame the gun law that should have stopped him from purchasing a gun and i don’t blame the law that that kept his mental records confidential from the university. What I place my blame on is humanity. We see something like a mass shooting on the news and we shudder with shock and awe. Some of us may even shed some tears but the reality of it is, a couple days or weeks pass and we go right back to living our “normal” lives. We drive to work in the morning and cut some one off almost resulting an accident and giggle. A kid gets beaten up on the playground and the kids will cheer him on, “fight! Fight! Fight!” a transvestite gets beaten to a pulp right in front of you and instead of helping you take out your phone and record it. So no, I don’t think movies are to blame for the violence in the world, neither is the television or your kids favorite video game. Whether someone was inspired by a movie or not, doesn’t even matter. A troubled kid will stay troubled, and someone will eventually get hurt. I don’t think I could say this better than any other way than by the words of a serial killer from one of the very movies society dreads, “Movies don't create psychos, Movies make psychos more creative.”
rawr! i totally agree >_< i felt awkward putting in quotes though, i felt like i just to need to put everything in my head on paper first than try to make a stronger argument with evidence through the editing process.
The evidence that includes "Old Boy" was strong. I feel like the ending isn't as strong as it can be though, because the last line could be used as a reason against your point because people don't want psychos to be creative
As history has proven time and time again, society is always hesitant to acknowledge the benefits of anything new. Humans find conformity in their lives, so whenever some new phenomenon sweeps the nation, we will always find organizations standing up and hyperbolizing all the negative effects of this phenomenon. Video games are our current sensation, seeping their way into every computer, tablet, television, and even cell phone. With new games releasing every day, a select few have become the sources of heated discussions about their violence and sexism. A recent YouTube user named Anita Sarkeesian has started a channel titled “Feminist Frequency” which has created a series of videos detailing the “misogyny” in video games, as well as their use of over-sexualized women. As much as I’d enjoy defending video game violence, my following argument will deal with the supposed sexism in video games. Not only will I expose the many holes in Sarkeesian’s arguments, but also show that most games aren’t demeaning women in any way. Anita Sarkeesian is well known among the YouTube community for her series of videos in which she digs into every form of media to reveal the “sexism” within it. A few months ago, she avariciously pleaded her fans to pour their money onto a Kickstarter in which she promised a series of videos detailing the “misogyny” in video games. The Kickstarter managed to obtain over $150,000, well above what she originally asked for. It has been over a year since the Kickstarter began and has yet to reveal her project, however she’s already made a few videos against specific games. A few of these videos were taken down from the site and most were reviewed negatively, all for good reason. The main problem with Anita’s arguments is that she is entering in alien territory. Unlike literature, music, movies and television, video games are in fact a male-dominated form of entertainment. This doesn’t diminish her right to state her point of view, but it makes it hard for her to argue against what in a way is a device centered around men as its main market. EEDAR is a market research firm for the gaming industry and Chief Operating Officer Geoffrey Zatkin found that “Games with exclusively male heroes sold around 75 percent better than games with only female heroes.” If a big-budget producer were to see these numbers, which they do, a female protagonist would be a terrible business decision on their part. What does this say about the gaming market though? Most would believe that it is the market, instead, who hold these misogynistic beliefs, but that’s not the case. Most gamers play games as an escape or as a way of putting themselves in the worlds of other characters. The same way Anita feels ostracized by many games with male protagonists, men feel ostracized by games with female protagonists. As Anita Sarkeesian states, “many games tend to reinforce and amplify sexist and downright misogynistic ideas about women.” What Anita doesn’t realize is that the portrayal of women in games is not misogyny from the developers, but instead an expression of the different skills and strengths that are more profound within female characters. Besides, I may argue that men are as sexualized in video games as much as women, if not more. Sarkeesian, however, doesn’t expand on this idea, and instead focuses on the physical portrayal of women. Although she is saying the complete truth about the sexualizing of women in games, she misses the point.
Leland Yee, Ph.D., senator of the United States commented on the supposed sexism in video games stating, “the majority of female characters portrayed in video games fit into a minute number of stereotypes and are almost always portrayed as objects to be desired.” Yee is senator of San Francisco, and having a Ph.D. in child psychology, he addresses the dangerous effects of our media. He believes that the over sexualization of women hurts their reputation. To a large degree, this is true, mostly because most video games originate from Japan. Japanese culture is much different than that of U.S. because many women see their physical appearance as power rather than as a weakness. According to Wikipedia, women in Japan are raised to believe in the phrase “good wife, wise mother” where a woman is educated only to then teach their offspring. And it’s surprising that all games haven’t fallen to this mindset. The recent 2010 game Bayonetta is one of the reasons why sexism in video games became a recent topic. Bayonetta allows the player to take control of a witch who uses a pair of pistols strapped on to her heals and her witch powers to destroy gods. There’s a catch, however. As Anita Sarkeesian states, “one of her most powerful weapons involves her stripping all her clothes and turning her hair into an evil demon weapon fighting machine.” There’s a bit that Anita is missing, however. Her hair is her clothing throughout the entire game. Not only this, but according to the developer Hideki Kamiya, he wanted the main theme of the game to be “sexiness”. This explains the over sexualized nature of Bayonetta and her various enemies, but it shouldn’t be the focus of the game. Throughout the game, a man named Luca falls in love with Bayonetta, and not once does she lower her standards. She teases him into doing her bidding, and uses her knowledge to overcome in game puzzles and mazes. The thing is, there are hundreds of games staring women, many more arguable than others. Characters like Princess Peach from Mario, Lara Croft from Tomb Raider, and Samus from Metroid are all strong women whose character should not be diminished by certain traits. Sure, Princess Peach is an obvious damsel in distress, but she’s shown to be able to defend herself. In Super Mario Bros. 2, she’s a playable character, along with more than half of all Mario spinoff games. As KiteTales, another YouTube correspondant states, that “you can bring up the point that Princess Zelda was captured by Ganondorf, but who is the one who brought the Guerudo King down to his knees at the last battle with her light beam and happens to know martial arts?” Lora Croft might look like Angelina Jolie in short shorts, but is arguably the smartest game character ever made, able to survive months in the forest finding secrets in temples and overrunning secret organizations. Not to mention games like Pokemon and Mass Effect which allow you to play as a female with no effect on the actual story line. With an increasing amount of female gamers, we should eventually see more female protagonists. But what can we do now? We must support the industry of gaming instead of hating it. The less time we spend complaining over big breast in video games, the more time we have to do something about it. We need more female gamers. Until women decide to break the social norm and start realizing the enjoyment of video games as entertainment, the industry will only be a reflection of its market.
snaps! your essay pwns. the research you included really gave you credibility and your point about the economic aspect of sexism sealed the deal for me. the only thing i would change is the explanation of bayonetta and Zelda, i felt you could have explained it better. i think your rebuttal was the game was meant to be sexy and her weapon is her clothes? i was kind of confused. elaborate more and develop a rebuttal. who dares complain about large breasts!?
Well researched essay! It was very detailed in explaining your evidence. However, revise the beginning part of your conclusion because it doesn't really flow well into your ending sentence.
In 2001 programmer Bram Cohen released revolutionary software that made it easier to share files through the internet. Little did he know, his creation and implementation of bit-torrents would, four years down the line, be a major help for the sharing of illegal copyright files. The internet is an amazing source for information. Anything can be found in the internet and the abundance of information continues to grow. Internet censorship, at first glance can seem like a good solution to protecting children and intellectual property of corporations, however it is difficult to tell when censorship has gone too far. The reasons why internet censorship should not go on greatly outweighs the benefits. Similar to books, the internet does not deserve to be censored. The internet includes an abundance of information from encyclopedias to pornography and from hate speech to essays on self improvement. Basically, "The advancement of technology has broken down geographical barriers for communication. The Internet has had an unimaginable impact on near instant communication by electronic mail, instant messaging". It is no coincidence, then, that a government or even a powerful private company would want to dip their fingers in the internet to prevent people from accessing certain information. When viewed in a certain perspective, the prevention can be seen as protection. Take into account an event in which several government documents are posted on a website. This website can be viewed worldwide and the documents contain pure military intelligence that should have been kept confidential. Would this be a legitimate time to censor the internet? Countries around the world are not taking chances. Coined with their censorship being “pervasive” China has gotten a bad reputation from its censorship. China is guilty of censoring its books to censoring footage on international movies like Pirate of the Caribbean. One thing is for sure, studies show that the censorship, particularly internet censorship, is effective. “What the government cares about is making the quest for information just enough of a nuisance that people generally won't bother.” The government is successful, most of the information censored is information that may cause people to question their government. Is censorship justified in order to keep peace in a nation? Although it is easy to find a way around such internet censorship, people do not generally do so. The United Kingdom is also susceptible to such censorship. People today are participating in a program that will put “filters” on the internet. The filters will prevent the general public from accessing pornographic and potentially dangerous websites. These filters are aimed to protect children, since adults can register to get out of such filters. Can this be the first the first legitimate and justified attempt of censorship, or are not preparing the youth adequately?
Needless to say, the United States is on its way too. In 2012 the United State's government shut down a website called “MegaUpload” in an attempt to put a large amount of piracy to an end. For a while the government was successful but the response by the general public was strong. Other ways of sharing copyright files illegally sprang up and again, in an attempt to put piracy to a halt, bills like PIPA (Protect Internet Protocol Act), SOPA (Stop Online Piracy Act), and CISPA were proposed, all of which received highly negative views from the general public. Some public annalist have commented on such proposed bills saying, "Investors can stop investing in online platforms like YouTube or Facebook. In a survey conducted by Booz & Company in the US, the participating angel investors and venture capitalists said they will not invest in digital content intermediaries (DCIs) because acts like SOPA/PIPA can be used to sue or fine websites for using pirated digital content uploaded or posted by users.” So not only will censorship be negatively viewed and a target for hackers to get around it, but it will also hurt a large part of the economy. In conclusion, countries are on their way to censorship. Armed with different intentions these nations will all end up in the same place, with people deprived of information, information that can be either harmful or helpful. It is then good to consider this: "The United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted in 1948, provides that: Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers." If everyone is held to such natural right, could censorship overall be justified, or would censorship be taking away the very stitches that hold the fabric of humanity?
Intro: "In 2012, approximately 1.2 million abortions were performed in the United States, 88% of them in the first trimester of pregnancy" (Gale Opposing Viewpoints). In this first trimester the fetus, in which later during the pregnancy becomes a baby, already has a heartbeat. Throughout the years, abortion has been a topic that has brought many into discussion whether it should be legal or illegal in the United States. In 1973, in the United States the Supreme Court made abortion legal after deciding in the Roe vs Wade case. Many babies are aborted because they are unwanted, don't they deserve the right to be some one in life when the grow up?
Body: FOR Abortion is legal in the United States because it stops a life of baby growing inside a women who's life is in danger or simply because the babies parents cannot afford to raise a baby. "Women who are raped or victims of incest should not be forced to carry out a pregnancy" (Amplify A Project of Advocates for Youth). In cases in which the mother has been forced to have sexual intercourse with someone they do not desire or who forced them too, they usually abort their baby. They abort their baby because they could have been raped at a young age. Also because they were raped, they feel that they will not love the baby like if they were produced with some one that they loved. It's better for them to abort the baby because like that they do not raise a child that they will eventually deny because having that baby will constantly remind them about the rape. Although in some cases it's true that the baby constantly reminds a mother about the rape, there are other decisions like adoption.
Many doctors perform abortions because they are licensed to do so and they know what is safe or what is not for there patients. " Abortion is a safe medical procedure. The vast majority of women - 88% - who have an abortion do so in their first trimester. Medical abortions have less than 0.5% risk of serious complications and do not affect a woman's health or future ability to become pregnant or give birth" (Abortions Pros and Cons). The reason why doctors perform abortions is because once it's done, the mother will be in good conditions. Meaning that during the women is aborting the baby, there is no risks that will put her life in danger. After the abortion is over and done successfully, the women will be able to get pregnant in the future and have a baby without any complications. The reason why is because the abortion did not harm the women in any way because its safe. Although the statistic said that the percentage is "0.5" of any serious complication, meaning it doesn't harm them, there is a possibility that the percentage can grow higher because it depends on the women's body to accept a difficult treatment.
Counter argument: Although some may argue that abortion is the right thing to do, it's not. Like it or not the fetus/baby suffers at the moment they are being killed inside the womb. Many night think that it doesn't harm because in the first trimester it's tissue, but they feel everything that is done to them. In my opinion, abortion should be illegal because it prevents a human being from experiencing the world.
Body: AGAINST Abortion should be illegal in the United States because it stops a life from growing up. Not just that but also the fact that its a life already growing inside the womb that cannot be destroyed just because they are unwanted. " "Every human being has the right to live, which should be protected by law, From the moment of conception, the unborn are human beings, The unborn have the right to live, which should be protected by law" (The Humble Libertarian: The Abortion Debate: A Reasoned, Scientific Pro-Life Argument). This means that even though the baby isn't born, they are still protected by the law. They still have the rights that the United States provides to their citizens. Although they are not physically in the world, inside the womb they are humans. Those who are accept abortion may argue that they aren't protected by the law because they aren't born yet, but as the statistic said; they are because it's a life.
Abortion should be the last thing a women should think about if they do not want their baby. The possibility of putting their baby up to adoption is better than killing them. There are many couples out there that cannot have babies of their own and want a baby to adopt. Giving a baby up for adoption brings happiness into a family because its a human being the lights up everyone's world. The baby is given the opportunity to be loved and feel that someone cares for them. Even though some kids are not adopted as soon as possible, they grow up in a place where they are loved and have the resources they need. Those who abort and do not give their child the opportunity to be raised with some one that wants them, hunts them for the rest of their life's. "After my abortion I suffered symptoms that many women do in the same situation. I had vivid nightmares of killing someone, depression, and irrational desire for a baby. The weight was so heavy that I could not bear to say the word abortion, let alone tell someone I had had one. I remained entirely silent on the matter for more than eighteen years" (Abortion Testimonies). This is a testimony of a mother who aborted her baby in which now, she's having nightmares. It's eighteen years of carrying with something that has been killing her from inside because she got rid of a life.
Conclusion: No matter how many months a fetus has grown in a women's body, the baby deserves the right to grow up and live a life. Abortion should not be illegal simply because the law protects them even if they aren't born yet.
If your argument is going to be against abortion, I recommed that information be first. Address the opposition only when there are possible counterarguments, so try not to focus too much on the opposition
The subject of racial profiling never leaves the news that is because racial profiling may factor into how authorities target these suspects of various crimes, including terrorism, illegal immigration or drug running. Whether citizens believe racial profiling is discriminating race, these methods are most effective when authorities are trying to distinguish criminals. I believe when getting criminals off the streets, racial profiling is extremely effective. This issue has brought many discomforts for most people. There is pros and cons for racial profiling; for police officers it is convenient to get criminals off the street, on the other hand the cons for this is that many African Americans and Latinos are always getting investigated because of the ideal criminal racial profiling that fits the description. When weighing the pros and cons of the issue of racial profiling, one must consider individuals civil rights. The cons for racial profiling seem to be far greater than the pros for racial profiling. Racial profiling is based on the assumption. This technique of racial profiling does not seem to affect the white race. This only affects many other people of race excluding white race, because they do not seem to get highly effected by this issue because of the fact that they do not fit the “description.” A lot of people who are affected by this believe racial profiling still happens even though its illegal. People will complain when racial profiling affects them personally, but when crimes happening tend to affect them they do not mind. For example, in San Diego with the recent report about Chris dormer people do not seem to mind racial profiling. The San Diego police department warned citizens that officers might employ racial profiling attics in search for suspected murderer Chris dormer. This issue might affect citizens so in cases like this they do not mind racial profiling as long as they feel safe. In times of needs for national security, citizens do not seem to mind. When crimes are at it is highest and seem to extremely affect the society that is when it is completely fine to use the tactics of racial profiling without citizens making a big deal out of it. After the 9/11 attack racial profiling in airports when at its highest and citizens do not seem to mind any sort of security check because they know if there is some sort of terrorism like 9/11 they will be extremely affected so they prefer that they check everyone for the sake of their security. In conclusion racial profiling is a common issue in the United States that people of race tend to make a big issue out of it when it is impacting them and it is taking away time from their lives. They think it is unnecessary, but in times of needs when national security is at stake, for a lot of citizens racial profiling is now their best friends as long as they keep national security.
Sources ""Racial Profiling Reduces Terrorism" by Richard Lowry." Racialprofiling. N.p., n.d. Web. 04 Feb. 2013. N.p., n.d. Web. "San Diego Police Warn Citizens of Racial Profiling as Dorner Hunt Continues." Atlanta Black Star. N.p., n.d. Web. 13 Feb. 2013. "Pros And Cons Of Racial Profiling Essays and Term Papers." Pros And Cons Of Racial Profiling Free Essays 1. N.p., n.d. Web. 08 Feb. 2013.
I really liked how one of your main points was that if citizens are directly affected by a situation then they do not mind racial profiling. To strengthen your essay you could add a quote of someone who benefited from racial profiling. Also, make sure to fix your grammar because some sentences would sound much stronger if they had no grammar errors.
If one is convicted of murder, then it is logical to be killed as punishment, right? Americans have questioned the government, and each other, whether the death penalty, or capital punishment, is the best solution for the highest criminal offenders. Although the death penalty is currently installed, the country would reap various benefits from its abolishment. The main argument many death penalty supporters make is that by setting such a harsh punishment for serious crimes, criminals will be less likely to commit a crime in fear of death, therefore reducing crime. However, contrary to popular belief the death penalty actually increases the amount of violence that occurs. Out of the 27 states that allow the death penalty as punishment, it was discovered that although the death penalty lowered the murder rate in six states, it was increased in 13 states, and did not affect eight states. One is able to conclude that with the removal of the death penalty, majority of states will see a decrease in their murder rates which is the goal of all states. Some citizens may live in the fear of a country where there is no death penalty, but they fail to see the economic benefits that would directly affect their lives. If one were to compare the cost of death penalty versus the alternative, life in prison, one would be able to clearly see the profit one would gain. The average person who is sentenced to life in prison will remain there for 40 to 45 years. In order to maintain the inmate the total cost would be a bit over $1 million. This would only amount to less than a third of the amount of money needed for the death penalty. All of the money that is used comes from one source, the taxpayers pockets. If the death penalty is eliminated, the money saved could either return to the taxpayers or be distributed to other programs that truly need the money even if it still remains in the use of the justice system. Also, not only does the death penalty require money that could be saved, but the process in order to determine whether someone should be sentenced to death is unjust. Many pro-death penalty people believe that by not violating the cruel and unusual punishment clause in the constitution is enough to consider it fair. However, in 1991 it was ruled in the Payne v. Tennessee court case “that ‘victim impact’ evidence relating to the personal characteristics of the victim and the emotional impact of the crime on the victim's family is admissible.” This means that disregarding the factual evidence, a juror is allowed to determine whether they believe the person being trialed is guilty or innocent based on emotions. Hence, someone innocent would be in danger of being sentenced to death for simply not having a lawyer that has the ability to move a jury emotionally. In addition, the death penalty goes against the moral values of Americans. As a child one is taught that the death of a person is to be mourned and that murder is the worse thing one could do. So, as stated by Vicki A. Schieber, who had personal experience with her brothers murderer being sentenced to death, “what kind of message do we convey to young people when we tell them that killing another human being is wrong but then impose the death penalty on someone with whom they have some direct or indirect relationship.” If Americans want to prevent murder from occurring then should not they start somewhere where they actually have the power to prevent it from happening? The death penalty is not the solution, but instead enables the country to continue its teachings to “the future” that murder is acceptable.
