Brave New World Question Bank

"Anyone with the link can edit"

This is the Brave New World Question Bank for the Socratic Seminar scheduled on Thursday, 8/22.

Apple Sohuld Not Take Responsibility for Distracted Driving

I was reading an article on Room for Debate and saw how people were blaming Apple for distracted driving. Apple should no take responsibility for distracted driving and should the people who drive while on their phone should take responsibility. Grown people are driving cars and should know what is right from wrong and what to do and what not to do while driving. Apple can't take responsibility for something they can't control which is unfair for Apple. The people who are driving choose to go on their phone while they drive and not the phone.

Are Phones and Television Becoming a Problem in Our Society?

After Reading Amusing Ourselves to Death I found that television and social media does cause a problem in our current society on how we are easily manipulated with what people post on social media or broadcast on live TV. This also causes to be quick on our decision making because we use the information that we have to make our decisions which is wrong because many news programs are biased along with debates on social media causing people to be one-sided in making their decisions. This causes a problem because there is no real thought put into who we elect, or should we pass this gas tax causing us to make decisions that we will later regret in our lives. Television and social media are good ways to keep up with what is happening in the world but are more of a distraction than it is helping us.

How Should the Government Establish Gun Rights?

The argument over gun rights between the Republicans and Democrats has been going on for a while and I decided to put my voice into the situation. I believe that gun rights should be allowed, but with some limits. I want people to be able to own guns and to be able to defend themselves with guns if someone were to threaten them or if someone were to break into their home. However, certain guns shouldn't be allowed to be sold like automatic military weapons because those are deadly when put into the wrong hands. Also, people who wish to purchase a gun must be able to or know how to use a gun with evidence that they are able to, and the only people that are allowed to purchase a gun are people who don't have a criminal record or a drug problem. Guns must be put into the right hand and it is way too easy for someone to purchase a gun and there are a large number of military weapons being sold which is unnecessary for a civilian to have. People must be limited on who can get guns and on how they get guns.

Is it Healthy to Have Such a Large Political Rift in Our Country?

These past couple of years the Democrats and Republicans have created a large political rift between each other causing the ideas of both political parties to be the absolute opposite of each other. For example, the Republicans want more liberty with the rights of guns and the Democrats want to remove that right all together causing strong conflict between the two political parties. I don't believe this is a healthy way to be in charge or to make decisions for the country with such a strong division between the two political parties and the way they bash each other. There should at least be a middle ground for all these ideas or a compromise to prevent the two political parties from splitting completely and possibly start another civil war. What do you think about the political rift we currently? Is there even a political rift? What are some ways we can fix it if there is one?

AF: It's 11:59!

Wow, good work everybody. 

Thanks for all of your hard work.  Get in touch if your work is done, but for some crazy reason, you couldn't get it in to us:  car trouble, notebooks lost in the mail, technology glitches, or a teacher with good intentions who kept forgetting to process your blog request...or anything crazy like that.

Finish up your other homework, but set English aside for now.

Check the blog for info before the first day of class!

The Result are Conflicts and Complications

Over 800 million people are affected in the world by Global Warming. Whether it’s food, climate, pollution, drought, diseases, and resources, their all still affected in various ways. Everyday global warming gets increasingly worse, greenhouses are the reasons why global warming is substandard. After reading the article, Global Warming and The Developing World, Global Warming is one of the main economic issues in the world. By the second half of the century, the air would be more polluted due to an increase in population.

Juan Jose Daboub, one of the screenwriters for the articles, insists hiring Private Sectors to handle the issue of Global Warming. His standpoint is involving the business investment to use Private Sectors prioritize investments to global conflicts. Daboub creation of ND-Gain, grants positions to individuals to help the globe from this crisis. While according to Fredrik Hedenus, greenhouse gas is one of the main contributions to affecting air pollution. His perspective is to cease eating meat and cheese because it’ll no longer give a purpose to operate greenhouses. Air pollution will worsen by half of the second century due to the raise in population.

