Your task for this week's blog is to post your revised thesis first. Use 14 pt. font to do this. Skip a space and then list 3-4 possible objections that you might expect in a debate against your thesis. Be sure to number each of them. After each objection, skip another space and explain how you plan to respond to the objection (your refutation). At this point if you have a piece of research to help support your refutation, you can use it here too. Be sure to cite it though.
Make sure you skip a space between each section to help your peers read it better. You can also color code everything. For example, you can use red for your thesis. Use blue for each objection. Use purple for each refutation. This really helps anyone who reads your post to know exactly what you are doing.
Be sure to respond to at least two of your peers. Choose someone who has not already had two responses to their post. Good Luck
Thesis
ReplyDeleteThe environmental hazards of the Marcellus Shale are worth the risk of obtaining the shale from the earth because of the dire need for new sources of energy.
Possible Objection
1.Land owners may fear that the drilling may harm their land in a negative way
Refutation
1.The only time land owners need to fear that their land is going to be harmed in a negative way is if a mistake was made in the setup of the drilling areas. This however is being done by trained professionals, and they know how to set the drilling sites up so that the environment is protected.
Possible Objection
2.Once the drilling is done in one of the areas, the environment will not be returned back into the way it once was.
Refutation
2.After drilling is done in an area, the land is returned to the ways it was before the drilling company came in and started to drill.
Possible Objection
3.There is too much wastewater overflow that will have to be disposed of somewhere, and this isn’t environmentally friendly.
Refutation
3.The wastewater from one drilling site can be recycled to use in a different site. Only about 1% of this wastewater is actually made up of chemicals. If this was accidentally exposed into the environment only large amounts of these chemicals could cause harm to the environment.
I found this information from Science News.
Ehrenberg, R. (2012, August 24). The facts behind the frack. ScienceNews, 182(5), 20. Retrieved from http://www.sciencenews.org/view/feature/id/343202/title/The_Facts_Behind_the_Frack
Possible Objection
4.Hydraulic fracturing causes earthquakes in areas that usually don’t receive them.
Refutation
4.Earthquakes are an extremely rare occurrence, and when they do happen they are small on the Richter scale. They usually only happen when a well ends up hitting a seismic spot. This is a spot where earthquakes are most likely to happen. This can be avoided however, because while drilling a well this type of thing is being monitored the whole time.
I also found this information from Science News.
Ehrenberg, R. (2012, August 24). The facts behind the frack. ScienceNews, 182(5), 20. Retrieved from http://www.sciencenews.org/view/feature/id/343202/title/The_Facts_Behind_the_Frack
Rachel, I like how your objections and refutations are filled with facts. These facts are both interesing and informative. I am excited how use these objections and refutions in your research paper. Also I was wondering if there is a difference between fracking and drilling. Also I was wondering with your first objection, how would drilling harm the land? I am sure you will incorporate these facts in your final paper. I am just curious. Good job.
DeleteRachel, the objections you came up with are very valid, and will need hard, strong facts to refute in your paper. I feel that your third and fourth refutations are the strongest of them all. I like your first objection, but I feel that how you structured the refutation to follow could have been a better. The refutation should be able to stand alone so that people know the objection without having to look at it. I like how you set this up; it was very easy to read, and it was good that you had your citations after each one.
DeleteAll of my text styles would not copy and paste properly, but I used extra spacing to help all viewers to understand my set-up.
ReplyDelete(Thesis): The classification of obesity as a disease will encourage people to take the causes of obesity more seriously.
POSSIBLE OBJECTION
1.Obesity is caused by poor diet choices, and is the consumer's fault. A disease is not caused by the consumer; therefore obesity is not a disease.
REFUTATION
1.Although one may not take full ownership to obesity, classifying obesity as a disease will cause medical professionals to explain how they contracted this disease and prescribe proper medication and diet for treatment.
POSSIBLE OBJECTION
2.Obesity is being recognized as a problem, and many new diet food products are being created with fewer calories. Obesity issue is being taken care of; there is no reason to call it a disease.
REFUTATION
2.Although there are new diet snacks, these snacks should not replace the healthy foods necessary for a well-balanced diet.
POSSIBLE OBJECTION
3.The classification of obesity as a disease would cause a chaotic health scare. There is no reason to cause the public to go into a frenzy over the consumption of one too many "Big Macs."
