Cate Marr

Everyone knows that bullying is a continuous problem. Most people will face it, especially in their earlier years of life. Most people think that bullying should be prevented. If the government could stay involved, then it would be on the way to decreasing this issue. But not everyone thinks as bullying as such a big deal. They think this is something that everyone goes through and to focus so much on it would be a waste of time. People are going to be mean, and that is life. A little bullying will teach kids that life is not perfect and it is good for them to learn it now than be sheltered. They think that putting laws on bullying is extreme and unnecessary. In one of my sources, a senator said to press criminal charges on a bully does nothing because harm has already been done. Does that mean a rapist and a murder are off the hook? Because even though harm has already been done to someone in those cases, they still are convicted. It seems that people do not realize how bad bullying has gotten and they see this situation as petty. In reality, when kids are killing themselves because of it, something has to be done. The counter argument of my topic seems a little cruel to me. People should know what a toll bullying can put on people. Especially when you are young and all you want is acceptance. Not fitting in can seem like life or death. When something that serious is at stake, it should not be taken lightly. Schools should make it their responsibility to make it a safe environment.  

Opposing Argument-Ellie Mintz

Underage drinking has become such an issue that there are probably more opposing sides to my argument than supporting sides. Most people oppose the thought of lowering the drinking age simply because the legal age has been 21 for so long. Some people are against the change because of actual scientific research. While some oppose for personal reasons. The majority of people resist change no matter the issue. Change is seldom viewed as a good thing and it seems that more often than not people want society or laws to stay constant forever. Unfortunately, nothing can stay the same in a world that is constantly changing. Those that have researched the topic and read studies or even conducted studies themselves have more grounds to oppose the lowering of the legal age. Some studies have shown that the frontal lobes of the brain are not fully developed until the mid-20s. The frontal lobes are responsible for emotions, planning, and organization and the underdevelopment of these lobes could cause greater potential for addiction, dangerous behavior, depression, violence, suicide, and many other problems. Other opposers claim that drinking at 18 is not a right and since there are plenty of other rights that begin at 21 it is acceptable for drinking to begin then as well. Most states require a person to be 21 to gamble legally in a casino, adopt a child, and purchase a handgun. Another item on the list of oppositions is that the American drinking age should not be the same as the European drinking age because the rate of drinking in American teenagers is much lower than the rate of drinking in Europeans. According to some research, there is an equal or lower rate of binge drinking in American teenagers versus European teenagers. On a personal level, some people oppose lowering the drinking age because they themselves have been impacted by a drunk person or someone they know and cared about was changed. Many times after a drunk driving accident for example, the family members of the people involved change their view of drinking and more often than not the accident is a result of underage drinking. 

Opposing Arguments Emily Griffin

There is a huge debate over the issue of obesity and what role the fast food industry plays in it. I chose to take the stand that fast food restaurants are not to blame for the increase in obesity. However, there is a copious amount of arguments for the opposing side. One of the main reasons that Americans hold the fast food industry accountable for obesity is that they claim that fast food restaurants do not warn consumers on how dangerous their food can be. Many people and even scientists assert that fast food possesses addictive qualities that trigger pleasure centers in the brain, so the more fast food Americans eat, the more they are going to want to eat it. In addition, many people believe that it should be mandatory for fast food restaurants to place warning labels on their food. Majority of Americans are uneducated to the truth behind greasy fast food, so they believe that the fast industry should be held accountable for their health issues. This is where many of the legal suits between individuals and fast food restaurants arise. Another justification many Americans argue is that fast food is cheap and readily available. With at least one fast food restaurant in every town, it is simply easier to just stop on the way home from work after a long day. In addition, many people claim that healthy food is too expensive to buy, and extra money should go to necessities, this especially holds true for low income families. Finally, then there are the parents who complain that there are too many commercials for fast food that their children watch. Then once their children see a commercial for a happy meal toy, or yummy looking chicken nuggets they will not stop nagging until they get what they want, so most of the parents give in. However, what it comes down to is, you are what you eat. People CHOOSE to eat fast food and parents take their kids to fast food restaurants. Americans are just looking for someone to place the blame on, even though it is their responsibility.

Skeptic of Skeptics

The angle that I am coming at my paper from is that from a conspiracy theorist. I am going to look at the evidence and present it as a theorist. Of course I will look at both sides, but the majority of my paper is going to be from a theorists point of view.

            I am now going to look from the more “realist” point of view. I am going to look at the evidences from a more literal side.