In my standpoint, I support Daboub because cutting out meat and cheese lower’s food options and recipes. If we exclude these resources, it’ll cause chaos and disagreement due to those supplements being essential to our lives. No one will be in peace, not having access to these supplies. Conflict and complications would be a matter to society. This would result in people protecting and fighting back for these products. Overall, nothing will be solved in the end. -Natalie Alyssa Pantoja

The Pitfalls of Brexit

Jaeden Sahilan sparked a discussion about an interesting topic, Brexit. I think the secession of Britain from the European Union would be disastrous for their economy. The European Union is the largest market in the world. Removing themselves from this economic environment would cut off a major source of commerce. They would also be hindering the free flow of immigrant labor, which is an empirically supported economic benefit. 

Many pushing for this secession ground their opinion in reactionary, anti-immigrant, and emotionally driven arguments. Absurd generalizations about economic migrants are pushed by many politicians, propagandizing the minds of their constituencies. Despite overwhelming economic consensus, many still subscribe to the myth of the “job-stealing immigrant” that sucks up welfare policies and doesn’t contribute to the country through taxes. Considering the multiple assumptions that are simply incorrect, those that take this stance are either ignorant of reality or severely prejudiced in their belief.
-Tyler Brunson

Does Empathy Guide or Hinder Moral Action?

In the article, it is displayed into the argument of what is ethical, empathetic, or logical, and reasonable. For instance, agony is a task that is faced in a beings life, although, the brain is opposed to the heart which follows emotions or knowledge. Emotions are the main contraptions that make individuals further humane while knowledge is sincere. According to Paul Bloom, it's only self-conscious to obtain what is logically correct and not to aim for pity. His perspective of empathy isn't entirely the finest method to motivate a person's spirit because it's not what an individual should acknowledge. Empathy is not the proper origin because logic and reasoning are what should be carried into mind. Meanwhile, Jamil Zaki prefers to differ on Bloom's argument. Zaki supposes that empathy is a beneficial instrument that will enlighten a beings mood. He views it as a contribution to understanding a person better rather than viewing pure logic. From my standpoint, I concur with Zaki on his way of thinking towards empathy because of the positive outcomes they can provide for a person. His perspective, it is not a negative influence but an opportunity to enhance a mortal’s way of feeling. The importance of empathy reveals there will always be someone willing to understand a person's situation. I selected this matter because this mechanism can ease individuals foreboding any emotion and perhaps create a difference in life -Natalie Alyssa Pantoja

When we will decide to stop fake news

The debate is how to stop the fake news from prevailing over social media websites, particularly Facebook.There are many ideas of how to solve figures from the stronger algorithms to make conscious users. The main argument to be il to get social media sites to find some more power against fake news. Annemarie Dooling believes the best way to get rid of fake news is by learning algorithms. By making algorithms similar to those which place certain emails into spam should be used to place articles or post into fake news categories on social media sites. By doing this method the two words “Fake News” will be something in the past.
Nicholas Gladin has a different aspect to this by not following the most popular person but instead listening to facts and a person who will show you the truth. Only a conscious could see what is correct even though if its something that you don't want to see the truth. So many believe in people or companies for their popular brand name instead of those people who are making ten times the amount and there brand name is smaller but way more expensive and truthful with their price. Who do you guys believe to be the best way to get rid of fake news or would you make a different route

Room For Debate : Is Internet Addiction A Health Threat For Teens?

While going through my Room For Debate: Is Internet A Health Threat For Teens? , I came across the article, "Blame Society, Not The Screen Time", by Danah Boyd. One quote that stood out was, "We put unprecedented demands on our kids, maxing them out on structured activities, homework, and heavy expectations...For many teenagers, technology is a relief valve." This personally connected to me because I always have plenty of homework and extracurricular activities to handle. So whenever I do have a little time to myself I find myself on my phone usually texting a friend. For many students their work load is heavy which prevents them from being able to go out and have fun with friends. With the very little time we do have we find ourselves conversing online. This is normal because as humans we are social creatures that thrive on communication. So my answer is that Internet Addiction isn't a health threat for teens. The only thing that may be a health threat is our work load that prevents us from human interaction.
-Annie Givhan

AF: Ugh you guys

I listened to a bit of Joe Rogan podcast when he was interviewing Elon Musk.  Musk says the AI thing is a real threat, that it's already too late, that once the genie is out of the bottle (and it is), there's no going back.  Musk scared me.  He seemed fatalistic, resigned to our uncertain fate.  "It's either going to be great, or it's going to be awful, and we really just don't know which way it's going to go."