REFUTATION
3. In the world today the obesity epidemic has been rising since the CDC declared in 2006 that there are "seventy-two million obese people in the US alone." The citizens need to take recognize this issue, by the classification of obesity as a disease the public eyes will be opened to the fact that they need to do something about their lifestyle and diet.
WORKS CITED
Causes and consequences. Retrieved from
http://www.cdc.gov/obesity/adult/causes/index.html
Is obesity a disease? current research, facts, figures, and the
pros and cons at new procon.org website. Retrieved from
http://www.prnewire.com/news-releases/is-obesity-a-
disease-current-research-facts-figures-and-the-pros-and-
cons-at-new-proconorg-website-80366172.html
Rosin, O. The economic causes of obesity: survey. Journal of
Economic Surveys. Vol. 22. Massachusetts: Blackwell Publishing
Ltd.
Marla, your possible objections are very strong and understandable, but I still agree that the issue of obesity is not being taken very seriously. I like the objection about how there are different food products that are supposedly healthier than eating real food. But what many people do not realize is that just because you pop a "Lean Cuisine" in the microwave instead of ordering pizza for dinner in front of the television, that is not going to help! Many of those products advertize how effective they are at weight loss, but unless you change your entire lifestyle, you are simply wasting your money.
DeleteMarla, I like your first refutation because medical professionals should treat obesity as a disease because of the harmful affects that you receive from it. I also enjoy your second refutation because just because the food says that it is diet doesn't mean it really is. The company probably just puts that on there to sell more for obese people. It is very interesting on the amount of people with obesity in the United States alone. I can't even imagine that many people. This truly is a disease.
DeleteI agree with the way that you stated how obesity can be considered a disease. By definition a disease is: a condition that is pathological and affects many parts or organs, but it also means a tendency or habit that is considered abnormal or harmful. Because of this definition, and the good refutations that you have to some of those great objections, it is easy to see your point. I especially like your refutation to the last (3rd) objection.
DeleteThesis: The private ownership of exotic animals should be illegal; it is not safe for the pet, the owner, or the environment.
ReplyDeletePossible Objections:
1. .Animals can be trained or tamed in order to be around others.
2. If the pet is legal, then people have the right to own it.
3. Exotic species are beautiful creatures that some people would enjoy to keep at their houses.
4. If a person buys the pet from a reliable dealer, there is little risk that it is dangerous.
Reply to Objections (Refutations):
1. Even though it is true that animals can be trained, wild animals are wild; it would take generations of animals to evolve to be as loving as a dog or cat. The domestication of dogs took almost ten thousand years of evolution; taking a tiger to a trainer for a few months will not fully domesticate it.
2. Even though it is legal in certain states for the ownership of certain species, what many people do not realize is that it is not what is best for the animal. What is best for any exotic animal is its natural habitat, not someone’s backyard.
3. Even though it is true that exotic animals are unique and beautiful, but these animals do not live to be the entertainment factor of some house party. Many people who have strange pets only buy them for their social status. Treating a pet like a rare antiquity for display is not fair to the animal at all. These owners have no true emotional tie to the creature at all, and therefore do not truly care for it.
4. Even though there are reliable dealers of exotic pets, these animals can still be harmful to one’s health. Many animals cannot help it, but many animals carry serious diseases. Reptiles such as iguanas are common carriers of salmonella, 90 percent do. Also, people need to worry about Herpes B and monkeypox as well.
Citations:
Crowel-Davis, S. (2008) Motivation for pet ownership and its relevance to behavior problems. Compendium. University of Georgia.
Exotic animals as pets. ASPCA. Retrieved from http://www.aspac.org/adoption-tips/exotic-animals.aspx
Owning exotic pets. Live Science. Retrieved from http://www.livescience.com/16815-exotic-pets-wildlife-infographic.html
Maria, I really enjoyed your first refutation when I read it. It is true that wild animals are wild, and it should be kept that way. I also agreed with your second refutation because the animal will have a very difficult adapting to a human environment. In the wild they know what to expect and they don't have to adapt to anything. I did not know any of the material in your fourth refutation. If exotic animals do cause people's health to deteriorate, then I don't understand why someone would risk their health to have an animal that really belongs in the wild.
DeleteMaria, I absolutely love your topic. I think it is so interesting to learn about. I think you stuck true to your refutations and supported them very well. You put it in such great words that, "wild animals are wild," and they should stay that way. Also, I liked how you talked about the animal adaptations to a human lifestyle. I remember hearing stories on the news about all different animals breaking free and running through the streets, but it is just they way they were made to act. Domestication really would take years to perfect to even come close to a truly safe environment. I like how you worded everything after your refutations. You made me get on your side and stick with you. I didn't even think there was a way around your refutations. Good job!
