Debate Rebuttal To Leon

          I'm going to be rebuttal Leon's debate topic about having social networks as beneficial or as harmful to society. Leon's views on this topic is that social networking of today brings people to have less real communication with each other. To start off, I already agree with his point, but there are a few flaws in his opening statement.
          Social networking is known to be the notorious disruption for students when they are trying to do their homework or are supposed to be studying. This may very much be true on the surface, but as you go deeper into the benefits of social networking, you'll realize that its is actually very beneficial. Firstly, networking itself is a main and crucial thing every student should learn. Networking with people can bring you your first job and bring great opportunities as long as you are networking constantly. Even if at the beginning, you network with someone who doesn't have much credibility to offer you a high level job, they always know people higher than them and as you network more and more, you gain more chances to be introduced to opportunities. Social networking via internet or cell phones also help networking and keeping in touch with people. For example, if you are looking for a job and you know that you need one soon, you can email or facebook a contact you have met through networking and can keep in touch with them in order to easily, not awkwardly, ask for any job opportunities they may have for you. Networking is extremely important for everyone's futures and social networking nowadays helps you build a stronger connection to your contacts.
          Other benefits of social networking are that it helps you express yourself. According to Washington Times, being able to communicate more frequently online or on your phone, you are able to bring about a type of self confidence in expressing how you feel and who you are. You also build the immunity to social awkwardness and learn how to act and how to deal with types of bullying.

"The study looked at more than 5,000 hours of online observation and found that the digital world is creating new opportunities for young people to grapple with social norms, explore interests, develop technical skills and work on new forms of self-expression."

 It is also supported in Science Daily that through such obsession with social networking, teens build the skills to potentially get jobs in these areas because of how much they are exposed to them. Amazingly, social networking has it's good and bad sides, but the benefits of social networking is much more helpful for the teenager or the social networker than social networking is harmful to them

Animal Farm Prompt 1 MiniEssay

     One pig that plays a huge role in the book Animal Farm by George Orwell is the prized pig, Major. Although Major died early on in the book he is the very core of the plot of the story. Major was the pig to ignite the ideas of Rebellion and presented the cases of all the animals publicly in order to find a way to solve them. Major speaks with a lot of conviction and determination. Major's words aren't the only things that affect the influence of his speeches, but it is also the way he says things and the order he says his ideas in. Major's ideas bring about the very essence of Orwell's plot.

            The beginning of the book is Major’s long speech which covered around four pages. His speech’s main purpose was to give rise to a rebellion and to a cause that he believed had to be addressed. Major’s speech included a lot of the problems and concerns that the animals did not realize or were afraid of challenging. Major uses his position as the prize pig and assembles the group of animals into one place and then gives an extremely persuasive speech. In this speech, he presents many rhetorical questions in which the answer is always to his favor. The rebellion is to overthrow Mr. Jones, yet, Major uses all men in his speech, making them all enemies of the animals. He makes it hard for any animal to go against his words without looking as if they were siding with the humans. Using this tactic, Major uses the many opportunities to take advantage of the animals of Manor Farm

            Major doesn’t necessarily use big words in his speeches, but the sentences that he uses and his syntax bring out the things that he is trying to emphasize. His sentences are filled with accusations and assumptions that the other animals want to hear. For example: 

"Only get rid of man, and the produce of our labor would become our own. Almost overnight we could become rich and free." (Orwell 30)

 In this quote, Major says that if the animals ovrthrow men, they can grow stronger in a short span of time and can get everything they ever wanted. These statements were filled with assumptions. Major brought out the accusation that men were the cause of the animal's torturous lives and used this accusation to form the idea of rebellion. Major uses this bold comment to raise the hatred towards Mr. Jone, the farmer and owner of Manor Farm. After this statement, Major puts out a question to which the answer should be obvious to even the most dimwitted animal would be able to answer.