I remember talking to kids about "the singularity" a long time ago, and we just thought it was crazy.  Not crazy, after all. 

America is Forgetting How to Communicate

After reading both books, Brave New World and Amusing Ourselves to Death I noticed a majorette theme of controlled worlds and lack of communication. The whole book written my Neil Postman was based on how we’re losing connection with others and not even noticing. Technology has taken over our lives and left us with less information we came in with. As of BNW, their whole society is based on the restriction of open thoughts, not being able to talk about whatever comes to mind! In today’s world, technology has taken over our lives as well. People would rather FaceTime than meet in person, we hangout with our friends just to go back on our phones, and worst of all we lost the deep conversations we used to have with others. I remember when I was in elementary, I didn’t have a phone till 6th grade, but wow, the whole elementary life of just being so excited to go on the swings, hanging after school, and socializing with all my friends leaves me in awe. Look what we’ve lost now that we have these little screens with funny videos and unrealistic expectations. 

Knowledge

Every one has most likely heard the saying that “knowledge is power”.  But while that saying is true and is intended for a positive mood there can be a negative application.  Just because someone has knowledge doesn’t mean that they know what to do with it.  People can use knowledge to create a power for themselves and to the extent that it becomes dangerous.  The hardest aspect of knowledge that I believe is the most under looked is the topic of knowledge on what to do with knowledge.  We may know a lot of information but we don’t know how to use or if we do use it then how do we know what to do with.  What is your opinion?

Will AI take our jobs away?

As I was reading the Room for Debate article, "Is Artificial Intelligence Taking Over Our Lives," I thought about the amount of job losses. There are lots of different types of AI, there are some who are programmed to play a game of ping pong or chess and others that bring towels or snacks to your hotel room. But what about the more sophisticated ones that are programmed to improve certain things. AI could be used to fix elevators or be cashiers, the possibilities are endless. However this brings up the question as to what would happen to our jobs. While artificial intelligence could make our lives potentially easier, it could lead to plenty of job losses.

Garry Kasparov says "one person's liberated is another person's unemployed." I completely agree with his point. While there may be more job opportunities into programming the AI, not everyone is capable of doing that. Many people may not have been great students but are great handy persons. They know how to fix things or work with their hands. But if AI replaces these jobs many people are left unemployed. We have to really think about these advances in technology we keep trying to make. If we let AI continue to improve, it could eventually leave all of us without a job and we would be taken over by this artificial intelligence. What are your thoughts on this matter?

-Benjamin Sanchez

Procrastination

As I have done with this homework and for a bunch of other homework is procrastinate and I’ sure were all doing it and we had all done it.  Procrastination can be beneficial for some people I have observed in that they work better under pressure.  Perhaps if we all procrastinate will we get better at working under pressure?  But why do we procrastinate so much?  I believe that it is because we just don’t want to do the work so we just wait for the last minute to do it.  Also it may be due to the fact that we just mind fried after receiving the assignment and we just take to long a break.  How do we stop procrastinating?  If anyone has any suggestions or thoughts please leave them in the comments, I am curious as to what you all have to say.

The Power of Speech

A theme I noticed of the summer homework was the fake news versus real news.  That got me thinking of applying that to the power of speech.  One aspect of speaking that can be seen in reading but quite the same as listening is the aspect of tone.  When you hear some one speak you can differentiate between a convincing, happy, sad or angry tone.  One can usually tell when some is lying however not everyone can tell.  I’v watched movies where actors have lied with out ease and the people took with out even questioning.  Here are some questions that you all can consider if you to ponder about?  Has anyone ever told false information and you haven’t noticed?  Has anyone ever lied to you and you noticed it right away?  Should we get practice at recognizing when some is telling a lie.  What is your opinion overall?