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThesis: Multiple sports programs should take a more hands-on approach to head injuries with the purpose of obtaining treatment for the dramatic increase in concussions.
ReplyDeleteObjection 1: Concussion rules are being taken to extremes. The punishments like fines and suspensions should not occur.
Refutation 1: Even though there are many rules being enforced about concussions, the player who hits the opposing player to the head should face some sort of punishment because it is not an accident. You can’t accidentally aim your helmet to someone’s head. Fines and suspensions are a reasonable punishment to protect a player’s safety because concussions are a very serious injury.
Objection 2: Concussions will change the way contact sports are played. A player will all of a sudden have to change their fundamental aspect of playing the sport.
Refutation 2: While it is true that new skills will need to be acquired, it is for the protection of all the players involved. A concussion can cause death, and if old rules stay in effect, then players will fear the consequences of concussions.
Objection 3: The excitement of hard hits in the NFL (National Football League) and momentum changes as a result of these hard hits should not be taken away. Some teams rely on these devastating hits as a momentum swing.
Refutation 3: While it is true that some tackles can change momentum, players are able to hit the opposing in a legal way and change momentum if they don’t lead with their head. You can still change momentum with a fundamental tackle that results in a big play for the team.
References
Evans, S. (2012, November 12). Concussions and stricter rules taking their toll. Retrieved from news.yahoo.com/concussions-stricter-rules-taking-toll-005307273--nfl.html
Ruiz, R. (2012). Concussions in professional sports. Retrieved from www.sportsjunkiecenter.com/concussionsinprofessio.html
Clark, M. (2012, July 20). Sports concussion laws are a headache for states. Retrieved from www.governing.com/news/state/mct-sports-concussion-bills-headache-for-state-lawmakers.html
Andrew, I did not really know anything about your topic. I am not all up to speed on the topic of concussions. Even from this little bit that you put on here, I already know so much more. One of my favorite subjects in your entire blog was the part about how concussions could cause death. I don't think that people take concussions as seriously as you do. I think you asked a good variety of questions with each of the questions covering a completely different aspect of concussions. I like how you thought about the third objection with the game speed and how it could be changed from certain tackles. i think you have a great outlook on your paper and I am excited to read it!
DeleteAndrew,first off I like your topic because I can relate to it. I also believe that athletes' head injuries are not being provided the proper seriousness. Everything revolves around your mind and thoughts. The roughness of a sport such as football, is a major contact sport. Basically the goal of the game is to score, and take down everyone in your way. The concept of game should be changed as you said, but my question is who has the authority and how will this change be put into action? I can't wait to see how you develop your research paper. Athletes health should be number one priority, not winning a game. Your objections and refutations are great, and I believe you can develop a great paper using all your research.
DeleteAndrew, I am really excited to read your paper because of how well your research is. I think your topic is very easy to relate too because of how many people are affected by concussions, not only professionally but in our own school as well. I think that your paper is going to turn out very well and I think that you are passionate about the topic as well. Each of your objections seemed to hit a different topic that should be discussed. Each of your refutations covered a different aspect of concussions, and was very strong about refuting what the objection was. Again I am very excited to read about your further research and your final paper.
DeleteAndy, I think your topic is becoming a big issue in the last few years. There are so many new rules in all levels of sports that have to do with head injuries. I agree with you on your first one. I think that they players that do hit people in the head on purpose should get some kind of penalty. The protection of the players should be the most important thing. This may even cause the rules to change like you said. The NFL is really starting to crack down on the head to head contact. The game can still be just as exciting and still have nice hits without going head to head. I think that you did a good job of explaining all of your objections and refutations.
DeleteHYPOTHESIS (Thesis): Cell phone companies should provide more education to their consumers to protect children from physical and mental ailments that may result from using cell phones.
ReplyDeletePOSSIBLE OBJECTIONS:
Objection 1:
Children do not use cell phones enough to develop any types of medical conditions.
Refutation 1:
While it is true that not every child is an avid user with their cell phone, there are many who are connected at the hip with their phones. A medical disorder was named for the need of phone contact, called "Nomophobia."
Objection 2:
A small cell phone could not affect a child in such a large way in their lifespan.
