The Downsides of Mandatory Foreign Language

At Princeton University there is a proposal to make foreign language apart of their general education classes, which would require all students to take a foreign language. This would still be the case if said student was already fluent in another language. I find this to be problematic for numerous reasons. First off, the notion that language has to be taught in schools is a flawed idea. Many people learn nothing or very little from their time in a foreign language class because the way this country teaches languages is all wrong. Very few people can learn a language by reading it and learning its grammar rules. Although I believe that learning another language is beneficial the state many need a reformed curriculum for foreign language or better yet they could teach a foreign language when students are very young and better equipped to take in the information. How could the curriculum be changed to make language an actual learning experience?

The Purpose of Brave New World

From some of the posts I've read on here(don't want to list specifics so it doesn't appear like I'm targeting anyone personally) regarding Brave New World it seems that some people are missing, what I think is, the actual point of the story.  This book isn't suppose to be a normal story which explains it's abrupt and arguably dissatisfying ending.  From my perspective, the point of the book was to simply give a glimpse of a possible future with a story being crafted to accompany that viewpoint.  In other words the story was only present to show off what our world could turn out like rather than being a traditional story where the "greater evil" is destroyed by the end of the book.  If you read some other novels that are in the same category as Brave New World then you'll see some similarities in what their focus for the story is.  For the most part a dystopian novel that acts as a prophecy will focus on an exaggerated aspect from the current time.  For Brave New World that aspect was the pursuit of happiness.  Other examples are in 1984(another dystopian novel) where the focus was on a "Big Brother" government where the government controls absolutely everything and Fahrenheit 451where the aspect is the absence of books and the lack of pursuit for knowledge/free thought.  If you read Fahrenheit 451 then you'd remember that that story also didn't have a fully fledged ending.  That was because the point of the book was to get you to imagine what it would be like if books were suddenly banned and the world was morphed around persecuting those who seek knowledge and want to go beyond the set borders of happiness put in place by that society.  1984 was written in a time where the scars of fascist and communist regimes, both totalitarian like the government in that book, were still visible.  Fahrenheit 451 was also written when the regimes of these ideologies were heavily prevalent and was inspired by how both of these governments destroyed books that contained any knowledge they viewed as "dangerous".  Brave New World was written as sort of an anthesis to 1984 where Huxley conveyed the idea that it wouldn't be an outside force that would subjugate the masses but a willingness expressed by the common folk who simply wanted to "be happy" after a devastating event(in the book it's the 9 year war which is meant to parallel the first World War, a lot of literature post-world wars was heavily pessimistic due to the results of the wars).  Notice how the main point of these books reflect the aspects of the time they were written.

What do you guys think the point of the book was? -Luis Mondragon

The Slow Disappearance of Bookstores

As we continue to adapt technology into our lives, bookstores are now disappearing. The reason for this is because books can now be sold online. Novels, or literary works played a great significance in our society by enabling people to learn somebody else’s ideas. Books  also taught us to develop our basic language skills and expand our vocabulary. 

The reason why I think books stores is good for us is that it can help us get out of comfort range with books. Most of the time, books in bookstores allows us to look at the page or two before we buy them to see if it sparks our interest. But online we can’t do that since we literally have to judge a book by its cover, and judging a book by its cover is never good since even the most unappealing covers can be a really good book.

The reason for the sad decline of bookstores might be because people are losing their enthusiasm to explore. Since we can pretty much do everything online now, people are losing their interest to go outside. People can now shop, do their groceries, work, and even watch movies with their mobile devices. What are the ways to attract people to go to bookstores once again?

Should all young athletes receive participation trophies?

I find this debate very interesting because I am an athlete myself, and I was once a little child starting AYSO soccer just like any other young athlete. However, it is actually quite debatable on whether or not all young athletes should get a trophy for participation.

Some debaters, such as Parker Abate, believe that participation trophies send a good message in youth sports. Also, it will give the young athlete some recognition, and they will feel some sort of accomplishment. Furthermore, it can boost their confidence, and it teaches them that teamwork, exercise, and good sportsmanship are great things to learn in their young lives.

On the other hand, others, like Ashley Merryman, will argue that parents should forget about awards and let their kids know it is okay to lose. Also, children need to learn that it takes time, dedication, and hard work to become good at a sport or some other talent. Children need to understand that as humans, we learn the most through our mistakes and failure.

This is a difficult argument, but I agree more with Ashley Merryman that there should not be any participation awards. It seems sad to think that not giving a kid an award would discourage them. However, it could give a kid false hope and by giving them awards they will not push themselves to be better or to try harder. They will end up thinking they are the best and will not try because they know they will get an award. It will be good for the new generation of young athletes to learn from their mistakes or from failure. Besides, failure could get them into training more to make themselves a better player.
What are your opinions? :)

-Alexis Pendleton

Should There be a Participation Trophy?

One of the debates that I came across was about giving young children participation trophies.  The debtors discussed if it sends a negative message to the children.  By giving every one a trophy does that say it's not okay to lose?  That everyone is a winner?  Well, debtor, Ashley Merryman believes it is important to teach children winning comes with hard work, and that it is fine to make mistakes.  Also, that our focus shouldn't be on the results and rewards, but teach children about progress.

I agree with Ashley Merryman, because if everyone receives a trophy it loses its value as an award.  Especially, with young children, they could care less about what is written on the trophy, but as long as they receive the same prize as the winner they are happy.  This isn't teaching the children that in life you will lose, and there will be disappointment.  One of the most important lessons I believe young children need to learn is losing and how to deal with it.  By losing we are able to use that as motivation to work harder, and to develop a better attitude towards others' achievements.

I want to see what other people have to say on this topic because I don't recall ever receiving a participation trophy.  Thus, it would be interesting to see what others have to say, being whether they have had won some or not.  Do you believe children should receive participation awards?

-Xela Dinh

A Vote and a Voice

I read a "Room for Debate" article about if taking selfies in a voting booth is an invasion of privacy. I learned that the now private voting, was put on display for all to see. In earlier times, people would proudly march up, ballots in hand, and make their vote. This is obviously a big difference from now. However, why did the pride of voting diminish?

It seems like these days the subject of voting is so taboo, things like selfies in the voting booth are triggering to some people. Why do people feel this way about voting? I'm of the mind that you can do whatever makes you happy. As long as it isn't disrespectful or demeaning towards other parties, I see no issue in posting or saying whom you voted for. You're exercising your freedom of speech, granted to you for being an American. You shouldn't be ridiculed for using your voice.

- Alfonso Gastelum

Testing

I read an article about testing in which I found very interesting. It talked about how education at the moment is focused on testing and how the education system may need to change. It talked about how if student really learn the content and understand what is being taught, then testing is unnecessarily. There are many students who study the content that is going to be on the test and afterwards they forget everything they had been taught. Also the testing system often classifies students in the wrong categories. Some students are good at memorizing things and are simply good test takers. However, that does not mean they learned the content. While other students may have understood the content and did bad on the test leading to the student's motivation going down.

Overall, I agree that testing may not be the best way of education. I have personally experience this, when I was taking Spanish it seemed like I was doing well because I had and "A" in the class, but afterwards I didn't know a thing. However, there were other students who spoke and understood Spanish but they got a worse grade then I did because they messed up on their test.

