Your task for this blog is in a number of parts (so read carefully):
1. Write your approved research thesis
2. List three major support points (you may have more, but list the best three).
3. List three objections that someone else may have toward your thesis.
Write a paragraph explaining why your support is the best you can do for this thesis.
Write a paragraph explaining why these objections are the most prominent for your thesis.
Finally, respond to TWO of your peers' postings. Read their thesis, their support, and the proposed objections to their thesis. This is where you can all help one another. Once there have been two replies to a student, you should then choose someone else for your reply - this insures that everyone gets feedback to their thesis. This blogging assignment is worth more than double the points: your personal blog = 10 points; each peer feedback (two maximum) = 5 points each; Total blog = 20 points
Confessionalists Sylvia Plath and John Berryman, use their own personal experiences by diving into the human mind to write the poems "Daddy" and "Dream Song 1;" Interestingly, they are similar in mechanics, theme, and the overall impression.
ReplyDeleteSUBPOINTS
1. Plath and Berryman both wrote about events that were traumatizing during their childhoods.
2. Plath and Berryman both wrote "Daddy" and "Dream Song 1" about their father's.
3. Plath and Berryman were both part of the Confessionlist Movement.
OBJECTIONS
1. Berryman was not writing about his father, but rather a lover or wife of him.
2. Berryman used his alcoholism in his poetry, unlike Plath who was not an alcoholic.
3. Plath and Berryman were both part of the Confessionlist Movement, but that does not mean that they have any similarities in their poetry.
The first objection people may have towards my thesis is basically about the real meaning of Berryman's poetry. While it is true that Berryman fell into many affairs during his marriages, the most traumatizing event in his life was watching the suicide of his father, which he openly writes about under the name "Henry" in his poems. Berryman literally watched the suicide of his father, since he did so right outside of Berryman's window. Berryman was only still an adolescent at age twelve, but he was not completely a child. He was at the age of reason to understand what his father had done. Think about almost like how a divorce effects a child. Even if it may happen at a young age, it still makes the world a difficult place for the child. Their total sense of dependency, consistency, and reliability are completely taken away. This is how Berryman felt. His father was taken away from him when he was young in a very graphic way. So, being a confessionalist who draw their writings from their own personal experiences, Berryman often writes about the most traumatic thing in his life, his father's suicide.
A major difference when comparing Plath and Berryman is that Berryman was an alcoholic. While it is true that Berryman was an alcoholic -which he often wrote about in his poetry- and Plath was not, they still both wrote about their father's and how they affected the rest of their lives. "Daddy" may more obviously be understood as about Sylvia's father and how he treated Sylvia during her life in a Nazi Germany, and "Dream Song 1" is also about the terrible suicide of Berryman's father. Berryman can sometimes bring aspects of his alcoholism into his poetry whether it be the imagery, the syntax, etc, the main focus of his poems is mainly about his father's suicide. An interesting way to look at this is also that Plath suffered from depression, unlike Berryman, but alcohol is a "depressant." So, they may be even more similar in that aspect than meets the eye.
Being part of the Confessionlists Movement does not necessarily mean that every poet writes about the same thing, with the same form. Although it is true that not all Confessionlists have distinct similarities in their poetry, Berryman and Plath both wrote about their father's, and how events in their childhood changed their lives. The major point of being a Confessionlist is writing about deep personal experiences that play around or "dive into" the human mind. It just so happens that both experiences in Plath and Berryman's lives have to do with their fathers, and how they changed their lives.
These are the best objections for my thesis, because they bring about the major points of Confessioinalists, analysis of the poems, and similarities. They really allow the reader to see the more obvious and less obvious similarities between the two, and evaluate this kind of poetry in a way they never would have before.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteSophie,
ReplyDeleteI knew that your topic was on two poets, and I honestly never thought I would take any interest in your topic, but now that I have read your blog I am intrigued. I do not know, but that probably means that others will feel the same way. Either you chose an interesting topic or you know how to pull readers in. Anyway, I guess you should never judge a book by its cover. So, you are doing your research paper on how Plath and Berryman are similar in terms of their poetry. I feel that you have really been working hard on your research topic; I can tell that you really care about your topic. As you have shown, your thesis is arguable, but you are able to back up each objection with plenty information. Your objections were very interesting and well written. You obviously will not have any trouble writing replies to your objections. On the other hand, your thesis talks about the similarity of mechanics and overall impression that Berryman and Plath have, but you do not have any subpoints that even mention the mechanics or the overall impression. Two of your subpoints deal with theme. I do not think that the subpoints themselves are bad, I just think that maybe you should have at least a subpoint concerning their mechanics or a subpoint concerning the overall impression that the reader has. I know that we were only supposed to post three subpoints and that you may have a subpoint concerning one of those two topics on your actual research proposal, but if you do not I think that you should consider adding a subpoint or changing a word or two of your thesis. It is up to you though it is your research paper. I hope that you allow me to read your final product. Also, I never told you, but I commend you for sticking with your topic even though you have to kind of teach yourself on a lot of the steps. I know that everyone else can talk with each other to see if they are doing the steps properly, but you have to depend on yourself. I think that it shows how much you care about your topic. I hope that my feedback was helpful.
Sophie,
ReplyDeleteI really enjoy that you are doing a literary topic; it is different from what everyone else in our class is doing. Most of us are going in the science direction. It is also brave of you because you have to use MLA formatting instead of APA, which is being taught in class, but I know you will be able to handle that. When I first read your blog I had never heard of either of the poets or either of the poems, but they seemed interesting so I looked them up on line and read them. I am not very good at all with analyzing poems, I can never pick out the hidden means with in poems, but as I read the two poems I did see how they could both be related to their fathers. Especially Sylvia Plath, but John Berryman’s was also very deep and could easily be related to the death of his father. I can only imagine what I would be like to see the death of parent in that way at such a long way. I too would have emotional burdens my whole life if is saw a loved one die that way also. The objection that really caught my eye though was the one that said how John Berryman was an alcoholic and Sylvia Plath was not. As I read your paragraphs about your objections I saw your point on how alcoholism and depression can be related. Many times when people are alcoholics it is a much more public disease compared to depression, but they both take a hug toll on the people it affects and the people surrounding them. Alcohol and depression controls you they both cause strong emotions. Berryman’s poetry may have been so good and deep because the alcohol aloud him not to hold anything back. The same with Plath’s her depression probably controlled her and writing may have been her only outlet. When she was writing she could let everything go. This allows her poems to be so deep and personal. The one part that I think could use some work is one of your subpoints should talk more about how they are related thought mechanics, because that is one of the main point in your thesis. But the other points in your thesis are well covered in you subpoints. I think you have a very good start on your paper, I am interested to read more about these two poets.
Even though cell phones are a good form of communication, teenagers are addicted to them because they have become primary sources of entertainment.
ReplyDeleteSUB POINTS:
1.) Over half of teens, about fifty-five percent, now use their cell phones to go on the internet.
2.) Fifty-two percent of teens have admitted to texting and driving, usually to just keep a conversation going. The text messages are usually no longer than ten words.
3.) Around twenty percent of teens have admitted to sexting, which in most states is against the law.
These sub points show that teenagers now do things that have nothing to do with communicating. Going on the internet is one huge example. Most teenagers check Facebook or play games on their phone when they have nothing better to do. Some even read books. When asked, some teenagers admitted to using their phone more for the internet than to actually talk to people. Even when they do text or call someone, it is usually just for a fun conversation, never really to tell something important. That goes right into the second sub point. Most teenagers admitted to texting and driving because they were texting a boy/girl they liked or they did not want to stop a conversation just for that couple minutes for fear that they would not be answered again. Finally, the third subpoint, which is the scariest one. Teenagers now a days are sexting, or sending sexually suggestive text messages or emails to one another. Even worse than that, some teens thought that there was nothing wrong with it. It is actually illegal in some states, and teenagers have been thrown in jail and listed as sexual predators. That should not be happening. Teenagers are abusing the use of technology in many cases.
OBJECTIONS:
1.) Parents say they need there teenager to have a cell phone so they can find out where the child might be and it makes it easier to communicate.
2.) Ninety-four percent of people have said that having a cell phone makes them feel safer because they can call 911 at any time.
3.) People in today’s society do not have land lines, they use their cell phone for that as well.
The first objection is an easy one for everyone to understand. Parents have said the only reason they buy their child a cell phone is to keep in touch with them and to know where they are at all times. They have said it feels comforting to know their child has a cell phone in case they ever need anything, or if they are in a car accident or something. The second one is also very believable. If a teenager is in an emergency or they are scared and alone somewhere, cell phones make it easier for them to make a quick phone call and get someone there who can help. The last objection makes perfect sense as well. Some people can not afford two phone bills, or they think it pointless to have a land line if they are never home, therefore they just buy a cell phone. Those people need cell phones to keep in touch and do everything they would need a home phone for. That is when the cell phone is most needed for communication.
Stephanie,
ReplyDeleteI think your research paper will turn out to be very interesting. One reason for this is that your topic applies to almost our entire class. Another reason is that most anything you read about teenagers and cell phones is written by an adult who did not have the technology we have today when they were our age. You have an inside perspective on your topic, which will be helpful to your paper, I think. Your subpoints do an excellent job of supporting your thesis, especially because of the statistics. I know that anytime I am bored or sitting in the car, I usually end up doing something on my phone, whether it be getting on the internet, checking my Facebook, or just playing a mindless game. I could easily be doing something else more productive than that. Also, I when I am doing my homework or studying, I always have my phone right there, and stop periodically to text or even check my Facebook. I also think your objections to your thesis are good ones. I got my first cell phone in fifth grade so my parents could get ahold of me more easily. I also do not have a landline phone at my house. However, your last two objections are referring to people in general, rather than just teenagers. You could try rewording then so they pertain to teenagers specifically, or try thinking of some others. Try thinking of what you say when an adult comments on how teenagers are addicted to cell phones.