Refutation 2:
Cell conversations when the phone is against the ear have been proven to increase the metabolism inside the brain in areas that include language, decision making, and emotions.
Objection 3:
Children need the technology at an early age to keep up with the world.
Refutation 3:
While the cell phones that are Internet-capable are very nice for communication and information use, there are many burdens that come with the uses of phones. Along with the developments of mental and physical problems, distractions also play into the use of phones and taking away from studying and other factors
Objection 4:
If adults are fine with using cell phones without a fear of radiation development, children should be fine as well.
Refutation 4:
The brains of children are still developing, and exposure to radiation can change the minds of children more than that of adults. Every activity and exposure that a child encounters will eventually have an impact on the child, which includes radiation that comes from cell phones.
WORKS CITED:
Cloud, J. (2012, August 12). Gadgets go to class. Time, 180(9), 48-49.
Gibbs, N. (2012, August 12). Your life is fully mobile. Time, 180(9), 32-39.
Lindner, T. (2012, May/June). Why has mobile device adoption gone viral?. Connected World, 86-87.
Weintraub, P. (2012, January/February). Cell phones alter brain metabolism. Discover, 71
Carli, I think you made some very good points about cell phones and how they affect children of today. I feel like the objections are things that people of today would say because of how society's dependence on technology. You did a very good job refuting the objections and stated your facts very well. However, I think they could have been a little longer or could have had a little more detail to them.
DeleteCarli, I think that you have an interesting topic. I think it is a good idea how you are relating cell phones and the harm it can have to people’s health. I think that all of your objections are good. Children are starting to use cell phones more now than ever. This could mean enough to get a disease from it. People may think cell phones are small but they are powerful. With all the parts the cells phone is made out of it can really affect your brain you are always on it. I like your last one the best. Kids are starting to get cell phones at too young of an age. Having them this long could make the affect on them more harmful. I think you picked out very good objections and answered them well. The only thing is maybe a little more detail in your Refutations.
DeleteCarli, I really enjoy your topic. I think that it would be very smart for cell phone companies to at least have warnings telling of the harmful effects on people in general. It is the same way that companies are required to put hazard warnings on drugs for possible complications, and these situations are very similar. While it is required that many companies tell all of what could possibly happen if you use a product, but cell phone companies have never been known to do that.
DeleteThesis: Although so countries are switching to a twelve month school year, there are valid reasons why the United States should continue with the current school calendar.
ReplyDeleteObjection:
1. Students forget many things they learned during the three month summer break.
Refutation:
Not all students forget everything they learned over the summer. Most of them remember just a few days back into school. If schools are finding this to be such a problem, then more summer courses should be offered to the ones that are affected by this.
Objection:
2. Many other countries are ahead of the United States in schooling because of the switch to year round schooling.
Refutation:
Many other countries are switching to year round school years. However the United States is not behind in education because of this. We are behind most countries because of the teachers, and school programs that we provide.
Objection:
3. Some people claim that going to school all year round is cheaper.
Refutation:
This however is not true. It will actually increase the costs. Schools will have to go to school more days this means more money will be needed for things like heat, lunches, air, and other supplies. By staying on a regular school calendar it also saves the school district money.
Works Cited
Ferenstein, G. (2012). Why it's never mattered that america's schools 'lag' behind other countries. Retrieved from http://techcrunch.com/2012/09/16/why-its-never-mattered-that-americas-schools-lag-behind-other-countries/
Priddy, O. (2007, 5 31). Benefits of all year round school. Retrieved from http://www.lifescript.com/Life/Family/Parenting/Benefits_of_All_Year_Round_School.aspx
Harpaz, B. (2012, July). www.huffingtonpost.com. Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/12/debate-over-yearround-ver_n_1668482.html
Hayley, I personally believe that it would be very beneficial to our country to switch to a 12 month school year. All of theses objections are things that I have thought myself, and your refutations are making me second guess my view on this issue. I would love to read your research paper to see all that you could persuade me to believe.
DeleteHayley, I thought were very well put together and had some good arguments, but you refuted them effectively. You made some great points, especially on the point of other countries being ahead of us. Its not that they have school for longer, but because of the programs we have. I look forward to seeing your paper and seeing that it is still good to have a summer vacation! Despite what other countries think.
DeleteThesis: Society should consider trade schools as viable options in comparison to universities.
ReplyDeleteOjection 1: People who go to trade schools will not find good jobs.