Conspiracy Theories

As I was reading a long read titled “Why we are addicted to conspiracy theories”, I thought about the many conspiracy theories we have today. Amongst the multitudes of theories, a few have become immensely popularized across the globe. The Mandela Effect being one of them. The gist of this conspiracy is that the way you remembered a particular detail is actually wrong, but what makes this so intriguing is that a numerous of others can identify with you. For example, many believe to have heard the Queen in Snow White say “Mirror, mirror on the wall”. Surprisingly, what was actually stated was “Magic mirror on the wall”. What’s even weirder is when you go back and watch these movies, they don’t say what you once believed to hear.

This may be farfetched, but is it possible that there is, and I jokingly yet seriously say, a glitch in the simulation. In further detail, was there a point in time when a wave overpassed our globe that perhaps altered certain details that we once believed? If you’re a man of science, this whole article is nonsense which I don’t blame you for believing. However, if you can be open minded enough to consider this theory, what do you think? Is there an irrational explanation for this pandemic, or do we all just have an untrustworthy memory system?

-Jordyn Parham

Misconceptions surrounding the privacy of smart listening devices

While reading the long read entitled, “Smart talking: are our devices threatening our privacy” I found that the author, James Vlahos, seemed way too paranoid regarding the issue of whether or not smart listening devices are breaching our privacy. First off, these devices all have a trigger word/phrase (Alexa, hey Google, etc.) that can only function by monitoring your voice. If you don’t want that feature to work, then disable active listening and use the manual activation. It has been proven that the recording part only occurs after the trigger word is said, and stops after the request has finished. Now, companies have even given the users direct control over the ability to view and manage the logs containing all of the stored conversations, which means that they can delete any unwanted conversation from their record.

The reason I say Vlahos is paranoid is because he is making it seem like it would be the end of the world if someone were to get their hands on his logs. To counter Vlahos, there isn’t really any harm that can be done if someone steals a record of him saying “Hey Google, what time is it in Alaska?” I’d also assume that the only people on the company's side of things that would have access to the logs must have attained a certain level of trust in order to be in their position which makes it very unlikely that they will be going through the user’s information.

Vlahos also seemed to bring up the threat of hackers a lot. He fails to realize how difficult it would be to breach companies as large as Amazon and Google. A hacker also doesn’t really have any gain from viewing other people’s voice logs which makes it unlikely that there are people constantly trying to gain access to private audio clips. -Hunter Wood

AOTD fails to adapt to the evolving landscape of communication

When I read more about Neil Postman's Amusing Ourselves to Death, I find myself reading the thoughts of a man who sits himself atop a pedestal on a level of the famous Adam Smith and the infamous Karl Marx. Where he ultimately fails in this regard is that it isn't a form of governance he is arguing for, it's a way of communication and the transmission of information, which has been an evolving aspect of human nature since the beginning of human history.

The transference of knowledge between groups of people have always been known to have been caught up in some sort of mixed translation along the way, so why is Postman just now realizing this with the Age of Television? He writes as if the problem is exclusive to the era, to which it isn't. It's only visible here because television offers a wide range of examples of information being altered due to some misunderstanding, which has been true for literally any other medium. The Bible having over hundreds of different translations is bound to be problematic for the ideas it originally offered.

Also, why is he criticizing entertainment being used as a way to get a message across the general public? That does not undermine the entirety of the message; if anything it amplifies it through the general means of entertainment. It isn't so much about "amusing ourselves to death", rather, it's more upon the lines of "amusing ourselves to understand". In an age where information is made available to such a large audience, getting a message across - whether it be political or social - always requires a means of entertainment to bolster its recognition, and personally I don't consider that necessarily as a bad thing. What do you guys think?

-Jaeden Sahilan

Religion in BNW

The new world has no religion. They are conditioned to not rely on anything that will destabilize society. One thing John did to disrupt society is disposing of the soma. This led to him being sent to talk to the world controller; they conversed about John's dislikes in the new world and Mustapha explaining why things are the way they are.

A concern of John's, that I believe everything revolves around, is religion. Mustapha tells him that the new world is successful because there are no religions or books written before the time of Ford. John argues that God gives the world heroism and nobility, but Mustapha rebutted by claiming those qualities are only needed in unstable societies. This relates to today's society because, unlike England, it is known that not everyone is happy and today's society is very divided. Furthermore, John mentions how God does not change. I agree and believe this fully. I believe God loves everyone no matter what and he will always be there for us and that this will never change.
-Aniya Steele

Keeping food on our plate, and out of landfills.

While scrolling through Room for Debate the topic about reducing food waste caught my attention. The debate talks about how 40 percent of the food sold to consumers goes into the garbage. This is such a huge problem because they are people out there who could use this food.
All the debaters basically had the same ideas, but the one that I feel had the best opinion on this topic was Dana Gunders. She is a leading expert on food waste at the Natural Resources Defense Council. She actually talked about ideas to help us reduce food waste. The tips she gave were to curb overbuying, store smartly, use everything in your fridge up, freeze food so it can last longer, and understand expiration dates "use by," "best by," "enjoy by" are just telling you when the food is the freshest it doesn't mean that it has gone bad. Usually the food is safe to eat well past that date.
Personally I feel that we should really listen to these tips because a lot of us take food for granted. Since we don't really have to worry about where our next meal is going to come from we throw food without thinking twice. Transporting this food actually takes up a lot of money and resources so we should value it more. There are people out there who do have to worry about their next meal. How do you guys feel about the topic? Do you take your food for granted or do you actually value it ? If you do take it for granted will you start to consider using the tips Gunders talks about?
-Nadia Delgado

How do we define happiness?

     While it may seem like an obvious fact that the society created in Brave New World is not suitable for people because we are robbed of our freedoms, maybe the new society is what would be best for us because it gives us happiness, and isn't that something that almost everyone wants and strives for?
     The society they have formulated ensures that everyone is happy, their desires are contended, and no matter what their rank is in the cast system, that they are happy with their social rank and conditioned to like what they do. What is it that makes the new society established really all that bad if everyone is content?
     My intent is not to justify the ways of the society in the book, but just to provide a different viewpoint than most people who simply claim that everything in the book is terrible and they need things to change.
     While everyone in the book may seem happy, it is an artificial kind of happiness that is provided by means of soma, and cruel conditioning that forces them to have certain beliefs they may not have had otherwise. The new world also defines happiness for us, when we currently are given the right to the pursuit of happiness, whatever happiness means to us, and not made to enjoy some mainstream form of happiness that the leaders may give its citizens. We should be able to feel every emotion, be given the opportunity to find out what happiness means to us personally, and have a chance to reach our own personal goals.
-Julissa Martinez

Google's Relationship With The Individual

An age of instantly accessible information was set in motion when two ph.D. students at Stanford created a company around a search engine aimed to organize data on the internet. It was named Google after the immense numerical value “Googol” in order to signify the amount of information it could provide. However, now, it is a better representation of the company’s commercial outreach. Google has expanded tremendously is the past few decades, and is continuing to tap into new markets. Students, commuters, and the average working citizen are heavily reliant on several of Google’s services, most of which are completely free to use. As many are aware, people are instead paying with their information. 

The Guardian’s long read “Google’s Earth: how the tech giant is helping the state spy on us” highlights some of the company’s deals with government organizations like the CIA, NGA, and the military. Although the article does shed light on the commercial relationships between Google and the government, it doesn’t provide definitive evidence that the company directly trades user data. Nevertheless, individual privacy still remains a concern especially since peoples’ lives are increasingly being integrated to and dependent on the information highway that is the internet. Moreover, a company as expansive as Google tracks crucial bits of personal information like peoples’ geospatial and online activities, schedules, and contacts. This information may not necessarily be linked to specific people, but they certainly can provide demographic data about a population which can potentially be manipulated by organizations that aim to sway the public. 