Overall, the death penalty has proven to not be the solution to crime many have hoped for. Instead it has used up money that could be saved and is provided by the taxpayers. Also, the current justice system is not suited to make the decision whether a person in trial for the death penalty truly deserves it or the jury was simply moved by a sob story. The removal of the death penalty would also allow for the young generation to truly learn that despite the circumstances the murder of a person is not the solution. If Americans continue to fight violence with violence there will never be a true winner in the system, instead Americans will continue to live in a country where peace is unattainable and crime gets the last laugh.
We’ve all been there. It’s the end of a long, hard day and the Internet or some other essential technology doesn’t seem to be working correctly. We pick up the phone and call some unknown location, where an automated voiceover energetically instructs us to “press one for English; Oprima dos para Español” (Dillon Lewis). This is the beauty of making multiple languages. Making English the official language of the United States has been debated for many years. Many Americans believe that having an official language is essential in order to keep every one united, but having one language will take away from different cultures and most importantly, will take away from the democracy that the United States was built upon. All over the world, discrimination is going on as something common that naturally happens. There are 18% of cases dealing with racial ethnic discrimination in the United States (Word Press). Having one official language can possibly increase this number. Many non-English speakers can feel inferior and that can cause more discrimination towards them. According to the article, Does the United States need an Official Language, “this type of legislation will lead to ethnic and racial intolerance, and confirm to non-native English speakers that they are second class citizens in the eyes of the government of the United States.” Opponents believe that having English as the only language will cause discrimination against minorities since they wont be allowed to use their first language. This will not only affect many individuals with their culture but will also affect the economy in a way that many who contribute would not keep contributing since they don’t speak the language. In addition, a few countries have adopted English as their official language and have not turned out to be the best. Australia, for example, has made English as their official language that they speak within the government. “English is regarded as the national language of Australia.. People whose English skills are lacking face practical problems in education, employment, and access to services” (Australian Bureau of Statistics). Not everyone in Australia has fully developed English as their official language. Having these type of problems can endanger Australia. Australia could be seen as a country who does not take their laws seriously and haven’t done anything about it. Also, it can cause economic problems where many Australians cannot contribute because they lack education or would not know how to contribute since hey do not speak English and to get help they have to speak English. However, proponents believe that making English the official language of the United States will unite everyone and will make it easier for the government to communicate. They say “English has been the dominant language for the better part of this century and should be made the official language in order to simplify government processes” (Making English the Official Language of the U.S.). This indicates that the government will really try and indicate the use of English and will be really strict when dealing with the language. Also this expresses how the government doesn’t consider any other language but English.
Forcing a person to learn a certain language violates the first amendment of the constitution. Official English policies argue, “This type of legislation is unconstitutional. Restricting federal and state employees from communicating with individuals, especially immigrants, in a language other than English violates the first amendment”. If a person isn’t able to speak a language they are comfortable with, goes against their first amendment of freedom of speech. Every American should be able to speak freely in whatever language they want because that’s what is stated in the constitution, where America started. Moreover, making English the official language goes against democracy. “It restricts the governments ability to communicate with all its citizens and prevents many from voting: thereby going against the principle of democracy, the very essence and foundation this country was built upon” (Does the United States Need an Official Language). The United States was built upon democracy meaning the government and the people both contributing. If the people do not know English, the government would not be able to communicate with them and would not have their opinion. This restricts people from contributing their opinion and having their voice be heard. In conclusion, making English the official language of the United States will go against individual’s cultures and will also go against democracy. Having one language deprives people from practicing their own language, violating their freedom of speech right. Therefore, the many languages that are part of the United States should still be spoken and practiced with continuing generations.
Good hook, it sets the scene for the rest of your paper. Make sure you don't just focus on pathos and also include some statistics to raise your credibility.
As the judged slam his gavel on the pad he announces his verdict: guilty. Sentenced to a death penalty on account for murder of two elderly neighbors when he was seventeen, shot them “execution style,” the now eighteen year old showed no remorse for his action. 200,000 juveniles each year are tried as adults. United State Supreme Court also agreed to consider the constitutionality of the juvenile death penalty. Should juvenile offender be tried as adults and also, be sentence to death penalty. People argue that juveniles are incompetent to stand trial because they are not able to contribute to their own defense because their own brain is not fully developed and it’s not aware. However, should that be accepted as evidence to not trial juvenile as adults because they are not adults, yet both committed the same crime? Should it be an excuse to their violent or homicidal behavior? I agree that death sentence and juveniles tried as adult is harsh but it should only depend on the case. If it something minor then they shouldn’t be tried as adults but if they committed a heinous crime like murder or rape then it is valid. Juvenile delinquency has potentially high stakes for both individuals and society as a whole. Delinquency is linked to higher crime rates in adulthood and other negative outcomes. One estimate suggests that between 50 and 75 percent of adolescents who have spent time in juvenile detention centers are incarcerated later in life. On Jan. 30 a Delaware County teen pleaded guilty and was sentenced yesterday as an adult in connection with a videotaped beating of a mentally ill woman in Chester that went viral. Rahmiiyah Henderson, 16, is one of six charged in the vicious attack. This shows how teenager can be a danger to society. Teenagers tend to do anything they want and they do not even care of the consequence they will face. They are in a phase were they believe they are the unstoppable. This innocent mentally ill woman suffers a harsh beating form 6 teenager for no reason. These wild inconsiderate teenagers attack a woman and even videotaped it for their own entraining. Paul Thompson form the University of California, Los Angeles and his colleagues at National Institutes of Health discover that a massive loss of brain tissue occurs in the teenage years and they do not have same brain development as an adults, therefore it should be used as evidence that teenagers are not yet adults and they should not be tried as adults. But should Rahmiiyah and the other 5 teenagers be excuses from the crime they committed because apparently teenagers suffer a loss of brain tissue or they do not have the same brain development of adults. In my opinion it should not be used as evidence for their violent salvage behavior. How can you compare the brain of a teenager to a fully well develop adults brain when there is going to be a difference. They should compare the brain of a teenager to the brain of adults that is in prison. They are likely to have the same brain development because the brain of adult in prison is not fully developed.
People believe that teenagers should not be tried as an adult because their ability to understand what going on and they tend to make “stupid mistake.” But is their impulsive, erratic behavior that leads them to commit outrages crime is just a “stupid mistake.” “Tried as an adult, Thomas A. Preciado was 14 when he stabbed to death a minimart clerk”. This innocent clerk was stabled to death for only doing his job, who had no idea that he was attending an impulsive teenager customer and now his family have to pay the consequences for the action that this teenager commit. And no one can erase the pain or the grief they must suffer for their loss. Did this teenager commit a stupid mistake, was it an accident that he stabbed this man to death or did the teenager suffer a major loss a brain tissue. Adults do not want to accept the reality that the teenagers are becoming adults. They see them as the innocent children they once wore. They are too blinded to see that the teenagers want to declare independences and by committing adult’s actions teenagers believe that they are adults. Such as drinking, driving shows the desperation of beginning adults. They chose to ignore the reality and live in their imaginary world. Teenagers choose to be ignorant and choose to act ignorant to get away with their action but in the justice system that does not work. Since the juvenile court was started more than a hundred years ago, a basic assumption underlying the juvenile court has been that juvenile offenders shouldn't go through the adult criminal courts. The juvenile court was created to handle juvenile offenders on the basis of their youth rather than their crimes. The purpose of juvenile court is treatment and guidance rather than punishment. During the 1980s and 1990s, the public called for getting tough with juveniles and trying them as adults. Many states passed laws making it easier to try certain youthful offenders as adults; some states considered even abolishing juvenile courts system. It has been suggested that the entire debate over whether or not to allow juveniles be tried as adults has diverts attention away from the most important question confronting the juvenile justice system: How can juvenile delinquency be reduced when neither the present juvenile courts nor adult criminal courts are designed to attack the various factors that are among the causes of juvenile violence? The reasons for the development of juvenile crime are found in the early experiences in the family. If the child was involve in a weak family bonding or suffer child abuse and neglect, and inconsistent and harsh discipline, then the probability for the child to be become a delinquent is at high stake because they don’t have the attention the deserver. They are more likely to rebel because they are beginning ignore or just want a problem for the family In addition, there are indications that very poor urban communities put youths at greater risk for involvement in violence. The environments were they grow up does affect the child because they are expose to violence. It not the child fault that he or she has to walk to school and see illegal drug markets or gangs that provides exposure to violence, and negative role models. They are more likely to be influence to be part of the crime because they might feel they have better opportunity to feel some sort of bond, care or even security and will have easier access to weapons such as a gun and will do anything to be a member. Schools also play a part in generating juvenile violence. An important cause of the onset of serious violent behavior is involvement in a delinquent peer group. Alcohol and guns are also implicated in violent behavior by juveniles. In addition, growing up in poverty and unemployment has major effects on the likelihood that a young person will turn to violence during the transition to adulthood.
Jack Kevorkian (Dr. Death), euthanasia activist, claims, “Dying is not a crime”. Kevorkian was arrested in 1999 for his role in voluntary euthanasia. He was convicted for second-degree murder, sentenced with a 10-25 year conviction, served eight prison years. He was released under the condition to no longer offer suicide to others. Euthanasia, another term for mercy killing, refers to the ending of life of an ill person in order to end suffering. Although it is a compassionate and faster way to end life, such practice brings ethical dilemma. Euthanasia contradicts one major moral, whether there is a right to kill. Euthanasia is a process that can be taken through various forms. These include active, passive, voluntary, and involuntary. Active euthanasia is intentionally causing the death of another person through specific actions. Passive euthanasia is the withholding of respirators and other life-sustaining equipment, procedures, or treatment. Voluntary euthanasia occurs when an individual has chosen and requested for his or her life to be ended. Non-voluntary euthanasia is when it has not been requested or consented to. A fifth euthanasia can include omission, meaning the caused death by necessary equipment not is available. Euthanasia has not been approved because of its debate that it takes a person’s life away. Religious views strongly believe that “ the only one that can take or end life is God”. Although God has given us that free will to do, as we like, it is still wrong to do so. By assisting death one is denying Gods right over life. Only He holds the length of life and how it will end. Euthanasia is considered as another way of murder and a high sense of violation toward a basic principle ”one shall not kill”. There should be strong respect toward life and believe that a life should not be assisted to terminate. In essence, euthanasia is a matter of demeaning life. Besides being morally and ethically wrong, is not the end of the argument. With great medical advancements, there are possible alternatives than easily terminating one’s life. Palliative, a medical specialty focused on to treat pain, stress, and symptom relief. Palliative care provides a more comfortable, dignified death. However, there are patients that can no longer take in the pain and suffering. Medical advancements could assist in relieving the pain, but this only continues the suffering for longer periods. Patients continue suffering and they are slowly agonizing into their death. Elongating patients that are terminally ill places burden. The burden is not on the patient but on the family. Of course, along with death comes emotional stress. At the loss of a member, whether assisted or not, will cause pain. There are great financial, medical expenses to give continuous treatment for the ill patient. Un curable disease patients believe that the medical sources are being wasted and can be better used to actually cure others. The decision whether to end life or not is solely based on patients will. They have the choice to decide how they want to die. Many argue the thought that "Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person", indeed, every individual has these rights; however, if an individual has the right to life, then should they not also have the right to die? The patient should be allowed to have a voice in ending his/her life. In life, everyone dies, young and old; there are only questions to when or how. The same right that it is a person’s decision of how to live; the right should be allowed to decide how to die. The debate over euthanasia brings string emotion from opposite sides, each with convincing justifications. One person or group should not determine how, when, and if another person should die.
(oh no I'm first)
ReplyDeleteIt is evident through the existence of censorship of media all around us, such as bleeped swears in video games and blurred sexual content on television, that today’s society is a defensive one. People don’t want to expose anything possibly offensive to moldable minds. Unfortunately, this rule also applies to books. But who's to decide whether 'controversial' literature is smut? Often, the most controversial of books is the one that opens a person's mind the most and introduces them to all kinds of new ideas. Censorship shouldn't hold kids, or anyone, from being able to expand their mind just because the books they want to read are condemned because of a few fearful people.
Books should be open to everyone; They shouldn’t be condemned even within a certain limit. After all, it is currently law: the three basic rights covered under the freedom of the press include the right to publish, the right to confidentiality of sources, and most importantly, the right of citizens to access the products of the press. If anything were restricted from the public’s view, the United States would not exactly be a free country. It would be a country parading itself as a free one, all the while hiding books it doesn’t like from its people. This is the equivalent of the Wizard of Oz telling Dorothy not to pay any mind to the mind behind the curtain. Surely, some literature can be disillusioning, but that doesn’t make it any less useful or insightful. People have a right to know that their Wizard of Oz is only a man in control of a big projector device. Of course, some may say that controversial literature such as this may attract young or otherwise easily influenced minds just because they’re controversial. So is banning the solution? It’s actually quite the opposite; banning a book will likely make a person’s interest in it increase. When someone wants to read something offensive, they’re not going to settle for the books that haven’t been banned: they’ll look specifically for the ones that have. It’s because these are the books that have been deemed too ‘extreme’ for society. What other kind of book will young Americans flock to?
Many will ask, why not just ban some books to a certain degree? Book banning can be looked at as a lesser of two evils; a way to put a lid on a situation that might otherwise spiral downward into bloodshed because of a controversy that’s spilled over because of a book left unchecked. But that’s a lazy approach to keeping a situation under control. In keeping books away from people just because it might make them angry, the government would also keep other readers from learning things and seeing other perspectives. A better way to ‘keep a lid on situations’ would be to handle them directly, instead of blaming it on certain books, and immediately banning them.
(continued)
ReplyDeleteI myself love many 'controversial' works of literature, such as "Catcher in the Rye" and "Fight Club". They've influenced my writing a lot, and I feel as though they've influenced my character for the better. It's clear to me that the characters who are 'bad role models' in these kinds of books are clearly misguided and meant to be the opposite of the intended message, as often the misguided and pessimistic protagonist maybe isn't so bad at the end. Or maybe he's learned something of importance. It doesn't matter; what does matter is they're providing you an insight. Villains are created to reflect the traits people should avoid, and it's often made obvious. In the novel ‘Fight Club’, a psychologically-imbalanced protagonist begins living life by what he deems to be the most important things in life. He stops living by society’s norms and instead adopts his own. He’s plagued by how far he’s willing to go when he essentially becomes a terrorist, but at that point the reader is expected to know that he is an unreliable narrator and not one that you should look up to. In other words, it’s essential to look at a character’s faults in order to learn about yourself and better yourself.
It’s essential that books be open to the public: so that they can learn from the imperfect characters, so they can see others’ perspectives, so they can generally learn more about the world without having to worry about restrictions. Controversial books are often the ones that inflict a wound on ignorant masses. They scare them with awful truths or realistic situations they don’t want to deal with. To those people, a question must be posed: Do you want to read fluffed up nonsense, or would you rather read the truth?
I like the rhetorical question in the intro paragraph. It makes it seem like you know what you're talking about (which I'm sure you do.) I like the idea that the books being censored are the ones that open people up to new ideas!
DeleteI don't know if including yourself in this essay works, even though it is a piece of evidence that these works aren't making everyone have killing urges. It seems a bit awkward and out of place to me.
I love the concluding sentence! Nice job on this draft!
The way you use the rhetorical questions in general is awesome! However I might suggest that using yourself as an example of a nice person might lead the reader to think that you are a bit biased despite your evidence.
DeleteSo just to play it safe just fix that and you should be fine.
- whaiiiiiiy
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIn the 2012 election, President Barack Obama was reelected to serve his second term as president of the United States. He is the first African American president of the United States, and he has rallied support from minority groups like women, young voters, and the middle class. President Obama's standing requires him to represent America's distinctive scopes of interest. However, America's political evolution has resulted in overlooked issues which define their time; slavery, the coinage system, and educational reform, which further entrench America's divisive nature. Although representative democracy is our earliest foundation of government in America, it is not effective. Representative democracy severely limits the political spectrum in Washington D.C., it deters third party participation, and most importantly neglects the needs of those being represented, the people.
ReplyDeleteRepresentative democracy developed its political grounding in the post-colonial era. During Washington's Presidency political discussions developed into political bickering, and lastly into political parties. Washington noted the rift between the Federalist and Anti-federalists and how it would damage the uniformity of government. In his Farewell Address1, Washington foresaw the political party warfare that would develop from the " domination of one faction over the other." Washington's Farewell Address was a warning that was overlooked by the continuing development of parties. There was political party consolidation, breakage, and demise, all of which sought to control and concentrate power within their interest. The yeomen farmers under Jefferson, the common man under Jackson, and the industrialists under Lincoln. The cycle of political warfare in Washington D.C. has resulted in the ultimate battle between the Republicans and the Democrats. Which has consolidated the two party system in America. This tug of war between the Democrats and the Republicans has resulted in gridlock. The tug and pull between these two dominant forces has created a partisan atmosphere, defined by the left or the right. The political landscape 2 in Washington D.C. limits the amount of political ideology present in legislation. The race to Congress is dominated by Democrats and Republicans which both hold an upper hand in both houses of Congress. Whereas only two Independents are voting members in the Senate are outnumbered by 250 Democrats and 284 Republicans3 in total. The battle for political power among political parties resulted in the concentration of power in the Democrats and Republicans.