School Reformation

Schools all over the country vary in performance, quality, and wealth. Wealthier schools have the resources and money to bring in good teachers, better classrooms, and an overall better environment for learning. Unfortunately, the same can not be said about the poorer schools. The less fortunate schools don't have as good teachers since it is harder to pay them or can't attract them there. Classrooms are in terrible conditions and the school environment is quite hostile to an average student in terms of both education and social life.

I believe that there needs to be change in how schools are managed. In this way, all students get an equal opportunity for an education no matter their living conditions. School funding shouldn't be used on unnecessary things but towards improving the classrooms or like helping out the music program if they have one. In doing so, the overall quality of the environment at the school will be drastically improved.

- Nawoda W.

I want to start off by asking everyone what their idea of fun is?  It can be anything that you may find enjoyable or appealing.  The reason is because while I was at COSMOS at UC San Diego the program forced us to go to social programs to have fun every night.  I went to them and had a blast and it got me thinking about other people though.  Some people didn’t want to be there and would have preferred to stay in their dorms.  However this is how new friends and experiences are created by going to these events.  The topic of forced fun versus natural fun came to my mind through out the program.  If these social programs were optional then the people who showed up were committed to having fun versus the people who showed up just because it was mandatory.  Although those people may have made new friendships and created life long memories because they were forced there and maybe they just don’t realize or they COSMOS for making them do it.  That said I would be curious to read some opinions regarding the topic of forced fun versus natural fun.

Finding Sanctuary in an Unfamiliar Place

     In a Room for Debate about sanctuary cities they debate whether or not sanctuary cities should be allowed to exist. Sanctuary cities are cities where undocumented immigrants can go to feel safer because immigration laws are not greatly enforced.
     Sanctuary cities should be allowed to exist because the majority of immigrants are not always people who are committing crimes like the people the president enjoys to talk about, and most people people just want to be successful. Do not most of us just want to find happiness, and isn't that the ultimate goal? Aren't the people in the United States all for the pursuit of happiness, and the American dream where you come to America with nothing but the clothes on your back and a hard work ethic to make it in the big world? Everyone deserves their shot at a better life, and should be allowed to take it. Don't we all deserve the opportunity to be successful? Do you think that sanctuary cities should be allowed?
-Julissa Martinez

Are Democrats Too Split?

As the title says do you believe that Democrats are too fractured to put up any formidable resistance against Donald Trump?  With the recent Democrat Candidates debates taking place in the last few months, the general consensus that has been project by the media is that the Democrat Party is far too split and that Republicans are "loving" it.

You can see this on the The New York Times as well, with multiple articles being written about various canidiates as being the "key" to defeating Donald Trump, how Democrats can't decide on a health care plan, etc.

Another more straight forward example is that it seems that members are afraid to provide policies/reforms that can be seen as too far left.  This matters due to the term "socialist" being used as buzz word in modern politics by both sides to discredit an individual.  The term is able to cause suspicion among the general populace which is critical due to image being a huge part of the environment of modern American politics.

What are you guys' takes on this?  Do you think that the Democrats will able to rally together to choose any sort of resistance against the Republican Party?
-Luis Mondragon

Is "I Voted" Good Enough?

There has been a lot of controversy over the picture that Justin Timberlake posted a while ago when he was voting. It was just a simple selfie of himself voting in Tennessee but you couldn't see anything on the screen. So why does it bother people so much?

Whether or not taking pictures of your ballot is legal varies from state to state- it is legal in Tennessee- but not only him but his wife as well are receiving a lot of backlash. There was a debate on whether or not this was a problem. Many people don't think so because, you couldn't see anything on the ballot, it is completely legal, and it could encourage his fans to vote, which is very important. A small amount think an "I Voted" sticker is enough to say you voted. But it didn't harm anyone so why are him and his wife receiving hate for it?