Refutation: Many people who attend trade schools find very meaningful and important jobs. They find jobs in areas that they actually care about instead of going to schools where they recieve a degree and a massive amount of debt just to go into a job that doesn't even require the degree that they recieved.
Objection 2: People can get the same amount of education at entry level jobs as you do at trade schools.
Refutation: This may be true, but the idea of education also has to do with how people percieve you. If you did not have any higher education whatsoever and just entered the work force, it would be much more difficult to be promoted without some form of degree. Without a degree, people are percieved as uneducated and unintelligent. With a degree, promotion is a much more likely occurance.
Objection 3: Trade schools cause large amounts of debt, which cannot be supported by beginning incomes after graduating trade schools.
Refutation: This is true for any form of higher education. This route may be more expensive than entering directly into the work force, but it is worth it in the end. With the oppurtunities for promotion, gaining more money to pay off the debt is a very good option. Even with universities, the debt is difficult to pay at first because of the low paying starting jobs. However, it is not as difficult to go up in the corporate latter as it may seem.
Tori i think that your objections that people think are great. I also think that your refutations are well detailed and give a lot of information on trade schools. I think that trade schools are a great idea for kids. People in our world think that teens all should go to a four year college, but I think that it is not true. Kids sometimes can't handle the stress of college for a long period of time, that is why going to a trade school will allow teens to get a degree and only have to go to college four 2 years.
Deleteoh i forgot to say that i think you need some work cited.
DeleteTori, i I like your ideas here. I think people sometimes overlook trade schools. When really, they can be a good option for someone that is set on what they would like to do. You give a lot of information about trade schools in your refutations. This will be good in developing your whole paper. I also agree with Emma though, I think you need work cited for some of your work.
DeleteThesis: The supreme court should make an official ruling on the principal of “separation of church and state.”
ReplyDeleteObjection 1: The U.S.A is a Christian country everyone should have the Christian views, making separation of church and state unnecessary.
Refutation: Although it may be true that the U.S was founded on many Christian values and ideas, the country WAS founded on freedom, in both religions and expressions. If the government was to force these ideas on people, it would go against the first amendment and everything the country is founded on.
Objection 2: Separation of Church and state is not mentioned anywhere in the constitution or first amendment, it does not exist.
Refutation: Although the constitution and first amendment do not say the exact phrase “separation of church and state” it still exists. The phrase “separation of church and state” was made to describe what the first amendment meant by explaining the phrase which states that congress cannot make a law that affects religions.
Objection 3: Objections to the separation of church and state can come in the form of laws that violate the first amendment. The main one I will talk about is Obama’s Health Care commonly known as “Obamacare.”
Refutation: Obamacare has the potential to help some poor people get health care, but it does major wrong to the country otherwise. It forces employers to cover contraception costs for their employees, and this not only hurts companies, but, in essence, makes the employer endorse contraception. If the employer has religious views that go against contraception, this is a law that violates that right to religion. The same goes for abortion, Obamacare forces doctors to perform abortions. If the doctor is pro-life, or catholic, or any other religion that is against abortion, the doctor will have to violate his religious views to follow the law, this is against the first amendment and wrong.
Jess,
DeleteI think that you have good objections and refutations, however, I think that the way the government feels about their religious views is their decision. I think it should stay the same because it is a "free" country. Also I think that anyone can be a part of whatever religion they want even if it is against our chritian views.
Jess, I really like your objections and I think you did a great job on your refutations. I think you will have a really good paper because this is a topic that comes up a lot in our society. From being from a small town, we tend to think that everyone is Christian. However, a lot of the country has different religious views and they have that freedom. I agree with you about the Obamacare and having doctors perform aborations when they don't want to because of their religion. We as a country have to stay true to what the Constituation says and keep the freedom that was won for us.
DeleteThesis: Bullying laws in American schools should be more highly enforced.
ReplyDeleteObjection 1: Students in schools need to learn to cope with bullying in school environments.
Refutation: Students may need to cope with some things in school, but bullying is a major problem that shouldn’t be over looked or “coped” with. It is something bigger than a little confrontation. It is a serious matter that needs to be looked at as a serious problem, and taken care of.
Objection 2: Bullying makes children become more mature emotionally and physically if they deal with bullying.
Refutation: Although this might be true in some aspects, many children, however, become emotionally instable when dealing with bullies, not stronger, and more mature.
Objection 3: There are more important things going on in American schools like alcohol and drugs that should be worried about.