In addition, representative democracy has become a monopoly controlled by the Democrats and Republicans. Thus deterring third parties from actively participating in government and discourages any political dominance. During elections, third parties are subject to guidelines and procedures that must be met in order to have ballot access 4. Guidelines vary by state making it increasingly difficult for third parties to be on every state ballot for general elections and midterm elections. This decreases their popularity among the media. This is exemplified during the televised primary debates, and presidential elections. Both of which are exclusively reserved for the Democrats and Republicans. This in turn, does not increase third party votes. However in the recent 2012 election, Gary Johnson a candidate for the Libertarian Party was able to achieve a 1-3% vote. However, when Johnson's voted are calculated in total for all 50 states, he merely scrapes the one million mark,with 793,957 votes. Whereas Obama the Democratic candidate with California, Oregon, and Washington, headed into the two million mark with 9,057,753 votes. And Republican candidate Romney followed close behind with 7,177,811 votes from Texas, Arizona, and Missouri.5 Although the popularity of third parties, in this case the Libertarian Party, is growing it is steady. Third parties face a disadvantage in numbers and popularity, making it exceedingly difficult to obtain ballot access and participate in legislation. For example, Congress, as of today is made up of 57% Democrats in the Senate, 44% Democrat in the House of Representatives, 42% Republicans in the Senate, and 55% Republican in the House of Representatives, whereas, Independents and other third parties make up .02% of voting members in the Senate, and a startling 0% voting members in the House of Representatives.6 Third parties have been forced into a corner in Congress, limiting the impact of their votes. Resulting in the silence of the weakest minority and also the citizens.
ReplyDeleteNext, the dominant two party system lump sums voters into two broad coalitions.7 Ignoring the complexities of American voters and their distinguished backgrounds; farmers, businessmen, single mothers, African- Americans, Caucasians, and Hispanics. Forcing upon a party label that detracts the individuality of the voters and the issues. And because the Democrats and Republicans are powered by numbers, it is exceedingly common to find their scopes of interest altered in order to gain access to voter approval, as demonstrated in the 2012 election 8, when both candidate made it a priority to put the middle class first. The two party's excessive entanglements overshadowed issues like immigration and educational reform. This in turn placed interest on a priority list; dominant interest in, weak interests out. This leads to a political party representing a group rather than its individual nature. That being said, politicians have in turn created their own personal following, based on popularity and networks. However, citizens do not want distant politicians, they want leaders committed to the challenges of the average person.9 In the 2012 election, Mitt Romney was far from the average blue collar worker. He attended Harvard Law School and Harvard Business School. He profited from Bain Capital in 1997 in millions of dollars, how much is there for a middle class worker to relate to?
Finally, although representative democracy is the traditional foundation for America's government it is not the most effective. The two party system hides the multitude of third parties that are leveled with the average American. Therefore creating an increase in Independent voters.10 The lack of power invested in third parties impacts the responsiveness of the government and its ability to keep in touch with voters.
I liked how you started your essay which grabbed my attention, and I liked how it transitions into the formation of the United States. Your thorough research is evident throughout your essay.
DeleteIn a classroom with all girls, there is pictured to be more discipline, better grades, and more educational motivation than in a coed classroom. But outside the classroom, those same girls are socially awkward with the opposite sex, unable to communicate, and the same is likely to happen with an all boys class. As single-sex schools become more common, education systems should begin to realize that, yes it does benefit students’ grades, but it does not benefit their futures. Because students are separated from their opposite sex, they become unaware and incapable of handling difficult situations with them when the time comes. Separating boys and girls for the sole purpose of increasing test scores only benefit’s the schools that these students attend.
ReplyDeleteYes, it is true that single-sex schools are proven to help students’ grades and learning habits. “Studies show that some students learn better in a single-gender environment…” as stated in an article by the NASSPE (National Association for Single Sex Public Education). But these students will not always be segregated from the opposite sex. Because of these students’ high grades, it’s reasonable to assume that they plan to attend top colleges. All of the top colleges in the U.S. are coed, and if they plan to continue their education, they will need the communication skills to succeed. Not only in college, but after as well.
An argument for single-sex education might say that these students can get used to the opposite sex later, when it is necessary, and that its important to focus on their current grades, which gender separation improves. But who is sitting in the seats of a classroom should not determine how a student learns or performs in school. That responsibility is put upon the student themselves and their teachers. As stated by Valerie Strauss in The Washington Post, “learning is best accomplished when the delivery method matches the subject matter. It is the quality of teachers’ training, lessons, and class management practices --and not gender of their students -- that determines how much learning occurs in their classrooms.”
Single-sex education has more than one negative impact on the students’ futures. Separating boys and girls in schools can also cause gender stereotyping, a misunderstanding of the opposite sex, and there is evidence that sex segregation in education also legitimizes institutional sexism. “Social scientists have found that labeling and separating students based on almost any characteristic…makes those differences even more [noticeable] to students and produces inter-group bias.” This means that being separated by something as small as eye or hair color can cause unconscious bias in students, and something as big a gender can have a huge negative impact on students’ thoughts about the opposite sex.
Since single-gender schools do seem to improve students’ grades and test scores, more families want their children to get that same education. This creates another negative. In an article by Penny Bollin of Demand Media, it was found that because “…the demand for admission is more competitive than at other types of schools.” The demand to get into these single-sex schools raises the tuition fees and prevents families of low income of acceptance and children of a possible better education. Although these schools are a bad idea to begin with, they are also unfair and decline the same quality education to many.
This type of education and schooling is becoming increasingly popular, with there being at least 40 in 30 states. Single-sex education is, yes helping students get better grades, but it is depriving students of interactive opportunities, learning experiences, and communication skills that could hurt their future after high school. Coed schools should be the source for education, because in the long run it will have more benefits for students.
You have very credible sources Amanda your rebuttals,and you did a good job of highlighting the consequences! As a reader though I ask myself what do girls who attend all girl schools are saying. I would of liked to hear the experinece of a girl who had to make the transition from an all girl school to a co-ed one.
DeleteKeep up the good work
That's a good point, thanks Estefani! Adding a students perspective from both single sex and coed woul probably help increase the ethos. So thanks!
DeleteOn Friday, December 14, 2012, twenty mothers dropped their innocent children off to school. Two hours later, they returned, surrounded by parents, police, and reporters while waiting for news of their children's survival. They went home that day alone. Earlier that same week, a man from Oregon shot three people at a shopping mall. A few months earlier, a gunman entered a movie theater in Aurora, Colorado and took 12 innocent lives. In fact, according to Slate Magazine about 60 people, in 2012, have passed away due to the misuse of guns. Recently, gun violence like this experience at Sandy Hook Elementary has increased and raised serious questions about firearms. Some ask if gun laws should be stricter and some say they should not. Therefore, gun laws within this country need to be stricter so that death rates decrease.
ReplyDeleteMany people buy guns usually for two main reasons, which is to hunt and for protection; however, guns are misused and abused. Gun laws have already been established like The Second Amendment, The National Firearms act of 1934, Gun Control Act of 1968, and the Crime Control Act. The Crime Control Act was established in order to create “ drug-free school zones” and penalties for criminals discharging a firearm in a school zone (Gun Control Timeline). The National Firearms Act of 1934 was established by the lawlessness and rise of gangster culture during prohibition by President Franklin D. Roosevelt. It gave a 200-dollar tax to firearms. And The Gun Control was designed in order to "provide support to federal, state, and local law enforcement officials in their fight against crime and violence"(Gun Control Timeline). Yes, there are gun laws but the most debatable one is the second amendment. Johns Paul Stevens, who served as an associate justice of the Supreme Court stated, “Guns are used to hunt, for self defense, for sporting activities, and to perform military duties"(Stevens, John Paul). Indeed, guns are used for hunting and for protection because everyone has the rights to own a gun under the second amendment, which is “ the right to bear arms” (U.S. Constitution. Art./Amend. XII, Sec. 3). Yet, people do not understand that the second amendment does not state that one has the right to kill someone with a gun. This is not accurate because “The Second Amendment plainly does not protect the right to use a gun to rob a bank; it is equally clear that it does encompass the right to use weapons for certain military purposes”(Stevens, John Paul). This merely means that the second amendment has only one purpose, which is that one, could own a gun for useful situations and when in need. Many say that guns should not be abolished because it violates the second amendment but people need to realize that there are and will continue to be more shootings if gun requirements re not revaluated.
America is in first place of having high death rates- this is not something to be proud of. In fact, the United States has the highest car accidents, gun violence, and drug overdose situations (Travernise, Sabrina). Clearly, younger Americans die earlier because they are either in car accidents or somewhere at the wrong time. Studies have found that, “car accidents, gun violence and drug overdoses were major contributors to years of life lost by Americans before age 50”(Travernise, Sabrina). The rate of firearm homicides is 20 times higher in the United States than in the other countries. Therefore, guns laws needs to be revaluated because death rates are not decreasing.
I really like your introduction; it's a strong hook and it weaves in information effortlessly without it seeming awkward.
DeleteI like that you included a "though I can agree", I think it's great that you're already incorporating that. Your paragraphs are nicely set up, the information you are using so far is very strong, and your essay is on its way!
Thankyou. I was not sure if the hook worked or not.
DeleteI like the extensive research and evidence you put in. I feel like it really helps establish you purpose.
DeleteThough I can agree with those who say that guns are not a problem because people do the killings not the gun, and that people need guns to protect themselves, but there are more alternatives such as cops, 911 emergency, pepper spray, and Tasers. Pepper spray is safer because “it seems to confirm that pepper spray is a reasonably safe and effective tool for law enforcement officers to use when confronting uncooperative or combative subjects” (The Effectiveness and Safety of Pepper Spray). NIJ, an intern from the security management claimed, “there is no conclusive medical evidence within the state of current research that indicates a high risk of serious injury or death from the direct effects of CED exposure” (Security Management). Therefore, Americans should not feel as if it is the need to use a gun during an emergency because they should own Tasers and pepper spray instead.
ReplyDeleteAlso before purchasing a gun, people need to have much more in depth background check before having the gun in their hands. James Alan Fox and Marianne W. Zawitz of the Bureau of Justice Statistics discuss, “ though school shootings continue, though an average of 32 homicides are committed with guns in the United States each day, though dozens of suspected terrorists are known to have passed background checks to legally purchase guns, the gun-control side cannot gain traction”(Sandra M. Alters, Guns and Youth). This indicates that many sneaky people pass background checks and use that same gun to commit crimes. Background checks need to be looked over because people are getting away with killing people with the guns they purchase.
There should also be a requirement to go to gun school just like it is going to driving school for one to get their permit. Although some would say that this option limits Americans’ right to the second amendment by only allowing adults to own and carry a gun with strict requirements. But, if anyone at any age were allowed to carry guns, there will be more chaos everywhere. If the second amendment, which is simply “The right to bear arms”, is fully upheld then there will be more incidents like the Aurora Theatre and Sandy Hook Elementary shootings. If unstable or dangerous people have the right to carry guns, things like this happen.
Another thing that some people will try to argue against is that people will find ways to go against that law anyway. Like people find a way to do drugs that are against the law, people will find ways to carry and use guns even if that law is made. However, if there was a strict law on how people gain access to guns and who gains that access, there will be much less small and largely horrific incidents with gun use involved.
The problem with gun control in America today is that Americans have too much liberty with guns. The requirements to receive guns are not strict enough. There have been incidents, including mass murders with murderers using massive war guns. By increasing the requirements to own a gun, it will decrease death rates in America.
Your intro is great and the research you included fits well, it seems like you put a lot of effort. I like your conclusion. It's short, to the point, and says exactly what you think should be done. Good!
DeleteIn 1965, the United States upheld the right to privacy in the Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur. The court stated that “freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause.”
ReplyDeleteMarriage is a custom that has been maintained throughout various civilizations for centuries. It still stands in our society, to this day. Today, however, it is often restricted to man and woman. This is in direct contradiction to its previous liberties; Marriage, in the past, has been allowed between man and a man, or women and a women. There’s no plausible reason that it should not be that way today. In today’s world, same sex marriage is seen as an abomination to society with disastrous effects on the minds of people. Not taking into consideration the positive effects that the legalization of same sex marriage can have on society, society itself has isolated itself from the positive effects of same sex marriage and drenched itself with the negative effects.
In today’s world, traditional marriage is defined as the conjoining of a man and women in holy matrimony. For millennia, marriage was about property and power rather than mutual attraction. It was a way of forging political alliances, sealing business deals, and expanding the family labor force. For many people, marriage was an unavoidable duty. For others, it was a privilege, not a right. Servants, slaves, and paupers were often forbidden to wed, and even among the rich, families sometimes sent a younger child to a nunnery or monastery rather than allow them to marry and break up the family’s landholding. Andrew Sullivan, a British author, blogger, political commentator, and an editor states that “For 16 centuries, Christianity also defined the validity of a marriage on the basis of a couple’s wishes. If two people claimed they had exchanged marital vows — even out alone by the haystack — the Catholic Church accepted that they were validly married.” Since the start of the Catholic Church, Catholics believed that as long as people were willing to getting married then they were allowed to do so. However, as time passed and homosexuals demanded the right to marry, the Catholic Church, along with the country, accounted an “accurate” definition of a traditional marriage contradicting its previous belief. As time passed by the and the country have both changed their laws and rules in order to benefit them and only allow what they want to allow not accounting for the consequences spread by their actions.
Legalizing same sex marriage will have several positive effects on society. Same-sex couples are similarly situated to different-sex couples in terms of their economic status, their family decisions, their interdependence, and their valuing of marriage. It’s no surprise, then, that gay couples eagerly take advantage of the right to marry when they have it. Research shows that gay couples who marry want to express their commitment to each other and to their family and friends. Same-sex couples want to marry to create a firm personal and legal foundation for their own lives and security for their current and future children. Even though they can’t reproduce, there are less than half a million children waiting to be adopted and welcomed into a loving home.
Even though same sex marriage will have positive on society, many people don’t believe so. Many people argue that same sex marriage could potentially lead down a "slippery slope” ending with giving people in polygamous, incestuous, bestial, and other nontraditional relationships the right to marry. Others say that marriage should not be extended to same-sex couples because homosexual relationships have nothing to do with procreation. Allowing gay marriage would only further shift the purpose of marriage from producing and raising children to adult gratification. Lastly, people argue that marriage is already threatened with high divorce rates, between %40-%50 of couples are divorcing, and that legalizing same sex marriage will only worsen the problem.
I like your intro! It adds historical facts and credibility. It starts the essay off nicely.
DeletePeople argue that allowing same sex marriage will give people in polygamous, incestuous, bestial, and other nontraditional relationships that right to marry, but how does this badly affect people? Everyone has the right to privacy and whatever they do on their own time should not matter to other people. Yes it is true that gay couples cannot reproduce, however it does not mean they cannot have children. Gay couples can adopt children and give them a warm loving family. There are about less than half a million children waiting to be adopted. People argue that they can’t reproduce, however they can still raise a family and give children a home. Lastly, people argue that marriage is already threatened with high divorce rates and then legalizing same sex marriage will only worsen it. It is true that high divorce rates are higher than ever before, however legalizing same sex marriage will increase the percentage of people who get married. If people were so concerned with high divorce rate, why don’t they advocate that instead on insisting that same sex marriage will only worsen the problem at hand.
ReplyDeleteEven though same sex marriage will have a positive effect on society, many do not agree. Same sex marriage will help get more children adopted and placed into home with new families. If legalized, gay couples will take advantage of the right to marry and not take it for granted and divorce. By not legalizing same sex marriage, the government is allowing discrimination to happen around the country. Religious beliefs only hold so much ground in the foundation of our countries law making. You can debate theology, and the divide between church and state, the issue of procreation, the red herring of polygamy. But what it all really comes down to is the primary institution of love. The small percentage of people who are gay or lesbian were born with the capacity to love and the need to be loved.
I like this essay, the ending was great, however you seem a bit repetitive in some spots. You could talk a bit about how allowing same sex marriage could install more tolerance and open mindedness in future generations since many kids will be adopted by the gay couples.
DeleteNice thesis Jorge, I really like the diction it is very critical! I suggest you consider expanding upon the argument that the ban of gay marriage violates their fundamental rights because this is one of the most dominant agrguments in favor of legalizing gay marriage. I also recommned you use an example because it would increase not only your logos but pathos to
DeleteGood work!
I really like that it begins with a rhetorical question. I think overall it's really good but I do agree with Estefani, more examples would definitely make your arguement ten times stronger.
Delete“Stay alive at all costs! Find the key! Kill the bad guys!” This is how one eighth-grader describes the principles of playing video games. Such games might seem like harmless fun, but what if the violence attracts and addicts young players, affecting their behavior and their view of reality?
ReplyDeleteVideo games are increasingly being used around the world, mainly by children, adolescents, and young adults. Currently, video games especially violent ones have raised concerns, particularly from concerned parents and health professionals. While video games when played in moderation may have the potential to influence gamers positively, taking into account how many hours the average-American spends playing video games in conjunction with their content, video games result in an increase of aggression, a toll on ones academic success, in addition to creating potential harm to one's health.
Some may argue that violent video games have no negative impact on children, adolescents, or young adults, pointing out that video games are entertainment media just like television and that just because one kills in a video game it does not mean that video game players will go on and kill someone in actual reality. However, just because a player does not imitate specific violent acts found in video games such as killing it does not mean that video games have absolutely no short or long term negative impact on a player's behavior. Excessive exposure to violent video games-but not limited to- increases aggressive thoughts, feelings, behaviors and the likelihood of engaging in confrontation. A college student babysat two children who were playing the video game "Mario Cart," which is really not a very violent game and when the younger brother won, the older brother got up and started kicking him and yelling insults. Later on that day, the younger brother was playing another video game by himself and when he could not beat the level, he threw down the controller and screamed at the TV. screen, "Why are you doing this to me...?!" and burst into tears. According to the most comprehensive poll by the Kaiser Foundation, American children aged 8 - 18 play an average of 8 hours of video games per week and playing is heaviest in the 11-14 age group. In addition , the majority of top selling video games and children's favorite games contain strong violence. Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 grossed ~$USD 550 million in the first five days of its 2009 release, at that time more than any other entertainment product in history (movies included). Clearly, a large number of a children and adolescents are regularly exposed to violent video games that are highly addictive.
For this reason, violent video games present a threat to a user's physiological health. Geoffrey and Elizabeth Loftus, in their book Mind at Play: The Psychology of Video Games, warned about the dangers of violent video games: “Although we can never be sure in any individual case, a substantial body of evidence indicates that viewing excessive
violence on the screen is associated with aggression and violent behavior among children and teenagers." One of the most troubling influences video games have on players is the medium’s remarkable ability to fixate a player’s attention or, referred to by Sherry Turkle’s term as a “holding power.”
The first argument against violent video game effects is that there is little evidence linking the playing of violent video games to very violent behaviors. However , we must reflect on the difference between aggression and violence. "In essence, violence is aggressive behavior that has extreme harm as its goal. Thus, all violence is aggression but not all aggression is violence." There are ways to test links with aggressive behavior, which can be examined ethically in a laboratory. It is disingenuous to suggest that because there are no substantial evidence to prove the link between violent video games and aggression and there are no established negative or anti-social effects. This is like saying that because there are no experimental studies on humans showing that cigarette smoking causes lung cancer, smoking is not a causal risk factor. The causal links between violent video game playing and physical aggression are well established.
