Chaining Dogs: Your right as an owner? Or an act of animal cruelty? By Davin Delong and Leah Brisco

Put yourself in this situation: its cold outside, wet, rainy, and you’re sitting in mud or you’re inside, all bundled up with your hot cocoa and watching a movie. See a difference? Now imagine the same situation for a dog but he can’t get out of his muck since he’s chained down. No way to get more food or water. This is just the start of the problems with chaining an animal. There have be a number of issues with dogs starving, dehydrated or even choking themselves. Especially in Florida, hot weather is the number one concern for people who chain their dogs. These four legged friends of ours can get dehydrated, sunburnt, and even die from heat exhaustion just like we can without the proper care. Yet there are many people who say that it is their right as an owner to leave their dogs out there, because they bought the dog, they bought the land, and it is their property.

Do we allow this issue to go on? Or is it even a problem? What if your dog is a jumper, and hops your fence on a regular basis? It would make sense to tie your dog to the dog house or to a tree for safety purposes, as to prevent him from running away. But what if something happens and your dog chokes himself on that chain? Or what if you leave to run a few errands and someone takes your dog because you left him out in the open, tied up with nowhere to escape to? All of these occurrences, while they seem far-fetched, happen on a daily basis in many communities. Many organizations are trying to pass laws to prevent the tethering of animals, but there are those who fight it. An organization called Dogs Deserve Better (http://dogsdeservebetter.com) has been protesting the tethering of dogs and passing laws to get them off of chains, yet those who oppose them say that they should be allowed to have their dogs tied up in the backyard however long they want to!

So here is the problem, do you think it’s ethical to chain a dog in the backyard or to the tree or even to his doghouse for any period of time? Should chaining your dog simply be outlawed? Should there be a time limit on how long you can leave your dog out unattended or force owners to be present if chained? Is it required that you provide your animal with shelter and food while he is tied up? Current laws either do not have anything to say about tethering your animals, or having “limits” on tethering them. What do you think should be done?

U.S. Government Listening In, by Kaeleigh Raulerson and Ross Mikovich

Even today, it is widely acceptable for the United States government to listen in on phone calls between U.S. citizens and foreign countries. In fact, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act passed in 1978 states that a warrant issued from a special court is required to wiretap a phone call only if the call is being made or received by an American. Meaning, any foreign person calling any foreign country is completely free to be heard by our government.

After the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, intelligence agencies began to operate much more aggressively. In response, the National Security Agency began using a tactic that intercepts large amounts of electronic communications by Americans and stores this as data. This method first got intelligence agencies in trouble over thirty years ago when signs of abuse were first discovered.

This raises question upon if our freedom is being violated due to the government storing small bits of information from random conversations of American citizens. Furthermore, the effectiveness of the program is currently being questioned. “The vast majority of what we did with the intelligence was ill-focussed and not productive,” a Pentagon consultant said. Should the government be able to track phone calls between suspect foreign numbers, even if sufficient evidence is lacking? Is this expensive program even worth continuing with little success in the past?

http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2006/05/29/060529ta_talk_hersh#ixzz0iT2f4fup

Should We Learn A Second Language? By Katie Zeitler and Carolina Lyon

English is said to be the universal language, everywhere you go there is always someone who speaks English willing to help. But is English really enough?

In high school in the United States, students are all told that if they want to go to a four year college that they need two years of a foreign language. So your freshmen and sophomore years are spent learning languages like Spanish or Italian to get the credits. But that is all it is, once the 2 years are done the foreign language classes are not taken again and the language is never used in real life. However, other countries require students to take English not just for 2 years, but for many years. All through grade school, students take English so they are not just fluent in their native language but in English as well. In Venezuela, English is taught through the fifteen years of lower education. Before you learn to read, you are already listening to the first words in English, and when you get to college, you already know how to write essay in another language besides Spanish. Also, in college and higher education, English is another class that all students are required to take.

People who are fluent in another language have more opportunities in life than those who only know one language. Not only do the schools want people to learn another language, but business wants it to. Jobs opportunities are offered more to those who can speak more than one language than those who only know one. However, business is not the only privilege that comes from this.