Stephanie,
ReplyDeleteCell phones are definitely addictions for cell phones. I agree with you on that. Your subpoints are very strong. Sexting, using the internet and texting while driving are all very good points arguing your thesis. Sexting is morally wrong and legally wrong in many cases, as you have stated. Using the internet can be good or bad. I do not think that the internet is your strongest subpoint. I actually think that it is your weakest subpoint because teenagers can use to do their homework. Sexting and texting while driving are bad in all instances, as far as I am concerned. I would suggest putting the use of the internet subpoint last and the other two first and second. The other thing is that you are using a lot of statistics. If you are going to use statistics you need to put them in quotes and cite them. Therefore, you will need a reference page with your research proposal. Make sure that you take care of the statistics; I do not want you to lose a bunch of points. Your objections are all very true, but I hope that you can back them all up because they are all very good points. If you have any other subpoints I would make sure to include them. More subpoints than objections, if your subpoints are all valid, will make readers understand your side of the argument better. Your topic is very arguable I think. I am not sure which side would win if you took a poll asking others what their thoughts were. I am interested in seeing if you have any statistics concerning that. The older generations most likely agree with your thesis more than the younger generations. Other than the suggestions that I have given you I believe that your research proposal is off to a great start! Remember that it is your paper though, and that you do not have to change every thing that others suggest. Keep going we are making our way through this process! I wonder how many people in our school do not have cell phones?
Electronic readers should be used in schools to enhance the acquisition of resources; as a result, this will provide students with a competitive edge as they advance to higher education.
ReplyDeleteSUBPOINTS
1. Students with special needs will receive a more specialized education.
2. The designs of the electronic readers are light and versatile.
3. Smart phones can also be used as an electronic reader in schools to enhance the quality of learning.
4. Students will have a better quality education with access to the many new books and applications, which electronic readers provide.
As I was doing my subpoints I thought back to the very beginning of this research topic and thought about how I was against the idea at first. I did not think that electronic readers had anything to offer in a school setting, but as I looked I found some very interesting pros that they could have. I took the good ideas that I found most interesting and made them my subpoints. For example I never would have thought that they could be used to help students with disabilities, but this area is where they seem to be helping the most. These students need specialized programs to help them learn and understand things fully and electronic readers have apps that do just that. But these specialized programs are not just for those with specialized needs, as I mentioned in one of my later subpoints they can help all people with learning. Some people may be better visual learners and the application that come with diagrams and step by step examples could really help. And not only can they help with learning but they can help with student’s health because they are lighter than textbooks. This could lead to better back health. Another topic I felt was important it that schools would be able to use up to date textbooks. As I think about some of the books I am using in school in my science classes my book is from the 1980s. I realize just how much new and interesting material students could learn every year with the updated print of the books. I added the subpoint about smart phones because when people think of electronic readers they skip past this idea, but in actuality smart phones do just as much as electronic readers. Smart phones are being considered in school just as much as iPad and also have some benefits over the iPad, such as cost. These four points are what I found most interesting and important in my research and I hope my readers will too.
Electronic readers should be used in schools to enhance the acquisition of resources; as a result, this will provide students with a competitive edge as they advance to higher education.
ReplyDeleteOBJECTIONS
1. Students are not responsible enough to have such expensive technology.
2. Textbooks are an important part of the schooling process and without them students will not be able to get the full affect of schooling.
3. The cost of electronic readers can be expensive, along with the cost of repairs that could be needed.
4. Students will be distracted from the learning task at hand, with the many different options and games that can be downloaded onto these devices.
Many people are really against using electronic readers in schools. I could have picked some different objections, but I picked the ones that are mentioned the most. Some students are not responsible enough to handle such expensive technology is a very common argument. This could be true because if you look at the way some textbooks are treated each year and the damage done to them because students just throw them around and don’t take care of them. My next objection people are really strong about, especially people who have grown up using textbooks. They feel that without textbooks schools will not be able to teach students everything they need to know without distractions. People also worry that if these devices become common in school they will spread else were and lead to the demise of all printed books. There is no doubt that these electronic devices can be expensive, and people think how can schools afford them if right now many schools are experiencing huge budget cuts? People do not look at the benefits they could bring for years in the future, but the money that would need to be spent now in the present. My last objection is probably the most common one. Electronic readers could seem very distracting. People think students would have easy access to websites such as Facebook, YouTube and Addicting Games. All of which could take away from there time spent in school to learn. They could also down load some inappropriate applications for school. I feel like the objections that I have listed are the most legitimate ones, and that with good research and facts to show how beneficial they can be people will no longer think about these objections, but rather the good.
Dear Everyone,
ReplyDeleteAs you can see my blog is in two separate entries. I am sorry there is a character limit and I went over that. I tried to do it as simply as possible by splitting up my subpoints and its paragraph and my objections and its paragraph. I also put my thesis with both. If anyone is confused, especially Dr. Pam when it comes to grading it would you please contact me so that it does not confuse you. I have everything there but in two blogs.
Although used liberally in the past, the use of the death penalty in the United States should not be permitted unless the defendant is guilty beyond all doubt.
ReplyDeleteSupport:
1) There is no possible way to be beyond all doubt immediately. It takes time to consider such a sentence. A person on the jury of twelve may always have some sort of apprehension about convicting a person to die. Unless all of the aforementioned jurors are completely set on the idea that there is no possible way for a person to be innocent, they cannot yet convict a person. They may still be innocent with an extreme amount of coincidental evidence pointing at them.
2) There is a heavy moral implication involved with sentencing a person to death. People must consider whether or not a person is guilty while at the same time they are dealing out a sentence. There is not a single person who is free of crime and at the same time, they must find it within themselves to kill a person. What if the person in the end was innocent? It would be a question that would plague a person for the rest of their life.
3) The press received by many people in cases where the death penalty is used gains them more fame than anything else. In a way, it glorifies the case. It gives them a sort of reward for doing something horrible. Rarely do we hear a story of people convicted for life but the death penalty earns much more merit. We read in An American Tragedy of how Clyde gained more fame during his trial and after his sentencing. Is this something we should reward convicts with?
People are constantly changing. One thing commonly misunderstood in trials is that evidence always can be circumstantial. There is corruption in the government and therefore there are always imperfections in such cases. Without careful consideration, people may choose the wrong reasons to convict a person even if they aren’t sure of complete guilt. This is why thought is extremely crucial to the process. Another huge part is the moral implications. There is nobody in the world free of guilt or sin. Why should one person be able to blame another and put them to death? Does that make them the same? Also, if the person is still innocent, even slightly, the whole matter can weigh on a person’s conscience for the rest of their life because they pushed a button or pulled a switch. The matter also involved is the public release of information. People become more famous because of their crimes and it is unjust. They should not receive publicity for something so awful.
Objections:
1) Most people do not want such criminals roaming the street. Why should they be given the chance to live in a prison and possibly escape? They need to be punished.
2) Death is the worst punishment a person can receive. For such horrendous crimes, they deserve death.
3) It costs far too much to keep criminals worthy of the death penalty in prison and there is simply not enough room.
The first objection was one that I commonly found when I asked people of their opinions. People almost immediately stated that such criminals didn’t deserve a chance to live. They had had their own opportunities and they had messed it up. In the chance that they might escape, they could return to committing the crimes they had before. The second is one I have read of quite often. It seems that people take death as the worst cost or penalty ever. They find it to be worse than almost anything. It fits a criminal in their opinion. The third reinforces the fact that while keeping a criminal in a prison for life takes up nearly $14,000 of taxpayer money per person, the cost of the death penalty is roughly $200 per administration. By getting rid of the criminals who do not deserve to keep living, they make room for less severe criminals.
Taylor, it was great to read yours. A few years ago, we were asked the question in an anonymous survey whether or not we should invest in such technology. It was something that I had to think about for a while. You have some very valid points. I still am unsure where I stand on the matter. I think that electronic readers would definitely help with going "green" and improving reading skills but there are some major problems. I find that I would even personally stray and start playing games at points. Also, it is extremely pricey technology. I don't know if I would trust everyone with something so important. I would personally love to see them in schools but I do not know how well it would go over. One more thing you could use in your paper if you aren't already would be the significant weight difference and how it would help everyone's backs if they didn't have to carry around 30 pounds on their back every day.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteTaylor,
ReplyDeleteI think you have a very interesting, up-to-date topic that impacts all of us, because we are the generation that all of this technology is being thrown upon. Personally, I am for the electronic readers, but only if there is restrictions on it. I feel as though many students are not responsible enough to handle expensive equipment, but they would be great to have in a classroom, but not to take home, that may be a good point to cover in your paper. I think a very important part to highlight in your paper is that they allow students to receive current information, especially in science classes, because science changes SO much we would have to get new books every year to keep up with the science world, which is impossible with textbooks. I think the issue with back problems will be very important too. I know personally that my backpack can be so heavy I have to lean forward just so it does not make me fall backwards! I agree with Alex's comment that it would be difficult to stay focused with so many games and apps that can be downloaded onto ipods, smart phones, ect. Overall, I think you have a great thesis and idea for your paper. When this is completed this may be a great paper to show ECC's administration to have them consider the possibility of have electronic readers at our school. Good luck with the rest of your paper, and I can not wait to read it!