ReplyDeleteIt is revealed that video games can be a powerful educational and exercise tools but, considering the disproportionate amount of time spent playing video games, video games rob from the importance education and health. As a consequences of spending long hours playing video games children and adolescents perform poorly in school because they routinely skip their homework to play games . Hours spent playing video games eats into time that would normally be spent studying and reading. For example, in a study of 1491 youth between 10 and 19, gamers spent 30% less time reading and 34% less time doing homework. Although there are a variety of games systems that try to promote physical activity, they are not as popular. The state of Utah was acclaimed with the lowest percentage of children overweight, and was found to have the second lowest proportion of children spending 2 or more hours on video game play compared to the District of Columbia, that has the highest percentage of overweight children, and the highest percentage nationwide of children spending an incredible 4 hours plus in front of a screen. It is evident that there is a correlation between the amount of time spent playing and how prone one is to obesity. Addicted gamers tend to sit in one place for a long time so their body practically misses out on any kind of physical activity. Being overweight may increase the risk of developing other ailments in the long run such as high levels of cholesterol, diabetes, hypertension and so on.
While video games do have some positive effects, overall video games have much more of a negative influence in a person's behavior, education, and health.
I love how you use those quotes in your introduction. Plus you have a lot of great information that kept me wanting to read.
DeleteI really like your introduction. You have a really strong intro including your thesis. I think the fact that you went straight into stats was a great technique because as soon as I read what was occurring with the children you added on the amount and it made the argument much stronger. Using more examples like those would make your paper a lot stronger.
DeleteThe Selective Service makes men ages 18-26 to sign up for the military. However, the Selective Service is not needed at the time, it saps money, and scars families in more ways than one . All this so called service does is ship out barely independent boys off to foreign lands to go die and ultimately lose in wars like Vietnam, and Korea. The United States has an enormous budget, in 2011 alone it spent more than 13 countries combined. Aside from that, the US is the biggest traders in the world, and is part of NATO. In other words, it has nothing to fear.
ReplyDeleteIn New York, the coming veterans from the Middle East came home to a grim welcome. Every veteran has to have a pension right? Well these veterans seemed to be in some alternate universe because aside from being rightfully paid, the veterans had to pay back with some sort of interest! What is this, having a selfless man/woman go out and fight for their country only to be taxed? To think this is to those who willingly went off to war. if this happened during a draft, there might not even be a pension, or an interest so high that the veterans regret their military service entirely! This could lead to a drop in the already below par numbers the military has.
Sure, someone might say that the Selective Service is necessary for protection; that we should have a large number of reserves for any impeding or sudden crisis. Reasonable, yes, but the Selective Service actually saps money! Money that could be used in better things like: education, transportation, or a slight increase in pensions. Why dump money into a service that has barely been used in the past 96 years. Really, with the huge $711 billion dollar budget, advanced weaponry, and the fact that the US is surrounded by two huge oceans; the US has little to nothing to fear. If anything, the Selective Service shows a bit of anxiety within the country. The need of a large reserve of troops is a bit unsettling. Of course with the Middle East, especially Syria, in chaos, and North Korea suspiciously toying with nuclear weapons is alarming. Still with natural borders, some of the best intelligence in the world, and being a provider for most of the world; the US can let the Selective Service rest until needed.
For some the military is glorious, and it opens many avenues that were once inaccessible. However, there are some alternatives that somewhat simulate the military experience. For example, in Russia the men who do not want to be drafted can become firefighters or medics. It is the same danger, and commitment, but home and it directly helps the people. Families can still be proud that their son is off doing a great deed, but has a lesser chance of being killed, captured, or missing. This alternative for the most part keeps families’ together.
Those who still might favor the Selective Service might argue that if an immediate family member of the soldier has passed, they are able to leave. However, is it not better to be with their family through the whole ordeal? It is fantastic that the Selective Service is sympathetic, but should a young man’s father, mother, brother, sister, or whoever to die without seeing their beloved for the last time. This is what was implied earlier. The Selective Service, although not intentionally, scars families. Just thinking of the boy not being able to console his mother after his father, or her husband passed is far from pleasant.
In conclusion, the Selective Service should be shelved temporarily. It saps money, damages families in numerous ways, and is not necessary right now since the US is a world power with an already hefty defense budget. Finally, with natural borders, this land is a fortress with no apparent need for a huge army.
I think that you pose strong points but I feel that your conclusion could be stronger. It seems that you are just repeating what you already said in the essay before. You should end the essay with a "so what" that leaves the readers thinking.
DeleteAdding on to Anel's comment about the conclusion I think you should add on an ending that will leave the reader to decide but lean more towards your side of the argument.
DeleteEighteen into is the age where adolescents morph into adults. They have not physically changed, but they do carry more responsibility on their shoulders. They are tried as adults, seen as adults, and left to make adult decisions. Turning eighteen means receiving the rights and responsibilities of adulthood to vote, smoke cigarettes, serve on juries, get married, sign contracts, be prosecuted as adults, and join the military. Adults should get to choose what they do or do not do, whether they smoke or don’t smoke, whether they drink or don’t drink. The drinking age should be lowered to eighteen because at this age they have the power to make their own choices. Just as eighteen year old men have to sign up for the draft and eighteen years olds in general have the right to smoke, alcohol should be a choice and not a taboo topic left to the judgment of a 21-year old mind.
ReplyDeleteOne of the biggest concerns with lowering the drinking age, by far, is what dangers this will bring to society. Statistics including the number of fatalities and injuries are taken into consideration. How will changing this law change the way we live? With statistics like, “Excessive alcohol consumption contributes to more than 4,600 deaths among underage youth, that is, persons less than 21 years of age, in the United States each year,”(Alcohol and Public Health) it is easy to immediately rule out changing the drinking age. These statistics scare people, making them believe the assertions that lowering the drinking age would bring disastrous effects. After all, we have the right to freedom as long as we do not harm those around us, and any change that might do just that is immediately shut down. But it is not right to blame the increase of fatalities on 18-year old drinkers. First of all, lowering the drinking age does not mean that there will be an increased amount of 18 years-old's “excessively consuming alcohol”. The thrill of drinking at an age lower than the legal age is just that; knowing that you are doing something that you should not. Besides that, 18 year old drinkers should not be given the whole blame for accidents. "Higher traffic accident and fatality rates occur during the first few years of legal drinking regardless of age. In 2009, the 21- to 24-year-old age group had the highest percentage of drivers in fatal crashes with blood-alcohol concentration (BAC) levels of .08 or higher – 35 percent. Any increase in traffic accidents or fatalities in 18- to 20-year-old's would be offset by a decrease for those 21 and older." (Asch and Levy) The introduction of alcohol, period, at whatever age it may be, brings the same consequences.
Why does anyone want to lower the drinking age in the first place? Well, it has something to do with the idea of being an adult. As children we look up to our parents or guardians, the adults in our lives, as powerful beings who are responsible and powerful, as well as independent. Whenever it is our turn to turn eighteen, we feel like we’re carrying the weight of those responsibilities on our shoulders. That is it’s a little puzzling when eighteen year old’s can make their own choices when it comes to drinking. While it is true that some things warrant a higher age of initiation than 18, it is puzzling why being sent off to kill or be killed warrants this ripe age. A court is able to try an 18 year old as an adult. An 18 year old is able to walk into a gas station and buy cigarettes. An adult is able to be drafted to war, the death zone. Excuse me if I think this is a bit ridiculous. How can you deny an 18 year old the right to a beer, but see no problem in letting them go off to die and kill for their country? “It is hard to argue against the “my son/daughter can serve their country for three years without being able to have a legal drink” line of reasoning. If someone is willing to die for their country, why do we assume they aren't responsible to have a beer?” (McConnell)I guess I do see why the drinking age is 21. They will be able to drink at the age of 22 when their four year contract in the service is over. And boy are they going to need something to erase all the traumatizing moments they just faced.
ReplyDeleteAnother big argument for not lowering the drinking age: at eighteen, neither the body nor brain it fully developed, and the level of maturity is lacking.(Nicole) But if you want to look at it that way, it is important to remember, again, the fact that eighteen year old's are sent to war. Drinking alcohol has no level of complexity. But going off to war, where you may possibly be killed and have to kill, with a brain that needs developing and a maturity level that needs to rise is much more dangerous that drinking a couple of beers with friends.
What many people forget to take into consideration is that we do not want to lower the alcohol age to bring another vice; we not only believe that these have the power to make their own choices but realize that this is the age where parents can reach out to their children. They are old enough to understand a lecture from their parents; at age eighteen, most students are in their last year of high school, which at twenty-one, many are in college. If you are in high school, you probably live under your parent's roof. That gives them a chance to speak to their children about the dangers of alcohol, how to drink, how not to drink, and prepare their child. However if your first sip of alcohol is at age twenty-one at a college party with a bunch of crazed, inexperienced drinkers, you’re not going to be well informed. (McConnell) Would you rather your kids learn from you, or some guys at a fraternity party?
Lowering the drinking age is not a matter of giving adults more freedom or trusting them with the responsibility; it is more a matter of letting adults make certain decisions that seem minute when compared to other responsibilities they are given. I cannot understand how I am to trust an 18 year old with jury duty, giving judgment about another person’s case when they can’t even be given the right to drink alcohol.
I really like the way you incorporated all the things that people are given once they turn 18 in your intro. That really helps your arguments.
DeleteTo some, five seconds could mean nothing. In five seconds there is nothing that can really be done. But when you’re behind the wheel, even taking your eyes off the road for those five seconds could end up changing your life. Each day, more than 15 people are killed and more than 1,200 people are injured in crashes that were reported to involve a distracted driver . Many states have become aware of the dangers of driving distracters, however the laws should be implemented nation wide because there has been an increase in deaths due to driving distracters such as eating, putting on makeup, and using any hand held device.
ReplyDeleteDriving distracted occurred on a day-to-day basis. Define by the website http://www.distraction.gov distracted driving is any activity that could divert a person's attention away from the primary task of driving. All distractions endanger driver, passenger, and bystander safety. These types of distractions include: texting using a cell phone or smart phone, eating and drinking, talking to passengers, grooming, reading, including maps Using a navigation system, watching a video adjusting a radio, CD player, or MP3 player. When driving and full attention is not on the road it is a higher possibility for an accident to occur. In an accident it is putting the life the distracted and others at stake.
States have become aware of the some of the danger of distracted driving but have just implemented on texting and driving. Texting and driving has become a major cause of the accident due to driving distracters, however there should be a national law that penalizes those who drive distracted. The texting and driving laws in 39 states include banning texting and driving. Florida, South Carolina, Montana, Arizona and South Dakota are the few states that have no laws against any driving distracter. Some may say “At best, cell phone bans around the country might take years to become effective, just like drunk driving laws before them; at worst they may prove as futile as anti-speeding campaigns of the past.” Just looking at the difference between California which implements a law on a driving distracter, the use of texting, the there was a decrease of 22 percent of deaths after the laws was implemented while in Florida there has been a 4 percent increase in deaths. Now if there were a law that penalized or banned for all driving distracters our lives would be safer.
Driving distracted can have a major or a low impact on your life. A testimonial from a conscious driver stated, “Obviously texting while driving is dangerous and should be banned. We shouldn't stop there, though - all distracted driving should be banned. Today while driving down East Bay Drive, I saw a white SUV swerving out of its lane. As I passed, I expected to see the driver texting; instead I saw a woman looking in her rearview mirror putting on her mascara.” This is proof that other driving distracters are also dangerous. There we had a women putting on mascara her full attention was not on the road it even caused herb car to “swerve out of its lane”, this makes it dangerous for those on the other lane. This is something minimal but it can get to even death, In a documentary made by AT&T a young teenager, Patrick, was interviewed “I sent one stupid meaningless text ‘LOL’ and killed a man.” After killing a by bicyclist Patrick spent time in jail, he killed a person due to driving distractedly.
It is important that there is a law implemented that penalizes for driving distractedly. There have been many deaths due to this although some believe it will not be as effective as other driving laws, driving distracted has grown into an umbrella taking over simple actions while driving that can take a life away.
I really love your introduction. It kept me wanting to read and find out more about your essay. I would like to see more rebuttals.
DeleteI agree with Nirvana about the introduction and also ading rebuttals. I felt like I didn't see enough opposing arguments that would be available to rebutt. Your conclusion was good, but could be tied back to a more general idea about rules and consequences.
DeleteThank you. I will look more into what other rebuttals i can add to my essay.
DeleteImagine the world we live in fifty years from now. How do you picture your country? Your family? Your planet? Unless your answer to all three is “Absolutely Fantastic!”, it is clear that our future is heading into a dark path. In a country where global warming is rising at an alarming rate and the economy is struggling through a recession, certain measures must be taken. Legalizing the growth of industrial hemp, a strong and eco-friendly fibre, can be the key factor to solving our nation’s major issues.
ReplyDeleteIndustrial hemp is a number of varieties of the Cannabis Sativa plant that is intended strictly for agricultural and industrial purposes. It was introduced to the America’s when the Puritans came to the new world. Up until the 1900’s, hemp fields were tremendously popular. Hemp seeds became popular for their richness of protein, vitamins and omega-3s. It was also used for the production of paper .In fact, the first draft of the Declaration of Independence was printed on hemp paper. After hundreds of years of successfully growing industrial hemp, it was outlawed in 1937.
So why, if it served such useful purposes in the past, does our nation consider it illegal to grow industrial hemp? The biggest concern for many is the close relationship that exist between industrial hemp and marijuana. Since both come from the same cannabis plant, it is often assumed they are the same thing and have the same effect if smoked. However, their levels of tetrahydrocannabinol(THC), the psychoactive component that gives the “high”, and cannabidiol(CBD),that effectively blocks the THC’s psychoactive punch, are nearly complete opposites. While marijuana contains 6-20% THC and minimal amounts of CBD, industrial hemp contains about .3% THC and high amounts of CBD. All you would get if you attempted to smoke industrial hemp would be at most, a bad headache.
Legalizing the growth of industrial hemp would allow the environment a break from the increasing global warming. Cotton, one of our nations major growing crop, uses about 50% of the world’s pesticides, while industrial hemp can grow easily without the necessity of herbicides, fungicides, or pesticides. It grows in about 3 months and nearly the entire plant can be used for a variety of purposes. The typical tree needs at least 10 years to reach usable maturity. If the growth of industrial hemp became legal, there would be less pesticides needed for the production of your typical fibers. As done before in our nations history, industrial hemp could be used for the production of paper because it grows significantly faster and is much stronger. This will diminish the amount of trees that would be cut down allowing for a greener, more eco-friendly environment.
ReplyDeleteIf positive environmental effects isn’t enough to legalize the growth of industrial hemp, the boost in our economy might just do the trick. Although illegal to grow it, it is surely not condemned to import it from other nations. The United States wasted $10 million in 2010 in all importations of hemp labeled products. In fact, the United States is Canada’s top buyer of hemp since it legalized it. With the industrial hemp products increasing day to day, it is only expected that the United States will continue enriching nations like Canada when it could instead save that money if it were to grow it nationally. Industrial hemp produces 250% more fibre than cotton and does so in a much shorter time span. When used as a fabric it is “softer, warmer, more absorbent, and longer lasting than cotton”. This means that you would need to produce a lot less industrial hemp than cotton to create the same amount of products, thus saving the nation money that would otherwise be wasted.
Being such a versatile, strong, long lasting, and eco-friendly fibre, it is difficult to imagine why industrial hemp would become illegal to grow in the first place. The answer could lay in the millionaires of the paper and cotton industry. Could it be that these wealthy men used their power and money to lobby government and give hemp the negative reputation most people have of it? After all, if the demand of paper and hemp produced products were met or even exceeded by hemp growers, the fat cats would be left without business. I can’t help but wonder if this is the same reason it is still illegal to grow in the 21st century?
I like your introduction and how it ties in to the first aspect of why industrial hemp should be legalized, the environment. I feel like you addressed opposing sides once or twice, and could possibly address one more side or issue in order to have another rebuttal to strenghten your argument.
DeleteI really liked your intro and your use of rhetorical question. Also if maybe you could add a little more of the opposing side, to make your essay less bias?
DeleteThank you for your feedback. When I read it over, it was very one sided so I will go back and add more opponent opinion to make it less bias. Thank you for your advice.
DeletePubs. Restaurants. Parks. Hospitals. There are only some of the places where taking a breath with a hint of second-hand smoke is nothing out of the ordinary. The people coming in and out of these places include children, the sick, the elderly, etc. many of whom should not be exposed to more toxic chemicals as it is. Second-hand smoke or ETS (Environmental Tobacco Smoke) that comes from individuals making decisions about their own health becomes a part of public air and public health, now posing a threat to the health of others including the most vulnerable, children and those with health conditions that all can be avoided by a public smoking ban.
ReplyDelete“Smoking is all about and should continue to be about a choice.” Most active smokers have to argue that a smoking ban would be some kind of infringement on a right to make a choice about one’s health. Many of those who have the same reaction argue that “most smokers already step outside of a restaurant to have a cigarette. But nonsmokers also have a choice the choice not to go into a restaurant or pub that allows smoking.” While it is true that non-smokers have a choice of not going into a restaurant that allows smoking, it’s also a matter of choice for them as to which restaurant they want to go to. People should be able to go to the restaurant of their choice without being exposed to detrimental health effects to which they have no control over. Non-smokers should be able to keep from the exposure to these chemicals they have decided not to intake. A writer in the New Straits Times warns about the exposure to second-hand smoke when she says,” IF you are a smoker, you know you are a prime candidate for heart trouble. So, if you are not a smoker, don't let these tobacco addicts blow smoke in your direction, warns Annie Freeda Cruez. For if they smoke and you don't, you become a "passive smoker", someone who comes into contact with "second-hand" smoke.” The second-hand smoke present in places like restaurants or even the work place where there sometimes isn’t a choice, one forcefully becomes the “passive smoker”.
The debate about whether second-hand smoke or being this “passive smoker” really endangers people’s health is ongoing. One doctor, Dr. John Dunn, writes in Boise Weekly, “"Based upon my medical training, my knowledge of proper scientific research, and my review of studies and policy making addressing second hand tobacco smoke or environmental tobacco smoke (ETS), I can say with confidence that second hand smoke may irritate some, but it does not kill anyone, anytime and it does not cause disease or death. I say that with reasonable medical certainty or probability.” ETS, or Environmental Tobacco Smoke, is defined as inhalation of smoke by persons other than the intended “active” smoker”. On the contrary, there have been studies proven to show that there is absolutely no safe level exposure of ETS or second-hand smoke. According to the World Bank, exposure to second-hand smoke causes an estimated 5% of the global burden of disease, slightly higher than the direct use of tobacco (4%), but this is largely concentrated in a few countries. About one third of adults are regularly exposed to second-hand tobacco smoke, and that accounts for just the adults, not other age group populations.