According to studies, it has been shown that learning a second language results in students achieving greater divergent thinking, creativity, and cognitive development compared to monolingual children. A number of studies have also shown that when students learn a second language they have a tendency of outscoring those who are proficient in only a single language on tests of nonverbal and verbal intelligence. [1]

So not only does learning a second language open doors in the work field, but it can also make you smarter. This raises the question is English really enough? Or should the US push for people to learn another language?

---

[1] http://www.buzzle.com/articles/the-importance-and-advantages-of-learning-a-second-language.html

Capital Punishment: Good or Bad? By Trina Porter and Nick Buchholz

Capital punishment or the death penalty is the killing of an individual by judicial process as a punishment for an offense. Capital punishment is used in an attempt to deter crimes but is a very controversial topic. For some, capital punishment should be used when an act is so vile, heinous, and destructive that a community may feel it’d be justifiable to deny that person’s life. For others, capital punishment violates morality and is unethical.

There are many compelling arguments about capital punishment that some who stand into consideration who stand outside the realm of morality. There is a possibility of error-what if the person on death row was innocent? Some suggest an unfair administration, claiming capital punishment is inflicted relatively on minorities. What about moderate circumstances such as many who commit heinous crimes have suffered from neglect, emotional trauma, cruelty, and lack of love that for some would make it unfair to hold them fully accountable for their wrongful acts.
In several states like New Jersey, they are abolishing the death penalty. They say that it is cruel and unusual punishment and feel that life without parole is just as good as using the death penalty. Just like from the question stated earlier, there have been several cases where a man or woman has been on death row and later acquitted of their charges because they were found innocent. Not only may it not be morally right, but it can also be economically wrong too because on average New Jersey is paying $11 million per year to enforce the death penalty even if it was not used that year. To counter that though, people may argue the fact that if someone murders someone, they should not be allowed to keep their life in prison without parole. Leaving these people in prison without parole is taking up the space to bring in other criminals charged with less heinous crimes. Also to keep these people alive in prison cells costs just about the same as it does to enforce the death penalty.
The real question is up to the people though. Do we think that it is unfair to use capital punishment to sentence criminals? Is it considered cruel and unusual punishment?

Capital Punishment vs Corporal Punishment, by Kamal Dames and Jayde Lippert

In many places in the world today, the crime rate is going up. Whether it is for drug trafficking or possession, robberies, murder, rape, etc; once arrested, these persons get thrown in prison. The crimes are different. Some may not be too serious and others may be of extreme intensities. So one question that may be asked is what type of punishment is the best method for addressing crimes, capital or corporal punishment?
Capital punishment is the killing
of a person by judicial process as a punishment for an offense. Corporal punishment is the deliberate infliction of pain on someone for an offense, usually done in public. Capital punishment is found in many countries around the world and is used for persons who commit very serious crimes such as killing many persons. Corporal punishment usually involves the prisoner getting whipped or beaten every so often while they are in prison. So which one is more effective? We are not supposed to be killing anyone even if they deserve it, so I would say that corporal punishment should be carried out more. So even if we give someone capital punishment, why not apply corporal punishment along with it? Why not just let them serve life in prison and die naturally? So my main question is, if corporal punishment was applied more than capital punishment, do you think that the crime rate would increase or decrease?

Gun Control by Kristine G. and Tom

"All of a sudden I'm in front of some man. No he's a youngin but he's got a gun in his hand. He looks fifteen, he looks frantic, no he looks afraid. Immediately apprehensive til I heard him say "Do you want this It's not mine I promise. I found it on my block in between a couple garages. Didn't wanna leave it for a child to stumble over, I don't even know how to hold it." It was a thirty eight, the poor man's machete. Held it in my hand, thinking damn man it's heavier then expected. Wedged it behind my belt buckle, knowing that its evil, even thought that I could smell trouble. The extra strength felt weak, but over there on the corner saw what I needed and proceeded to cross the street. Put the heat in the mail box to lose it. Figured that the post office knows whats best to do with it."

-Always coming back home to you/ Atmosphere

Gun control is a highly debated issue. Should America tighten the laws concerning firearms? Many believe so, saying that tighter gun control will lower street crimes and even accidental injury. On the other side of the debate, many believe that the laws concerning firearms is strict enough and any tighter regulations will make it harder to acquire a gun, violating the Second Ammendment, our right to bear arms.