            There have been many questions about the airport and it surroundings. For example, the shape of the runways forms a Nazi Swastika. Some might consider this a sign of a coming genocide. The way that I see it is that a very efficient way to construct the runway just so happens to be in the shape of a Swastika. Also, the Swastika is not seen as negative symbol in every culture. Next, there are some questionable murals on the wall. Some may see them as another symbol of a coming genocide. I think that they are just a different form of art that will attract people to come and see what they are all about. I do not have much of an explanation for these paintings. There are underground chambers in the airport that are completely empty except for some sprinklers. Gas chambers? I think not. These are simply just storage facilities that are not being used yet. The sprinklers are not used to spray acid or diffuse gas, but to put a fire.

            Conspiracy theorists are just looking for answers. They see a few things that are suspicious and immediately blame it on the government or some secret society. There are going to be some issues that you will not get answers to. You do not have to be all up in everyone’s business and know everything. There are explanations to most of the theorists claims, and they are not helping anyone by making these absurd accusations on their own country.

A View From the Other Side: Bradley Heffron

For my argument paper I have chosen to discuss the issue of whether or not students in public schools should wear uniforms. I have chose to make the argument that students should have uniforms. While I have taken this side I also see a strong case in which people can argue to not inform schools to have uniforms. I have attended both schools with uniforms and those with out and I feel that I understand both sides to a certain level. While people constantly tell how uniforms benefit the students as well as the school in many ways there are also ways that by enforcing students can have negative effects. One of the major reasons why people are against the use of uniforms is because they believe that by making students dress the same it take away part of the student’s identity and limits their ability to separate themselves from others. This is the most addresses topic for this side of the arguments. Some also make the claim that having uniforms are more expensive and that is just another economic problem that can be eliminated if students continue to wear whatever they already have and what they can afford. While these are both valid points I see more reasoning and persuasive arguments for students in public schools to be required to wear uniforms. So far in my research I have found more evidence for why uniforms are a good investment and only a few negative reports for introducing them into the school system. I hope that at the end of this that this argument will be seen as a strong one and more convincing than the counterargument. 

Counterargument - Darby Jackson

While my argument for my research paper says that technology in education is a very beneficial thing, it is also extremely important to look at the opposing view in order to have an all-around valid argument. One of the issues people who are against technology in education is the funding used to provide all of these technologies to students. With education funds scarce to begin with, how can we justify spending even more money on technologies that are not necessarily necessary? Another concern presented is what’s called the “digital divide”. Many people believe that the presence (or absence) of technology in schools creates a deeper economic chasm for rich and poor schools and communities, so students do not have the same opportunity to learn as other students. The role of distance learning, like online and virtual classrooms and schools, also make critics wonder if all students are able to successfully learn in online environments and if students are still learning as much as they would in a normal classroom. Online plagiarism, even though new technologies have made it easier to detect, is now a huge issue with having technology available for students. Students are now able to turn in work that is not their own, from places and people all around the world. Another issue is information literacy. As our culture becomes more and more dependent on technology to communicate information, students must learn to not only communicate effectively without technology, but with it as well. It has the potential to create a whole new divide for communication. With the argument of the benefits and downfalls of technology in education, I truly believe the pros outweigh the cons with technology in education. There is much more good involved and many more doors opened because of the use of technology in our classrooms. While these are valid arguments, we cannot forget the ever-changing culture we live in and we must make the most of the utilities we have at hand. 

the blame game

Along with every problem comes excuses, and obesity is no exception. Obese individuals are in for a lifetime with a higher risk of diabetes and cardiovascular disease. With one in five American children being overweight, the numbers for obesity are going to increase even further. But why? Many reasons can be given to explain the epidemic. The first reason that is commonly given is that there is no time to cook dinner, so fast food becomes the fallback dinner plan. This day in age people live a hectic lifestyle, and do not have time to prepare a meal for their family so they depend on fast food. With convenient drive thru options at almost every major fast food chain, you don’t even have to leave the car and you have instantly prepared dinner for the family. A second reason that may explain the epidemic is that individuals did not know what would happen or what was so bad about fast food. Because the general population lacks nutritional education it may be difficult to realize the effects of a fast food diet until they occur. Restaurants should be dependable enough to provide a meal that will give you the nutrients you need to withstand your day, which is not actually the case. Some people argue that fast food restaurants should be required to post warning signs in their establishment to inform consumers that potential effects of their product. Another possible reason for the growing waistline could be because fast food is cheap, and was all that was available. If you are struggling to pay the bills, money for dinner is not necessarily the top priority and eating a clean diet can be expensive! Fresh fruit and vegetables can be pricy and some Americans are not willing to spend their extra change on food.