Alexis Brierley Opposing Side

            In the argument of gay marriage, there are many people that disagree that marriage, regardless of what sex the two partners are, marriage is a constitutional right allowed to all Americans. Some of these people even go so far as to describe these marriages as “harmful” or “dangerous.” One of the main arguments has to do with religion. In the bible, it mentions how one man should not lay with another man. Many people who argue against the constitutionality of gay marriage use this as one of their main points. However, America is based on values where we have religious freedom. There is no reason why one religion should take over other religions when it comes to the law. Another argument people use against gay marriage is the rights of children. If legal equality for gay marriage were to happen, this would mean there would be no discrimination in favor of heterosexual couples in adoption, custody, or reproductive service. (Why this is considered to be a bad thing, I don’t know. Less discrimination in a country built on equality would seem to be a good thing in my eyes). People do, however, use this in arguments because they believe that children living in gay homes would have a lesser childhood experience than children raised in heterosexual homes. There is, however, no evidence that this is the truth. Lastly, another big argument against gay marriage is that it would whither traditional marriages. This plays a little bit more into the religious aspect of it, as people who call them traditional marriages usually mean it in the most religious sense. They believe that it would change the marriage ideal and other marriages. However, if two gay people get married it does not affect a heterosexual couple that is already married, nor does it cause two people to suddenly become gay and marry. It is not fair to say that if gay marriage were to become constitutional that all of America would suddenly see an outbreak in homosexual couples. 

The Other Side-- Reena

There are two sides to my research argument paper. One side I feel most people would agree with. The other side could raise many questions, conflicts, and of course, disagreements. The agreeable side is just basically saying that is very necessary for more action could be taken towards keeping child abuse and neglect under control. The other side is pretty much my take on how it should be done. Haters are going to hate but hey, I don’t hear anything else being done so why not put my idea out? I feel that women should be licensed prior to becoming a mother. I am strictly focusing on women if anybody were to raise questions about becoming a father. Obviously you need both sexes to pursue the parent stage, but my focus is strictly on women. One question that might be raised against this idea is “When is one considered a mother?” and that “If one is considered a mother when one is considered a human, do you abort the “baby” if the woman turns out to be an illegal mother?” and “Or are you saying you have to have a license to have unprotected sex for the possibilities of conceiving a child?” To that last question, yes! If it’s going to help prevent women having children who don’t deserve to, then yes! See, most people might not agree with this idea. A lot of people might think the idea as a whole is a little extreme. They might ask, “There isn’t anything else that could be done?” Well, possibly, but what? Does anyone else have something better that he or she feel would be just as, or maybe more, effective? Sometimes strict measures have to be taken in order for a person to realize exactly how serious a situation is. Although, there actually are times when unnecessary measures are taken with situations that are really not that serious. But child abuse/neglect is no doubt serious and deserves drastic measures for prevention whether people agree with it or not.

Townsend

My topic is focusing on how the media affects body image. My stance on this topic is that media negatively affects body image. There is a lot of research supporting this stance, but there are also many opinions of professionals supporting the stance that media positively affects body image.  Dr. Horatio A. Capote says, “I don't think we can place all the blame on the media. To the extent that unrealistic and sometimes unhealthy standards of beauty are promulgated, there is some effect. What's more, celebrating superficiality over substance is another dubious activity. Part of the problem may also derive from human beings wiring that treats visual data preferentially” (https://www.healthtap.com/#topics/positive-media-influence-on-body-image). I believe that Dr. Capote is saying that people who think the media is affecting them negatively are simply celebrating the superficial and fake portrayals that the media sends. They are simply buying into the media’s schemes. Personally, I am more on the side that media does, in fact, negatively affect body image and ideas of such. However, I do believe that the media is not completely to blame for negative ideals of body image.

There are many media outlets that are campaigning for true beauty. A television show that sends out a positive message about body image and true beauty is “Glee.” The show is popular for it’s character diversity and discussion of societal issues. Several episodes tackle body image, one of which is “Home”.

Another positive influence is Dove’s Campaign for Real Beauty. Dove’s campaign is “A worldwide marketing campaign launched in 2004 to celebrate the natural physical variation embodied by all women and to inspire them to have the confidence to be comfortable with themselves” (http://health.gatech.edu/promotion/newsarticles/Pages/Top10.aspx). The Dove campaign has released images on billboards and posters as well as commercials to convey that the world has created an unattainable idea of what body image should be.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IHqzlxGGJFo

Emily Kalshoven - Opposing Viewpoint

            People all of over American have their own personal opinions on sex education programs. I personally believe that we should veer away from abstinence-only programs while others believe that abstinence-only programs are the only way to go.

To many, the abstinence-only method in sex education programs may seem to be a very logical method for a school system. Many parents may feel that abstinence is the only appropriate birth control method for a school to teach. If parents take on the responsibility of teaching their children various appropriate contraceptives, an abstinence-only method in sexual health education may serve as a back-up reinforcement for the parents’ teachings. Parents may also feel uncomfortable with their students talking about the intimate matter of sexual relations with teachers they will continue to interact with for the remainder of the year. Parents may feel that this may change the traditional student-teacher relationship that exists in any learning setting.