Moving forward in this digital world, it is imperative that people verify the businesses and services they place their trust on. In the 2000’s, numerous investors suffered losses from investments in a company called Theranos which promised a product that never came into existence. Now, however, the average person is the investor with their information, and not cash that is at stake. It is not a crisis, by any means, and I don’t mean to label corporations like Google as evil. Nonetheless, even today, cyberspace is murky waters and how it will evolve alongside people’s lives is relatively unclear. With the countless startups providing promising products whose applications prove valuable in today’s world, it is imperative that people are able to discern what exactly it is that they’re paying with.

- Kevin Gomes

Over-parenting

I just read a debate titled Is Extreme Parenting Effective? In contemporary times, strict parenting has to do with anxieties created by this environment. There's an exam in China that has been known to push students to suicide. The ultimate goal is to produce adults who are independent and self directed. Parents spend a lot of time thinking about other parents that aren't involved in the lives of their kids and how that child can be a failure because of how they were parented.

 They feel a kid can't be successful unless the parents is managing every moment and hovering over everything that happens in their life with the set goals being college and small subset of careers. When kids come home from school the first thing their parents ask about is their homework, grades, and test. From that we see that our approval, love, and  worth comes from A's. After pushing ourselves in school and wondering if we can get into a good college with the grades we have now, we question if this life will ever turn out to be worth it. Why do parents of today have way higher expectations compared to when they were growing up? Do you think extreme parenting is effective?
-Ahliyah Curry

Who is Responsible for Fake News?

As I was reading the debate about stopping fake news, I was reminded of the effects fake news have had in my life.  Throughout the debate, the authors wrote about how important social media has become in spreading fake news.  Thus, arguing that it is the job of the companies to fine ways to prevent more from spreading.  Others, believe it is important the users are aware of and are trained to identify this false information.  I think it is impossible to teach everyone how to identify the fake from the real, because people are gullible.  It really does start with the companies to stop more from spreading, since they are responsible for allowing such information to be posted on their site.

My father and mother are more gullible than myself to believe something they read online, because everything you read online is true right?  Well, I'm not saying they don't have any from of skepticism, but they are just ignorant of people's intentions online.  Since, we have grown up with the internet we have an understanding of the people that use certain sites, and what they are trying to achieve.  Yet, our parents had to learn and wrap their heads around the idea of scammers and manipulative people that they can't see.  I am constantly worried that my parents might believe some false information and take part in something they don't want to, which is mainly why I agree with the debaters who believe the sites should take action against this.  Do you believe the companies should be held responsible for everything posted on their sites especially fake news? Or are the users responsible for either believing in or not what they read online?

-Xela Dinh

The Outlook Brave New World Offers

As I near the end of reading Brave New World, there has always been a lingering thought in the back of my mind which pertains to how society determines what is taboo and what isn't. If society were to strive completely to any idea, regardless of how morally wrong we may perceive it today, they would succeed.

In other words, if the society of Brave New World could successfully take the sexual taboos today and turn it into everyday conversation amongst a group of co-workers, what could stop them from turning any other taboo like pedophilia into a normality? The book itself questions the very foundation of the concept of objectivity, which is defined as possessing objective truth independent from that of a third-party, essentially. It questions if we as people are truly conditioned by the higher-ups what is right and what is wrong.

The character that does seem to demonstrate the idea of objectivity is Bernard Marx, who finds himself in an awkward situation talking about what we perceive as sexual taboo in an atmosphere where that isn't the case, but even then, that is how we perceive it because we are taught that is taboo. Determining what is right and what is wrong is difficult when taking into account how we are even supposed to come that conclusion. Are there objective truths? Or is it up to us to ultimately decide?

-Jaeden Sahilan

Raise the minimum wage

     Minimum wage has always had its perks and downsides to the economy. When the minimum wage goes up it allows people to have more spending money which will boost the economy. People would then not have to be worrying on a week to week low income check on whether or not they can  get their bills paid while also having extra money to spend on necessities like food, home supplies, etc.
     However, all products within stores will go up and basically those who work these minimum wage jobs will be paying more than usual. Some may even see raising the wages as all a big illusion because they aren't being able to gain from all prices going up. Jobs may not want to hire younger unexperienced workers due to wanting better work production because now more money is coming out of their pocket for labor. Do you feel that raising the minimum wage is a good thing or a bad thing?

Foreign Languages in College?

In one of the debates that I read, "Should Foreign Language Classes Be Mandatory in College" made me think about whether or not being taught a second language is beneficial. We already have to take a foreign language in high school so why do we have to do it again in college. One of the debaters suggest that it is very beneficial to maintain the second language due to how rapidly diverse our country is becoming. In addition to that she also mentions how many careers are in need of bilingual people in order to communicate with more customers/people. However, another debater believes that just learning the language in a class will not be able to teach the depth of the culture. Plus, the best time to learn a second language is at a young age.

In my opinion, it should not be a require by the time you are in college especially if you already took it in high school, but should be an option for people who do want to take it. However, I also believe that it should be taught in elementary since it is easier for younger kids to adapt to learning it. The kids will be able to communicate and understand more at a much younger age instead of in high school. When I was in elementary, we were taught Spanish until my 1st grade year and it was actually enjoyable for me.
-Julissa Mendoza

Using the Internet for Communication

While looking at some articles on the Room for Debate, I found an article by Jazmine Hughes where she explains her experience while at a bookstore where she struck a conversation with a stranger and after a few minutes of talking they found they had common interest between them. They later became friends on Facebook. In the article she points out that, "The web provides a space where the normal barriers to friendship — namely, the confusion about the appropriate way to start one — don't apply," which proves how the internet can help people continue friendships even when they don't meet up in person.

     The internet has become a place to communicate and meet new people.  I think the internet is a good way to communicate and keep in contact with friends. However, many people's ability is being hindered because people these days mostly communicate through the internet. Which leads to than not having as much human interaction as humans should and renders their social skills.  Also, I read an article that humans are social creatures and we cannot live without human interactions or we'll go instance. Overall, I think that we should use the internet to keep in contact with long distance friends but meet up in person with friends in your area.

- Adeline Huynh

Police Brutality Against Black People

Before I ascend into a very prominent topic, I want all readers and/or commenters to be mindful of my perspective, especially as a black, female individual. Many of you may agree with me, others may not, but all I ask is that you remain respectful. Under the Room for Debates I discovered a very intriguing article called, " Black and White and Blue". It examines police brutality and the racial injustices that black people encounter in America on a daily.

Police are responsible for maintaining public safety and enforcing the law, but when you have officers that are abusing their power for the sake of prejudice and/or racist intentions, we have a serious issue. To a certain degree, becoming a policeman is a gateway entrance for racists to legally oppress POC's. Not only do they hold a significant amount of power, but they also have full support of the justice system behind them. In 2015, 99% of cases filed against officers were acquitted according to mappingpoliceviolence.org.  It is undeniably evident that policemen aren’t held accountable and this only result in the continuous vile treatment towards black/brown communities.