"What then must we do? Why work night and day body and soul, for the overthrow of the human race!" (Orwell 30)

With this, Major sets up his speech for the climax of it all and provides a buffer for the main point of his meeting. This rhetorical question is answered directly after the question is presented. It doesn't give any time for any discussion or any real thought for the other animals. The question followed by the answer forces animals to think only of the idea given to them. After this, Major's true point is revealed.
"That is my message to you, comrades: Rebellion!" (30). As Major plants this idea into the animal's heads. Major is able to manipulate and capture the minds of the animals throughout the strength of his words and through the true determination of rebellion for the good of Animal Farm, not for the good of himself with the act of selfishness.

Changing DNA in Children? Opening Statement

     Science has been evolving more and more rapidly recently. Not long ago, the newest discovery was the fact that genes were passed down from parents to offspring. Now, with new technology and knowledge, changing someone's DNA is possible. My debate topic is whether or not parents should be able to change the DNA of their children.
     I don't think that it should be possible for parents to change their child's DNA. It is immoral for this to happen to children even when they are still in their mother's womb and haven't developed yet. When this baby is born, the child is the one who will have to live with the changes that were made in them; things that the child may not have wanted from their parents and still have to live with it for the rest of their lives. The child doesn't have a say in the things that his or her parents decide to change about him or her, but this child is the one who has to live with the changes they are forced to endure the choices that their parents made for them whether they are beneficial or not in their lives.
    Yes, the changing of a child's DNA can result in something better like stopping a child from having cancer, but if something goes wrong, it would be devastating to the child. If modifying DNA should be allowed, it should only be for curing diseases, but at the moment, the technology to be sure that the child would be okay and the results are the same as the intended purpose.
     Technically, changing a person's DNA and inserting the things you would want in them has a lot to do with the controversies of Stem Cell Researching. Of course, it depends on how you see it as being moral or immoral and where the actual new cells are coming form. If the cells are coming from an embryo, is it a human or is it not? Is it murder or is it not? I think it is because that embryo they had to kill to take the cells from can grow up to be someone and you take the chance of life away from that person. In my opinion, killing an embryo is like killing a person.

Governent- Corrupt?

     In my opinion, political power does corrupt those who attain it. Power itself makes people do things and brings out their selfishness. Power isn't something that necessarily "create" selfishness, but it brings out the selfishness that people already have within themselves. During class, when Mr. Sutherland put out the question about is the US government corrupt, the idea that came into my head was that no government can possibly not be corrupt. There will always be something or someone within the government who uses his or her power to do corrupt things. Crystal mentioned that the government itself isn't corrupt. The government is a blueprint in which people simply fill in and complete the tasks. I thought differently. I thought that a government's "blueprints" change with the change of power because everyone has their own personal interests and ways of handling things.These are my thought on whether or not political power corrupts those who attain it and whether or not the US government is corrupt.
     I think that George Orwell would agree with me that power corrupts people. In Animal Farm, Orwell tells a story of animals who take over a farm. The plot is actually about the Russian Revolution. In chapter one, he writes

 "So the animals trooped down to the hayfield to begin the harvest and when they came back in the evening it was noticed that the milk had disappeared." (44) 

While the animals were out working, the pigs had drunk the milk that all the other animals wanted. Although the pigs were the ones who meant good for the animals, they took advantage of the power they had over the animals and worked it to their own benefits. The pigs were extremely corrupt later on in the book. For example, they would change the laws to fit their ways of living and to their luxury.

Elite College?

     Between the readings that were given to us, the one that appealed and was the most persuasive to me was Skip the Admissions Game by Kevin Carey. In this debate, Carey talks about both sides of things. he talks about how there are the small percentage of kids who are the ones who get straight As and 2100 or above on their SATs and then there are the majority of kids who are not as smart as those. He talks about the pros and the cons of both sides, but mostly about the pros on how kids who are not as smart can still have a rate of success within their future.
     In his piece, Carey talks about how if you are able to attend an elite college, they have a good chance of becoming successful:

"If, for example, you want to get rich by inventing exotic financial instruments (with all the deleterious social effects they may carry), the Ivy League is a good place to start. " (par. 3)

He basically says that depending on what things you want to get to, an elite college may be an ideal college to get an education, but if you are not one of those people who can afford to go to an elite college or if you don't get accepted to one, going to, let's say, a community college is just as well.