            Others may push for abstinence-only education in order to preserve the traditional ideal of marriage. From a Christian viewpoint, waiting to have sex until marriage is the norm. Because of this, other methods of contraceptives would not be necessary to teach to youth until they were grown and ready for marriage. Teaching other forms of contraceptives would encourage youth to go against Christian teachings and beliefs by showing them that there are ways around getting pregnant and obtaining a sexually transmitted infection. Teaching abstinence as the only form of birth control and students followed this method, this would prevent American teens from getting pregnant or contracting any STIs in their teen years.

            It may also be more fiscally efficient to teach abstinence-only methods in school. It may be more difficult to find a teacher that would be willing to teach all the different methods of birth control than it would be for a teach to teach the basics of just anatomy and abstinence. It may take more effort for a school to find a teacher willing to teach all the methods and would most likely need to pay the teacher more for their efforts.

Opposing Side- John Perrow

Wikipedia is a widely used online encyclopedia that contains a large amount of data and information concerning almost anything that has been a part of the world’s current or past history. While it is frowned upon by many professors and teachers as a credible source or reference, I have decided to do my research for this written assignment on the credibility and reliability of Wikipedia. After doing some research for this assignment, I decided to make an argument as to why Wikipedia should be considered a credible source. After stating my reasoning that Wikipedia should in fact be a credible source, I was challenged with looking at it from the perspective of those who see it as a non-credible source.  While looking at this topic from an opposing side, I can see why most professors and teachers do not allow their students to use Wikipedia as a source of information. Wikipedia is an Internet website that allows anyone to add or edit information about a topic within its database. Due to the fact that it can be edited by anyone who uses the World Wide Web, this allows false or misleading information to be added to the database, causing it to be inaccurate.  I can see now where professors can state an argument as to the credibility of the sources provided in the Wikipedia links.  While I am not brining the dedication of these editors into question, the sites that they pull their information from may not be correct either.  Anyone can post a website with information and present it in a professional fashion leading its reader to believe it is correct.  Unless the website is a government or educational resource, I can see where the reliability of the facts can be viewed as unreliable.  There are two sides to this argument.  You can either be for Wikipedia or against its use in papers.  I personally believe it should be allowed for a source of information.  However, I can also see where the professors are coming from.  If I am a college student looking for a college degree, how will I ever learn anything if all I do is type in a topic to the Wikipedia search bar and find what someone tells me is “correct and true”?  I will have learned nothing along the way, nor would I have performed any actual research to support my theories and thesis.  Looking at the topic through the professors viewpoint, I can entirely understand their argument and can potentially be swayed to even take their side. 

logan smith

I think the only real issue anyone would have with my topic (dealing with giving money to third world countries and non-profit organizations working to deal with certain issues within those third world countries) would be to say that money could be better allocated to other areas. I understand that a lot of people disagree that it’s America’s responsibility to provide for these countries, but at the same time, we can look at pointless statistics that affirm that Americans aren’t going to spend money wisely whether we’re giving it toward third world countries or simply using that money to eat ice cream or buy pet food. Apparently, over five billion dollars were spent on ice cream in 2009 and an average of over $45.4 billion dollars are spent on pets (food, maintenance, veterinary bills, etc.) each year. With statistics like these, and DON’T get me wrong – I’m not saying it’s wrong to indulge in ice cream or to have pets – that isn’t what I’m saying at all. I’m just saying that the main issue people probably have is being reluctant to give, or thinking that their money doesn’t make a difference when in actuality, it makes all the difference in the world. Perhaps people are all for a difference being made in the lives of these people, but they just don’t feel the need to contribute to these causes themselves – they’ll just let someone else do it. Or perhaps it goes back to believing that there are just better things to spend your money on. And while I don’t believe that giving to nonprofits are the only reasonable and rational thing to do with your money, I disagree that there are plenty of other organizations out there better to give to. People are just super concerned with where their money goes, and that’s totally fine – I think before they become skeptical or critical to give to an organization that helps a third world country, however, they should analyze their own spending habits.

Katelynn Gulya -Counter Argument

In my research paper I will mostly be discussing the dangers of second hand smoke. I do not necessarily want to ban outright the sale of cigarettes and that is not what I am going to be arguing. I will be arguing however that people should not be allowed to smoke in public places, like restaurants and outside of stores, around other people who could be affected by the dangerous side effects of cigarette smoke. I think that the opposing side will argue that smoking is a constitutional right and that it should not be banned in public places. The rhetorical source that I disagree with actually fits in perfectly with this rebuttal because it shows a t-shirt that has the Gadsden Flag on it, where the snake is wrapped around a cigarette. This shirt is implying that it is a constitutional right that people are allowed to smoke cigarettes. I do not think that the government should be able to tell citizens that they cannot smoke cigarettes. I just want to argue that when people smoke cigarettes in public places it affects the health of others surrounding them. Smokers could argue that the people who wish not to be around the secondhand smoke can leave the area where people are smoking. Smokers could also argue that they need to smoke to feed their nicotine cravings so that they can go about their day normally. When a smoker feels a craving they may need to take a smoke break wherever they are, this could be in a restaurant or anywhere else. However, I would argue back that there are designated smoking areas for workers and other people. These designated smoking areas should not be put outside of stores and restaurants but maybe in a place that is not directly where others will need to walk through, thus inhaling the second hand smoke.