 July 6th of 2016, Philando Castile, a 32 year old black man,  was fatally shot in Falcon Heights, Minnesota by a white, male officer. Castile was initially pulled over for his brake lights; however, during the engagement he did inform the officer that he was carrying a firearm which he had a permit for.  Castile repeatedly stated that he was not reaching for the gun, as he was only trying to retrieve his drivers license as requested. Despite this, Yanez, the office, shot Castile  seven times with his girlfriend and seven-year-old child bearing witness.  His last words were “I wasn’t reaching for it”.  The officer claimed that he feared for his life and that he had “no option”  but to shoot. Unsurprisingly, the verdict was not guilty and the system failed to demonstrate justice yet again. It seems as if using their gun is the first option when it comes to de-escalating situations with black men and women. On the contrary, white criminals, who are at times non compliant and armed, are faced with tasers and repeated warnings. More importantly, it has become more and more frequent for cops to state “I feared for me life” as a means to dissemble Their true intentions, but why are you the man who fears for your life when you’re the man behind the gun?

 Racial biases against African-Americans prevail within the police community. What is actually implied by the phrase “ my life was in danger”  is his belief in the racial stigma that black people are violent, animalistic, and dangerous which causes them to feel threatened by our presence. Therefore, he psychologically formed the ideal that he was in danger and acted upon it. The African American makes up 13% of the total U.S. population, while white Americans consist of 76%. Despite these numbers, black people are three times as likely to be killed by the police then our white counterparts. If your rebuttal is that the majority of these cases are subjected under crimery, that is false. According to mappingpoliceviolence.org, "fewer than 1 in 3 black people killed by police in America in 2014 were suspected of a violent crime and allegedly armed".

Lastly, black inmates make up a disproportionate amount of the prison population. This is not due to the false accusation that black people are more susceptible to indulge in criminology. It is precisely because policemen patrol areas that are predominantly black or hispanic. As a result, African Americans are incarcerated at more than 5 times the rate of whites. It's not like white people aren't involved in the same type of crimes. "African Americans and whites use drugs at similar rates, but the imprisonment rate of African Americans for drug charges is almost six times that of whites" reports naacp.org. So why aren't we patrolling our white neighborhoods too? Because of white privilege my friends.

Any white american across this nation has been born with white privilege. You have societal privileges over non-whites that benefit you in any social, political, and economic circumstance. The system has been created to empower white people which is the underlying issue that POC's are trying to reform. Many of you may disapprove of those that are anti-cop, but how can I support a force that continues to kill my people? Black people across the nation tense up at the sight of an officer for in fear that they will become the next hashtag on twitter. Most of you have never had to sit with your parents and talk about what to do when an officer pulls you over in order to avoid an escalation between the cop and you. I have. So until the racial injustices in America are demolished and POC are included in the safety net within the police community completely, I will not be able to support our law enforcement system wholly.

- Jordyn Parham

Memes good or bad?

     While looking through topics to post about I came across a room for debate "Can a Meme Be a Hate Symbol?". Usually, we all look at memes to get a good laugh and to make it lift up our spirits. However, people have recently been saying that memes are being used as hate symbols and are becoming more and more offensive. Memes are now being incorporated with genocides and basically making fun of very touchy subjects. Things like putting swastikas and confederate flags in the meme are what is making people feel offended. However, the audience who look at these so called memes are in it for the laugh and not to feel a sense of violation toward their race and/or subject. Usually the person behind the meme is just a troll who wants to get people upset for their own laughing purposes. Do people need to realize it is all for fun and games? Should these trolls be sought out as racists or comedians?

Trump wants to block us all

     The president of the United States has a Twitter account that he loves to post on. Many feel that he shouldn't be able to block others from seeing his account. He is are leader and must lead all of his fellow Americans, not blocking them from social media.Bottom line he is our president and should not go out of his way to block someone from seeing what he posts.
     Others feel that he has every right to do what he wants with his account. It all goes back to freedom of speech which is allowing people to say what they want when they want. If Trump doesn't want someone to be following him he should be able to address that by taking further action and blocking them from his twitter statements. Just because he is our president why should we take away a right from him that everyone else has? Do you feel our president should be able to block us?

Is AI taking over our lives?

         
            Many people disagree on this, most people do agree on this.  Technology is a big factor in the modern world today. It helps us out in so many ways. In the military, hospitals, and in most of are schools. So of course we have to keep improving technology in order to keep up with the world around us. But technology is starting to be more addictive and making us more lazy.  I say it's making us lazy because in my house I have a lot of technology that does my chores. Like for instance I have a dish washer, I have a self vacuum, and I have a voice remote to the tv. It helps but it also has are minds thinking that stuff will be done for us. I guess the whole point of technology is to make our lives easier. But I do agree AI is taking over our lives. Their now making self driving cars and smart robots. Which isn't pretty smart because self driving cars can have people lose their jobs. They're be self driving buses, self driving Ubers, and self moving trains. That'll put a lot of people job less and increase homeless. Everybody caught up on their phones. Which causes people to text and drive(leads to car accident) and people not aware of their surroundings(leads to people getting kidnapped). Is technology evolving faster than we can absorb?

Can AI Really Take Over This Blog Post

As I was reading several blog posts and the article "Can We Stop AI Outsmarting Humanity," it occurred to me that many people discussing this topic do not even understand what AI is.  An AI is not technology, it is a program that can make decisions, learn, and improve itself without human intervention.  A mistake that I often see is that AI is often misunderstood, as people will think that general technology, such as phones, are AI.  The auto correct learning how you type and making spelling suggestions are AI which is on the phone, which the phone is not AI.

Many people on this blog seem to have reached a consensus that it is not possible for AI to take over.  From what I see, it seems that they have reached this conclusion because it has not happened.  But the way the AI works, it is a possibility for this to happen.  A super AI learning and having some mistakes in coding could create a chance for them to actually take over.  While many people here are making the argument that we created them and control them so it would not be possible, they seem to ignore that AI can learn and adapt.  They could bypass our control, and we would not have a way to stop them.

-Josh Fernandez

Save Us From Ourselves

In Amusing Ourselves to Death, Neil Postman focuses on how television is reshaping our culture. Politics, news, sports, religion, and education have all been transformed into a format of entertainment. Americans favor all who has the talent to amuse. The average length of a shot on television is only 3.5 seconds. Our eyes always has something new to see. Watching television requires minimal skills to understand and is directed at emotional gratification.

“The problem is not that television presents us with entertaining subject matter but that all subject matter is presented as entertaining, which is another issue altogether.” A news show is just another format for entertainment instead of educating. So many of us say school is boring because now the classroom is a place where both teaching and learning are intended to be amusing to students. Every time we’re allowed to do anything in class we immediately whip out of phones to check who texted us and to see who just followed us. Are we just going to fall into a mindless society with no desire to obtain relevant information? How can we prevent this from happening? 

 If we continue to make everything about entertaining this will eventually lead us to amusing ourselves to death.

Is school detention helpful for students?

     I recently read on social media where people were debating whether or not detention was useful for students. Many had a lot to say in comments about it not being useful at all and more of a waste of  time.One user went on to say "Kids will be kids, having them sit in a classroom will only make them hate being at school even more". Some believe sitting down and reflecting upon their actions does not help for most kids. If they instead acted on their mistakes it would be much more beneficial for them to not do it again.
     Others stated that it will teach them they should just behave and follow directions in order to not get punished. They further explained that it takes away there freedom and time outside of school so that they must learn not to do the action that got them there in the first place. Detention is used as a way for students to process the wrong that they have done. Do you feel that detention is helpful for students to learn right from wrong?