Alex,
ReplyDeleteI am not sure how I feel about your thesis. Before I say anymore, I do not know much about the legal system and the way that death penalties work. That being said, I think this is a very tricky topic that could easily be argued either way, which makes for an excellent research topic, so congratulations on picking such a debatable topic. I agree with you that it is an extremely permanent, life changing matter that does not only affect the criminal, but the jury all the same. I agree that it must be taken seriously, and I think it is important that they must be positive that the criminal is 100% guilty before sending him/her to death. So, maybe you need to outline that it is important to do a thorough examination on the criminal before quickly convicting him, and putting him to the death penalty. That being said, it would be extremely frightening to me to know that we have murders and criminals convicted of committing serious crimes in our jails, and possible, escaping into our world. I do agree with you that the death penalty does produce press and almost makes the convict famous, but I feel like that is what America is now a days. Americans love juicy gossip and anything serious and interesting. I think that is just the way society is, and attention is always placed on negative news. I think you have a great topic with many sides to debate from. I am also very excited to read your finished product, and I hope that you can write so that I take your side, which I believe is very important in a topic like this. Best of Luck!
Alex,
ReplyDeleteI did not know you were doing your paper on the death penalty, but I am actually very interested. I love watching shows such as 48 Hours Hard Evidence and other real life crime shows, and every time someone receives the death penalty I question whether it is right or not. I am on your side I fully support your thesis. I do not find it fair that people are put to death sometimes when they are innocent, in fact that was just in the news not too long ago. A man was sentenced to death for rape and another crime before the use of DNA testing was popular. He was recently put to death, but unfortunately soon after his death the evidence from the scene was tested and compared to his DNA and they did not match up. He was innocent. I cannot imagine how his family felt when they heard this news, or even how the jurors and judge who sentenced this man to death felt. I think that you should use examples like this in your paper; it has defiantly happed more than once. It would show the reader of your paper how bad it can be to use the death penalty. I thought your objections were very good. Especially the one about how people are worried about overcrowding of the jails. When people say it’s easier to put someone to death instead of pay money for them to be in jail it makes me so angry. It makes people sound so greedy. I am almost 100% sure that if they were put to death because people didn’t want to pay for them they would be the first ones to object. I think that people need to remember the golden rule, “Do unto others as you would have others do unto you.” This applies to everything in life, if people agree to put someone to death they are saying that they do not care if someone else would someday put them to death. One thing that I think that you should improve on is the lengths of some of your supports. You should save more of the detail for your actual paper and let the supports just introduce the general theme of your paper. I was also wondering if you are going to work the Catholic religion’s views and thoughts on this matter. I think that people’s religions help them take sides on this controversy. And it would probably help your thesis. I hope I am able to read your paper at the end, I think that your paper will get a great response because this is a great controversy.
THESIS
ReplyDeleteEven though there are many environmental repercussions from Marcellus Shale drilling in Pennsylvania, if done in an environmentally friendly way, fracturing boosts the economy while allowing an alternative fuel that saves complete fuel depletion.
SUBPOINTS
1. The gas boom will help break our risky dependence on foreign imports, by cutting the cost of foreign oils and gas, which is now on the edge of three hundred billion dollars a year, and eliminating the possibility of complete depletion of oil and gas from the Middle East.
2. As production flows from the well, royalties are paid to landowners and taxes paid to local governments, and these expenditures stimulate the local economy and provide additional resources for community services, such as health care, education, and charities.
3. In 2009 alone, the Marcellus Shale drilling boosted Pennsylvania’s economy by $7.1 billion by directly and indirectly affecting many industries positively such as mining, construction, finance, health, recreation, government, and hotel and food services, and in turn has supplied approximately 181,335 jobs in PA.
OBJECTIONS
1. Oil and natural gas operations are subject to many risks, including well blowouts, craterings, explotions, oil flows, fries, pollution, and other environmental hazards, and also has risk factors on human operators such as injury and death.
2. Fracturing by means of hydro-fracturing consumes a total of three million gallons of water in just a single day of drilling.
3. The shale itself is considered to be radioactive, containing uranim, thorium, and radium 226 and 228, and Marcellus shale is “highly radioactive” compared with other types of shales which are relatively low on radioactivity.
My topic is a very controversial topic that many different types of people are getting involved in. It was difficult for me to find reliable, unbiased sources because many eco friendly people misunderstand what this shale extraction is doing for the United States, and fail to see that many of what they are complaining about they could fix themselves. For example in my objection #2 (about the water consumption) three million gallons in a day for drilling is just one percent of Pennsylvania’s daily consumption of water! We need to realize that that water is going to a very good cause. Also, my objection #1 is a very easy one to defend. Everything we do now a day contains a risk. Risk is an unavoidable factor that heavily weighs on close to every activity that we participate in. Would you not drive just because there is a chance of death or injury? Would you not play a sport just on the slim chance of a concussion? No. It is impossible to do anything without risks. Now for the environmental risks. These risks are also present with any extracting of natural reserves. Coal has been mined for years and has even higher environmental risks then fracturing. What Marcellus Shale fracturing is doing to the economy is enough of a subpoint in itself. We need to dig ourselves out of the hole America has created economically somehow and I believe natural gas play is the perfect way to do it.
Thesis - Even though they seem unrelated, music can benefit a child in math and science, teaching them logic and how to recognize patterns.
ReplyDeleteSub points:
1. Reading music teaches a child quick recognition of patterns and symbols.
2. Playing music supplements a child’s memory capacity.
3. Playing music lengthens a child’s attention span and gives them patience.
From personal experience, I know that music has helped me in many areas of my life. The physical results, including extreme finger dexterity and quick reflexes are only a couple of ways. Another includes better reading skills. Reading music can teach a child better recognition skills, which enables them to read faster and more efficiently. They see patterns and are able to interpret pieces of music. The child then unknowingly uses this ability in their regular reading, allowing them to see foreshadowing and what is meant by different words and phrases in the stories. Their memory capacity is also heightened, as sometimes a music student is asked to memorize pieces. They also memorize certain parts of the music, so they are able to play without looking at their sheet music. This is a normal part of learning to play any piece, and also helps them in school. A child who carefully plays each of his musical pieces must have the attention span to play everything and care about what he did wrong while practicing. Usually, a child must go over a piece and meticulously pick through what he played wrong and then conclude why he played it wrong. He must go over the troubled spots again and again until he gets them right. This gives the musician patience and the want to go back and fix his mistakes.
Objections:
1. There is no way to be sure that a child will benefit from music lessons.
2. Lessons and the instruments cost too much.
3. Lessons take up a lot of a child’s time, while he could be in other activities.
It is true that there is no exact way that a child will benefit from music lessons, though more often than not the good effects outweigh the bad by a lot. The ability to sit down and play for himself (or others) is one huge benefit. It focuses their mind and lets them feel like they’ve accomplished something. The debate of the cost of instruments is a common one. Musical instruments are not cheap. Used instruments usually start around $100, and new ones can be from $300 to thousands for bigger instruments. Pianos usually start at around $2000, and can go up to $90,000 to $100,000 for a grand. Though these sound like huge numbers, music stores and school bands can almost always help with the cost. Some offer used instruments that a parent can buy or rent too. Time is a big issue also. Parents should not just jump right into lessons; they need to realize that it does take a lot of time, money and energy to have their child play music. As I said earlier though, almost always the good effects will outweigh the bad.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteKristin,
ReplyDeleteI find your topic interesting as my dad works for one of the big drillers in the Marcellus Shale. I really like your sub point #3, as my dad is a business owner of a construction company. Before the Marcellus Shale was discovered, we usually had between three and four employees, besides my parents. After we signed on with a fracing (the shorter word for “fracturing”) company, my dad usually runs a crew of about 8-9, and needs more help. He hopes to hire at least three more people in the next few weeks. I know these look like small numbers, but to us we have literally doubled in size. Just think of the employment of other (and bigger) companies if they double like we did. Jobs are skyrocketing. And these jobs are in America, specifically in our own hometown. That is an awesome thing.
You are right when you said about different types of businesses benefiting from the fracing. From my point of view, I can see the loggers and construction workers needed to clear trees and build roads to the fracing sites. I can see the truckers needed to haul the equipment. I can see the mechanics needed to fix the machines when they break down. I can also see the accountants needed to keep track of expenses and profits.
I hope you can use some of these ideas in your paper. Good luck!
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteMy thesis statement is: Even though the cost of a college education is high, the benefits of the experience are not only rewarding financially but help create diverse individuals.
ReplyDeleteSub points
1. My first major sub point is that now it is getting harder and harder to obtain a good paying job without a higher degree of education.
2. Education will greatly increase your chance of being heard in the world and give you the decision making skills that can be used later in life.
3. People with college educations earn more money than those with only a high school education.
My objections are:
1. College is far too expensive.
2. There are other options than college.
3. Many students do not graduate every year.
I really like this topic because it is actually allowing and helping me to find out more about something that I would probably have to end up doing research on anyway, as the saying goes, “ two birds, with one stone.” Now it is becoming harder and harder to obtain a job without a higher degree of education. My dad works at a factory and they don’t just hire anybody. You need to have qualifications, even for a factory job. You may be able to land a job but if you have any desire to go any higher in a position, a further degree of education is more than likely needed. The college experience will allow you to meet different groups of people from different cultures and people from different backgrounds. Growing up in little ole Saint Mary’s things are more closed in but when I attend college it is going to be a whole new world. Like the first sub point the major thing that I am pushing is go to college, don’t end up working a job that you hate everyday and obtain little pay, get an education so that you can live happier and easier.