(con't.)
ReplyDeleteThe detrimental effects of smoking to the smoker are obvious. But are they to the “passive smokers”, those who only intake second-hand smoke? After proposing a new Anti-Smoking Law in San Francisco an article published that a 2003 study published in a British Medical Journal “found that the relationship between secondhand smoke and lung cancer in non-smokers is just as weak, concluding that. The opponents of a public smoking ban argued that this study proved that there was not a link strong enough to prove that second-hand smoke was a cause of lung cancer. However, a report in The Business Wire including surgeon general warning, explained that “even a brief exposure to second-hand smoke has immediate adverse effects on a person's cardiovascular system.” Breathing in an amount of this smoke for even a short period of time is able to cause adverse effects on a person’s health which is easier when it is open to the public.
The most harm second-hand smoke can do is to the population of children. Without a smoking ban, more children are exposed to ETS when in public. According to WHO (World Health Organization), “every year 600,000 children die in the world because of SHS. WHO also states, “Implementation of a smoking ban at public places is the single most important step any country can take to decrease the burden of tobacco-related diseases.” A public smoking ban would be the first step in reducing the amount of these tobacco-related diseases. In the same report by the Business Wire it is stated that, “Children exposed to secondhand smoke are at an increased risk for sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS), acute respiratory infections, ear problems, and more severe asthma.” Children are more vulnerable to tobacco smoke, because they breathe faster than adults, and because of their size the amount of toxic chemicals ingested is higher, affecting development as well as respiratory, immune, and nervous systems. By beginning to implement a smoking ban, the amount of children afflicted with tobacco-related diseases would drop. In The European Wire, it was published that, “"The number of children admitted to hospital with symptoms of asthma has fallen since the ban on smoking in enclosed public places came into effect, a study has found. Research shows there was a 12.3% fall in admissions in the first year after the law came into place in July 2007, and these have continued to drop in subsequent years." A public smoking ban in Europe proved to aid in the decline of tobacco-related diseases in children and has continued to do so, suggesting that the same result could happen in other places.
A public smoking ban has been and continues to be an issue of debate, not only in the United States, but around the world. The opponents of the ban argue that it infringes on the right to smoke in public areas and doesn’t really hurt anyone. Extensive research has proven that second-hand smoke is linked to several diseases, not only in adults and children. As to the argument that it takes away from certain rights, it doesn’t. A public smoking ban does not call for a complete stop of smoking, because that’s left up to the individual to make a choice, but when it starts to affect those around us who can’t make that decision yet, it’s important to keep in mind if it’s fine to give up something so small for the better of our fellow humans.
I agree with Anel the way you tied it back was good. However your second paragraph seems alittle repetitive, the whole smoking, non-smoking restaurant and choice. Overall its a good first draft.
DeleteI like how engaged your reader with the intro. I really like how you used a quote in your first body paragraph and how you tied the conclusion to the bigger picture. Good Job
ReplyDeleteThank you for the feedback. I will try to elaborate a little more on the conclusion that you said was tied to the bigger picture.
DeleteMy parents divorced during the time I took the SAT. My concentration on the test was poor, my sleep erratic, and I didn’t care about the results of the test. Are colleges able to know this by just looking at SAT scores?” Tammy Stoner, one out of many students who suffered the unfortunate timing of problems during the SAT test. The Admission Offices also may not know that Johnny who scored a 1900 guessed on some parts of the test and he got lucky. The truth is there really isn’t a way for the Admission Offices to know about personal problems by just looking at test scores, or if someone got lucky and guessed. These cases may not pertain to everyone else, for others the SAT scores are seen as a tool to achieve college admission. Thousands of students nationwide stress and prepare for SAT tests every year. SAT scores have been known as a crucial part of the admission process into college. However, SAT scores are not distinguished by social class. They are viewed equally in the eyes of the admission offices. Which means that students who are lower income are compared to wealthy kids who took private SAT classes, and students who had more resources than others.Which creates a disadvantage and will result in more low income students to be rejected for their low scores.
ReplyDeleteSAT scores do not determine college admissions. They are seen as accessory that helps your application look more decorative and appealing for colleges to accept a student into their college. Director of admissions for Harvard College in Cambridge, Massachusetts claims, “Admissions officers rely on all the elements of your application to paint a picture of you. The biggest factor is your high school record, particularly your willingness to take and ability to succeed in demanding courses.” Admission officers may say SAT scores do not determine college admission, but they do determine college admission when other applicants have similar grades, background, and similar extracurricular activities. They will use SAT scores and determine who gets rejected and accepted. SAT test have been proven to increase the stress level for students that can significantly impact their scores on the test, or even worse push some students to cheat. This case affects particularly high income class students who might feel pressured to pay someone to take their test to get a high score. On November 23, 2011, fifteen students from the Great Neck area, were implicated in the latest round of charges. Prosecutors said 15 high school students hired five other people for anywhere from $500 to $3,600 each to take the SAT or ACT for them. The impostors - all of them college students who attended Great Neck-area public and private high schools - fooled test administrators by showing up for the exams with phony ID. Students feel the pressure and stress more as the years continue to pass because every year schools are becoming more competitive to get in and will require higher scores that some students won’t be able to provide.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteIn addition, some may say the SAT actually shines a spotlight on the inequities in education by putting every student on equal footing. The notion that the differences in test scores among different groups of students is somehow the result of testing bias is an idea that is “universally rejected within mainstream psychology,” according to University of Minnesota researchers. Although it may seem that SAT tests are fair and provide everyone with an equal chance, students with families with higher incomes tend to do better because of resources available to them. “The SAT is slanted in favor of privileged children—“a wealth test,” as Harvard law professor Lani Guinier calls it. The SAT has been proven to favor students who have high incomes. Most of them are able to afford private classes that can show them the tricks to gain a high score. Whereas a low income student will most likely not be able to afford a such a class. Generally speaking, the wealthier a student’s family is, the higher the SAT score. For the critical reading section, the average score for student’s families income of $20,000 and less was around 434. For other students whose family income was $60,000-$80,000 the average score was 503. Students with high family income have more resources and are able to have a better education than low income students.
SAT scores help colleges determine how successful a student might be in college. Demonstrated success in advanced placement and honors classes in addition to good test scores tell admission officers that your overall ability to achieve is excellent. The higher the SAT scores of students, the greater the likelihood that they not only returned for a second year of study but eventually earned a bachelor degree as well. SAT scores may show that a student is able to think critically and if further interpreted do good in college, but some students learned tricks to help get a high SAT score. “While the SAT serves a purpose, strong GPAs, high school rigor, teacher recommendations, and personal essays are stronger indicators of success at Montclair State,” Terry said. “Utilizing a variety of assessment factors, the university has seen greater student achievement and a rise in graduation rates. This explains why more and more prestigious small colleges, such as Middlebury and Bennington, are making the SAT optional.Therefore, using or basing college success on SAT scores alone doesn’t necessarily mean that a student will achieve success in college.
SAT test have shown many downfalls for students. It is a test that not only is not fair, but also puts a lot of stress for students who take the test. SAT scores had the purpose to serve as an asset for a student's application, instead they have served as a distinction between low income and high income students. They should be abolished as they serve a purpose for discriminating against low income students. Colleges should look at AP scores or SAT Subject Tests that would help provide more what a students is actually learning.
I like your hook. Even though it isn't relatable to everyone, many can relate to taking the SAT test and the way you feel after it. also you have good credibility
DeleteI really like your quote in the introduction it was a good hook! But I didn't know it was a quote until the end because it doesn't have quotation marks in the beginning. I also liked how in the conclusion you provided alternatives of the test providing more support to your argument. I think that what could be worked on a little more is a little more analysis and it would be a lot stronger. Good job!
DeleteI appreciate your feedback. I also agree my analysis could be better and it could improve my essay.
DeleteAfter a long day at school or work all you want to do is indulge yourself with a refreshing ice cold soda, eat you favorite bag of chips, and that delicious chocolate bar you picked up at the local 7-11. With moderation none of these things can come of any potential harm, but considering that over 25 percent of Americans consume fast foods every day health issues are bound to rise. Junk food and soft drinks are both of very low nutrition. Junk food is one of the leading causes for the 32 percent of children that are obese and overweight in the United States. Because of this taxes on junk food and soft drinks should be increased. This would not only improve the health of people, but also allow for healthier foods to be of a lower price.
ReplyDeleteIf taxes on junk food were to be increased it would allow for healthy food prices to go down. The idea of ‘fat tax’ was first introduced in 1942 by a U.S. physiologist A. J. Carlson, but it was not payed much attention to, In the 1980 it was re-introduced by Kelly D. Brownell who is the director of the Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity at Yale. Brownell proposed, “ revenue from junk-food taxes be used to subsidize more healthful foods and fund nutrition campaigns.” Increasing in fattening foods would help decrease the taxing on healthy foods. Also "Junk Food Taxes Pay Off, Study Finds; Food-pricing strategies can reduce dietary inequalities, researcher says”. By increasing junk food taxes healthier food sold at a store like Whole Foods would be more wallet friendly.
Some opponents may say that increasing junk food taxes would not help lower health issues because it is a persons choice what they eat. Imposing a fat tax would help decrease health issues such as obesity, since most of the people that are obese tend to be of certain demographics, like low income minorities. “Growing up I was a skinny and average-weight child, never really had any problems weight-wise. I played football for a recreational league in Georgia and worked hard at becoming a great player. Family issues arose, and I quit playing football. The coaches begged me to come back, but I never did. I was used to the excercise and training, but I was also used to the appetite I gained from doing that. I ate like I was a football player, and along with the family issues, I ate even more because it made me feel better. I was never a social person, so I just stayed indoors and played video games and ate food the majority of the day. I was like this all throughout high school; despite being called the "fat kid," I still continued to eat. I finally reached 260 pounds a little after my graduation date. I got a great job and worked there for about six months, then they fired me for something absolutely outrageous. As time went by, bills were piling up and searching for jobs began to become extremely stressful.” The fat tax would help in the long run of people lives. By increasing fast foods people would eat healthier and be able to live a more productive life.
ReplyDeleteThe fat tax would not only help peoples health but also the environment. "I was pleasantly surprised that senators looked into this issue," he said, "but I think this amendment does not go far enough. They should have at least brought up the fact that using this oil also causes environmental problems." Gontier is referring to the fact that some palm oil plantations are responsible for deforestation and other environmental issues in countries that produce it such as Indonesia and Malaysia. Most people are unaware that what they put into their body is so unhealthy, it even causes environmental issues. Increasing the fat tax would allow us to make up for the environmental damage we have cause in other countries.
Both opponents and proponents make strong points about increasing or not the fat tax. Even though the fat tax has failed in countries like Denmark and even in trials like California, and Maryland economic specialist should promote Kelly D. Brownell’s idea of decreasing healthy foods. This would balance the loss of junk food loss in revenue. Fat tax has more positives such as having less costly healthy foods, a decrease in prices of healthy foods, and the environment being safer.
I like your hook, I think it fits well with the rest of your paper. I also think the pathos you have in here is compelling, but I think you should try to add more statistics.
DeleteI really like your hook! It is what many Americans do. I also really like your evidence. It is very strong and straight to the point but I feel that more analysis on it would make it that much stronger. Overall, it was really good!
DeleteI really liked your hook I was agreeing with it until you mentioned the negative side of junk food. Which means you hook really worked. Your evidence was strategically picked especially the source where the person comparing their life before as young and after their lack of exercise.
Deletesources:
ReplyDeleteBrownell, Kelly D. "Get Slim With Higher Taxes." New York Times 15 Dec. 1994. Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web. 25 Feb. 2013.
"Fast Food." Doctors, Patient Care, Health Education, Medical Research. Palo Alto Medical Foundation, n.d. Web. 21 Feb. 2013.
Klein, Sarah. "I Lost Weight: Matthew Quiles Committed To Healthy Eating And Lost 80 Pounds." The Huffington Post. TheHuffingtonPost.com, 13 Aug. 2012. Web. 12 Feb. 2013.
"French Senator Proposes 'Nutella Tax'." PRI's The World 13 Nov. 2012. Gale Student Resources In Context. Web. 6 Feb. 2013.
I like your introduction, it catches the reader. When you say "but it was not payed much attention to" i think you can put " but it was ignored" I like how you incorporated not only the states in the U.S but also other countries..
DeleteThe facts are terrifying and are slowly causing more damage to the world than we can imagine. “Children on average, watch between two and four hours of television every day. American youth view more than 1,000 murders, rapes, and assaults each year.” And that is only what has been recorded. The rise of violence seen in the U.S. has sparked many controversies. Some say the increase in these crimes have been due to amount of violence shown on television, while others disagree. Unfortunately, research shows that what people watch on television has a direct impact on people’s actions and thoughts.
ReplyDeleteOne may say that the ban of violence and sex on television will bore people and will have no entertainment, leading to more chaos and disaster. A local journalist, Conrad Angula stated, “I think it is childish and unfortunate. Maybe he (the president) is going to bore people to death. It’s definitely a bad move.” Although one may say it is a bad move, the facts are prevailing. “Sadly, by the time our children leave elementary school, they will have seen on average 100,000 acts of violence on television.” This means that children are exposed to these violent acts and are witnessing them more than we can imagine. Facts are shown that “the occurrence of violence on television has increased by 75% since 1998 and has increased across the board on all five of the major broadcast networks” If every year, the violence keeps increasing, later violence and sex is the only thing that will be on television. Not only will it be on television but on people’s minds as well since that is what they will see all the time. The more they have it on their minds, the more prone they will to commit a violent act.
Others say that “Under our Constitution, the proper response is plain, even though it is not simple: give parents more power to control what their children see. But Congress's attention at this time seems instead to signal an intent to involve the Federal Government more deeply in what we are allowed to see on our television sets. The FCC [Federal Communications Commission], for instance, has suggested that Congress "time channel" certain shows to late night time slots or implement a government-run ratings system. Such attempts to restrict free speech would be grave mistakes—and ones that the courts are unlikely to tolerate.” Although there may be an intent by the FCC to run shows at a late night time slot, we can see that television is crucial in the lives of American families. “An average American household has the television set turned on 8 hours and 11 minutes daily, and children watch on average between two and four hours of television every day. Depending on their age, one to two thirds of children have televisions in their bedrooms. By the time most children begin the first grade, they will have spent the equivalent of three school years in front of the television set.” This is extremely devastating. Since many children have televisions in their bedrooms, they can watch whatever they want at whatever time they please, meaning that violence and sex will most likely be on since children are in their bedrooms mostly at night. Not only are children learning about violence and sex at a young age but the media is inducing fear in these children that could be severe and long-lasting. “A survey of more than 2,000 elementary and middle school children revealed that heavy television viewing was associated with self-reported symptoms of anxiety, depression, and post-traumatic stress. Watching more than six hours of television a day put children at greater risk for scoring in the clinical range of these trauma symptoms. A survey of nearly 500 parents of elementary school children found that the children who watched television just before bedtime had greater difficulty falling asleep, were more anxious at bedtime, and had higher rates of nightmares.” These studies demonstrate that not only are kids learning to be more active in these ideas of violence and sex but their brains and bodies are suffering as well with symptoms of anxiety, depression, and trauma. The violence on television is causing many children to be traumatized and is not helping them develop as healthy as they could be causing them nightmares and having bad thoughts throughout the day. This then makes them not perform at their best at school.
DeleteAmericans believe that with the advanced technology, parents are able to block channels that children should not be exposed to. “At the same time, parents have gained unprecedented control over the tube. Since 2000, all new TV sets have come equipped with a government-mandated "V-chip," which allows parents to automatically block specific programs based on violence, language or sexual content ratings. The typical TV or cable/satellite box includes other controls as well that allow the blocking of channels and restrict access to the set.” But unfortunately, not always do parents know how to block channels and not always is there an option like that for everyone. A parent states, "Our kids are surrounded by these brutal representations of girls and women, and it is no wonder that women and young girls are the victims of male violence. No wonder that 20% of college girls will be sexually assaulted by guys they know in school. And it is no wonder that boys as young as 14 are capable of raping little girls as young as 11. How else are they to perceive girls if they are inundated daily with images of half-humans, half-living women, looking "sick and sexified," as Kesha's new song ["We R Who We R," 2010] goes.” Media is glamorizing violence and sex, making children think it is a good thing since that is all they hear about now. It is as if all those being sexually assaulted and being raped is ok because the media is justifying it with the different videos that are made and different television shows that are on air. Parents in West Virginia stated that “children’s behavior is now becoming more aggressive and at times crude or explicit, and that they blame television for much of the problem.” This provides that the television shows aired now, are of no educational experience for these young children but are only hurting their behavior.
DeleteViolence and sex on television is not bringing a good outcome on the world as a whole. The violence occurring in America has sprouted from the ideas brought about from television. Not only has that violence caused great problems but, it is a tremendous issue for children. They are becoming traumatized by violence and sexual things they see on television and becoming more and more violent and disobedient themselves.
You have strong statistics that support your thesis, and your hook is catching this is a god first draft.
DeleteYour first piece of evidence was not cited, but i don;t know if u did that on purpose or not. I like how you abbreviated and then explained what the abbreviations meant. through out your essay you keep mentioning words like "devastating, terrifying" i think by doing this, it helps your position on the issue.
DeleteVanessa Herrera is currently working shifts and taking care of her one year old baby. She was accepted to Cal State Dominguez last spring but denied the admissions. She gave up the chance to continue her education after high school because she knows that there are more schools that she can apply to without feeling rushed to apply to a college and be able to spend time with her daughter without the stress of school work.
ReplyDeleteHerrera is part of a recent upward trend with many students on who have decided to not immediately enter school after graduation, otherwise known as a gap year. There are many that disagree with students not continuing their education after high school, but they are not taking in consideration the motives of the students on why they have decided to approach a gap year. Even though many students do rush to college after high school because that is what students are expected to do, students should break from that expectation and enjoy their surrounding such as have job experiences, having a fuller understanding of themselves and survey closer their college major before entering the arduous life of college.