-Kayla Abdur-Rahim

Should Movies About Slavery Continue To Be Made? (Debate)

I found an article that concerns itself with asking whether or not movies about slavery should continued to be made.   This was brought to attention after Snoop Dogg called for a boycott against the remake of Roots.  His reasoning for this is that Hollywood is only looking to focus on the struggle of black people from the past in order to ignore the struggles they go through now.

Natasha Lightfoot's take on this is that it's important to remember things like slavery in America because it's a central part of it's history.  She also says that it gives context on how these struggles for blacks came into existence.

Personally I believe that the making of such movies doesn't desensitize viewers since it depicts the hardships that these people had to go through and what our country is actually built on.  Ironically I think it would have the opposite effect since viewers are reminded just how long prejudice against blacks has been built up.

What do you guys think?
-Luis Mondragon

Digital Connection All The Time Good or Bad?

In this age technology and the internet is everything. Almost everyone who can afford a phone has one whether your a elderly person to a young kid in elementary school. With people able to talk to anyone they want to at any time I find people being connected is a general good thing. We are able to socialize and keep up with family and friends at any time. As social creatures the internet is very good at doing just that. We are also able to support and spread news about important topics and bring attention to when we need to take action. The internet is also amazing at inspiring others as well as influencing teens all around the world to be the best they can be and continue to make people laugh via memes. The world has become more intertwined and overall close whether it be through social media, or texting you friend or family across the world.

Medical Websites May be Doing More Harm than Good

     In a Room for Debate about searching to self diagnose or consulting with Dr. Google, they question if medical sites are helpful. Writer Arun Swaminath says that often times people will decide to not get treatment because of something they have read on the internet. This can obviously be very dangerous and can cause people to die because of their ignorance.
     You should always listen to what your physician has to say because they have a degree and the world of medicine is very complex. Swaminath also acknowledges that even when people look up things online they do not use reliable sites. People can look up their symptoms on reliable site, but should never be quick to assume the worst. When people just have a headache an automatically assume they have a deadly disease this can make them worry for no reason which can be harmful to their mental health. I see it all the time at school where people which look up their symptoms and get worried something terrible has happened when usually everything is fine. Do you ever look up your symptoms, and jump to the worst conclusion, or do you always go to the doctor whenever you think something is wrong?
-Julissa Martinez

Should smart homes Record Us Without The Activation Word?

Smart homes are a great asset to our society. They allow us to do trivial task with a press of a button or when we speak a few words. It has been revealed that the smart homes record is without us saying the activation words such as "Ok Google" and "Alexa". In the recalled Google Mini it had a glitch that was named phantom touch which keep it active always and recording. This alone got the Google Mini recalled and raised some other questions such as what have we unconsciously said around our smart homes while we didn't know they were recording. In an murder investigation with 2 friend the police got a search warrant to see if the Amazon Echo one of the friend had to see if the two friends were arguing. They learned that the Amazon Echo has been unconsciously recording them without the users consent. My position on this is that if your going to own a smart home than you have to accept the advantages and the disadvantages that come with it. When you own something that is potentially recording you willing you are effectively waving most of your privacy rights.

Pokemon Go or Pokemon No?

I read a "Room for Debate" article about Pokémon Go. Pokémon Go, if you've never heard of it, is an interactive game that causes people to explore their surroundings and capture fictional creatures. The source of conflict was the fact of whether Pokémon Go helps or harms people. On one side of the fence people say that Pokémon Go brings people outside their comfort zones and into the public fresh air. On the other side, however, rebut saying that it takes away from the value of a good neighborhood walk. What side of the fence do you fall?

Personally, I feel that the purpose of Pokémon Go is get people interacting with others and the environment. I see people learn more about their surroundings and meet new people at poke stops. People are their realms of technology, but exploring more of their areas with an incentive of advancing in the game. I feel it's a win-win, but how do you feel?

- Alfonso Gastelum

Is Artificial Intelligence Taking Over Our Lives?