There are many reasons why people actually object going to college. College is very expensive. It costs thousands and thousands of dollars each year and some people just don’t have that kind of many so loans are available. Loans are actually getting harder and harder to obtain. Many students will spend years and years paying back the loans that they took out for college. Some may spend the rest of their life paying it back. This makes people wonder if college is worth the money, especially with how many years some people have to go for, like a doctor for instance. There are other options than college; Trade schools or vacation schools is exactly like it sounds, you go there to learn to trade. They are not as popular as college universities but are becoming so. More and more students are not graduating each year. Students quit college because they cannot handle it or would just rather go straight into the work force. Students can actually become kicked out as well; plagiarism is a growing problem and has severe consequences. Many students also may have to repeat years because of all the “partying.”
Dearest Linnea,
ReplyDeleteI really like, no love, your topic. It kind of reminds me of how they say gum chewing can help you. If you chew the gum while your studying and then while you take the test chew the same kind of gum, it is suppose to help you. I also found it odd that I can memorize a song very quickly but school work doesn't seem to be the same, haha.! I think that I agree with how music can help someone, it is like a sport, it takes practice and can be a hobby but just like a sport music can cost money as well. I think that your number one objection is a little lacking. I think that you could come up with something stronger.
Dearest Kristin,
You picked a very interesting topic, because this is something that is right in our very area and affecting us directly.You have quite the paper and I'm sure it will be easy and interesting to write about. I think that, personally, the Marcellus shale is a good thing because think of all those jobs that it is giving people. I work at the Royall Inn in Ridgway and we get people that work on that, that stay in the hotel. They are giving us business. Its not just the people working that benefit but the places they stay that are getting the business as well.
High schools and professionals sports organizations should take more precaution with concussions, since they are now linked to symptoms similar to Lou Gehrig’s disease.
ReplyDeleteSUBPOINTS:
1. Concussions can lead to diseases that will end an athlete’s career.
2. Not only do concussions cause disease they may also end an athlete’s life.
3. Taking care of concussions when they occur can minimize time spent on the bench.
4. Most athletes do not even inform their coaches, parents, or medical personnel when they think they may have a concussion.
5. Teaching athletes how to care of concussions now will help them later on in life, causing a ripple effect. In the future more concussions will be reported and the number of athletes who are severely affected later on in life will decrease.
I feel so passionate about this topic, but I had a hard time putting the reasons why into subpoints. I really had a hard time with the wording of some of them. The main reason is that they can end careers and even life. They can ruin lives. My topic deals with the future. Athletes do not care about the future when they are younger because of their passion for the game. They need to realize how serious and harmful the effects can be on the rest of their lives. If athletes realized how much they were damaging their brains, I believe that many of them would rethink not sitting out or not telling anyone. It would be awesome if some of the athletes that have been diagnosed with CTE or ALS would go to high schools or other athletic sports organizations and tell the other athletes their experience with concussions. Athletes would probably cooperate if they knew that untreated and multiple concussions actually affect people’s lives negatively. These athletes that have amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) or chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE) prove how serious concussions are, and they need to help bring awareness to the severity of them.
High schools and professionals sports organizations should take more precaution with concussions, since they are now linked to symptoms similar to Lou Gehrig’s disease.
ReplyDeletePOSSIBLE OBJECTIONS:
1. It is each athlete’s choice as to whether or not to sit out, it is their life.
2. There is only a chance that athletes will experience multiple concussions, and that they will form a disease, it is not guaranteed.
3. All the concern about concussions will take away from the sport.
4. In order to pay more attention to concussions a surplus of money will need to be spent.
1. No one wants to sit out of a game. Many athletes most likely feel that the new regulations and laws that are being created are unfair. They do not want others ruining their memories. Unfortunately, what these athletes do not realize is that if they do not take care of their head injuries, they may not to be able to remember the big game that they played in with a concussion. They may not be able to play in college even if they play in the game that the recruiter comes to. If an athlete gets too many concussions they may not be able to physically. Many sports organizations do not even want players that have multiple concussions because they know that the player will not be able to play much longer, especially if they experience another concussion.
2. Just like many other situations, people say that it will not happen to them. How do you know? No one knows what is going to happen to them in the future, only God does. Athletes are taking a chance; if they keep playing they could be fine and live the rest of their life without any problems, but they need to remember that they could also die.
3. There is only one way that taking care of concussions properly can take away from sports. That reason is that sometimes the main players, the stars, may have to sit out. This may hurt a team in one sense, but it will also help them. It will allow other players to shine. It will help the team unity by coming together to fill the shoes of the injured player.
4. Money will be spent in order to treat concussions. There will be more doctor bills in some cases. Athletic trainers will most likely be required at all events. Taking care of an athlete’s well-being is well worth the money that will be spent. No one thinks twice about half time shows, and how much money they cost. Why should there be concern about money that is working toward ensuring an athlete a better future?
I had the same problem as Taylor. I was not able to post my entire blog at once, but it is all there. If confused let me know!
ReplyDeleteMorgan,
ReplyDeleteI am really interested in your topic, including one particular subpoint. "Most athletes do not even inform their coaches, parents, or medical personnel when they think they may have a concussion." I think this is especially true, because athletes do not always tell their coaches. I think part of the reason they do not do so is because they don't want to sit out or risk losing their season. I think a lot of them have the mind set of "oh, it's only a concussion," but you've obviously got real medical evidence to prove your pints that concussions, especially when not attended to, can be detrimental to not only a sports career, but a life. I really liked your objection about "It is each athlete's choice as to whether or not to sit out, it is their life." I think that is what a lot of people think, but they have no actual background on the effects it can have. I think you also have a very substantial standpoint since you are an athlete yourself who has a love for the game. I know me personally I wouldn't tell my tennis coach if my hand hurt or if my arm was sore, mostly because I didn't want him to not play me. I think it is very important to write a topic that you are very passionate about, which I think you did.
If there is one thing I think that could help you, it would be to maybe explain a little (which I'm sure you'll do in your paper) about the diseases you listed such as ALS or CTE. Coming from someone (me) who has no real knowledge on sports medicine or anything, I would not really know what you were talking about unless I had a little more information on them.
Overall, I think this is going to be a great paper with a well developed and proved thesis.
Laira,
ReplyDeleteI am also a firm believer in your paper. I once heard somewhere that "if you love what you do, you'll never work a day in your life." I think this is very true when concerning your paper on the values of a higher education. I agree completely when you say that obtaining a degree will allow you to reach a job that you absolutely love. I think the background of your family and your dad's job also allows you to see what it is like in the work force, and how difficult it is to find a job without a proper degree. I'm very scared of the cost of college, the loans, and everything. One thing I think your blogged lacked was in the response to the objections. You seemed to list them, but I didn't quite see where you responded back to them. I would like to know how you respond to people thinking trade schools are the way to go. I think your thesis could be better developed, and I'm sure that will happen in your paper, I was just missing it in this blog. I think it could have had a little more to it. Also, just as a side note, make sure that you have the proper formatting when submitting your actual research proposal.
Overall, I'm interested in seeing how you develop this idea.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteMorgan,
ReplyDeleteI really like your subject, especially since I hope to go into medicine one day. Concussions are a frequent injury, and can be one of the most serious. Brain damage is a serious issue with concussions. I know I have seen many famous football players play when they have a serious head injury, and then they worsen it and have to sit out for the rest of the season. I am a firm believer that if you are hurt, you can do more damage to yourself by pushing to play again. Just like wearing a bike helmet, if you care about concussions enough to protect yourself, you have something worth protecting.
Good luck with your paper!
Laira,
ReplyDeleteI wasn't aware of your topic, but it sounds really interesting. I agree with most of your subpoints, but also with your objections.
Your first two subpoints are correct in saying that a college education is almost required to get a job at something else besides McDonald's, or a Walmart greeter. (Sorry if I've offended anyone.) Nowadays, you can't just go into the work field without a college degree like you could have years ago. Neither of my parents went to college. They both worked at Keystone a year or two after graduating high school. My dad now owns a business, which my mom does the payroll for. My parents have become very successfull without a college experience, which leads into your second objection.
I think that when you're finished with your research and turn in the hard copy, it'll be very interesting. It can actually help you, or others to decide whether college is right for them. Obviously, we as juniors, need to start thinking about it.
Linnea,
ReplyDeleteYour topic sounds so interesting! I'm awful at math, so maybe I'll join the band next year!
I can agree with many of your subpoints, but also with the objections. I can honestly say though, that once my brother joined band, he'slearned so much concerning reading notes. He had a hard time playing his trumpet last year and would often pretend to play while out on the field. This year, he's doing so well. He even played at the Thanksgiving Day Parade in Philadelphia. I think his experience will help him in so many ways. I also can see why money is an issue. My brother rents his trumpet from Fritz's, but for someone who wants to play outside of a high school band, would probably like to purchase one. It's like paying for golf clubs. You love to play, but paying all that money is hard.
I'm very intrigued by your subject and would like to see how the finished product turns out.
Thesis: The United States government should not have regulations on firearms because it violates the second amendment, takes away self protection, and causes an increase in crime rates.
ReplyDelete3 support points:
1. Fire arms should be allowed for use in self defense.
2. People of the United States have a right to bear arms; this is stated in the constitution.
3. Firearms are the equalizer between men and women; the ratio of male carriers to female carriers is directly related to male murders to female murders.