Tighter gun legislation could mean less crime, especially if the amount of guns in America is reduced. They argue less guns mean less violence. The leading advocate in restricting gun laws is the Brady Campaign, they believe the laws in place now make it too easy for dangerous people to get a hold of firearms. Their main focus is to make America a safer place. But would tighter gun control really make america a safer place? There is already a market for guns purchased under the table, just walk into the ghetto, guns will always be around. But restricting control can lead to less accidental deaths in the home and even suicides. Studies show that keeping a gun in a home raises the risk of homicide, with statistics saying Higher gun ownership puts both men and women at a higher risk for homicide, particularly gun homicide (Harvard School of Public Health, Harvard Injury Control Research Center, 2009). They also argue that guns in the home are more likey to be used in a homicide, suicide, or accidental injury instead of actual self defense.

But what about our right to bear arms? We as Americans have have the right to self defense. The National Rifle Association believe that stricter laws will violate our rights and they argue that guns have actually decreased deaths. They argue that firearms are used for protection more often than they are used to commit violent crimes. Criminologist Gary Kleck analyzed National Crime Victimization Surveys and concluded, "robbery and assault victims who used a gun to resist were less likely to be attacked or to suffer an injury than those who used any other methods of self-protection or those who did not resist at all." But what if a firearm got into the wrong hands? A child, a dangerous felon, your younger brother or sister?

What do you think? Should we make it harder to obtain guns? Do you believe your rights will be violated if the laws do become stricter? Both sides of the issue need to take into consideration both sides of the argument. Maybe new laws could help reduce violence without violating our right to bear arms. New gun laws could include required gun safety classes not for just the person obtaining the gun, but for the family. Or maybe not allow guns in households with children. We as American's need to decide on what we think is a happy medium.

http://www.bradycampaign.org/
http://www.nraila.org/

Standardized Tests to Graduate Highschool?

Any of us who grew up in Florida are familiar with the FCAT and the arguments that it brings to the table. The only two sides in the argument are either to keep it or get rid of it. Those who want the test to stay say that its a good measure of where the students are at in their educational stand point and say its unfair to others who pass the test to allow students who didnt to move on. Those against it say that not all students are test takers and that the test doesnt portray the students actually learning ability.

But what these two sides over look is the fact that there are other sides looking in that could help get rid of these test and keep them at the same time. One of the biggest unlooked arguments would be to keep the test but not have it count toward such serious outcomes. For example, dont make it count towards graduation. There are a ton of students who had their college careers set out for them through sports scholarships and ended up having these scholarships removed because of a single test. Many people believe we should only use these tests as a bookmark to see where our students stand. Another popular view would be to have the test and the students GPA weigh out. Many colleges use this system with the SAT and ACT when students apply to college. This allows bad test takers to show that they still do good in school and maybe they had a bad day taking the test.

So as students, ask yourself , should these test stay as is? If not what changes would suggest? Or should they just be removed altogether?

Legalization of Marijuana, By Josh Patry and David Shaw

One of the largest debates in recent history continues as many people debate, should marijuana me legalized or not? Some people may believe that the pro’s out weigh the con’s and visa versa, but the real question is, what would teens, adults, and the government benefit from the legalization of marijuana? For the government to legalize weed, they have to consider the crisis that we Americans are in economically. Many economists agree that legalizing marijuana would give a boost to the deteriorating economy because the consumer would have to pay a tax on the product. Another argument is that by legalizing weed, there will be a decrease imprisonments and crime related to weed like trafficking? In 2000, state and local law enforcement arrested 734,498 people for marijuana violations (http://legalizationofmarijuana.com/). Imagine the reduction of imprisonments if Marijuana was responsibly used. A lot of those imprisonments were due to drug trafficking, which would be majorly reduced because people would be able to buy at local shops.

Another question lingers today asking if marijuana is more dangerous than alcohol. The majority of the people would say that if alcohol, a more dangerous drug than marijuana, is legal to adults 21 and over then Marijuana should also be legalized. There has been many cases in the U.S. where alcohol has cause addiction and domestic abuse (http://www.saferchoice.org/content/view/24/53/). However, cancer is also a major issue, specifically lung cancer. Many would argue that smoking Marijuana, one would have a high risk of lung cancer, which is a major cause of death here in the United States. With being said, many people would agree that marijuana couldn’t even be compared to alcohol. Do the pro’s out weigh the con’s? Should Marijuana be legalized? If so, what restrictions should be put on it?