Technology is constantly advancing and will constantly advance as long as humans continue to advance and get smarter. Like most technology artificial intelligence was created to make human being lives easier. The question it is taken over our lives? Artificial Intelligence is isn't taking over our lives and will only ever have as much control as we give them. Artificial Intelligence is like a child that will be young forever and we are the parents, as in we control the child and shape it into what we want it to be it will forever share our interest. It is also a major asset to our society that allows us to complete trivial task with just a press of a button or just speaking a couple worlds. We are in control and can delete artificial intelligence if the situation arises. We should always keep artificial intelligence a couple steps behind us to give us time in case of an unfortunate event. Now in case the situation does actually arise we do need a universal kill switch for all artificial intelligence. Humans will constantly adapt and evolve while staying one step ahead of artificial intelligence.

The President Should Be Allowed to Block People, But He Shouldn't

President Trump should have the ability to block you on Twitter, bit he really shouldn't. President Trump is one of the most controversial President's that is very tech savvy. Now although he is the President and should listen to most peoples opinions he still should have the option to block people on Twitter. The reason being their are some extremes like death threat, but overall the President is still a person and should be entitled to all the rights of a regular user on Twitter. No one should be forced to take abuse like stalking threats on their family, and overall harrassment by reporter and other people. Now being the leader of the leader of the free world means that he shouldn't block people he doesn't like such as reporters that don't support him and should be able to take constructive criticism. President Trump and other political figure shouldn't have any special rules on social media just because they're in a position of power.

Polarization of Opinions Surrounding Climate Change

Experts all across the scientific community are in agreement that climate change is a threat to the future of the planet and its sustainability. Being at the forefront of innovation and breakthroughs, one would assume that the US would be a major proponent in acting against climate change. Yet, there are disproportionately more deniers of the issue in America compared to the rest of the developed world. One of the most notable deniers being the president himself. In the NY Times debate “Climate Debate Isn’t So Heated in the US,” writer Jamie Horgan puts the blame on the over exaggeration of the problem and its apocalyptic portrayal while others like sociologist McCright assert that such beliefs are rooted in traditional American conservatism. Regardless of why disbelievers exist, the discussions surrounding it should involve ways to combat climate change and not concerns about its existence.

Although climate change does deserve more attention and action in order to sustain the current lifestyles of humans, it is not as one-sided as some assume. To some extent, the claim that the situation is often described as worse than it should be holds true. Propositions like the Green New Deal might be a step in the right direction, but some of the goals mentioned are unrealistic and call for dramatic changes that could potentially leave society in a worse position. On the other hand, deeming climate change false and overlooking its effects despite all the evidence is simply being ignorant. With per capita usage of resources on the rise as developing countries grow economically, it is crucial that the world takes sustainability into consideration along every major decision. For the average person to maintain or improve their lifestyles in the future, having a realistic perception of the situation is necessary.

- Kevin Gomes

AI Versus Humans

At this point of time, humans have gotten lazier and AI has become way smarter than we have. Comparatively to humans, the are much quicker at solving problems especially when compared to humans. AI, unlike humans, don't have formulas/directions on how to answer problems, unless they are given some. Most of the time, they will learn from their mistakes by running through multiple scenarios of the problems in order to find the most efficient answer. While it may not be efficient, robots are able to do this far quicker than humans' most efficient way for a result. Look at our world now, in a majority of our homes, we have some kind of smart home appliance such as Echo Dot, Apple Home, or Alexa controlling some aspect of our home. Even if you don't own one of those appliances then your smartphone counts as one as well. Siri, Google, or any of those kind of AI that you are able to talk to and it produces some sort of result similar to that of a human proves that AI is at least on the same level of humans; combined with their speed and their ability to have all the extra applications that come with devices such as, Bluetooth, AI is far superior than humans. In addition, to keep things short, there is an cryptocurrency called Bitcoin. There are not many bitcoin and in order for one to be achieved it must be "mined". For a coin to be mined, it is not done physically but through computers that have powerful parts to solve rigorous problems that would take humans way to long to perform. They are not only hard but they are also lengthy math problems that only computers can do. At this current point, the probability for a computer to mine/answer one of these problems is 1 in 6 trillion

~Justin Bou

Are The News Channels Manipulating Us?