A gap year does not have to be a year. Sometimes its more or less than a year, it’s depending on the person taking it. According to Macca Sherifi, travel editor for gapyear.com, the gap year took an appearance in the United States in the 1960s when youth were experimenting freedom of speech and independence. Many started to take these gaps because they wanted to adventure out of there homes and explore places of need and bring global awareness, well that has changed over the years. Not only do students take a gap year to help developing countries in building structures or teaching english but also because they have seen the pressure of stress take a toll on them and want to step away from it for awhile, long enough until they think its time to continue onto college. The only problem is that not many students are aware of the opportunity of taking a gap year. There are not flyers around high schools informing students about the advantages of gap years and counselors would not mention it unless they are asked about it, so students should be given information of gap year prior graduating from high school.
In an extensive study done by Karl Haigler, director of the Adult Literacy Initiative for the U.S Department of Education, and Rae Nelson, who has served eight years on the White House policy staff such as Associate Director for Education Policy, they have found several propositions of the effects of a gap year and one being job experience. According to Haigler and Nelson, “88 percent of Gap Year graduates report that their Gap Year had significantly added to their employability.” There are many students that do not want to waste any time during their year of break, so many start to work either to start saving up for tuition fees or to have extra money in their pockets. Those students that do start working during their gap year will gain experience working and can aggregate it to their resume. Additionally, students that do have job experience are more likely to get hired and the jobs they worked for can hire them back.
DeleteI can agree that having job during the gap year can bring a positive outcome, but there are students that prefer not to work and end up wasting their year of break. Houston Dougharty, vice president of student affairs at Grinnell College in Iowa, explains that there are time that students have taken a gap year and not used the time effectively, and it does not help them either in terms of maturing or developing skills or being more ready for college. However, I cannot agree that a gap year is ineffective. There are students that take a gap year because they are not prepared to endure college life. A USA Today article stated that there are colleges that are encouraging students to take a gap year in order to mature emotionally and intellectually before entering college. By taking this gap year, students will be able to grow out of their comfort zones and have experiences that they did not have while in school. Also, students will be able to find themselves after the stressful years of doing work. Students are stuck in the mode, when in high school, to study, write, complete assignments, do test and repeat, but once they are out of that habit during the year of break they are able to think clearly. A gap year would let the student get away from the previous atmosphere and be able to get prepared mentally for the future.
Students that do take a gap year have to deal with finances, and sometimes it can be expensive. There are some students that apply to college prior to taking their gap year, but they ask for a deferral for the first year of college. These deferrals can cost the student from $300 to $1,000 and not refundable. Additionally, those students that prefer to travel during the gap year can pay up to $15,000 to $30,000 and these payments usually do not come from the students themselves but sometimes from their parents and if parents do not have the sufficient money themselves then they have to secure money elsewhere such as loans. Finances for a gap year can be hefty, so sometimes students decide not make that choice.
DeleteWhen a student takes a gap year, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics found that postponing school takes people off a more traditional path, and it’s sometimes challenging to get back on. According to my opposition, students tend to take their mentality away from academics so when time comes to continue with their education, students cannot because their mentality forgot what it is to be in school. However, a gap year can further a students perspective on their intended major. When applying for college, students have to choose their intended major sometimes only knowing basic information about the major. With the gap year, students will be able to further explore the major choice and explore others as well. According to Haigler and Nelson, “for most students, gap experiences have an impact on their choice of academic major and career...60% said the experience either “set me on my current path/academic major” or “confirmed my choice of career/academic major.” By taking a gap year, students would not feel pressured into selecting a major without further investigation.
More and more U.S. high school graduates are following the British trend of taking a gap year between high school and college because if its many practical benefits. Becoming more focused on a goal, more mature, and better job prospects after graduation are just a few of the great reasons to take a year off. A gap year can reduce the stress pile-up from high school, and way to cool off than to take a break.
Males have naturally dominated aspects of society; sports have been especially known to fall under the category of male supremacy. Created under the Johnson administration in 1967, Title IX was meant to prevent sexual discrimination in educational programs and activities in schools that receive federal funding. Title IX has been condemned as a discriminatory act in disguise; it has been unrightfully accused of providing advantage to females at the expense of males. However, it was created with the purpose to expand the possibilities of success for women in male dominated areas.
ReplyDeleteTitle IX has been the main factor that has increased the number of opportunities available for female athletes. Federally funded schools have to abide by one of the three prongs of the three-prong test to be considered compliant, and to keep receiving funding. The three-prong test includes: “providing athletic participation opportunities that are substantially proportionate to the student enrollment, demonstrating a continual expansion of athletic opportunities for the underrepresented sex, and accommodating the interest and ability of underrepresented sex.” The prongs are not difficult to fulfill, and are fair to women.
The overwhelmingly success of Title IX demonstrates its beneficial effects to women participating in sports. At the high school level, Title IX has generated a growth of 847 percent (Mervis). Participation at the college level has increased by 545 percent (Waldron). The number of women active in sports is dramatically increasing each year. Progress made because of Title IX is absolutely undeniable. The huge percentage jump would be unimaginable back in the 70’s before Title IX was created.
Not only has participation increased, but also the different types of sports women can compete in. In a study conducted in 2008, it was illuminated that 98.8% of NCCA schools offered women's basketball, 95.7% offered women's volleyball, and 92% offered women's soccer (Miller). The high percentages prove schools’ willingness to accommodate female athletes and make them feel equal to men. The more schools offer sports, the more likely women will engage in one of the ample options provided for them.
While the success women have encountered is grand, men have become collateral damage in the struggle for equality. According to a New York Times article, “the unintended consequences of Title IX have contributed to the elimination of more than 800 men's teams in the past two decades.” While I do agree that the sizeable cuts issued upon men’s teams are unfair, the cuts pale in comparison to the benefits of Title IX and the discrimination women still face. “At the Division I level, men's basketball head coaches average $149,700. By contrast, women's basketball head coaches average $91,300 or 61 cents to the dollar paid to head coaches of men's basketball.” (Women’s Sports Foundation). This reveals the advantages males still own in the athletic field; they receive a greater salary than women for working the same job. Men cannot protest to the cuts made to their teams, if women are not obtaining the same salary as them.
Title IX is responsible for allowing the women admired and respected in sports to thrive. “I like to tell people, ‘Title IX gave me a national championship ring,’” Wambach told ESPN. As a soccer legend, Abby Wambach’s appreciation for Title IX reveals it truly should be praised; she attributes Title IX for her success. Additionally, Brenna shines a light on an important point: “Consider this: If there were no Title IX, there would be no women's national soccer team, nor college scholarships for the female stars of the U.S. Olympic swimming and track and field teams, among many others.” Many of the talented athletes who inspire young girls would not exist today if not for Title IX. Girls would not be as likely to strive towards being an athlete because they would not have role models to mimic.
ReplyDeleteWomen have thrived in male dominated areas because of the assistance given by Title IX. Although it is extreme, under the circumstances it is proper. The success of woman under Title IX overshadows what is taken away from men.
When considering animal testing the first thoughts are about harming poor animals. No real regards are given to the sock child dying from cancer, the man with HIV/AIDS, or even an animal itself dying from heartworms. Products, treatments and other medicines are brought to the surface after careful observations and testing on animals. Every single day thousands of lives affected lethal diseases are saved thanks to these discoveries. Animal research has increased the number of drugs and vaccines that increase people’s life spans. As medicine is advancing, people have become increasingly able to put up a fight against incurable diseases that unfortunately kill millions on a daily basis.
ReplyDeleteThe Animal welfare act of 1966 states, “All centers participating in the humane handling, care, treatment, and transportation of regulated animals used for research or exhibition purposes, sold as pets, or transported in commerce must demonstrate that his or her premises and any animals, facilities, vehicles, equipment, or other premises used or intended for use in the business comply with the regulations and standards set forth”. All places where biomedical research takes place are under careful watch to protect the lives of all animals used. Such inspections done by the United States Department of Agriculture Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, which carefully analyze any and all action done by these laboratories. Besides routine inspection check-ins by the USDA, all medical centers are subject to annual reports, which do or do not award certificates to allow these locations to remain open.
Animal testing has served humans with great benefits, which include one of the most important: safety and efficiency. Without animal research humans would be the first subjects to experience all products and medicines without knowing the outcome. Despite not all products being dangerous, treatments and vaccines can be. Even in a study that took place two years ago in which two human patients were injected with embryonic stem cells in the eyes for blindness, they were first tested on rats. After testing on the animals they discovered that the injected cells are increasingly dangerous and need more research. “Embryonic stem cells have a disturbing propensity to form tumors. Animal research has indicated that it takes only two growing embryonic stem cells to generate a tumor. And while injected cells have supposedly stopped growing, some animal experiments show that such embryonic stem cell derivatives can begin growing again to form cancerous lesions” (Prentice). If the stem cell injections had not first been tested on rats the outcome could have been several human testers with tumors.
A common misconception is that testing on animals is not the best solution because human trials are just as effective and the lives of animals should be spared. “Animal tests are so unreliable, they make those human trials all the more risky, of the small percentage that are approved for human use, half are relabeled because of side effects that were not identified in animal tests”(PETA). Furthermore, the beliefe is that if human trials were used as first options rather than the preferred use of animals the results would be more reliable and successful.
ReplyDeleteDespite that concern, taking into account the fact that not all animal trials are one hundred percent successful, a huge amount of the tests have actually helped improve medicine. “There are already some lifesaving medical breakthroughs that are the result of animal testing, like open heart surgery, organ transplants, effective insulin, vaccines for deadly diseases. Human harm is reduced and human lives are saved but also animal lives are saved because of animal testing” (Vanhaute). Several unanswered questions in medicine can still only be answered by studies on animals. Animal research gives millions who are affected by serious life-threatening conditions such as Alzheimer's, strokes, cystic fibrosis and infections like malaria, which still exist in many locations the help they need to live healthier and safer lives.
Animal research has contributed to many of the medical advances present today. Without several of these tests we would not have many vaccines and medicines that help rid people of illnesses. The lives of millions are placed in the hands of doctors and scientists, and these animals help save lives. The importance of animal testing has increased severely as medical research of any kind is taking place. While new medicines and health services are provided many of them would not be as successful or even exist if it were not for the constant and stable help by testing on animals.
Should women be allowed to the front line is a debatable question that still cannot be answered. The constitution states that “All men are created equal” however, this does not apply to women in the case. Although some may argue that women are able to reach men’s physical ability, women are emotionally weaker than men. Women are also the heart of life, which means they were not made for killing but instead to create life, therefore women should not be allowed to fight into combat.
ReplyDeleteWomen tend to be emotionally weaker than men, and this can affect the front lines of combat. As said by a study of everyday health, “Women reported experiencing love and anger much more intensely than men did in another assessment of gender differences in emotional response. These women also smiled more when recalling memories of happiness or love.” This proves that women have a weaker heart than men, causing them to feel more love for others. That can lead to women being more flexible with the way they handle the enemy. This also means that women will become a distraction to men. According to a study published in Social physiological and personality science, “testosterone levels increased in men when attractive women were present. Since testosterone is a sex hormone, and has also been shown to play a role in fight-or-flight responses and risk-taking behaviors, this result is not surprising”. Women become a distraction to men and it affects the way they perform. As a man and a woman become more attracted, it can lead to sexual desire and want of the opponent.
It is against the military that women and men in combat have a relationship. However, when there is attraction between them nothing will be able to stop them. Even when a couple uses a condom or any contraceptives, accidents can happen which leads to a pregnancy. The female has the job of carrying the baby in the womb for nine months. Women are the heart of life. Without the existence of women no one would be here today. As that occurs, they are not allowed into camp and they are forced to be immediately sent home for their own safety. This causes us to lose an official for almost a year if not more, which can eventually affect the way they fight.
People argue that women are no different than men. Regardless women have been fighting in the military since ancient times. It is studied and said that,” there were women in the Civil War who donned men's clothing and fought alongside their buddies, only to be found out once they were slain in battle. This is by way of explaining that women in combat are nothing new, but have been in existence since ancient times”. Women can have the ability to be as strong and as fast as a man. This is true to a certain extent. The percentage of women that have the ability to keep up with a man’s physical action is very tiny. As stated by a man during an interview, whose name was not mentioned, who was in the military and trained with women, “They were great but physically there wasn’t a single one of them who can complete a force march, there wasn’t a single female who can keep up even among the weakest guys there… women’s standards are also loosened up compared to men’s”. Women’s availability to fight is met because they are “easier” on them. This is only harming those women because during combat it will all be equal. No matter how hard a female works and trains, men have the physical advantage.
ReplyDeleteWomen claim, if they worked hard enough they could be physically equal to men. Women train extremely hard to “equalize” themselves to men. It is extremely rare for there to be a case where women can be successful after boot camp. Sergeant Nanette Lugo is one of the rare females who serve’s in the military. Sgt Lugo mentioned that, “she spent her whole summer preparing for boot camp. The requirement of running 3 miles in 30 minutes was her greatest obstacle”. Luckily, and after a lot of training she passed boot camp. However, having women in the military can become a disadvantage to the U.S. The U.S is known for having one of the strongest military systems. The military has strength, integrity, courage, and uniformity. This would be ruined if women are allowed into the military. Women will become a temptation/ distraction to men and the military will slowly break apart. Even though this contradicts the strong and lengthy fighting women have done for equality for hundreds of years, the military is a place where equality is not a choice for women.
i can see you did your research, but it seems as if you had too much information and tried to fit it into your essay. you need to develop each one of your points and have a clear transition between them. don't be afraid to elaborate on you're research as well. great job!
DeleteA lot of things come to mind when people are asked what they think of America. Freedom. America the great. Liberty. Equality. Hard work. Justice. The American dream. America is number one. Number one at what exactly? Because it certainly isn’t education or freedom. While the U.S. may be one of the better countries to live in, it is not the greatest. In fact it is far from the greatest; America needs much improvement economically, politically, and socially.” Things that America offers such as freedom and opportunity, can now be found in other countries. America needs vast improvement in order to claim the title of, “Greatest Country in the World.”
ReplyDeleteAmericans pride themselves on the fact that their nation was built on the principle of freedom. In fact it used to be one of the main reasons; immigrants in the early 1900s came, with the belief that they would be given freedoms in America that they could not find in their home country. Which is partially true, America did have freedoms back then that no other country offered. America has a whole document protecting the freedoms of Americans, the Bill of Rights. The first amendment of the Bill of Rights is that it gives the citizens the freedom of religion, freedom of petition, freedom of assembly, freedom of speech, and freedom of press, and throughout the years there would be various rights protected such as freedom of association, symbolic speech, and privacy. While Americans are entitled to these rights to these freedoms, they are not the ultimate level of freedom and have many restrictions. In fact Americans is far from having the greatest level of freedom. The U.S ranks 47th in terms of press freedom according to Reporters without Borders, with much censorship and restrictions put on the press by the government. Overall the U.S. was ranked just seventh in terms of personal freedom, by Fraser Institute and Germany's Liberales Institut . The same research institution also revealed the United States has slipped to 18th in the world when it comes to economic freedom. Economic freedoms are understood to include property sovereignty and "individuals' engagement in voluntary transactions." Some might argue that ideas and principles such as freedom, liberty, happiness, and justice cannot be measured in numbers, but if that is so then how did Americans come to a conclusion that they had a great amount of freedom in the first place?
“We’re number one! We’re number one!,” the mindless and vague chant can be heard at venues throughout America. Number one at what exactly? Because it certainly is not education or freedom or happiness. Then what is America number one at exactly? America is number one at only a few things. America is number one in military spending, the United States spends 58 percent of the total defense dollars paid out by the world's top 10 military powers, which combined for $1.19 trillion in military funding in 2011. With its unparalleled global reach, the US outspends China, the next-biggest military power, by nearly 6-to-1. America is number one in a number of categories a country does not want to be number one in , such as having the highest number of assaults by firearms, and car theft. America ranked last (or first, depending on how you look at it) in infant mortality, injury and homicide rates, teen pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases, AIDS, drug abuse, obesity and diabetes, heart disease, lung disease, and disabilities. America is also number one at the number of it’s citizens incarcerated. The United States has 2.3 million criminals behind bars (almost a quarter of the world’s prisoners), more than any other nation, according to data maintained by the International Center for Prison Studies at King's College London.
It’s no secret that America is currently struggling economically, with a deficit of more than $16 trillion dollars. As President Barack Obama is set to begin his second term, Patricia Dunham, a mother of three, works two minimum wage jobs and earns $32,137.50 for working 61.5 hours a week, 50 weeks a year, before tax withholdings, struggles to pay bills and feed her family. Dunham is just one of the 50 millions Americans who live in poverty. America’s currently has 16% of its population living in poverty, the highest it has been in decades, to find higher rates one would have to go as far back as the Great Depression. America cannot say that it is the greatest country to live in when such a large portion of its population is living in poverty. Some might say that the issue of poverty in inevitable and all countries have poverty, with some countries having a larger poverty level. Yes while that is true ,that does not justify the fact that the poverty level is getting alarmingly large. People should also not find consolation in the fact that there are other countries with a larger poverty, apart from the fact that those countries are non-developed countries, America still does not have the smallest poverty level .
DeleteAmericans has much to work on before it can boast about being “the greatest” or about being “number one.” America needs much improvement to win the title of “Greatest Country in the World.” This not to say America is the absolute worst county in the world because that is not true. There are just as many reasons that America is a great country to counter the not so great parts about it. America is a great country but it is far from the greatest.
There are a few grammatical errors in the conclusion. However I really liked the essay though!
DeleteAs a child I recall watching my fair share of violent movies that have been deemed as unacceptable to children of my age. I would stay up late at night laying in the darkness listening for the shrill snores of my father signaling the start to my movie marathon that would sometimes end up with my hiding under my covers; the only impenetrable field to the monsters that lurked in the shadows of my room. The studies that have been done have concluded that these movies I and many others have watched could have had a psychological impact so profound that it would “desensitize” us and makes us more “likely” to be more “aggressive.” Movies with any indication of violence have been targeted by many groups of people who claim they are what are wrong with our society. Acts of rape, killing, and stealing have been connected to movies by researchers, parents and concerned citizens looking for a scapegoat to their problems. In times of great adversity people look for who is to blame. But movies aren’t the only scope goats of civilization; television, books, the media and many more have been blamed for the unfortunate crimes of our society but there is no one source of all our problems. Violence has always existed and it will continue to do so, with or without movies.
ReplyDelete“Think of the children!” is what most would say when debating the dangers of graphic violence on our screens. The possibilities of influential effects are greatest when considering the mind of children. At a young age children will believe anything you tell him, we read to them bedtime stories of dragons and witches where everyone lives happily ever after, and tell them that if they’re naughty an overweight man in a fuzzy red suit won’t bring them the presents they wished for. Nobody knows the world of fantasy quite as well as infants, not the video game nerds and certainly not the science fiction geeks. We have led children into a world of fantasy for so long yet for some reason people have recently paused and thought, “Gee, maybe movies are to blame.” I’m not going to lie, movies will affect children. A crazed madman in a hockey mask and a machete hacking a busty blonde babe to death as blood spurts out of her will definitely affect a kid, but then again so will losing a pet or a grandparent as well as walking in on their parents promiscuous activities.