Uniforms in the Education System

Throughout our past twelve years in primary and secondary schooling
we have always had the issue of uniforms. Some people never had them at all,
maybe just for middle school or a couple years. Whether you have them or not
there is always an ongoing debate about whether the schools should have
uniforms or they should practice free dress. Many people argue for uniforms
because they increases a sense of school spirit, reduces peer pressure for
the new “trendy” clothes, encourages discipline, and helps identify
outsiders that aren’t in the school. Maybe people can argue that because
there isn’t any proven research to say that it helps any academic
performance.

It is possible that they will limit fights and violence because
everyone is dressed the same so financially you can’t tell the difference if
one students parents are rock stars and one has parents that are unemployed.
It is meant to give a sense of unity and that everyone at the school is
equal. But it also can be a financial burden to those who don’t have the
money, people are sending their children to public school for the perk of no
cost and with uniform it is an additional fee they must pay.

Some schools use practice a partial uniform. Schools sometimes offer the
Option of wearing a certain colored collared shirt for example. This allows
students to have a small sense of individuality while at the same time not
worrying about what to wear to school tomorrow. Other schools just make
students wear one designated article of clothing and let them choose what
to wear for the other parts of their attire.

The biggest argument against uniforms is freedom to wear whatever you want
to. Since we live in America and we use public schools as the majority, people
argue against making children wear uniforms. It is a very debatable argument
and there are many pros and cons of all three. Who is to say what you can wear
and who is to tell the school they can’t make you wear a uniform?

Democratic, Republican, or Other?

In every Presidential Election, the competition is usually comes down to two parties, Democrat and Republican. Although this has worked over the years, our country has entered an economic crisis; maybe it is time to consider other parties as well to change things up a bit. Parties such as the Libertarians, as well as the Green Party, should be more greatly considered when voting for our nations president.

We should include the Green Party in the annual presidential debate to
showcase their ideals. They present an “eco-social” analysis for our country.
They focus on a sustainable future and economical growth. The Green Party
promotes a healthy and diverse environment and works to restore and protect
the planet's natural beauty. This party is deserving of a spot next to our two
major candidate parties because their vision should be recognized in the
election process. They not only want to rebuild our economy, but also tend to
the environmental needs of our country. Their contributions to the political
debates would bring a new light to those who don't wish to support neither
Democratic nor Republican Party. Another strong option would be present in the
election process making the debate more less “two-sided”

The Libertarian Party has a very unique way of government ideas. Being the third largest political party in the United States, behind Democrats and Republicans, Libertarians need to be considers for president as well. Libertarians are known for their minimal regulation and strong views. They strongly favor freedom of trade, minimal regulation of immigration, strong civil liberties, and a laissez-faire market system. With their unique ideas, they could be the solution to today's economic problems. As the Libertarians say, "Smaller Government. Lower Taxes. More Freedom."

With the given information, your eyes may be open to new ideas. What is your ideas on the subject? Is there any other views we didn't consider?

For or against gay marriage?

For almost all heavy topics, there are two main sides that people want to take; They either agree or disagree. A topic that is usually heavily argued and becoming more and more a part of life is gay or same sex marriage. People typically choose one of two sides; they are either for or against it. One of the not so obvious sides to take would be a more middle ground. When a person does not really choose to take a certain side, but rather agrees in some cases and disagrees in others. An example of this would be if two males or two females fell in love and wanted to get married a person might see that as a good thing and not as a problem. But if you add a child into the mix and that homosexual couple is trying to adopt, the person that once agreed with the situation might then disagree because they do not feel that, that is a good environment for a child to grow up in. Another middle ground to this topic and many others is that some people just do not care what happens. Having same sex couples around does not change their life at all. So, do you think there are more sides to this argument?

Pro Life or Pro Choice: But What's In Between?

Abortion is a well-known argumentative topic that is typically two-sided. Many will argue that there are only two choices concerning abortion: "pro life" or "pro choice", but what about the topics in the middle? There are more sides and exceptions to abortion. For example, what about rape victims or even someone who does not do well financially?