When reading Amusing Ourselves To Death by Neil Postman I came across this quote that I thought needed more evaluation. The quote read, “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... No matter what is depicted or from what point of view, the overarching presumption is that it is there for our amusement and pleasure,”(Postman, pg.87). This quote opened my eyes because I realized that all the shows I watch did have some type of amusement element to it. Shows meant for cooking, science, and even the news displays content meant for entertainment. This  mainly connected to the news because sometimes they don’t always address problems that may be concerning to our society. Instead, sometimes we see stories about saving a dog which may have no correlation to our lives. This type of news is designed to pleasure us. Channels report stories like that because if they reported grueling stories then some people wouldn't want to come back and watch. This type of content can shield us from knowing the real and sometimes depressing news. And when they do report news that is somewhat serious it is not for long periods of time and are known to diverge our attention to something else by using the phrase "Now...This". This gives the viewer little time to think about the incident which doesn't give it much time to resonate in their minds. This personally bothers me because I thought I was being presented with information that was important to my life but actually the news picks and chooses what entertainment they want you to see instead of what you need to see.
- Annie Givhan

Security versus Privacy and Freedom

A few years or so back there was the tragic terrorist attack in San Bernardino, California. The attack took the lives of about fourteen people and injured twenty-two more. After taking down the shooter and their accomplice, the FBI scoured all over for a motive and any information that might help them prevent another attack. One very useful piece of evidence was the shooter's phone which had a high chance of containing very important information and an explanation. The problem then came when the FBI needed to unlock the iPhone so they demanded Apple to create a program to unlock the phone but Apple blatantly denied that request. This lead to a public court battle between Apple and the FBI, but in the end the FBI ended up using another source to open the phone. This an example of one of the most the controversial issues going on and will continue to go on.

If the FBI were able to see what's going on in everyone's minds, then the fear of being a victim of a tragic incident disperses. At the same time, we would have literally zero privacy and all our actions and thoughts would be monitored. The same goes for the other end of the spectrum. If the FBI were to never dig deep into the lives of an average American citizen, then we would all be driven insane with the paranoia of being a victim of an attack. If Apple were to give the FBI an universal program to unlock all our programs, then they would be able to infiltrate a majority of the population through phones. Its all a question of how much a person is willing to give up for their own safety.

- Nawoda W

The Flaws of Brexit

Personally, I find that Brexit has revealed the underlying truth about British Parliment and what they're willing to do in the face of democracy. They essentially have two choices: follow through with Brexit and suffer huge economic losses, or don't follow through, and disregard the people's vote which would fundamentally crack the foundations of democracy the country stands on.

Now when it comes to whether or not the idea of Brexit itself is a good idea, I honestly can't say much about. To be quite frank I'm not necessarily informed on the relationship the UK has with the EU, but given the circumstances at the time, the UK couldn't pull it off and still hasn't at the time of writing. I will admit though that the idea of the UK becoming an autonomous entity on the world stage separate from the European countries is an entertaining thought, it's just not a realistic one per se. If you guys are informed on the topic I'd very much appreciate your thoughts on it all.

-Jaeden Sahilan

Should We Be Able To See How Well Others Do On Social Media?

After reading an article about stopping the spread of fake news, the solution came up that social media apps and websites should stop showing the number of likes that someone will get on a post. This reminded me of a tweet that I saw on Twitter that said profile visits and likes are no longer going to be visible by people on Instagram.

The comments under this tweet were kind of mixed between this being a good or bad thing. Most people think it will be a good thing because smaller accounts will stop comparing themselves or thinking that they need to reach a certain number of likes, which will cause less problems in their personal lives. A small amount of people did not like the idea because they want to see how their posts are doing. They are getting a lot of backlash and people think the only reason they want to see how many likes they get is for some type of self validation.

Personally I don't really disagree with the idea because it will cause less problems. A lot of people on social media do compare themselves and it cause social media to be a very toxic place for them. But does the number of likes you get on a post really matter?

-Kayla Abdur-Rahim

Should we be spending less time on our phones?