Refutation: Even though drugs and alcohol abuse in American schools is a problem, bullying is an ongoing problem that is just as bad as drugs and alcohol. It causes all ages of kids and teens torment and anxiety, which can result in physical and psychological issues. It isn’t something that should be over looked; it should be looked at as a serious issue that should be taken care of.
Dombeck, M. (n.d.). The Long Term Effects of Bullying. American Academy of Experts in Traumatic Stress. Retrieved November 6, 2012, from http://www.aaets.org/article204.htm
Derbyshire, D. (2010, May 24). Daily mail. Retrieved from http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1280625/Bullying-good-children-Study-finds-fight-popular.html
Burns, P. (n.d.). Bullying and harassment: Thin line and thin ice. Retrieved from http://www.schoolbusfleet.com/Channel/Regulations/Articles/Print/Story/2011/05/Bullying-and-Harassment-Thin-Line-and-Thin-Ice.aspx
Emma, I think that you are doing a good thing by writing your paper on bullying. It is really sad when you hear about children killing themselves because they feel like that was the answer. I really like your objection when you talk about comparing bullying to drugs and alcohol. Bullying is just as important and should be treated as such. I think that there should be laws against it and the government should get involved in some way. I don't like it when people say that bullying gives kids thick skin because it makes them feel worse than they should. You have a lot of good research on your subject.
DeleteI think you have some good support to your thesis and also good objections. Bullying is so important to be looked in todays society. Look at all of the suicides because of bullying. This could all be easily changed. I just think people tend to ignore it, or they look at other problems.
DeleteThe quality and quantity of food provided through free or reduced school lunches in the National School Lunch Program is not sufficient; therefore, new national standards should be adopted for the program.
ReplyDeleteObjection
1. There are 30 million children that get feed through the National School Lunch Program and the standards that are set are working.
Refutation
1. New standards can be set to have more schools participate in the program.
Objection
2. The cost of a school lunch continues to rise, so more expensive foods shouldn't be added to the lunch menu's.
Refutation
2. Michelle Obama wants chefs to help figure out cheap ways to create healthy food that is
affordable to all schools.
Reference:
Mcgray, D. (2010, April 26). The war over america's lunch. Retrieved from http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1982347-1,00.html
Objection
3. Studies have shown that program participants have an increase in fruits, vegetables, and milk consumption versus those that don't participate in the program.
Refutation
3. Schools that particapate in the program may have to pay more for the extra fruits and vegetables.
Reference:
Katherine, R. (2008). The national school lunch program: Backround, trends, and issues. Economic Research Report, 61, 1-56. Retrieved from http://ageconsearch.umn.edu/bitstream/56464/2/ERR-61.pdf
Objection
4. It is cheaper and easier for the schools to use frozen foods.(CNN)
Refutation
4. Most of the schools that serve frozen foods don't meet the standards meet the NationalSchool Lunch Program have set.
Reference:
Christensen, J. (2010, September 29). CNN health. Retrieved from http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/09/29/school.food.investigation/index.html
Camille, I want to have lunch the way my parents did. My dad told me stories about how everything was like your grandma made it, which sounds awesome to me! I think your objection four fits your topic well, but I think it'd be nicer to improve the lunches then go back to the ok food we had before. For your Objection 3 I wonder if they know how much of that gets eaten? We've added a third garbage can in our lunch room because we throw more out.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThesis: Capital punishment should not be legal in the United States; it demoralizes our society.
ReplyDeleteObection 1:
If the guilty person has done something that wrong, they do not deserve to live.
Refutation 1:
While it is true that the person must have done something awful to get put on death row, all life is sacred and no on deserves to be killed.
Objection 2:
The convicted person will not have any chance to escape and harm others again.
Refutation 2:
While it is true that the person cannot harm others again, this does not stop other criminals from hurting people.
Objection 3:
Familes of the victims think that getting rid of that person will bring them vengeance.
Refutation 3:
While it is true that the family might not want that person around, most of the time they do not feel any better when the convicted person has been killed.
Objection 4:
A lot of people do not want to take any chances in letting a guilty person go free.
Refutation 4:
While it is true that we cannot let a guilty person be free, it is not fair at all to kill an innocent person when they have done nothing wrong.