4. Gun control increases crime rates and murder rates.
First of all the debate over gun control is really big right now. Although many people do not always get in a situation that the use of a gun is needed for self defense, people are comforted by the fact that if they do end up having to defend their families or themselves they can use a gun for defense. The right the bear arms and shall not be infringed, words in the constitution, state that the people of this country may bear arms. The ratios, stated above, cause an equalizer; by this equalizer, the murder rates drop; this is an example of self defense also. A weaker person like the elderly or some women and men, can defend against someone stronger then themselves, in the case of a possible rape or murder. If the government outlaws guns, criminals will steal to get them; some people may just carry them just because the law says we wouldn’t be able to (similar to prohibition laws, the alcohol consumption increased!). As for many crime and murder rates, out of the total number of firearm deaths, the majority of deaths in that total number are not from murder- they are from suicide. Many people for gun control only point out the numbers that firearms have caused, but most of the deaths are self inflicted.
3 objections:
1. Criminals would not be able to obtain firearms with gun control laws, causing crime rates.
2. The right to bear arms only applies to a country with a well maintained militia.
3. If there were no firearms, murder and suicide rates would drop.
People that support gun control believe that criminals would not be able to obtain firearms if laws were put in place. What these people don’t believe is that criminals do not care what the law says, that’s why they are criminals. The right to bear arms in the constitution is probably the most debatable part in the gun control debate. Supporters of gun control believe that only if the country has a bad militia, that firearms should be permitted. Murder and suicide are problems that the world has had for a very long time. Some people believe that no guns would mean less murder and suicide. Possibly these people forgot that murder and suicide before guns were ever created, still occurred by means of poison, swords, drowning, and many other ways. Some people believe that over all, gun control would help the country.
Elizabeth,
ReplyDeleteYour subpoints are very strong. I would never have thought about a gun as a great equalizer, that is a great point. They are also great supports for your thesis. Another objection I thought about was, could crime get to out of hand, and what are the limits of self defense at that point. You stated that it would help protect the elderly and weaker women and men against those stronger than them. However, at what point can that gun be used. I think allowing everyone to walk around with a gun if they want might actually be worse in that respect. There is a thin line that some may cross to easily. I think you need to take that in to consideration when writing your objections. However, the rest of your objections are also very good and well thought out. You're right when you say murder and suicide were around before that, most people may not even use guns for those. That I think should be one of your top objections. Also, I don't know if you did, but if you got any of your information from a source, rememeber to cite it. I am very curious how your debate would turn out, especially in a place where Elk County, where even the most prominent people own guns.
My Thesis statement says:
ReplyDeleteAlthough animal testing is easy and practical it unnecessarily harms defenseless animals for costly, ineffective experimentation.
My sub points include:
1) Animal testing harms creatures that cannot defend themselves.
2) Animal testing most of the time is ineffective and if it is effective, does not necessarily work on humans.
3) There are other ways to test cosmetics that would give more accurate results, compared to animals that are genetically different from humans.
4) Animal testing can be costly; alternatives would help companies save money.
My thesis statement and sub points are not supporting animal testing. I was not very passionate about my topic at first, but the more I read into the issue, the more interested I became. Much of the research that I have done throughout the process has showed some of the terrible pictures of the after effects of animal testing. If an animal is lucky, it will die. Many of these animals live with mutations or appear sickly. Also many of the photographs show (for example) a monkey sitting in a chair having its brain exposed and being probed at with different instruments. It truly is horrifying. As my first sub point states, animals cannot defend themselves, which is true. Human intellect overpowers all of the animals that are being tested on. The world today has been developing some amazing technology that helps not only humans, but the entire world. It allows us all to be connected. With all of this technology we have, we are able to test our products using computers, chemistry, and other things. If we have it, why not use it? It would not also save lives; it will save money as well.
Objections:
1) There have been breakthroughs using animals for testing.
2) If there is a flaw in the cosmetic or medication, a reaction from that animal will be seen so the product can be changed to become safer for humans.
3) Our current medical advancement would not be as far as it is without the use and study of animals.
4) Not only does testing cosmetics allow us to alter cosmetics, but it allows us to learn more about the individual animal as well.
My first objection is pretty much self explanatory, and it is true, there have been breakthroughs by experimenting cosmetics, and medicines on animals. Most likely, the zit cream you use or the H1N1 vaccination that many people have received. Although eventually H1N1 seemed as if it were a deadly flu at first, it turned out to be something “over played” , if it would have been deadly, the quick use of animal experimentation may have saved many lives. My second objection means that if a certain cosmetic causes a skin burn for example, the burn will be observed on the animal, and in turn, the company working on that product can fix the issue, making the product eventually safe enough to use on humans. Also, my third objection means that up until all of this technology has been created, how else were they suppose to know if a product was safe? They tested on animals. Finally, my fourth objection is also self explanatory. We have to know about an animal before we go testing on it, so we learn about how the product to be tested works, and about the animal’s anatomy and physiology.
I'm commenting on Elizabeth's!
ReplyDeleteElizabeth,
ReplyDeleteI myself own guns, and so does many people that I know. I support your thesis statement entirely that the government should not put limits on owning guns. I did not know that the ratio of owning guns between males and females directly effects murder rate between males and females. I found that to be interesting, and one of your stronger points along with the point about it being our constitutional right to bear arms. If police can carry a weapon around, why can’t we? I realize that living in little old St. Mary’s hunting is common so most people own guns. These guns are for hunting animals. What about those in cities? They have no game, but what they do have is large crime rate. If someone were trying to hurt me or my family, I would not want the government putting restrictions on me being able to defend myself and others, just because guns are dangerous. You have very good retaliations to the objections as well, which I enjoyed thoroughly. Your paper is going to be very interesting to read.
Abby,
ReplyDeleteWhen you first picked this topic, I was worried that it would be hard to find information. However, I can see how passionate you are about this topic now. The topic you picked is very controversial. The debate is really between animal lovers and the people that just want to look and feel good, no matter the cost.
Your subpoints are very strong. They support your thesis very well. Same with your objections. I can see all the research that went into them. Your research proposal should be very good.
When writing your research paper, rememeber the examples, like the monkey. Not everyone will see those pictures, so try to paint a picture for everyone how horrible it truly is. You will be the gateway to helping those animals.
Also, when writing your objection, do not use words such as "our", "us", or anything like that. Your third objection could be rewritten, Technology and medical information would not be as advanced as it is today without the use of animal testing.
I am very interested to see how your paper turns out!
Thesis: Social media is a benefit to teenagers in many ways; however, it is becoming an addiction at an early age, which is ultimately affecting their time management skills.
ReplyDeleteSUBPOINTS
1. Social networking sites are offered to anyone of any age. Teens are becoming active users at such young ages.
2. Smartphones allow for easy access to sites such as Facebook and Twitter, which many teens take advantage of.
3. Social media has become like a drug among teens. A sort of high is reached when a status receives likes and notifications pile up.
I feel so strongly about this topic because I can relate to it. I began using Facebook freshman year. I use my Smartphone to check and update my statuses. I hate it when I post something and no one likes it. I would much rather log on to find that I have seven or eight notifications instead of one, or even none. I constantly check it for those reasons. I can firmly stand behind each of these points and I'm guessing many others my age could too.
POSSIBLE OBJECTIONS
1. Social media allows teenagers to connect and communicate with others.
2. Teenagers are able to become more socially engaged by using netowrking sites.
3. Social media allows teenagers to express themselves and to escape from reality.
There are many benefits to the usage of social media, as many people would agree to. Those that use it are able to make friendships and communicate with those they wouldn't feel comfortable around in person. It helps build confidence and allows teens to "break out of their shells". The benefits that are available are sometimes misused by teens in which they hurt others by their actions. Depending on how a person uses the technology determines whether it benefits them, or whether they become addicted for the wrong reasons.
THESIS
ReplyDeleteThe mental and physical challenges as well as the discipline associated with participating in athletics enhance a student’s academic performance.
SUBPOINTS
1. Sports instill the desire to succeed.
2. Athletics require a certain grade point average to be maintained.
3. Participation in sports enhances the thought process by increasing brain function, building self-esteem, and increasing levels of concentration (Scheuer & Mitchell, 2003).
Participating in sports makes a student work hard to achieve their goals. The competition involved in athletics makes the athlete work hard to win. When a team wins a big game they are rewarded and recognized. This makes the students want success. All the practices and hours put into the sports teach that hard work is required for success. To be a part of a sport or a team the students’ grades must be suitable. This encourages teenagers to keep their grades up. It also encourages students to have better attendance in school, so that they will be able to participate in practices and games. Sports keep students active and keep oxygen flowing to the brain. Studies have shown that in escalates brain function and helps to increase the thought process Sports also build self-esteem by creating social bonds and including players as a team. When students think more highly of themselves, they are more encouraged to do well and they believe in themselves more. Long repetitive practices higher levels of concentration. When a student is focused on a sport for a whole season their concentration levels are strengthened (Scheuer & Mitchell, 2003). Sports have become a part of school systems. They allow all the students to come together with a common interest. The fans and the athletes are all there to support each other in the competition. Sports bring schools together.
OBJECTIONS
1. Sports take away time that could be focused on academics.
2. “Over-emphasis on sports might distract attention and concern for the core academic curriculum” (Hartmann, 2008).