So after admitting the fact those movies indeed do affect children’s minds, I bring up the question “to what extent?” many studies have been done concerning links to violence, so naturally movies were tested as well. Most of these studies include showing the subjects a variation of peaceful movies and movies that are known to contain an extensive amount of violence. If you took the time to read some of these studies you would find just as I did that the majority of them end in the same conclusion. “Researchers concluded that this desensitization could mean these children were more likely to use aggression with others.” This conclusion is usually reached through a set of questioners where they conclude “children found that those who witnessed violence, including television violence, were more likely to consider it "normal”.”
So exactly what is normal? Violence is. People love violence, action movies are at the top of box offices and events like boxing and wresting never seem lose popularity. Human beings have always been a species that have sought out excitement and violence in their lives ever since the beginning of civilizations. Sociologist Elias called this "civilizing process," this process basically implies that the lives of people have become boring and drool due to our lives
being to civilized and monotonous, so we seek excitement. Humans have done this for thousands of years, from the ancient Roman Empire that held gladiator battles in coliseum to the public executions in the 1860´s. in a world where violence has been sought and considered normal since the beginning of civilization why would it come as a surprise now? Violence has existed not only in our television sets and movie theatres but in books as well; this includes children’s fairy tales. The brave and courageous knight never politely asked, ”may I please pass´”, he slayed the dragon and went on his merry way. Movies aren’t the source of the problem, society is. To reverse all the years of violence and other inappropriate concepts from our society, it would take a lot more than banning a movie or a television program.
ReplyDeleteLooking through all the possible arguments of movies being linked to violence, the most important and controversial topic to take into consideration are the killing sprees inspired by movies. The most known shooting that everyone is familiarly with is the Virginia tech shooting. A senior attending Virginia tech named Seung-Hui Cho shot and killed 32 students and wounded 17 others. This story received a lot of media attention and naturally the first question that came to mind after all the panic is “why?.” the search for the source of blame had begun and one of those justifications for blame fell upon a movie known as old boy. Cho didn’t own the movie and it was never proven that he ever saw it but it was insinuated by a picture of him holding a hammer. If by any chance cho actually did watch this movie he seriously mistook the point. The director Chan-wook Park says, “My films are the stories of people who place the blame for their actions on others because they refuse to take on the blame themselves” Old boy revolves around the plot of revenge and in this case so was the Virginia tech shooting, But this shooting wasn’t inspired by a simple movie, a movie cannot corrupt a lifetime of morality and blur the lines of right and wrong.
Cho was a deeply troubled kid. He showed signs of autism at a young age but never really got the help he truly needed. Instead he remained an isolated person who was described as a “loner” who was apparently bullied a great deal in his life for being different. The fact that some people has insinuated that this shooting came from a movie or a video game is really troubling. The real problem that is overlooked was that this boy needed help and he never got it. I don’t blame the gun law that should have stopped him from purchasing a gun and i don’t blame the law that that kept his mental records confidential from the university. What I place my blame on is humanity.
We see something like a mass shooting on the news and we shudder with shock and awe. Some of us may even shed some tears but the reality of it is, a couple days or weeks pass and we go right back to living our “normal” lives. We drive to work in the morning and cut some one off almost resulting an accident and giggle. A kid gets beaten up on the playground and the kids will cheer him on, “fight! Fight! Fight!” a transvestite gets beaten to a pulp right in front of you and instead of helping you take out your phone and record it. So no, I don’t think movies are to blame for the violence in the world, neither is the television or your kids favorite video game. Whether someone was inspired by a movie or not, doesn’t even matter. A troubled kid will stay troubled, and someone will eventually get hurt. I don’t think I could say this better than any other way than by the words of a serial killer from one of the very movies society dreads, “Movies don't create psychos, Movies make psychos more creative.”
Nice essay dude...it's pretty damn entertaining to read. lol
DeleteI don't know if you used enough quotes though >____>
rawr! i totally agree >_< i felt awkward putting in quotes though, i felt like i just to need to put everything in my head on paper first than try to make a stronger argument with evidence through the editing process.
DeleteThe evidence that includes "Old Boy" was strong. I feel like the ending isn't as strong as it can be though, because the last line could be used as a reason against your point because people don't want psychos to be creative
Deletebut Andrea our education system encourages creativity haha. i get what your saying. touche
DeleteAs history has proven time and time again, society is always hesitant to acknowledge the benefits of anything new. Humans find conformity in their lives, so whenever some new phenomenon sweeps the nation, we will always find organizations standing up and hyperbolizing all the negative effects of this phenomenon. Video games are our current sensation, seeping their way into every computer, tablet, television, and even cell phone. With new games releasing every day, a select few have become the sources of heated discussions about their violence and sexism. A recent YouTube user named Anita Sarkeesian has started a channel titled “Feminist Frequency” which has created a series of videos detailing the “misogyny” in video games, as well as their use of over-sexualized women. As much as I’d enjoy defending video game violence, my following argument will deal with the supposed sexism in video games. Not only will I expose the many holes in Sarkeesian’s arguments, but also show that most games aren’t demeaning women in any way.
ReplyDeleteAnita Sarkeesian is well known among the YouTube community for her series of videos in which she digs into every form of media to reveal the “sexism” within it. A few months ago, she avariciously pleaded her fans to pour their money onto a Kickstarter in which she promised a series of videos detailing the “misogyny” in video games. The Kickstarter managed to obtain over $150,000, well above what she originally asked for. It has been over a year since the Kickstarter began and has yet to reveal her project, however she’s already made a few videos against specific games. A few of these videos were taken down from the site and most were reviewed negatively, all for good reason.
The main problem with Anita’s arguments is that she is entering in alien territory. Unlike literature, music, movies and television, video games are in fact a male-dominated form of entertainment. This doesn’t diminish her right to state her point of view, but it makes it hard for her to argue against what in a way is a device centered around men as its main market. EEDAR is a market research firm for the gaming industry and Chief Operating Officer Geoffrey Zatkin found that “Games with exclusively male heroes sold around 75 percent better than games with only female heroes.” If a big-budget producer were to see these numbers, which they do, a female protagonist would be a terrible business decision on their part.
What does this say about the gaming market though? Most would believe that it is the market, instead, who hold these misogynistic beliefs, but that’s not the case. Most gamers play games as an escape or as a way of putting themselves in the worlds of other characters. The same way Anita feels ostracized by many games with male protagonists, men feel ostracized by games with female protagonists. As Anita Sarkeesian states, “many games tend to reinforce and amplify sexist and downright misogynistic ideas about women.” What Anita doesn’t realize is that the portrayal of women in games is not misogyny from the developers, but instead an expression of the different skills and strengths that are more profound within female characters. Besides, I may argue that men are as sexualized in video games as much as women, if not more. Sarkeesian, however, doesn’t expand on this idea, and instead focuses on the physical portrayal of women. Although she is saying the complete truth about the sexualizing of women in games, she misses the point.
Leland Yee, Ph.D., senator of the United States commented on the supposed sexism in video games stating, “the majority of female characters portrayed in video games fit into a minute number of stereotypes and are almost always portrayed as objects to be desired.” Yee is senator of San Francisco, and having a Ph.D. in child psychology, he addresses the dangerous effects of our media. He believes that the over sexualization of women hurts their reputation. To a large degree, this is true, mostly because most video games originate from Japan. Japanese culture is much different than that of U.S. because many women see their physical appearance as power rather than as a weakness. According to Wikipedia, women in Japan are raised to believe in the phrase “good wife, wise mother” where a woman is educated only to then teach their offspring. And it’s surprising that all games haven’t fallen to this mindset.
DeleteThe recent 2010 game Bayonetta is one of the reasons why sexism in video games became a recent topic. Bayonetta allows the player to take control of a witch who uses a pair of pistols strapped on to her heals and her witch powers to destroy gods. There’s a catch, however. As Anita Sarkeesian states, “one of her most powerful weapons involves her stripping all her clothes and turning her hair into an evil demon weapon fighting machine.” There’s a bit that Anita is missing, however. Her hair is her clothing throughout the entire game. Not only this, but according to the developer Hideki Kamiya, he wanted the main theme of the game to be “sexiness”. This explains the over sexualized nature of Bayonetta and her various enemies, but it shouldn’t be the focus of the game. Throughout the game, a man named Luca falls in love with Bayonetta, and not once does she lower her standards. She teases him into doing her bidding, and uses her knowledge to overcome in game puzzles and mazes.
The thing is, there are hundreds of games staring women, many more arguable than others. Characters like Princess Peach from Mario, Lara Croft from Tomb Raider, and Samus from Metroid are all strong women whose character should not be diminished by certain traits. Sure, Princess Peach is an obvious damsel in distress, but she’s shown to be able to defend herself. In Super Mario Bros. 2, she’s a playable character, along with more than half of all Mario spinoff games. As KiteTales, another YouTube correspondant states, that “you can bring up the point that Princess Zelda was captured by Ganondorf, but who is the one who brought the Guerudo King down to his knees at the last battle with her light beam and happens to know martial arts?” Lora Croft might look like Angelina Jolie in short shorts, but is arguably the smartest game character ever made, able to survive months in the forest finding secrets in temples and overrunning secret organizations. Not to mention games like Pokemon and Mass Effect which allow you to play as a female with no effect on the actual story line.
With an increasing amount of female gamers, we should eventually see more female protagonists. But what can we do now? We must support the industry of gaming instead of hating it. The less time we spend complaining over big breast in video games, the more time we have to do something about it. We need more female gamers. Until women decide to break the social norm and start realizing the enjoyment of video games as entertainment, the industry will only be a reflection of its market.
snaps! your essay pwns. the research you included really gave you credibility and your point about the economic aspect of sexism sealed the deal for me. the only thing i would change is the explanation of bayonetta and Zelda, i felt you could have explained it better. i think your rebuttal was the game was meant to be sexy and her weapon is her clothes? i was kind of confused. elaborate more and develop a rebuttal. who dares complain about large breasts!?
DeleteWell researched essay! It was very detailed in explaining your evidence. However, revise the beginning part of your conclusion because it doesn't really flow well into your ending sentence.
DeleteIn 2001 programmer Bram Cohen released revolutionary software that made it easier to share files through the internet. Little did he know, his creation and implementation of bit-torrents would, four years down the line, be a major help for the sharing of illegal copyright files. The internet is an amazing source for information. Anything can be found in the internet and the abundance of information continues to grow. Internet censorship, at first glance can seem like a good solution to protecting children and intellectual property of corporations, however it is difficult to tell when censorship has gone too far. The reasons why internet censorship should not go on greatly outweighs the benefits. Similar to books, the internet does not deserve to be censored.
ReplyDeleteThe internet includes an abundance of information from encyclopedias to pornography and from hate speech to essays on self improvement. Basically, "The advancement of technology has broken down geographical barriers for communication. The Internet has had an unimaginable impact on near instant communication by electronic mail, instant messaging". It is no coincidence, then, that a government or even a powerful private company would want to dip their fingers in the internet to prevent people from accessing certain information. When viewed in a certain perspective, the prevention can be seen as protection. Take into account an event in which several government documents are posted on a website. This website can be viewed worldwide and the documents contain pure military intelligence that should have been kept confidential. Would this be a legitimate time to censor the internet?
Countries around the world are not taking chances. Coined with their censorship being “pervasive” China has gotten a bad reputation from its censorship. China is guilty of censoring its books to censoring footage on international movies like Pirate of the Caribbean. One thing is for sure, studies show that the censorship, particularly internet censorship, is effective. “What the government cares about is making the quest for information just enough of a nuisance that people generally won't bother.” The government is successful, most of the information censored is information that may cause people to question their government. Is censorship justified in order to keep peace in a nation? Although it is easy to find a way around such internet censorship, people do not generally do so.
The United Kingdom is also susceptible to such censorship. People today are participating in a program that will put “filters” on the internet. The filters will prevent the general public from accessing pornographic and potentially dangerous websites. These filters are aimed to protect children, since adults can register to get out of such filters. Can this be the first the first legitimate and justified attempt of censorship, or are not preparing the youth adequately?
Needless to say, the United States is on its way too. In 2012 the United State's government shut down a website called “MegaUpload” in an attempt to put a large amount of piracy to an end. For a while the government was successful but the response by the general public was strong. Other ways of sharing copyright files illegally sprang up and again, in an attempt to put piracy to a halt, bills like PIPA (Protect Internet Protocol Act), SOPA (Stop Online Piracy Act), and CISPA were proposed, all of which received highly negative views from the general public. Some public annalist have commented on such proposed bills saying, "Investors can stop investing in online platforms like YouTube or Facebook. In a survey conducted by Booz & Company in the US, the participating angel investors and venture capitalists said they will not invest in digital content intermediaries (DCIs) because acts like SOPA/PIPA can be used to sue or fine websites for using pirated digital content uploaded or posted by users.” So not only will censorship be negatively viewed and a target for hackers to get around it, but it will also hurt a large part of the economy.
DeleteIn conclusion, countries are on their way to censorship. Armed with different intentions these nations will all end up in the same place, with people deprived of information, information that can be either harmful or helpful. It is then good to consider this: "The United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted in 1948, provides that: Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers." If everyone is held to such natural right, could censorship overall be justified, or would censorship be taking away the very stitches that hold the fabric of humanity?
i like your intro to hook. the language stays consistent. the conclusion finishes strong with the evidence you used.
DeleteIntro:
ReplyDelete"In 2012, approximately 1.2 million abortions were performed in the United States, 88% of them in the first trimester of pregnancy" (Gale Opposing Viewpoints). In this first trimester the fetus, in which later during the pregnancy becomes a baby, already has a heartbeat. Throughout the years, abortion has been a topic that has brought many into discussion whether it should be legal or illegal in the United States. In 1973, in the United States the Supreme Court made abortion legal after deciding in the Roe vs Wade case. Many babies are aborted because they are unwanted, don't they deserve the right to be some one in life when the grow up?
Body: FOR
Abortion is legal in the United States because it stops a life of baby growing inside a women who's life is in danger or simply because the babies parents cannot afford to raise a baby. "Women who are raped or victims of incest should not be forced to carry out a pregnancy" (Amplify A Project of Advocates for Youth). In cases in which the mother has been forced to have sexual intercourse with someone they do not desire or who forced them too, they usually abort their baby. They abort their baby because they could have been raped at a young age. Also because they were raped, they feel that they will not love the baby like if they were produced with some one that they loved. It's better for them to abort the baby because like that they do not raise a child that they will eventually deny because having that baby will constantly remind them about the rape. Although in some cases it's true that the baby constantly reminds a mother about the rape, there are other decisions like adoption.
Many doctors perform abortions because they are licensed to do so and they know what is safe or what is not for there patients. " Abortion is a safe medical procedure. The vast majority of women - 88% - who have an abortion do so in their first trimester. Medical abortions have less than 0.5% risk of serious complications and do not affect a woman's health or future ability to become pregnant or give birth" (Abortions Pros and Cons). The reason why doctors perform abortions is because once it's done, the mother will be in good conditions. Meaning that during the women is aborting the baby, there is no risks that will put her life in danger. After the abortion is over and done successfully, the women will be able to get pregnant in the future and have a baby without any complications. The reason why is because the abortion did not harm the women in any way because its safe. Although the statistic said that the percentage is "0.5" of any serious complication, meaning it doesn't harm them, there is a possibility that the percentage can grow higher because it depends on the women's body to accept a difficult treatment.
Counter argument:
Although some may argue that abortion is the right thing to do, it's not. Like it or not the fetus/baby suffers at the moment they are being killed inside the womb. Many night think that it doesn't harm because in the first trimester it's tissue, but they feel everything that is done to them. In my opinion, abortion should be illegal because it prevents a human being from experiencing the world.
Body: AGAINST
ReplyDeleteAbortion should be illegal in the United States because it stops a life from growing up. Not just that but also the fact that its a life already growing inside the womb that cannot be destroyed just because they are unwanted. " "Every human being has the right to live, which should be protected by law, From the moment of conception, the unborn are human beings, The unborn have the right to live, which should be protected by law" (The Humble Libertarian: The Abortion Debate: A Reasoned, Scientific Pro-Life Argument). This means that even though the baby isn't born, they are still protected by the law. They still have the rights that
the United States provides to their citizens. Although they are not physically in the world, inside the womb they are humans. Those who are accept abortion may argue that they aren't protected by the law because they aren't born yet, but as the statistic said; they are because it's a life.
Abortion should be the last thing a women should think about if they do not want their baby. The possibility of putting their baby up to adoption is better than killing them. There are many couples out there that cannot have babies of their own and want a baby to adopt. Giving a baby up for adoption brings happiness into a family because its a human being the lights up everyone's world. The baby is given the opportunity to be loved and feel that someone cares for them. Even though some kids are not adopted as soon as possible, they grow up in a place where they are loved and have the resources they need. Those who abort and do not give their child the opportunity to be raised with some one that wants them, hunts them for the rest of their life's. "After my abortion I suffered symptoms that many women do in the same situation. I had vivid nightmares of killing someone, depression, and irrational desire for a baby. The weight was so heavy that I could not bear to say the word abortion, let alone tell someone I had had one. I remained entirely silent on the matter for more than eighteen years" (Abortion Testimonies). This is a testimony of a mother who aborted her baby in which now, she's having nightmares. It's eighteen years of carrying with something that has been killing her from inside because she got rid of a life.
Conclusion:
No matter how many months a fetus has grown in a women's body, the baby deserves the right to grow up and live a life. Abortion should not be illegal simply because the law protects them even if they aren't born yet.
If your argument is going to be against abortion, I recommed that information be first. Address the opposition only when there are possible counterarguments, so try not to focus too much on the opposition
Deletei like your paragraphs and the arguements presented, but i think if you make your conclusion stronger with a real life event it would be better.
DeleteThe subject of racial profiling never leaves the news that is because racial profiling may factor into how authorities target these suspects of various crimes, including terrorism, illegal immigration or drug running. Whether citizens believe racial profiling is discriminating race, these methods are most effective when authorities are trying to distinguish criminals. I believe when getting criminals off the streets, racial profiling is extremely effective.
ReplyDeleteThis issue has brought many discomforts for most people. There is pros and cons for racial profiling; for police officers it is convenient to get criminals off the street, on the other hand the cons for this is that many African Americans and Latinos are always getting investigated because of the ideal criminal racial profiling that fits the description. When weighing the pros and cons of the issue of racial profiling, one must consider individuals civil rights. The cons for racial profiling seem to be far greater than the pros for racial profiling. Racial profiling is based on the assumption.