Not everybody is simply for or against abortion; there are some general sides or exceptions that a person would consider. What about a woman who has been raped and later found out she has become pregnant? She should have the right to abort. Even though she has the right to give the baby up for adoption she still should not have to have an everyday reminder for nine months from one excruciating night. Another side to this debatable topic is someone who might not have the financial support it takes to not only raise a child but to give birth to one as well. Doctor and hospital fees at the beginning of child birth can rack up quick and they aren't cheap. Then come all the diapers, formula, and clothing. A woman has the choice for adoption as well but the hospital and doctor fees never disappear completely. There are a lot of single moms out there who struggle to survive daily, but they never had the choice because they would have been looked at in a negative way.

These circumstances are realistic and can be a good argument for an abortion. That's why any American should have the right to argue these exceptions and not necessarily be "pro life" or "pro choice". With all these circumstances given what other types of exceptions can give a good argument rather than the typical two sides?

Go Organic or Not?

With everyone from scientists to celebrities to universities touting environmental perspective and responsibility, an argument that circulates fairly regularly is whether to go organic or not? Is it really worth it to choose organic produce? From the consumer’s side, going organic seems logical, wise—who wants to consume extra chemicals? For the producer, treating crops with chemicals and being around them frequently appears to have a correlation with developing certain kinds of cancer. However, on the other hand, the evidence that chemically-treated or genetically-modified foods will hurt your health is not conclusive, not to mention, “organic” can mean so many different things in different states that you cannot always be certain that “organic” is “organic.” For a producer, using chemicals means beating the pests that can destroy a crop and increasing yield, both in number and size, which means more money.

So, as in all arguments, the answer to the question “Is organic worth it?” depends largely upon what a consumer values—sustainability of ecosystems, taking no risks when it comes to health, or saving money. But, of course, as anyone who has ever been on a diet can tell you, a commitment to make healthy food choices doesn’t have to be an all or none commitment. Another way of arguing whether eating organic is worth it for the consumer is to propose an organic diet be more observant of some data that exists from tests done on various organic fruits and vegetables. Tests by the USDA indicate that certain fruits and vegetables are more likely to have detectable levels of pesticides, while others are much less likely (http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/food/diet-nutrition/organic-products/organic-foods/overview/when-to-buy-organic-ov.htm). Often, it is produce that is “exposed” (lacking thick skins), like berries and potatoes that are found to contain chemicals, while produce like bananas and avocados are less likely to have detectable levels. On the issue of eating organic, there does seem to be some value in arguing a middle ground—buy organic when the data suggests an increased risk for consuming pesticides.

An argument that avoids taking the middle road is an argument that looks at the non-monetary reasons that consumers might overlook organic choices and identifies potential remedies for those reasons. The fact of the matter is that the use of pesticides and insecticides has influenced our expectations of what produce looks like. If you’ve ever had a vegetable garden, you know that a beautiful, evenly red and round tomato is not nearly as common as the grocery store would lead us to believe. Untreated produce usually just looks less pleasant. In the meat market, a nicely marbled steak simply takes longer to create without growth hormones. In a society that often looks for both quick fills—the fastest, most convenient meal—and the most aesthetically pleasing object—pretty, flawless produce—changing our expectations of food may be more productive than arguing whether buying and growing organic produce is worthwhile. If as a culture we recognize our own biases and bad habits when it comes to food, we may be able to foster an attitude that encourages us to make healthy and socially responsible food choices without going back to the one dimensional question of “Go organic?”

Welcome

Welcome to our collaborative blog!

In her essay “The Argument Culture,” Deborah Tannen urged us to get rid of the idea of argument and debate as only two-sided by asking ourselves “What are the other sides?” This space (our own little nook in cyberspace) is a place where we can do just that. With your partner, offer up an issue that is typically argued as having only two sides and move on to introduce and explain two other useful ways of looking at the issue.

In many ways, this is an exploratory setting, a place where ideas can be stated and then tested out by comments from others, so there aren’t many rules of composition that we must follow. However, here are the guidelines we came up with in class:

--No texting language. Use basic English. Ex) no "lols" or "lmaos"
--No derrogatory statements. Be respectful, even when you disagree.
--Emoticons are allowed.
--Don't single one person out.
--Stay on topic.
--No clustering. Comments should be spread out. Don't post three comments within a single day.

If these guidelines are infringed upon constantly, each person in the class has the responsibility of bringing it to attention. If these infringements continue, the administrator will delete your invitation.

Look for an example post coming from me in the next few days! In the meantime, keep in contact with your partner and keep the ideas flowing.