3. There is no significant relationship between athletics and academics.
The first objection is the most common. Many people say that sports practices and games take up time that could be spent doing homework or studying for tests. While it is true that sports take up a big chunk of time, they teach time management. Students need to make time for practice, schoolwork, and other events and use their time wisely. This is a skill that should be acquired because it will be benefited from in the future. The second objection states that schools put too much emphasis on sports. It says that the importance of sports is so stressed that makes academics seem like they are on the back burner (Hartmann, 2008).even though academics are important and should be first priority in schools, sports bring the school together socially. They give the students a chance to show school spirit. The third objection is that there is no connection whatsoever. Many studies have been done on this subject. Most studies show a positive relationship between athletics and academics. Of the few studies that did not find positive connections, there has never been a negative relationship found between these two activities.
Kristy,
ReplyDeleteI definitely see where you’re coming from. So many young kids have facebook already and are on it all the time. I know I check twitter on my phone very often just for something to do when I’m sitting there. I think another good point is that so many new social networking sites are being created. It's like they are taking over the internet. Whenever one gets old people just keep moving on to the next best thing. As an objection I think they are a good way to keep in touch with friends and family that live far away because phone calls get expensive with the distance. Facebook or other social sites are a nice way to keep in touch. I can't wait to read your paper it's gonna kick butt!
Thesis Statement: The benefits of the vaccinations outweigh the risk associated with autism in children.
ReplyDeleteSupport Points:
1. There are no conclusive results that are absolute to the fact that autism is caused by vaccinations.
2. Vaccinating children stop the spread of disease.
3. Travel vaccinations keep foreign diseases from becoming an epidemic.
Objection Points:
1. Autism is a horrible disorder that no one can ever compensate for.
2. Many vaccines children are given are for “dead” diseases that are no longer a problem.
3. Vaccinations should be given sparingly to avoid the “super germ.”
From my research, I have read in every source that the fact that autism is related to vaccines is just as much as a myth as the Lock ness monster. Since they is no real cause of autism, at least at this point that can be completely at fault, it was found that parents just needed something to blame it on, as much as I wish that there was a cause found for autism, blaming it on the vaccine is just for the poorly informed. Last year in English class, I did my paper on Autism and it is shown that genes are more of cause than anything else, especially vaccinations. As for my second point, many people seem to forget about the fact that children are not just vaccinated for the flu or the chicken pox; they are vaccinated for many more serious diseases such as HIV, Polio, Measles and the Mumps. By vaccinating children we keep the spread of these diseases to stay minimum. Along with that goes my third point. While most of us are vaccinated for the diseases once prevalent here, we are not vaccinated for African diseases that might cause a rampant epidemic here if brought back. Also our little Saint Marys is not accustomed to seeing cases of foreign diseases and no one may be able to diagnosis the rare problem, which can be more dangerous by the amount of the severity of the disease.
As for my objections, some people may disagree with the fact that Autism in one child is not worth the stop of the chicken pox in even in 1000 children, and I would most certainly be one of those people IF there was actual proof and not just suspicion. But with there still being a suspicion many new mothers choose not to vaccinate their children. Which is the reason my second objection comes in. In the case of not vaccinating your children because of Autism, many once “dead” diseases such as polio have been coming back even in America, making them no longer dead. Vaccinations are the only way to ensure that “dead” diseases stay “dead.” But this is where the super germ comes in. If we continue to vaccinate for everything out there we are making diseases stronger. Not just vaccines are blamed for this though; even the antibiotics and germ hand sanitizer are also to blame for making germs stronger and stronger till we eventually reach the creation of the super germ which is no one’s fault but our own; for taking an aspirin for every headache and running to the doctor for a case of the running nose.
Abby,
ReplyDeleteI think you're going to be able to write a very strong persuasive paper. I think that anyone who knows the facts about animal testing wouldn't support it. I don't think it's something that people want to do, but something they feel has to be done. I also think that a lot of people just choose to pretend it isn't a problem.
You have a lot of good information and good subpoints about testing. There are a lot of facts at peta.org. Animal testing is horrible. Something that stood out to me is the way the lab employees treat the animals. It surprised me that there aren't any laws against it even if there are other ways of testing the product.
This is a topic that you will be able to be very passionate about in your paper and it shows that you are just in your blog. I think you'll be able to get a great report out of it. It's a topic that will be interesting to a wide audience because not many people know what actually happen.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteFor my two comments I will be posting on Maria and Kristy!
ReplyDelete1. My Thesis:
ReplyDeleteEven though many people blame obesity on the individual American’s lack of self-control, the fast food industry is to blame because of the unhealthy food choices along with insufficient warning that it is a health hazard.
2. Supporting Points:
• Fast food restaurants serve very unhealthy food to consumers.
• These restaurants give no warnings of the health risks that can be caused by eating their food.
• Fast food restaurants also serve “super-sized” portions for low costs, with no care in the world about the negative effect that has on people’s eating habits and health, just so long as they turn a huge profit.
Fast food restaurants have become a sort of norm in America today, and unfortunately so has obesity and related health issues. They are directly linked in that fast food restaurants are the largest cause of all the obesity. This is because of many reasons, the main ones being those listed above. Fast food restaurants serve greasy, unhealthy food and in some cases they do not even serve real food (remember the Taco Bell not using real meat in their tacos scandal?). Eating fast food can lead to obesity, which can cause many health issues some even deadly. However, fast food restaurants give their customers no warning that eating there food can pose such health risks. So often times, many people have no idea that eating some burgers and fries every day can lead to obesity and other health problems. Fast food restaurants have also helped fuel the fire of obesity in America by “super-sizing” their foods. This is serving larger than normal portions and then selling them for a fairly low price, which in today’s tough economic times many people are forced to buy such food to save a few precious dollars. Then, because the lower price gets so many people to purchase the “super-sized” food the fast food corporations still make a huge profit which is all they really care about. They do not care about the average American and how eating their unhealthy fast food will negatively affect them. They only care about making money. That is why fast food restaurants are to blame for obesity and related health problems in America.
3. Objections
• It is the individual person’s responsibility to manage what and how much they eat.
• The poor economic situation in America is to blame for more people buying more fast food because it is so cheap compared to so many other healthier food options.
• Obesity is not caused by eating fast food, it is caused by many American’s lack of physical exercise and/or activity.
Some people would argue that fast food restaurants are not to blame as much or at all for obesity in America. Many of those people place the bulk of the blame on each individual American’s responsibility or lack thereof to manage what they eat and just how much they eat in a healthy or unhealthy way. They argue that just because eating fast food is an option it is not the fast food restaurants fault that the individual chooses that option and by doing so becomes obese and develops health problems. Another reason some do not blame fast food restaurants is that they blame the amount of people eating fast food on the bad economy, which has caused so many people to struggle to make ends meet. Those people claim that if the economy was not in such poor condition than the amount of people eating fast food would not be so high and in turn obesity rates would not be so high either. Then the other big objection to blaming obesity mainly on fast food restaurants is that so many American’s do not exercise at all or enough in their day-to-day lives. They say that because of the lack of physical activity many American’s do not use up all the calories and do not burn off the fat they absorb from eating any food, not just fast food.
Kristy,
ReplyDeleteI find that your third objection could actually be more of a support for your thesis. I think that allowing children escape their reality is a horrible thing. Teenagers have enough reasons to avoid chores and homework, but Facebook not be one of them. Teenagers should be learning ways to manage time and deal with their problems not given more reasons to avoid them. I also think that even though you didn’t mention it that Social Medias are used to the point where they can hinder someone education. Such as staying up on Facebook to talk to someone instead of studying for a test, or getting enough sleep, it should be the persons choice to procrastinate but is giving them more things to help them with that a good idea? At the same time, it is better for someone to screw up now than when in college that could ruin their career.
Great topic!
Maria,
All three of your objections can be dismissed with the statement that it is the child’s choice to manage their time the right or wrong way. I do think that they are valid objections and I know people who believe all three but I also think maybe you should add something about competition, both its positive and negative effects on it. Competition can make a person a really nasty person but it can also make a person stronger and teach them how to deal with more than short answer questions and matching on a test, it’s got quite a real world lesson in it. I think sports do a good job with expressing that. Try talking about that it could add quite a lot of dimensions to your paper.
Laura,
ReplyDeleteI find your topic to be pretty interesting. I myself have never heard of any cause for autism, which is a much larger issue in today's world then it used to be, so I find it interesting that some people would blame autism on vaccinations received as an infant or young child. I agree with your thesis on that the benefits of having vaccinations definitely outweigh the possible negative effects such as autism, which going by what you said about the research you have done is a very, very slim possibility.
I also think that what you mentioned about a "super germ" is really interesting. I agree with you on that in today's day and age it certainly does seem that people go crying to the doctor or emergency room for every little thing that back in the day people would have just "rubbed some dirt on it."
I look forward to reading your actual paper, I believe it has the potential to be really great.
The Thesis:
ReplyDeleteAlthough the violence in video games may promote aggression and rebellion among young adults, they are not corruptive since they are fantasy, merely games that provide stress relief and personal enjoyment.
The Support Points:
1. The violence is the primary source of stress relief and therefore does affect the players. Violence is present everywhere in today’s society.
2. These interactive games can teach thing that are not teachable in the classroom. Skills such as hand-eye coordination, pros and cons of risk taking, and how to reply to challenges and setbacks.
3. In popular, studied cases, the violence demonstrated was caused by a higher, deeper source. Mental and psychological issues plague the people who have actually taken violent action.