Your Device Is Listening To You

      In the article, "Smart Talking: Are Our Devices Threatening Our Privacy?", it brings up the topic of no longer having privacy due to our devices always tapping into our conversations. It states "if you want to know whether government agents or hackers might be able to hear what you say to a voice device, consider what happens to your words after you have spoken". These people would have the power to do whatever they wanted to with something that wasn't meant for the public.I feel that companies should have absolute proof that there is no way the device could pick up and record things that you are saying in the privacy of your home.
     This made me think back to a video I once saw on YouTube where a guy observed the ads he was getting were related to the conversations he was having. He went on to attempt an experiment with this to instill that this wasn't all a big hoax. Well sure enough, ads and recommendations began to trickle in from the subjects he was talking about. I think it's a little odd that out of nowhere ads just begin to appear based off of conversations that were never inputted into the device itself. Do you believe that the device is listening in? If so is having devices worth losing out on your privacy?

Should teens be allowed to vote?

             This is really a arguable debate. Of course teens would say yes cause teens are going to be teenagers. Most teens will have good statements and facts to back up their points. Then it'll be some teens to say we shouldn't be able to vote. It'll also be people that doesn't agree with this question. Majority of the people are adults or parents if you want to be specific. I think teens should be able to vote. I'm not just saying that cause I'm a teen but I think I have some good statements to backup my argument. Us teens should be able to should be able to determine the future.

           Teens should be allowed to vote. I think that teens should reach a certain requirement in order to vote. For example, have to have at least a 3.5 or higher. And must be the age of 15 or higher in order to vote. Also must have taken a little test asking about the U.S to show that your somewhat aware of the laws. It shows that these teens are mature. Some adults make the wrong votes to. Not everyone is perfect. Adults would say teens votes would be influence from others. Well vote is another word for opinion, so if they feel the same way just like the other person then that's them. Are opinions count to.

Trusting Companies

As I kept scrolling through the different blog posts people have made, I noticed that quite a bit were about privacy concerns. Most of them had to do with the "eavesdropping" devices that we keep in our homes like Alexas and Siris. Also, quite a bit were concerned over the fact that they really could be eavesdropping at any given moment. So then why do we own these devices? Why do we keep them in our homes? The answer is simple it's because we trust the companies. If you don't trust a company then you wouldn't buy from it would you? So how far are we willing to extend our trust? How much trust do we give companies and corporations? Well we already give them so much of our trust and some of us are honestly not aware of it. Do any of us honestly read all the terms and conditions? In one of the articles, I read how sometimes by signing these or clicking yes, you give away a lot of your own rights to privacy obviously. What some of them say is that the company can share your data with third parties and law enforcement. I believe that we should take a step back when coming across these issues because we put most of our trust in our devices and their companies into not invading our privacies. We should also be careful to which companies we accept the terms and conditions at times because we are releasing our privacy most of the time without realizing how much of it. Now some argue well, even if you don't agree with the terms, you still have to accept them. And well yeah, that is a very solid point. So in a way are we forced to agree to these since there isn't anything we can do about it? Or is there something that can be done?

The Medical Practices Pertaining to Gender

I've been taking a Women's Studies class this summer and also reading Brave New World. Once you take a Women's Studies course you cant think about anything else because it affects the whole world around you. I got to thinking, and this is a stretch, about gender and the way that we handle it in our society. The way of procreation in Brave New World led me to think about this topic but gender is an interesting topic to write about. Until very recently the common medical practice was to perform surgery on intersex babies (babies with both male and female genitalia) and raise them as girls often without their knowledge. Now its recommended to wait for children to reach puberty although doctors and/or parents may still choose to do surgery on infants. I guess what i'm asking is, Do you think this is ethical? why or why not?

Does Happiness Exist in BNW?

Throughout Brave New World, there is a huge emphasize on being happy, but how can these people feel happiness if they've never felt pain?  Last year in Ms. Colln's class we discussed the topic of what does it mean to be truly happy.  I believe this is an important question to ask ourselves, but I don't think anyone has the right answer to that.  Happiness comes in many forms and can last for a short amount of time or for a while, but it's impossible to always experience happiness every second of one's life.

However, in the novel the "civilized" people seem to be able to achieve infinite happiness.  A drug they take called soma to get rid and numb them of any situation they are not fond of.  They then believe to feel on top of the world, but I disagree.  In my opinion, soma doesn't make anyone happy, but instead it rids them of pain.  Does stripping someone from pain make them happy?  I do not know the answer to that, but it's impossible to feel happy if you have never felt pain.  The people have no worries, like caring for a family, or finding a place to sleep at night.  They have never really felt pain before, so what are they feeling?

The whole civilization is based around this idea of living in a world where everyone feels content with life.  Yet, I don't believe the controllers have achieved this.  Instead they have created a world where people are numb.  They are numb to reality and what life truly is.  This just makes me question my own happiness and if I'm numb to reality like them.

-Xela Dinh

Fake News in the Media

Fake news is probably one of the biggest concerns to candidates running for any government position. Not only for candidates, but for voters as well. The issue of fake news always seems to grab ahold or increase around the time of presidential elections. Last year, almost every candidate was complaining about fake news being spread around on the internet and also, you've guessed it, social media. Probably one of the biggest known haters of fake news is our very own president, Mr. Trump. Obviously here the issue isn't whether or not fake news is real because it really is everywhere if you pay attention. The news changes depending on which news channels or websites you get your news from. One of the main issues people are facing today is how to stop the spread of fake news.
Fake news is especially rampant on social media platforms like Facebook and Twitter, and it is these platforms which have to make decisions on how to curb fake news. In the Room for Debate, How to Stop the Spread of Fake News, one of the ways mentioned is to hire human editors to determine what is fake and what is real. This honestly would leave so much power in the hands of a couple of people who could easily be biased. Others argue that we should leave it up to algorithms to decide, and while this sounds like it should work, algorithms still need to be trained to determine what is false and real. Lastly, one other argument made was that it should just be left up to humans to decide, to the users. I personally don't know if many people would be able to distinguish the difference knowing how hard it truly is to spot fake news. So the question here is, what is the best way to stop fake news? Can it be stopped?

Online Social Media Influencers

As I was reading the assigned long read about online influencers, honestly, I was thinking that it wasn't going to be interesting or teach me anything new. However, I learned quite a bit from the article, but was also left with quite a bit of questions. For example, how do people feel so comfortable sharing, usually, every aspect of their lives with thousands or millions of followers online? Or dealing with having your life under intense scrutiny from your followers, knowing that if you say the wrong thing or do the wrong thing, thousands or millions of people will judge you and you could put your livelihood in danger? And lastly, are there people trying too hard to gain influence that they harm themselves?
In addition to this, I feel like social media influencers are primarily seen in a negative way by many, like those who complain about posts such as ads on Instagram for example. However, I feel like we must give these "influencers" some credit because it isn't an easy job, having to constantly adapt to new updates on different social medias and be able to switch platforms at any moments notice must be challenging. In addition, having to manage your daily life while editing your videos or post must be difficult. The article explains that now, these influencers are trying harder to appear authentic for their audience. Point being, they put in a lot of effort and dedication to try and do what's best for business.  However, I don't want to sound like I'm trying too hard to put out a good word for them. I think that people should settle down on all the trolling or mean comments being thrown at these influencers or promoters or advertisers or whatever other name they have been given.