Works Cited:
(2011). American civil liberties union. Retrieved November 11, 2012 from http://www.aclu.org/capital-punishment
Robinson, B. (2011, February ). Religious tolerance. Retrieved November 11, 2012 from http://www.religioustolerance.org/executb.htm
Larissa, I think you did a good job on your refutations. I think on your fourth one you should expand a bit, perhaps cite innocent people who have been killed and then proved innocent? Just a thought. Anyway, I like your idea. I personally feel that if someone killed someone I loved I would prefer they sit in prison for the rest of their life rather than be killed.
DeleteThough capital punishment is wrong, you also made some good points. If the person has done something that wrong, then it would almost be better for them to die then to suffer in jail for the rest of their lives. I never thought of a prisoner getting killed them later on finding they are innocent. That probably happens more than we think it does.
DeleteParents should not allow young children to have mobile phones because of the risks that they pose to them.
ReplyDelete1. Cell phones allow children and their parents to stay connected.
Yes, cell phones allow parents and children to stay connected, but there are a number of variables that affect this argument. If children do not what to talk to their parents they can simply shut of their phone and the parent has no way of contacting them. The cell phone is at the mercy of its user.
2. Certain cell phones have internet connection which allows children to explore the Internet and become tech savvy.
Exploring the internet unrestrained is not something parents want their children to do, that’s why many parents have parental controls on their home computers. Children are naturally curious and that curiosity can get them in trouble. With cyber bullying and sexting a parent may not even know that it’s occurring. Internet access on the phone would allow children to use social networks or chat sites that connect them with strangers.
3. A cell phone can help kids make friends.
A cell phone may help children make friends, but what kind of friends would they be? Again, internet access would connect children with their friends, but also strangers. Parents that do not monitored their children’s cell phones would not know who their so called friends were or if they were actually dangerous people.
I agree with your thesis, but you also made some good objections. If the children are mature enough to have a phone, they can use it for educational and social purposes. I know that my mom didn't let me have a phone until I was in 8th grade and I had trouble getting to know people before I went to high school. Social interactions are very important for the youth because it makes them work better and talk with people easier later in life.
DeleteMaddie, your topic is very good. I hate when I see a ten year old with a cell phone, especially something such as an iPhone. I don't believe they need something that extreme. If they are believed to need a phone, at least have a simple one that just makes calls when needed. Good job!
DeleteHypothesis (Thesis): Animal Testing should be stopped because it is resulting in unfair practices and is causing harm to animals due to the mistreatment of the animals during the tests.
ReplyDeleteWhile it is true that it is unfair to the animals, it does make it a lot safer for humans.
A lot of the medications tested on animals make it safer for humans.
Usually, when a product is tested positive on animals, it will be tested positive on humans. Scientists need some way to make sure medications are safe for humans, some medications that can save humans from diseases. Without these tests, death from diseases would be more common. And there would be a lower population in the world.
2. While it is true that it is unfair to the animals, it is better than testing on humans.
Not saying that humans are better than animals, but in society, human lives are more valuable than animals. Animals can't really do anything to help out society, but humans can. Animals can't talk or accomplish anything. If humans were to get tested on then the relatives of the humans would have emotional breakdowns and the world would have a much smaller population.
3. While it is true that it is unfair to the animals, some of the animals that are tested on are overpopulated.
Some of these animals are considered "pests" to humans, like city rats for example. These animals can sometimes even spread disease and contaminate restaurants. Some of these animals can cause harm to the society. There are many of these animals in the world. Sometimes animals even survive from the tests and are not harmed.
I didn't like this assignment because I believe that animal testing is so wrong and there is nothing that makes it okay, so I don't agree with any of this I just did it because it was the assignment.
Leah, your thesis is very well written and you made good objections. I agree with your final statement that nothing makes it okay, because it is not fair at all. Sure, we say we hate rats and other rodents, but that doesn't mean we are or should be able to put them under such awful testing. Good job, I can't wait to read your paper!
DeleteYour thesis is on a topic that has been debated for many years. Although many new medications have been released because of animal testing, this type of testing is not even close to ethical. With the second objection, i honestly believe some people would be willing to be tested on for money.
DeleteHypothesis (Thesis): The American government should step in and ban hazardous food ingredients because such ingredients are causing damaging health problems.
ReplyDelete1. We live in America, which is the land of the free, so we should be able to make our own choices.
a. We pay for our own health care, unlike other countries with regulated diets. If we choose to eat foods with unhealthy ingredients, we pay for our health treatments. Other countries, such as Austria, have government issued health care, so their diets are regulated so they stay healthy, therefore keeping health payments as low as possible. Our government shouldn’t do anything to our diet because we pay for our health care and also are the ones who have to live with the health problems that the foods may cause us.