This technique of racial profiling does not seem to affect the white race. This only affects many other people of race excluding white race, because they do not seem to get highly effected by this issue because of the fact that they do not fit the “description.” A lot of people who are affected by this believe racial profiling still happens even though its illegal.
People will complain when racial profiling affects them personally, but when crimes happening tend to affect them they do not mind. For example, in San Diego with the recent report about Chris dormer people do not seem to mind racial profiling. The San Diego police department warned citizens that officers might employ racial profiling attics in search for suspected murderer Chris dormer. This issue might affect citizens so in cases like this they do not mind racial profiling as long as they feel safe.
In times of needs for national security, citizens do not seem to mind. When crimes are at it is highest and seem to extremely affect the society that is when it is completely fine to use the tactics of racial profiling without citizens making a big deal out of it. After the 9/11 attack racial profiling in airports when at its highest and citizens do not seem to mind any sort of security check because they know if there is some sort of terrorism like 9/11 they will be extremely affected so they prefer that they check everyone for the sake of their security.
In conclusion racial profiling is a common issue in the United States that people of race tend to make a big issue out of it when it is impacting them and it is taking away time from their lives. They think it is unnecessary, but in times of needs when national security is at stake, for a lot of citizens racial profiling is now their best friends as long as they keep national security.
Sources
""Racial Profiling Reduces Terrorism" by Richard Lowry." Racialprofiling. N.p., n.d. Web. 04 Feb. 2013.
N.p., n.d.
Web. "San Diego Police Warn Citizens of Racial Profiling as Dorner Hunt Continues." Atlanta Black Star. N.p., n.d. Web. 13 Feb. 2013.
"Pros And Cons Of Racial Profiling Essays and Term Papers." Pros And Cons Of Racial Profiling Free Essays 1. N.p., n.d. Web. 08 Feb. 2013.
I really liked how one of your main points was that if citizens are directly affected by a situation then they do not mind racial profiling. To strengthen your essay you could add a quote of someone who benefited from racial profiling. Also, make sure to fix your grammar because some sentences would sound much stronger if they had no grammar errors.
DeleteIf one is convicted of murder, then it is logical to be killed as punishment, right? Americans have questioned the government, and each other, whether the death penalty, or capital punishment, is the best solution for the highest criminal offenders. Although the death penalty is currently installed, the country would reap various benefits from its abolishment.
ReplyDeleteThe main argument many death penalty supporters make is that by setting such a harsh punishment for serious crimes, criminals will be less likely to commit a crime in fear of death, therefore reducing crime. However, contrary to popular belief the death penalty actually increases the amount of violence that occurs. Out of the 27 states that allow the death penalty as punishment, it was discovered that although the death penalty lowered the murder rate in six states, it was increased in 13 states, and did not affect eight states. One is able to conclude that with the removal of the death penalty, majority of states will see a decrease in their murder rates which is the goal of all states.
Some citizens may live in the fear of a country where there is no death penalty, but they fail to see the economic benefits that would directly affect their lives. If one were to compare the cost of death penalty versus the alternative, life in prison, one would be able to clearly see the profit one would gain. The average person who is sentenced to life in prison will remain there for 40 to 45 years. In order to maintain the inmate the total cost would be a bit over $1 million. This would only amount to less than a third of the amount of money needed for the death penalty. All of the money that is used comes from one source, the taxpayers pockets. If the death penalty is eliminated, the money saved could either return to the taxpayers or be distributed to other programs that truly need the money even if it still remains in the use of the justice system.
Also, not only does the death penalty require money that could be saved, but the process in order to determine whether someone should be sentenced to death is unjust. Many pro-death penalty people believe that by not violating the cruel and unusual punishment clause in the constitution is enough to consider it fair. However, in 1991 it was ruled in the Payne v. Tennessee court case “that ‘victim impact’ evidence relating to the personal characteristics of the victim and the emotional impact of the crime on the victim's family is admissible.” This means that disregarding the factual evidence, a juror is allowed to determine whether they believe the person being trialed is guilty or innocent based on emotions. Hence, someone innocent would be in danger of being sentenced to death for simply not having a lawyer that has the ability to move a jury emotionally.
In addition, the death penalty goes against the moral values of Americans. As a child one is taught that the death of a person is to be mourned and that murder is the worse thing one could do. So, as stated by Vicki A. Schieber, who had personal experience with her brothers murderer being sentenced to death, “what kind of message do we convey to young people when we tell them that killing another human being is wrong but then impose the death penalty on someone with whom they have some direct or indirect relationship.” If Americans want to prevent murder from occurring then should not they start somewhere where they actually have the power to prevent it from happening? The death penalty is not the solution, but instead enables the country to continue its teachings to “the future” that murder is acceptable.
Overall, the death penalty has proven to not be the solution to crime many have hoped for. Instead it has used up money that could be saved and is provided by the taxpayers. Also, the current justice system is not suited to make the decision whether a person in trial for the death penalty truly deserves it or the jury was simply moved by a sob story. The removal of the death penalty would also allow for the young generation to truly learn that despite the circumstances the murder of a person is not the solution. If Americans continue to fight violence with violence there will never be a true winner in the system, instead Americans will continue to live in a country where peace is unattainable and crime gets the last laugh.
DeleteWe’ve all been there. It’s the end of a long, hard day and the Internet or some other essential technology doesn’t seem to be working correctly. We pick up the phone and call some unknown location, where an automated voiceover energetically instructs us to “press one for English; Oprima dos para Español” (Dillon Lewis). This is the beauty of making multiple languages. Making English the official language of the United States has been debated for many years. Many Americans believe that having an official language is essential in order to keep every one united, but having one language will take away from different cultures and most importantly, will take away from the democracy that the United States was built upon.
ReplyDeleteAll over the world, discrimination is going on as something common that naturally happens. There are 18% of cases dealing with racial ethnic discrimination in the United States (Word Press). Having one official language can possibly increase this number. Many non-English speakers can feel inferior and that can cause more discrimination towards them. According to the article, Does the United States need an Official Language, “this type of legislation will lead to ethnic and racial intolerance, and confirm to non-native English speakers that they are second class citizens in the eyes of the government of the United States.” Opponents believe that having English as the only language will cause discrimination against minorities since they wont be allowed to use their first language. This will not only affect many individuals with their culture but will also affect the economy in a way that many who contribute would not keep contributing since they don’t speak the language.
In addition, a few countries have adopted English as their official language and have not turned out to be the best. Australia, for example, has made English as their official language that they speak within the government. “English is regarded as the national language of Australia.. People whose English skills are lacking face practical problems in education, employment, and access to services” (Australian Bureau of Statistics). Not everyone in Australia has fully developed English as their official language. Having these type of problems can endanger Australia. Australia could be seen as a country who does not take their laws seriously and haven’t done anything about it. Also, it can cause economic problems where many Australians cannot contribute because they lack education or would not know how to contribute since hey do not speak English and to get help they have to speak English.
However, proponents believe that making English the official language of the United States will unite everyone and will make it easier for the government to communicate. They say “English has been the dominant language for the better part of this century and should be made the official language in order to simplify government processes” (Making English the Official Language of the U.S.). This indicates that the government will really try and indicate the use of English and will be really strict when dealing with the language. Also this expresses how the government doesn’t consider any other language but English.
Forcing a person to learn a certain language violates the first amendment of the constitution. Official English policies argue, “This type of legislation is unconstitutional. Restricting federal and state employees from communicating with individuals, especially immigrants, in a language other than English violates the first amendment”. If a person isn’t able to speak a language they are comfortable with, goes against their first amendment of freedom of speech. Every American should be able to speak freely in whatever language they want because that’s what is stated in the constitution, where America started. Moreover, making English the official language goes against democracy. “It restricts the governments ability to communicate with all its citizens and prevents many from voting: thereby going against the principle of democracy, the very essence and foundation this country was built upon” (Does the United States Need an Official Language). The United States was built upon democracy meaning the government and the people both contributing. If the people do not know English, the government would not be able to communicate with them and would not have their opinion. This restricts people from contributing their opinion and having their voice be heard.
ReplyDeleteIn conclusion, making English the official language of the United States will go against individual’s cultures and will also go against democracy. Having one language deprives people from practicing their own language, violating their freedom of speech right. Therefore, the many languages that are part of the United States should still be spoken and practiced with continuing generations.
Good hook, it sets the scene for the rest of your paper. Make sure you don't just focus on pathos and also include some statistics to raise your credibility.
DeleteAs the judged slam his gavel on the pad he announces his verdict: guilty. Sentenced to a death penalty on account for murder of two elderly neighbors when he was seventeen, shot them “execution style,” the now eighteen year old showed no remorse for his action. 200,000 juveniles each year are tried as adults. United State Supreme Court also agreed to consider the constitutionality of the juvenile death penalty. Should juvenile offender be tried as adults and also, be sentence to death penalty. People argue that juveniles are incompetent to stand trial because they are not able to contribute to their own defense because their own brain is not fully developed and it’s not aware. However, should that be accepted as evidence to not trial juvenile as adults because they are not adults, yet both committed the same crime? Should it be an excuse to their violent or homicidal behavior? I agree that death sentence and juveniles tried as adult is harsh but it should only depend on the case. If it something minor then they shouldn’t be tried as adults but if they committed a heinous crime like murder or rape then it is valid.
ReplyDeleteJuvenile delinquency has potentially high stakes for both individuals and society as a whole. Delinquency is linked to higher crime rates in adulthood and other negative outcomes. One estimate suggests that between 50 and 75 percent of adolescents who have spent time in juvenile detention centers are incarcerated later in life. On Jan. 30 a Delaware County teen pleaded guilty and was sentenced yesterday as an adult in connection with a videotaped beating of a mentally ill woman in Chester that went viral. Rahmiiyah Henderson, 16, is one of six charged in the vicious attack. This shows how teenager can be a danger to society. Teenagers tend to do anything they want and they do not even care of the consequence they will face. They are in a phase were they believe they are the unstoppable. This innocent mentally ill woman suffers a harsh beating form 6 teenager for no reason. These wild inconsiderate teenagers attack a woman and even videotaped it for their own entraining.
Paul Thompson form the University of California, Los Angeles and his colleagues at National Institutes of Health discover that a massive loss of brain tissue occurs in the teenage years and they do not have same brain development as an adults, therefore it should be used as evidence that teenagers are not yet adults and they should not be tried as adults. But should Rahmiiyah and the other 5 teenagers be excuses from the crime they committed because apparently teenagers suffer a loss of brain tissue or they do not have the same brain development of adults. In my opinion it should not be used as evidence for their violent salvage behavior. How can you compare the brain of a teenager to a fully well develop adults brain when there is going to be a difference. They should compare the brain of a teenager to the brain of adults that is in prison. They are likely to have the same brain development because the brain of adult in prison is not fully developed.
People believe that teenagers should not be tried as an adult because their ability to understand what going on and they tend to make “stupid mistake.” But is their impulsive, erratic behavior that leads them to commit outrages crime is just a “stupid mistake.” “Tried as an adult, Thomas A. Preciado was 14 when he stabbed to death a minimart clerk”. This innocent clerk was stabled to death for only doing his job, who had no idea that he was attending an impulsive teenager customer and now his family have to pay the consequences for the action that this teenager commit. And no one can erase the pain or the grief they must suffer for their loss. Did this teenager commit a stupid mistake, was it an accident that he stabbed this man to death or did the teenager suffer a major loss a brain tissue. Adults do not want to accept the reality that the teenagers are becoming adults. They see them as the innocent children they once wore. They are too blinded to see that the teenagers want to declare independences and by committing adult’s actions teenagers believe that they are adults. Such as drinking, driving shows the desperation of beginning adults. They chose to ignore the reality and live in their imaginary world. Teenagers choose to be ignorant and choose to act ignorant to get away with their action but in the justice system that does not work.
ReplyDeleteSince the juvenile court was started more than a hundred years ago, a basic assumption underlying the juvenile court has been that juvenile offenders shouldn't go through the adult criminal courts. The juvenile court was created to handle juvenile offenders on the basis of their youth rather than their crimes. The purpose of juvenile court is treatment and guidance rather than punishment. During the 1980s and 1990s, the public called for getting tough with juveniles and trying them as adults. Many states passed laws making it easier to try certain youthful offenders as adults; some states considered even abolishing juvenile courts system.
It has been suggested that the entire debate over whether or not to allow juveniles be tried as adults has diverts attention away from the most important question confronting the juvenile justice system: How can juvenile delinquency be reduced when neither the present juvenile courts nor adult criminal courts are designed to attack the various factors that are among the causes of juvenile violence? The reasons for the development of juvenile crime are found in the early experiences in the family. If the child was involve in a weak family bonding or suffer child abuse and neglect, and inconsistent and harsh discipline, then the probability for the child to be become a delinquent is at high stake because they don’t have the attention the deserver. They are more likely to rebel because they are beginning ignore or just want a problem for the family
In addition, there are indications that very poor urban communities put youths at greater risk for involvement in violence. The environments were they grow up does affect the child because they are expose to violence. It not the child fault that he or she has to walk to school and see illegal drug markets or gangs that provides exposure to violence, and negative role models. They are more likely to be influence to be part of the crime because they might feel they have better opportunity to feel some sort of bond, care or even security and will have easier access to weapons such as a gun and will do anything to be a member.
Schools also play a part in generating juvenile violence. An important cause of the onset of serious violent behavior is involvement in a delinquent peer group. Alcohol and guns are also implicated in violent behavior by juveniles. In addition, growing up in poverty and unemployment has major effects on the likelihood that a young person will turn to violence during the transition to adulthood.
Jack Kevorkian (Dr. Death), euthanasia activist, claims, “Dying is not a crime”. Kevorkian was arrested in 1999 for his role in voluntary euthanasia. He was convicted for second-degree murder, sentenced with a 10-25 year conviction, served eight prison years. He was released under the condition to no longer offer suicide to others. Euthanasia, another term for mercy killing, refers to the ending of life of an ill person in order to end suffering. Although it is a compassionate and faster way to end life, such practice brings ethical dilemma. Euthanasia contradicts one major moral, whether there is a right to kill.
ReplyDeleteEuthanasia is a process that can be taken through various forms. These include active, passive, voluntary, and involuntary. Active euthanasia is intentionally causing the death of another person through specific actions. Passive euthanasia is the withholding of respirators and other life-sustaining equipment, procedures, or treatment. Voluntary euthanasia occurs when an individual has chosen and requested for his or her life to be ended. Non-voluntary euthanasia is when it has not been requested or consented to. A fifth euthanasia can include omission, meaning the caused death by necessary equipment not is available.
Euthanasia has not been approved because of its debate that it takes a person’s life away. Religious views strongly believe that “ the only one that can take or end life is God”. Although God has given us that free will to do, as we like, it is still wrong to do so. By assisting death one is denying Gods right over life. Only He holds the length of life and how it will end. Euthanasia is considered as another way of murder and a high sense of violation toward a basic principle ”one shall not kill”. There should be strong respect toward life and believe that a life should not be assisted to terminate. In essence, euthanasia is a matter of demeaning life. Besides being morally and ethically wrong, is not the end of the argument. With great medical advancements, there are possible alternatives than easily terminating one’s life. Palliative, a medical specialty focused on to treat pain, stress, and symptom relief. Palliative care provides a more comfortable, dignified death.
However, there are patients that can no longer take in the pain and suffering. Medical advancements could assist in relieving the pain, but this only continues the suffering for longer periods. Patients continue suffering and they are slowly agonizing into their death. Elongating patients that are terminally ill places burden. The burden is not on the patient but on the family. Of course, along with death comes emotional stress. At the loss of a member, whether assisted or not, will cause pain. There are great financial, medical expenses to give continuous treatment for the ill patient. Un curable disease patients believe that the medical sources are being wasted and can be better used to actually cure others.
The decision whether to end life or not is solely based on patients will. They have the choice to decide how they want to die. Many argue the thought that "Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person", indeed, every individual has these rights; however, if an individual has the right to life, then should they not also have the right to die? The patient should be allowed to have a voice in ending his/her life. In life, everyone dies, young and old; there are only questions to when or how. The same right that it is a person’s decision of how to live; the right should be allowed to decide how to die.
The debate over euthanasia brings string emotion from opposite sides, each with convincing justifications. One person or group should not determine how, when, and if another person should die.
The Introduction of your essay os very strong !, and the exaples given are ass well
Delete"Face with a budget deficit of 2.3 billions, Florida is saving by buying giant tents to house prisoners at hinge of it
ReplyDelete137 facilities.In the year 2007, many prisoners were released do to rising capacity in prisoner. As of November 14th,
2011 the California prison system held 143,643 prisoners in state prisons designed to hold 84,130 prisoners and and
9,439 prisoner held in private, out of state prisons. California prisons are overcrowded due to the fact they are holding
more than 200% of their capacity resulting in overcrowded prisons; it is expected to rise to 45% by 2018. Fourteen
federal prison workers have been assaulted due to crowded room creating tension between inmate. Men and Women
are constantly imprisoned for false accusations and less than a third strike. Tax payers spend 32 billion every year
on prisoners; the cost of a prisoner is an average of about $47,000 per year. Over crowded prisoners are plaguing
the United states of America. We have our tax payers suffering and more prisoners bring more money for the
government to distinguish. The government must start making better choices for the stability of the prisons and
alternatives for prisoners.
Prisons Overcrowding directly affects the prisoner mental and physical health. People at times dehumanize
prisoners as if they are not living or breathing people which used to walk among us. Although they have committed
crimes and do deserve to be punished, they should not be locked in a cell with more than one room mate where they
can barely think or have alone time to their selves. "Overcrowding directly affects prisoners' mental and physical
health by increasing the level of uncertainty with which they regularly must cope. One useful psychological model of
the negative effects of overcrowding emphasizes the way in which being confined in a space that is occupied by too
many people increases the sheer number of social interactions persons have that involve "high levels of uncertainty,
goal interference, and cognitive load ...The sheer number of things prisoners do or accomplish on a day-to-day basis
is compromised by the amount of people in between them and their goals and destinations". Seeing so many people
at one space at one time can frustrate anyone. It is like being in caved in a four wall room with no door to get out.
The prison guards are prone to get frustrated with more prisoners because they cannot fully control all of
them."Children routinely face humiliation and other forms of emotional abuse as well as severe physical abuse at the
hands of guards.... Only nine months ago, 17-year-old Emmanuelle Narcisse was killed by a guard in another of
Louisiana's facilities by a single blow to the head that was witnessed by dozens of other children." These prisoner
need to be treated well, they are in the care of the government, even if they did commit a hateful crime we cannot
hurt or abuse them to our liking. Treat others as we would like to be treated.