Now Is Not The Time For Ignorance

The news has always been apart of my life. Whether it be when I was spending the night at my grandparents house, and we’d have to watch the late night FOX news, because they didn’t have any other channels. Or listening to the news from my parents bedroom when I’d get ready for school, and hearing all that was happening around the world. With today’s modern technology, we are able to get breaking news alerts on our phones even before it even hits the TV. Like many others, my parents have deleted their news apps because it is, “too sad,” or, “the world is corrupt.” But in my opinion, ignoring the problems is what is making the problems. After doing one of my Long Reads on, “How the News Takes Over Reality,” by Oliver Burkeman, discussed how Erik Hagerman, an Ohio man who cut out media and all forms of news after Trump’s 2016 presidential win. Hagerman’s article caught fascination about his “blackout”. Imagine, since 2016, someone has not heard about what’s new on the Kardashians, the Sudan massacre, or what’s new with Trump. Many even wished they could do the same. However, their was a staggering amount who were disgusted with his actions. Kellen Beck countered Hagerman’s article by publicly declaring him as a man of ignorance, and,”the most selfish man in America.” The ones who are going through real life problems of separation, or terrorism, they don't get to chose to go block out their news, because it is their life.

I agree with Beck. We can’t just delete our apps, and turn off the TV. We have to be aware and not let history repeat itself. We need to go out and stand for what’s right because change happens with us. 

The Opioid Epidemic: Was it Preventable?

Morphine. Codeine. OxyContin. If you're familiar with these terms from hearing a doctor's prescription or reading your family member's medicine capsules in the cabinet then you know what opioids are. Even if you aren't fully aware on what the painkiller is or looks like you might of heard how opioids are attached to the massive wave of addiction, abuse, and death that is now reaching the youth. For clarification, opioids are powerful painkillers that come in the form of natural, semi-synthetic, and fully-synthetic. Common illegal, synthetic forms of opioids that have been greatly linked to addiction and deaths are heroin and fentanyl.

At first my perception was that opioids are becoming so dangerously popular because there must be more availability and the youth of this generation is more addicted to narcotics at a rate that we've never seen before. Turns out I wasn't entirely wrong. After reading the long read "The making of an opioid epidemic", by Chris McGreal, I realized opioids becoming more available to the public wasn't solely due to the black market, the drug companies and medical institution had a major part to play.

Pharmaceuticals push for opioids such as OxyContin being the default painkiller was growing before 2001 since the drug was gaining influence, less restraints on prescribing, and it's so cheap to make. This led to the hospitals adapting pain as the fifth vital sign(blood pressure, heart rate, etc.) which caused patients to exaggerate their pain to either take advantage or because they thought they had to over prioritize it. Health insurance companies pressured doctors to take the easy route of prescribing drugs instead of actually trying to asses the cause of the pain by shortening consultation times and decreasing payments for expensive forms of pain treatment.

Reports that heavy doses of opioids were doing more harm than good, leading people to not only have a high tolerance but also increases their pain sensitivity. They were becoming less and less effective at their intended purpose. Even with the grossing number of deaths due to opioids the drug makers insisted that addiction was only an issue to the abusers who bought them illegally, and if there were too be restrictions it would only hurt the people who actually need the drug for chronic pain.

The truth was that opioids were good for business and brought in millions of dollars yearly so of course the pharmaceutical companies had no intention of stopping production. There were numerous warning signs to reevaluate the mass distribution and prescribing of opioids before they became an epidemic, however the big companies chose to oversee it for nothing other than money purposes. Money makes the world go round and is slowly destroying it in the process. Obviously their intention wasn't to cause so much death and addiction, but it was foreseen by many and could've very easily been prevented. Now we have an entire generation hooked and dying from drugs that are available everywhere they go from hospitals, to the streets, to even their family medicine cabinets.

At what number of deaths will the opioid companies actually do something to cease this worldwide issue? Well we know it's not at the thousands since over 70,000 overdoses due to opioids were reported in 2017 alone. Maybe the hundred thousands or millions? We can only hope that one day human lives are actually valued over money.

Do you think the opioid issue was preventable? What do you think we as a society can do to help stop it?

- Gia Torres

The Importance of Soma in BNW

The soma equivalent in today’s society is a drug addiction. I think that it’s comical how in both worlds people need something to take the edge off. It’s interesting to me how in this utopian society functions on everyone taking soma and everyone feeling joyus. Soma is normalized and if you don’t take soma you are seen as abnormal. 

Today there are prescription drugs or medicine for almost everything. People who need these medicines often hide it because they are ashamed of it however in BNW people have soma in their pockets and pull it out whenever they need to feel joy. When people get off from work they get into lines for their daily dose of soma. In chapter six Lenina says “why you don’t take soma when you have these dreadful ideas...” to Bernard and this intrigued me because it’s almost like an acceptable form of peer pressure because soma is as normal as drinking water in this society. 

The need for everyone to be happy is a big theme in BNW. I feel that this type of society doesn’t work because society thrives on emotion. If everyone has one emotion all the time then it would be boring. What are your thoughts about this? 

-Victoria Garcia

Pros and cons of technology

     
     
          There's many pros with technology and there's also many cons with technology. Technology improves every year. I really don't know why but I'm guessing to keep up with the modern world and to make life easier for humanity. There's a lot of pros with technology like finding the cure to cancer. Help people with education like the special needs. And to help us do are daily routines like driving , getting in contact with somebody, or just even turning on some music to listen to. We can all agree that they help us with a lot of things.  But are the pros more worth it than the cons.
 

             There's also many cons that come with technology. Like in the media fake news spreading and cyberbullying.  Teens and kids get distracted way too easy on their mobile devices. Causes them not to do homework or take care of their responsibilities. Also kids don't go outside no more because of their mobile devices. Their not able to explore the outside world. Many adults get to caught up on their technology too. Like texting and driving is a huge factor. That causes many accidents that results to fatal injuries or deaths. It can also start problems like on the media. Two girls go at it next thing you know their fighting in school. So it's kind of hard to see if we need technology or not. But are the cons worth it of having technology?

Fate or Freewill?

          Fate is something that's already determine. You can't change it cause it's destine to happen. Freewill brings you opportunities and gives you choices on whether or not to take them. With freewill you can choose your on outcomes or results on things. For many years people have been debating if we have "fate or freewill''.  You can argue with a person about this, but at the end of the day their still going to have their opinion about it. To me the only thing that is fate is when were going to die. Other then that I think we have freewill.
         
       I say this because there's so many examples how we have freewill. Like we choose whether or not to go to school. We can choose whether or not to do the work and were able to do what we want. Even if there's consequences behind them. But that's freewill. We also can control how we can die. Like if we keep are body clean and healthy we might not catch a disease. Or if you look both ways before crossing a street, there's a chance of you not getting hit by a car.

Is Digital Connectedness Good or Bad for People?

          Noa Slaney's opinion on this topic is that digital connectedness is beneficial, because it's how most people become aware of certain issues. Emerson Csorba's view on digital connectedness is, "Online sharing and selfies erode the value of our private lives." He gives an example of an event that he attended about a year ago that was a gathering for change makers and making the world better bit by bit. And all he saw were a various amount of people on their phones, taking selfies, texting and scrolling through social media. Later he saw people's post of themselves at the event with inspirational captions on how they were grateful to be apart of such an event, that they didn't even participate in. I agree with Csorba, I honestly believe that online sharing destructs people's experiences and doesn't let people grasp these events to their full ability. A lot of people misuse social media to uphold an image of themselves that is the complete opposite of how they are.
-Emma Reyna

Does Empathy Guide or Hinder Moral Action?