" While there's little difference among elite colleges in the grand scheme of things - Princeton, Brown, tomato, tomahto - it's a real problem when students enroll in colleges that do a poor job of teaching them and helping them graduate, as many do."

Even further down the essay, Carey points out that college isn't about elite or not elite, well known or obscure, but it is about the education and the level of teaching that a student gets to allow them to graduate and be able to survive the world on their own. It doesn't matter if you go to an elite college and get straight As if later on, you cannot support yourself because you didn't learn anything in college that you can work with to support yourself
     Carey still fails to support his idea of how going to a good college doesn't matter if you can't come out of it and be able to support yourself, but the point is still clearly stated. It would have been stronger if he had cited an example as he did for the jobs in community colleges.

Response to Ruby~

"...but my point is that style can relate to one's personality, but it does not define it. Each person has a distinctive character, most often one that no other person has. If one person is different from another, why denigrate them?"

This quote is from Ruby's blog.

     In her post, Ruby talked about people's fashion relating to their personality and I would agree with what she says. People dress the way they do because they feel that that is the best way for them to express themselves to others on first glance. No one has a right to criticize anyone for the way they dress because firstly, it may be weird to you, but to them, it is a way to show themselves off without saying anything at all. 

     The fact that these people have the bravery to wear what they do is enough to show that who they are is more important than what people think. This is something that I really envy in people who chose to stand out. It is something that I could never do because I am too self conscious about what people think of me and blending in suits me more than standing out. Yeah, maybe once in a while I would wear something totally outrageous, but most of the time, I stick with little things that stand out instead of the whole outfit. 

     So people who are able to keep their style and personality without being afraid of others saying anything are really ones who I envy and look up to because it takes a lot of courage and individuality to do something that stands out so much. Individuality should be something everyone envies and for someone to degrade that uniqueness within a person just isn't right. 

     Ruby's blog post on this was a response to someone else's blog post and frankly, I don't agree with that person's point of view on how people who are scene are posers. Well no, this isn't true at all. Everyone looks at someone else's style before they develop the idea for their own originality. Nearly every idea is influenced or was brought about by things people see and like. After this person takes a liking into this idea or style, they begin to build their own personality into it.

the misconception of Shallow people...turned into the misconception of people

    When a person likes another person for their looks or because of one little thing and announce that they already "love them" after only ten minutes of meeting them, this person is called shallow. Shallow defines someone who only looks a superficial things and judges solely for the reason  I think that the meanings of words plays a big part in a person's perspective of someone being shallow versus someone who is not. An example can be if a boy says he "likes" a girl after only a few minute of meeting her, his definition of liking probably isn't the same definition of liking you have in your mind. His form of liking may be growing fond of while yours may mean that he would want to have a relationship with her.
     Judging a person by what they do or say probably isn't exact to the things they are actually thinking. A person might say one thing, but really mean something else. Saying someone is shallow brings the problems of judging into play. You don't know how someone feels or know someone's true motives unless you are that person. Everyone has their special ways of thinking and expressing themselves. It can be true that the way that this specific person expresses themselves is by telling you something and meaning something else completely. You would never know the truth. So really, it's not the misconception of shallow people but the misconception of people in general.
     It may not even be a case where someone expresses themselves to you. It can be you subconsciously looking at a person and judging them based on what you see or what you hear. First impressions play a very important role when you judge someone because if your first impression of a person is that they is that they are very cunning and bad, then no matter what that person does or says, you assume that they only do things for bad purposes even if they mean well. When you see someone who has a kind face and a nice personality, you automatically think the best of them because of how much you think you know them. Although this type of judging is unfair, it happens constantly without us paying any real attention to the things we think of people.