2. The FDA must have some reasoning for still keeping such ingredients in our diet.
a. With other countries having regulated diets, their association to determine whether or not things are healthy may have different ideas of healthy than our FDA does. With things such as cigarettes and other carcinogens, it seems like food isn’t a thing that may cause health problems. Since cigarettes are approved for anyone who would want to put themselves in danger like that, I guess the situation with food is the same way. There are other choices with healthier ingredients, as well as fresh fruits and vegetables.
3. As long as we like and enjoy the food, it doesn’t really matter that some ingredients may be dangerous.
a. Some people say that they don’t care that the food is unhealthy, because they enjoy it. This is the same concept as gambling, drinking, and drugs. If the person enjoys it, the consequences seem slim. It’s a person’s choice whether or not they would like an apple or a piece of cake, and it should stay that way. The government should not be the one telling everyone what they can and cannot do in a country that is supposed to be that of the people.
Your thesis is a very good thesis since it gives a very open end for debating. The first objection is good comparing how other countries run things much more efficiently than we do on this subject. The FDA of America I think makes sure that the ingredients are not fatal to human more than they make sure they are healthy.The last objection shows that everything is nothing more than a matter of opinion to most people.
DeleteLike Tyler stated, your thesis is able to be argued about very well in a variety of different ways. I liked your objection because it is true, we are the land of the free. We should be able to do and behave how we want and eat what we want. The second is good as well because I'm sure that everyone figures that the FDA regulates things. There are, however many things out there that have not been regulated by the FDA and that there are unhealthy things out there that are legal. Your last objection states that whenever people like a certain thing, they become biased about it. I cannot imagine what I would do if someone would say to me that tacos were becoming banned because they are unhealthy. I love tacos and I would stand up for them against anything. Well thought out objections!
DeleteHypothesis (Thesis): Computer technology is an incredibly useful tool that is necessary for modern living; however, the practical uses of technology has degraded over the years since it was adopted as a household essential.
ReplyDeleteObjection 1:Many people need to use a computer/phone/tablet for their jobs.
Refutation: While this statement is true, the actual practical ability depends entirely on how the technology is used. If used how it is intended, the list of accomplishments can go on. However, many times they are not used for what they should be being used for and the entire purpose may as well be non-existent. The lure of what can be done on computers or phones in today’s world is very attractive and highly addictive.
Objection 2: Addiction can only occur from drugs such as nicotine or alcohol, not from technology.
Refutation: Addictions are most commonly affiliated with drugs, but recently behaviors can have similar effects to what drugs do. Addictions cause many changes in the body, they alter one’s mood as well as the only thing being on someone’s mind is whatever the person happens to be addicted to. Modern technology, whether it be the internet or a Blackberry, are capable of causing the same effects that indicate addiction.
Objection 3: This type of technology would be banned if it can cause such problems like addiction.
Refutation: The technology itself is not what is addictive. Instead, it is just an easy way to support the actual addiction. Today’s technology makes it very easy to access online gambling, social media, and many other addictive aspects. What the technology allows is what the real issue is, not the technology itself. In actuality, banning the technology would cause more problems than it would solve.
Tyler, you did a good job with your objections. I agree that many people do need computers and phones for their jobs but a lot of technology today is used for things such as games and social media sites as well as watching pointless videos. Addiction can occur from drugs and alcohol but I'm sure most people have heard of the show that is called 'My Strange Addictions' where people are addicted to things such as eating parts of walls or pulling hair out of drains. Addictions are really a thing of the mind and you can actually become addicted to many things like technology. Technology is so important that I don't really believe it would ever be banned, so many people have become accustomed to it and it is, to many people, like air or water, they think of it as an essential.
DeleteHypothesis (Thesis):The media should use normal-sized girls to portray body image.
ReplyDelete1. Skinny girls are healthier.
People often have the mindset that skinny girls are healthier than girls that tend to be not so skinny. Thin girls are tinier therefore they eat better and exercise more.
2. Models that are bigger encourage people that it is okay to be bigger.
Plus size or even normal size models encourage girls to be like them. People look up to models and if the model is a normal size it tells them that it is okay for anyone to be a model. Society only accepts skinny people.
3. Thin models sell items better.
Clothes look better on models that are skinny. This makes people believe that if they buy the item it will make them look skinny and acceptable like the model.