          This debate honestly surprised me. I never viewed empathy to be a bad thing but after reading this room for debate I understood. Paul Bloom's argument is that empathy is not as good as people might think. He claims, " Empathy has its place but reason should guide action, as it aspires toward the sort of fairness and impartiality empathy doesn't provide." He explains how empathy can be a curse, because people could take advantage of you on sensitive subjects such as the illegal immigrants issue. While Jamil Zaki explains how empathy can not only benefit our lives but the lives of others. He states, "Those who choose empathy grow a broader, richer emotional life." Empathy helps us connect with others, and helps us feel better knowing that we're not alone on a  certain subject. I personally agree with Zaki's perspective. Being taken advantage of is always at risk when we open up our emotions, it's just a part of life. On the other hand if we have a chance to enhance our lives and the lives of others why not take it. What's the harm?
-Emma Reyna

Should the President be Able to Block You on Twitter?

          Although Trump is the president, he is a person too. He should be able to block offensive people if he wanted to. In this debate I agreed with Danielle Citron's opinion that president Trump should be able to block people. She makes a great argument that, "Blocking followers on Twitter is not a matter of government censorship, but rather of expressive freedom to listen and speak." Trump's rights shouldn't be taken away just because it's inconvenient for a person to not be able to follow him anymore. After all, no one likes to be harassed on social media. She also makes another great point that, " No one else's rights are infringed if the president blocks followers on social media." So if Trump isn't corrupting anyone's rights and is just making a decision for his own comfort on social media, it's his right to do so.
-Emma Reyna

Technology Will Keep Improving, and so Will We... Right?

       Humans are becoming more and more lazier. With this summer's topics including a lot about technology, I wanted to look at it in a more different way. Sure, technology is always dangerous, i believe that, but they are already hurting us, even me as I type this. All this tech is making everything so much more easier. Our generations start to become more and more lenient on technology. It really makes you question, how will the children of five generations later be like? Will they be physically downgraded, meaning less and less physical people? Will they just all be riding around everywhere in some highly convenient and mobile form of transportation?
       What will become of us in the future, with new advancements in technology? What are other ways that technology can help further? Or will we just become lazier and lazier, slowly rotting away our human bodies? All of us can surely point out things that make life so much more convenient that weren't there when we were wee children. The smartphone!! All I remember was my mom's iPod, but now we have a device that can not only play music, stream videos, access the internet. store games and photos, and so, so, so much more. Kids nowadays will probably never know the rush of running from the bathroom, trying to catch the end of the  commercial break so to not miss anything. Jumping over coaches and bumping into people, all worth it for those few seconds of screen time. Just saying, time flies, and technology with it. But at what point will technology become too convenient for us? Sure we will mentally advance, getting smarter and smarter. But what about our bodies, or health? Will the convenience of new technology actually start to hurt us, the human race? A question that can't be surely answered until the future arrives.

Silent Addiction

One of the topics from Room for debate is if internet addiction a health threat for teens. Internet Addiction is not just a threat for teenagers, but people of all ages. Internet could be an element of escape where people could be whatever they want to be and escape the real world. Internet Addiction should be taken seriously.

The most common victims of internet addiction are teens, because of social media. Social media allows users to share ideas, information, pictures, videos, and commentaries. It makes users form an impractical expectations for themselves that cause low self-esteem. Spending too much time on the internet could also cause lack of sleep that could lead to obesity, high blood pressure, heart attack, etc. This is not just for teens, it could also happen to adults too.

Internet Addiction is an Addiction for all ages. Even children or toddlers could start being addicted because parents today use the internet to teach their kids using educational apps or videos on YouTube. But this wouldn’t work because they wouldn’t learn how to socialize or communicate. Also, the technology couldn’t teach the fundamental things that the children need. 

Are we truly in control?

       AI is the future. I think we can all agree on that. With more and more companies investing in AI, they're not doing it for no reason. Society is advancing, and so is our technology. It only seems reasonable that AI is the next step to a better world. With humanoid robots finally becoming closer and closer to reality, and even now by how far they've advanced, we start to suspect. Multiple institutes are devoted to the defense of AI, and they only become more worried with each new advancement. The algorithms used for these AI's only make them more human like, programmed to learn from mistakes and what's happening around it. And to not say it's not the least bit worrying is simply the blunder of a fool. 
       Now it's true that we created them, so naturally we feel in control. We can probably shut them down, though not easily. But the thing is, AI can be hacked. Used by either another AI or a human, manipulating it to preform a more malicious or dangerous task(s). We may not think about it, but do we realize how much damage AI can truly inflict upon us? And that's scary enough, a person or a group of people hacking and controlling AI on a dangerous level. But I feel there is something scarier. With technology always bugging out on us and susceptible to occasional glitches, is it possible for AI to all of the sudden gain the intent of taking over the world, all by itself? With no human control, only acting by itself. Sure, only a super, smart, amazing AI can possibly do that, but then again, we are approaching that level when it comes to artificial intelligence.

Should College Athletes Be Paid?

The National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) generated a record-breaking $1 billion in revenue from the March Madness Basketball Tournament alone. It was reported in 2015 that over 200 Division 1 schools made a combined profit of nearly $10 billion for the NCAA, with 24 of those schools bringing in more than $100 million each. While many schools make less than a fraction of those amounts several still reel in millions, if not thousands, of dollars in athletics revenue. The more interesting question is how much do the student athletes themselves take away from the profits they create? Not one cent.

Now it's very important to note that what I have just presented to you all is a very easy way to assume that not paying student athletes is outrageously unfair. When in reality the idea is much more complex, it's one that's accompanied with many consequences that are unknown or weren't considered to most. The solution to this concern is not as uncomplicated as just handing players checks, instead it's one that needs lawful, possible congressional, consideration and a carefully thought out system that works for both student and professional. 

Many argue that student athletes shouldn't be paid because they are paid through the scholarships and benefits the colleges grant them. However with practice, weight room/conditioning training, and competitions student athletes have expressed how increasingly difficult it is for them to take advantage of the educational part of said scholarships. Others also discuss how mostly men's football and basketball programs account for majority of the revenue, therefore there's confusion on how would/how much programs that generate little to no money be paid. There's much more concerns and issues regarding the topic, such as the possibility of athletes not even going to class since they're already receiving compensation. 

On the contrary, several people believe it's only right that athletes receive some fraction of the money that they generate, some go as far as to say it's gross exploitation. It's known that only 2% or less will go beyond college athletics and reach professional sports programs, with that being said many advocate for student athletes being paid as it's financially straining being a college and athletic student. Many cannot hold a livable paying job, or even a job, because of their time consuming commitment to their sport and classes. Some believe it would be a smart way to keep star players that generate millions going to college as it's beginning to be more popular to declare for the professional drafts or play overseas straight out of high school. 

Reading through the Room For Debates I stumbled upon a debate titled "NCAA and the Interests of Students". In Jay Bilas argument "College Athletes Should Be Compensated" he stated "Athletes do not need to be paid by the university as employees. But barriers to athlete compensation outside of the university should be removed." This would be the most uncomplicated way for players to receive the money they deserve as it's not directly connected with their school or conference. They should be able to market themselves by selling autographs, making brand deals, and appearing in commercialized ads without attachment to their college or the NCAA. However the problem of paying non-star players a percentage of the revenue they create is still at large; while they should be paid I'm not sure if it would be presented as a salary or some other form of properly produced payment as taxes and other strings would have to be included. 

Do you think it's only fair student athletes get paid for the revenue they bring in or should they remain unpaid for other logical reasons? 