In my opinion, video games are like what it says in their title- games. It is a virtual reality that stays in the game. To some people, they take it too far and turn them into reality. This is where the problem lies. To many people, they blame all adolescents. This is unfair because it is only some. And most of the small percentage that take it too far have an underlying psychological issue. To me and many of my friends the violence in video games is the part that relieves stress. If I’m mad about something, instead of committing real violence, I can take it out on the game. This type stress relief is much less brutal than committing some act of violence in reality. In video games, players are often confronted with a puzzle or problem that they must solve to continue successfully. Scenarios like these provide problem solving skills that are not teachable. The ability to take safe risks and how to reply to setbacks is a life skill that can help anybody. These skills are crucial in the game of life that we must play. In a case like the Colombine Tragedy, the two students had underlying problems that drove them to violence. Psychological problems were the main cause of known violent acts. It was not just the fact that they experienced violence. It was a combination of both therefore it does not corrupt all players.
The Objections:
1. Some scenarios in video games give young adults the predisposition to commit violent acts. Violence is programmed into their brains.
2. The interactive quality of video games, not seen in movies and television, is the main cause of aggression in young adults. It is interactive and therefore the player is shooting the guy, or killing the opponent unlike movies where the viewer just watches this happen.
3. Desensitized young adults do not see murder as bad. They see and play these scenarios that it does not affect them and does not affect them as much.
There are many skeptics out there who totally oppose violent video games. They are blinded by anomalies such as the Colombine Tragedy and the tragedy in Fayette, Alabama. Both of these cases are heartbreaking and disgust even a video game enthusiast like myself. They only represent a small portion though. Many adults see that a game like Grand Theft Auto plants a seed of violence into adolescent’s young minds. They see it as second nature in players. In video games, players are interactive. They are controlling the actions of the character on screen. It is as if they are actually in the game. This may make it seem ‘okay’ to them to pursue violence. Video games are seen worse than movies because in the games, it is interactive whereas in the movies the viewer is just observing such acts. The interactive quality gives the player the chance to commit violence which in turn may encourage them to do it in real life. The more players experience violence, the more they become accustomed to it. They are essentially desensitized to violence which the human mind is programmed to dislike. This corrupts the minds of the individuals and when it comes to committing violence or not they seem less likely to say no. Desensitizings is bad with anything, especially violence.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteDear Scotty,
ReplyDeleteI see your topic and thesis as a very valid one to our world today. Child obesity is rising. The causes of these are something that is important to your topic. I also think it would be interesting if you could include the fact that fast food restaurants lure children in with ‘happy meals’ or toys. Children see these toys, want them, get the happy meal, east the excessively fatty foods, get fat, and repeat. It’s like a never ending cycle that the greedy people behind these companies create. I think you need to exploit the greediness of the companies. Everything in this world boils down to money and weath. I am a firm believer in that. It is true that the stores don’t advertise “warning: a big mac makes you fat”. They have a good reason not to! That would destroy their income and money! Yes, money! Their marketing is designed to promote these foods. Many people unknowingly fall into their trap. I think the most important way to solve an issue like this is education. People need to become aware of such startling facts. The documentary “supersize me” could help you substantially. I think it should be a mandatory watch for all Americans who eat fast food. Granted, eaten in moderation, fast food won’t kill you. It’s just a good idea to stay away. I hope my ranting will help you, fellow librarian. The best of luck is sent to you and I hope you can tactfully differentiate between your pros and cons of this debate.
Hello Maria G,
ReplyDeleteI know a lot of people say this. It may or may not be true. But I am really digging your topic/thesis. I feel very strongly with the point you’re trying to get across. Remember to add to your supporting points how participating in activities lays down the stones in the building of the house of success. After college, when we have a job we will need to be able to spend our time wisely between work, kids, etc. It teaches life skills. Granted, sports and activities take away time to study but sports provide skills that are not teachable in the classroom. I know from experience (in my running) that if you put hard work in, eventually you will see success. This success is sweet because you can look back at all those hours of work you put in and you see them pay off. This led me to see that it is also true with many facets of life, including school. If you work hard in the classroom you will see results. The results could be in the form of a good SAT score, then acceptance to a good college, then a good job, and lastly a lot of money! The self esteem that is formed serves a grand purpose while in the classroom. Good luck in writing your paper and I am eager to read it. Just be sure (as you were doing) to back up your statements with facts from an expert source.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteTHESIS:
ReplyDeleteContrary to the belief that stem cell research robs a human being of a life, the science of working with an embryo is absolutely necessary because it has an almost assured possibility of saving millions of lives, while ending the suffering of thousands.
SUPPORT POINTS:
- Because stem cells reproduce indefinitely hundreds of test can be done using a culture of cells from only one embryo.
- Progress in stem cell research can cure any of the leading causes of death in the United States in the past few years. i.e.) Cancer or heart failure.
- When a couple who has had an unplanned pregnancy chooses to have an abortion, the fetus or embryo that is aborted is usually discarded. The couple can choose to donate it to science, so the research is not destroying the embryo but rather using one that is already destroyed for other purposes.
OBJECTIONS:
- Regardless of the fact that this research can save lives it is not fair that we kill one child for the well-being of others, no matter how many there are.
- (now this may be ridiculous, but I did actually read this on the internet) Curing the main causes of death in America would not be exactly a good thing because our population would sky rocket and our street would become packed.
- Even though recent research points to the fact that stem cell research could save thousands of lives, we are not sure if it could actually CURE cancer or other diseases, and is a very expensive endeavor.
The support facts that I have listed for my thesis are the best that I can have because I think I have found points that are almost impossible to argue with. Especially when you look at the fact that stem cell research has the potential to completely eliminate the leading causes of death in the world! This fact makes it hard with any person who had a heart to say that it is an evil practice, but then people still have the objection that it kills a baby in an embryo. Well, that is where my other two supporting points come into play. When someone says, "this practice robs a baby of a life" one of the best points I have found to counter that is that couples who have chosen to abort their baby can choose to donate their destroyed embryo or fetus to science. This makes it so scientists can study a fetus without ever even having the intention of killing a baby. Then of course people can say, "well, if couples don't donate their embryos you will still have to resort to destroying a embryo for use in a lab." This point is easily countered by the fact that hundreds of test can be done with only ONE embryo because the cells can reproduce indefinitely in a culture. I chose these support points because I feel that after using up all of the arguments that people can have I can use these points to try to persuade people that stem cell research isn't as evil as people believe, and that it is a necessary science.
Now, as to why these arguments are the most prominent to my thesis, I would like to start off by saying that people would only object to stem cell research because they are uneducated to the fact of how harmless it can be. I think that these objections are the most prominent because people are afraid to stray away from their Religions and lean towards science, because they feel that would be a sin. For example the objection that, "Even though stem cell research could save thousands of lives it is fair to kill a baby to save others." this objection would be made by a person that didn't know that the research could be done using a embryo that was aborted by a couple. Now, a couple aborting their child is wrong in my eyes, but that is not what my paper is about. My opinion is that because I can do nothing about a couple aborting their baby, there is nothing wrong with that embryo being used for science. And in fact I think it would be wrong NOT to use a embryo that would otherwise be discarded. I think that these objections are the most prominent because the people who are making them are uneducated to the extent of the research.
Kristin,
ReplyDeleteI would like to start off by saying that I think you have done a great job with balancing the pros and cons of your topic and realizing that if done professionally Marcellus Shale can only do good things for our country and our economy especially. I agree with just about all of your points that support your thesis, and even the one I disagree with is actually true I just have a little objection. your #2 support point says that as the oil from the well flows that, "royalties are paid to landowners." Now, I have been told it doesn't matter if you own the land they are drilling on or not that you do not get paid anything, I was told that you have to own the mineral rights to the land you own and in that case they have to pay you to use your land. I think you also did a good job of looking at the major objections to your thesis and pointing out that they are not exactly valid. Such as how your one objection states that fracturing is a risky process. Well sure! everything we do is a risk, if you don't think relying on the Middle East for oil is risky then nothing is risky! I like how you make the point that this objection really doesn't hold up, and that it is just someone who likes they environment being stubborn to the fact that this can be done with little to no harm at all. I chose to comment on your blog because your topic is a lot like mine, people argue with it because they don't know that it can be done safely, and in my case ethically. You are doing a great job with your paper, I am excited to read your final copy.
I'm commenting on laura's!
ReplyDeleteMy friend Ryan Detsch,
ReplyDeleteSo often to I take your side in arguments, though, this time I think I may agree with some of your objections rather than your thesis. Before I get into my disagreements I would like to first say that, I think you are doing a great job persuading people into agreeing with your thesis because you have found some very legitimate reasons as to why your objections do not hold up. Now to the point where I try to sound smart and disagree with you, I think the one major point that your are leaving out in your thesis and support points is one factor; AGE. I would agree with all of your support points to the fact that there has to be a deeper mental issue to someone carrying out actions from a video game in real life, I would agree with this if you specified an age limit. If you were including say, 6-year-old children in this point I disagree, if you were to take it a step further and say that video games cannot make you violent if you are over the age of twelve, I agree completely. I just think that if a child is young enough he can easily let the world of the video game blend with the real world we live in and be violent in real life. I completely agree with all of your points if you incorporate an age limit, and I also agree with all of your counters to your objections. I think you are doing a great job, I would be interested in reading your final paper,
Laura,
ReplyDeleteI have never really heard of the association between vaccines and autism, after doing some research I completely agree with your thesis statement. All of your sub points strongly support your thesis, and you have very good points that counteract all of the opposing view points. I think you will do very well with your topic considering you know a lot about the disease because of the theme of our paper last year.
I liked your example with the Lock Ness monster, how it is just a theory like the autism being related to vaccinations. Theory’s like this are always developing, unless there is scientific proof that if you receive a vaccination and autism is the outcome, then I would be against your thesis, but there is not certain proof. Also, like you said autism is a genetic disorder, unless one of the parent’s genes was mutilated by a vaccine, a child cannot be autistic due to a vaccination. I’m very interested to read your paper, I think you will do well with it!