- Gia Torres

The Issue with blaming Corportations instead of the Individual

    I was just reading why one of the Guardian Articles titled "Why Silicon Valley can't fix itself," and I take issue with it constantly blaming corporations for extorting the individual through content that is designed to keep you addicted. While I don't necessarily agree with the fact that corporations are creating addictive content designed so that an individual spends as much time as possible viewing ads and participating in any other activity that the corporation profits from. However, for centuries since their inception, any business has been designing products to keep individuals addicted to further their own gains like the American Tobacco Company in 1890 which made cigarettes mainstream to Americans and created the modern nicotine addiction, so modern-day corporations would naturally follow the same idea of creating addicting products. Now individuals have a choice whether or not to become active in Social Media like how individuals before had a choice whether or not to use cigarettes so personally, I think the responsibility should fall on the individual to avoid the addiction themselves rather than placing the blame on corporations. Teens now understand the risks of continually using social media and the harm that it causes so I don't believe that people can continue blaming corporations for creating a product that consumers continue demanding.

-Thomas Luong

People are Investing too Much in Social Media

In the long read, ‘It’s genuine, you know?’: Why the online influencer industry is going ‘authentic’, the author describes that a new trend is appearing "real" and "authentic" to their audiences. This is how sponsors would continue to sponsor, and, effectively, how online influencers will continue to make money and have influence. However, the fact that they must become authentic denotes that many were not authentic before. For instance, many only display the good things in life, or their good side, or the best parts of whatever is happening at that moment.

This shows that an online presence isn't the real you. It is, essentially, fake. People today are putting too much stock in their online presence, and in doing so it can affect their self-esteem and confidence. They believe a small number of followers or likes is a horrible thing, and that comes to define the person they are. But, seeing as how social media only captures a tiny portion of your life and personality, why are we putting so much stock in our online image? Should we be putting so much stock into our online image? Why, do you think, that people have decided to invest themselves so much in social media?
-Tyler Bartschi

Form and Content in AOTD

One of Postman’s main arguments is a claim about the form of the medium takes (television, spoken, and written) and the content to where it’s the information the medium communicates.  There is a big relationship between the two. The form of a media determines it’s content. Certain kind of media are for different kinds of information or communication. He argues that television is not at all suited for rational discussions or any kind of “serious” content . He then believes typography is the correct form of “seriousness,” and is not really entertaining. Then spoken language also has it’s own content, where primarily information is communicated by the spoken word.

Postman believes this relationship between form and content is of vital importance for people to understand. He feels that we think that we can get the same out of television of what the information  we once got in reading books and different kinds of print. The difference between print culture and television is culture that is with reasoning and culture with entertainment.

-Deja McClanahan 

Linda's important role in BNW

In the novel, Brave New World by Aldous Huxley, many characters stood out to me that helped further plot and character development, such as John's mother, Linda. I believe that she is a necessity to the book because she reveals the backstory behind the director, John, and she provides a connection between the two societies. When the book is focused on John, we're able to see the differences between the savages and the New World through the interactions Linda has with the people at the reservation. Differences such as; love, marriage, reproduction, religion, and nature.

Her conflicts with their ways of life make John's life difficult and unnatural, causing him to feel unwanted and isolated. We know that Linda plays a huge role in John's life and when she dies, John feels guilty about it and forcefully begins to torture himself. This raises a few of my questions. Did John commit suicide because of his guilt itself or the pain from all the suffering he had been enduring? Also if Lenina hadn't met him at the end do you still think he would have committed suicide?
-Phillip Chan

How Private Are We Really?

       There's this idea, this concept that everyone has definitely thought about in their lives. Privacy. Everyone needs it (or at least wants it), and we all know the basic rules of privacy. Don't barge into people's homes, all that stuff about physical contact (yikes).As I was reading "Smart Talking: are our devices threatening our privacy?", another question began to arise. What about our devices? The ones that have access to our voices and what we're saying. The ones that, if you really think about it, are actually listening in on every conversation that we have around them. As people become more and more comfortable with technology, we must understand that these devices can in fact be harmful as well. You might not take the subject seriously, I mean after all we are the ones controlling it... right? See, that's where the start to lines blur.
       Specifcally, the devices that require the most devices are ones like iPhones, Samsung phones, Androids, Alexa speakers, and Google Home. All these devices and more have options to speak to them, and actually hear a response back. Whether its helpful or not depends on you, but it seems legit right? But the thing is, anything can be hacked, no matter how well protected it is, it can be hacked. Also the company behind these devices can be secretly using them as well for their own specific uses. And it can even just bug out all on its own. Though it all seems over exaggerated and just paranoia, they're all still possibilities. The main concern is: Are we aware enough of the dangers that these devices can actually do? People must realize the dangers and what can happen. I'm not saying to go psycho and start boycotting or destroying the tech. Just really telling you to be more careful. 

Televised education in AOTD

In the book, Amusing Ourselves to Death by Neil Postman, the author discusses education substantially throughout the novel. In chapter 10 specifically, he lists compares many differences between the education at school and education learnt through television. In one example, he explains that in shows, education and learning is amusing and fun, opposed to how subjects are taught at an actual school. This could get children to believe in a false statement, that school is enjoyable and amusing like characters portray in the shows.

I was intrigued about this and pondered at my own childhood, and remembered that shows on the TV didn't change a thing about me and my thoughts about school. I never really thought about the differences between education on TV and in real life, but I can confidently say that watching amusing shows didn't change my perception on school. This raised my question; Have you ever believed that school should be more exciting, fun, or amusing? Do you think it came from watching the zealous, vibrant shows on TV?   
-Phillip Chan

Opportunities with bilingual education

I was having a hard time looking for a topic or a debate I could talk about on the blog but I recently came across this article on New York Times called “Educating Immigrants: Voices of Experience” which talks about how bilingual programs have helped kids who don’t speak English, perfect the language and how its helped them pass every other subject in school. Not every subject should be taught bilingual in schools but there should definitely be classes with teachers who are bilingual as well that can help students with all their subjects and not just one subject in particular. 

Not only does this type of program or class help students, but it also gives people who are bilingual a lot of job opportunities. When my siblings came to the United States, they didn’t know a single word in English because their first language was Spanish. When they were in elementary, they were put in ELD class which are classes that help all and any kid on campus who doesn’t speak English perfectly and that class helped them so much that their English is exceptional to this day and after high school, they were able to get jobs at a hospital as interpreters for patients who only spoke Spanish. 

- Ariadna Ayala

Soma (Brave New World)

        As I am reading Brave New World by Aldous Huxley I noticed a drug that goes by the name of soma that is constantly being taken by most characters throughout the story. One of the characters named Lenina seems to use this medicine to cope with any emotions that do not bring her happiness or that do not bring her joy. Her use of this medicine is exposed because as shes "Drying her eyes, Lenina walked across the roof to the lift. On her way down to the twenty-seventh floor she pulled out her soma botttle.... and, into her cupped left palm, shook out three half-gramme tablets" (Huxley 171). With this we are able to infer that she is taking these tablets after she has just finished crying to ease her pain.
        After reading over and over about the characters taking soma I became extremely curious as to what exactly soma is. As I did my research I quickly discovered that soma is also commonly known as carisoprodol. This drug is a muscle relaxer that manages to block pain sensations between your brain and nerves in your body, which explains why many of the characters in Brave New World take this medicine when they want to ease their pain or sadness. Often when the characters would take soma it would be taken multiple times a day about 1-2 "grammes" per dose. While I continued to do research and read on the dosages, it turns out you are only recommended to take 250-350 mg three times a day.
       Overall, yes I know this book is a dystopian fiction novel but how are the characters not at any sort of health risk? How has taking soma, a drug, become so normal and a basic routine in their daily lives?  I'm sure this has partially happened due to addiction but it just astonishes me that a society sees this as normal and that they will even persuade each other to take more soma to deal with their emotional instability. 

-Juliana Cervantes