WOW - I am really impressed with the depth of peer feedback all of you are providing one another. This class is acting like a university class, which is quite impressive. The level of research that is taking place here, is extremely valuable. I do hope you appreciate the entire research process as I believe you will benefit for sure when you attend university. Keep up the good effort. I am impressed!
ReplyDeleteOk I just got back from retreat and confirmation, so I call dibs on Mitchell and Scott.
ReplyDeleteTHESIS: Despite claims that sharkskin suits will shatter previous records to unbreakable times, they should be legal; it is the athlete, not the suit that earns the records.
ReplyDeleteSUBPOINTS:
1. As with all sports technology advances. Footballs have been changed in their texture and material to make them more aerodynamic. This is another form of technological advancement.
2. The athletes are not training any more or any less, through cause of the suits and their accessibility.
3. The suits are NOT made of actual sharks’ skin.
Swimming is a big part of my life. I have researched into this subject and talked about the issue with my team members before. This is sport has slowly been changing material, cuts, and patterns in the suit to develop better times. Many people are against this form of advancement as they have been of old changes before it. When companies decided to take the skirt off of women’s competition swimsuits it was considered scandalous and immoral. When silk, nylon, and other materials were introduced the same dilemmas occurred. People are afraid of change.
OBJECTIONS:
1. The suits will not be available to many people. The drive of the sport will no longer be a matter of who the best swimmer is, but who has the best suit.
2. The suits are an “obvious” form of animal cruelty.
3. As Morgan stated in our last blog, “the sharkskin suits are not fair to those that have worked hard and earned their times.”
The issue of the suits availability is a subject that is looked into for many reasons. If the suit is not available to a large quantity of people then the companies will not make much money. Also, if the suit is inexpensive to the point that they will not be able to make a profit or fill the margin used to manufacture the suits. Which leads to the question, what the suits are made of? Many believe because they are called sharkskin suits that they are made of sharks’ skin. This is not true for many reasons. One, it is made of woven fabric. Two, it is designed to match the pattern of sharks’ scales to create buoyancy. Three, when shark skin is harvested it hardens and becomes similar to leather, only stiffer. Finally, on the third objection, those with the suits are earning their times too. In a world where you have to strive to make a difference and make something new this is fair. The athletes are most certainly not slacking off. They are where they are at because they have strived, worked, desired, bled, sweat, cried, hurt, and loved every second of it in order to get where they wanted to be. These suits have been studied and only show a small decrease in time. If one of the competitors was actually faster this may come down to an extra breath, not pushing off the wall hard enough in a flip-turn, or not reaching for the finish that millisecond too late. Whatever the reason, that can and does still happen without the suit. The athletes are still working as hard as they did before.
Mitchell, you did well researching this topic. It is an issue that my family has talked about in different circumstances, especially during our last presidential election when they clarified the subject for me to understand. My dad has shown me magazines that have had arguments on this and it holds true that the only entirely successful stem cell implants have been those not from babies, but adults. When they use the cells of a human embryo they have complications. While it is a stem cell at the time it is meant to develop into the baby’s teeth, heart, or other body parts. So that when the cells are implanted in another person the cells react. Now, say a person had brain cancer (and this is a true story from an article), they get the implant, and a number on months later they have fragments of teeth in their brain. Be careful with your research, and don’t forget the sacredness of life. A baby’s a life not a choice. People make the choice in being sexually active; they should be responsible for their actions. Remember: babies should lay in cradles not garbage cans.
ReplyDeleteScott, you have taken in various viewpoints to your subject. I like it because it brings in the opinions of others while sticking to your decision. Another problem can be the advertisements for the companies. Like McDonald's “I’m lovin’ it” jingle, and Wendy’s, “where’s the beef” slogan. They are devices used to keep their restaurant in our head. However, I do feel that if a person is going to dare to eat the “meals” the fast food chains provide they should heavily consider their health. Look at nutrition sheets, order the healthier choices, and exercise before and/or after.
ReplyDeleteMaura,
ReplyDeleteI can see why the sharkskin suite idea can be very controversial. I actually thought that the suites were made of shark’s skin. I think many people probably think that, just because of the suite’s name. I understand that athletes do train hard and a suite like this could benefit them. But, I believe that there is not a huge supply of them there should be restrictions on where they can be used. I feel that maybe in a high school level they should not be used just because they are not exactly an easy thing to find and buy and they do help shave a couple seconds off the time. I think if it is and Olympic competition, every team member should have the same suite, so it is a fair competition and not a suite that gets your final time. I’m looking forward to reading your research paper, I think it will be very interesting.
Ryan,
ReplyDeleteYour subpoints do a great job supporting your thesis. However, I can’t say I completely agree with you. I agree that violence that usually stems much deeper than a video game containing it, and that it is usually implanted from something much more significant than an interactive game. I also think that it is a great way to relive stress. My brother is autistic, and I have seen firsthand how playing certain interactive games helps in go from being stressed out to the point where he cannot function to being happy, and even willing to have a conversation with you. I do, however, also see many negative impacts that violent games have on people. I think that Mitchell had a very good point saying that age is very important determining factor in how violence in the games impacts the person playing. If the player is old enough to understand that the game isn’t real life and that they can’t perform the actions in the game in real life then no harm is done. If the player is too young to understand this concept, though, it could easily have a negative impact on their mind. Games are rated just like movies are for this reason. The issue is that a lot of people don’t pay attention to these ratings. Despite my own personal beliefs, though, I think you will be able to do an excellent job supporting your argument in your paper, Ryan.
Mitchell,
ReplyDeleteYour topic is connected with abortion and religious values. The ban on abortion would have to come before the ban on stem cell research. Abortion is very wrong but yet it still happens and the government does not stop it. I do think that some stem cell research should be done because yes, it does save lives. I do think that if an abortion is performed, it is ok to use the stem cells but I do not encourage abortion. When scientists do get that stem cell they should make as many as possible on a cell culture. I think I heard somewhere that scientists have found another way to get stem cells, but I am not 100 percent sure. I do not think that people should be paid for donation of stem cells. This is a very tricky subject so good luck and be careful, especially about what you say about human embryos, they are humans too.
Maura,
ReplyDeleteI would first just like to say that I think your area of research on swimming is very interesting not only because of the subject but because that that is something that really interests you as a swimmer.
I am glad you clarified right at the beginning because when I first read the words, "shark skin suits" my first thought was actual shark skin suits. After reading through your supporting points and objections I actually found myself somewhat supporting the objecting side. I feel like as your objections say that the better the suit the better times swimmers will have so those that have the better suits will have a pretty unfair advantage in races.
However, I also think that perhaps those athletes that were to get these better suits may not work as hard then as those who do not have the suits or who have the lesser suits so maybe then those who actually work harder will perform better even with the x-factor of the suits in the mix.
Good luck on your paper, I look forward to reading the final product or perhaps peer critiquing an early draft.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteTHESIS:
ReplyDeleteGenetically engineered foods should be legal because they are safe, allow more food to be produced, and can have additional benefits that non-genetically engineered foods lack.
SUBPOINTS:
1) The population is growing at an alarming rate, and we already are unable to feed people in some places.
2) Malnutrition is common is poorer countries that live primarily off of a single crop. Genetically engineered foods allow additional nutrients to be added to food, so they have more nutritional value.
3) Crops that are genetically engineered are able to be grown in weather and soil conditions they wouldn’t be able to otherwise.
By the year 2050, it is predicted that the global population will have increased by up to three million people. The current increases in food production in the last 100 years would need to be doubled in order to feed a population of this size. Genetically modified foods allow more food to be produced at a faster rate. Crops can be genetically engineered to contain certain vitamins and minerals. This would be very beneficial in third-world countries that get most of their food from one crop, such as rice, which as little nutritional value. GM crops could allow people in countries such as these to have healthier diets. Many parts of the world are unable to grow certain crops because of their climate or lack of good soil. Crops can be genetically modified so that they can be grown in conditions that they normally would not. An example for this is potato seedlings that have be successfully modified to better resist the cold.
OBJECTIONS:
1) Genetically engineered foods could have unknown long term effects on human health.
2) A new unknown allergen could be introduced through these foods.
3) Genetically enhanced crops harm the environment through super weeds.
Genetically engineered foods haven’t been around that long. Scientists do not believe that they will cause any long term health problems for humans, but how can this be known for certain. Some genetically engineered foods have only been fed to lab animals that have different digestive tracts then humans. Altering the genes of foods could cause a new allergen to be created accidently. People could become allergic to foods that they were not before because of the change in that food’s genome. The additives used to repel pesticides in crops remain in the soil, and can tamper with wild plants in the area, such as weeds. This creates superweeds that resistant to many herbicides.
Dear Laurel,
ReplyDeleteI find your topic really interesting. I myself am a member of the AP Environmental Science class and we were recently talking about this topic. Although I am unsure if this is the technical name, such plants were referred to in our textbook as "frankenfoods" due to their scientific nature.
I think it is a very good topic actually. If all the people in the world could be helped by genetically modified food, it could raise living conditions. You are correct in saying that populations are growing at a rapid rate and are no longer sustainable.
I think such food use should be permitted, even if just for animals. It can raise production and help people worldwide. Though I do think you really need to elaborate on the long term effect uncertainty. Its a big factor that plays into any debate related to science.
If you can focus on the harms but bring them into better light, I would really be impressed. It seems like this may be a hard task but I can't wait to see how it pans out.