In the Room of Debate's "Is Internet Addiction a Health Threat for Teens?", Noa Gafni Slaney and Emerson Csorba debated on whether too much screen time could be good or bad for teens. They both brought up good points and raised a few questions. Slaney stated that being digitally connected was, while Csorba said otherwise. Slaney stated that being digitally connected can bring people together, however Csorba argued that being on the internet too much can make people depressed from seeing other people's 'perfect' lives. It was hard for me to agree with one side more than the other because they both had great points. Should we put a restriction on how much time we use our phones so that we can still have those connections with people from around the world, but also not think until the point that we become depressed? Do you think we could find a balance between those two?
-Eileen Hernandez

AF: Recent blog posts >> Wow {PLEASE READ}

The pressure of a deadline can produce really good work.  Procrastination can make you crazy, and it can create unnecessary stress, but it can also spark creative and focused work.  Keep going.  I'm so interested to see what comes out in the last 15 hours of summer homework.

Look, let me be very transparent here:  if you are not done with your work, and you feel sad about it because you really wanted to be in this class, just turn it in.  Turn it in!  Accept the natural consequences (partial work = partial credit); understand that summer homework is your ticket into the class, but nobody said it had to be perfect.

Don't get me wrong:  we deeply appreciate kids who get the entire thing done and in on time.  That's amazing, and worthy of respect.

But that doesn't mean you can't turn it embarrassing summer homework, and still have a great experience in AP and finish the semester strong.

My advice to those of you who are looking at that 3:00 p.m. deadline and can't decide whether to cry or yell or go to sleep or go throw the notebook in somebody's backyard pool.

Take a breath, and work hard until 1:00, just like millions of Americans are doing across the country right now.  Join up with the people in the world who are, right now, working at their jobs.  They may like their job; they might not like their job.  Nevertheless, they are doing their job.

Then eat a yummy lunch, take a shower, turn in your notebook, and feel satisfied.  Come home and take a nap, then work on the blog.

I promise you that you're going to be OK.

Does storing data violate your privacy?

I read the long read "Smart talking: are our devices threatening our privacy?" and it brought up a few good points and raised questions for me. Most devices like Alexa and Apple's Homepod wait for that trigger word to essentially "wake them up" and follow the command they are told. However, if they are waiting for that certain phrase, doesn't that mean they are always listening? That makes me feel a little uneasy that this thing that is supposed to help you, can potentially be listening on to everything you're saying. It was found that some companies store the audio from interactions people have with these devices. The companies stated that it was to see how the device answered to the commands it was asked to see if it needed improvements. However, what if it was used for more than that and companies are keeping that information from us? Does this violate people's privacy? It may just be paranoia, but I know that I would not want one of those things in my house.

Is A.I. going to take over all of our jobs?

Artificial intelligence does so many great things for us, like diagnose people with rare diseases or direct traffic for busy roads. In the Room for Debate's "Is Artificial Intelligence Taking Over Our Lives?", Garry Kasparou brings up a point that if A.I. is taking over our jobs, we should create more jobs for humans. If we don't create jobs for the people who lost them to A.I., unemployment will skyrocket. However, the question is what other jobs are there for humans? If more jobs are created for humans, won't they again be taken over by robots? Joi Ito also brought up a good point that E.I. could be dangerous if not in the right hands. However, even if in the right hands, things could still go wrong. My question is how can we make sure that this kind of technology doesn't end up in the wrong hands? Also how do we ensure that this technology is used for positive purposes?
-Eileen Hernandez

Memes Aren't Hate Symbols

After reading the room for debate, "Can a Meme Be a Hate Symbol?" I noticed that most of the debaters believe that the popular Pepe the Frog meme was a hate symbol, but that's not the truth. Pepe was created without hate symbols and made to only give good laughs and that's it. Ever since his creation, people have reposted different iterations of Pepe, and some of these may be negative but that doesn't mean Pepe himself is a hate symbol. Unfortunately, a couple of these debaters think that Pepe will be tied to these negative iterations forever, but it doesn't mean the meme is only negative.

Most memes are created to bring joy and laughter to all the people who view them, and most of the Pepe memes are positive and uplifting so I don't think that people should focus on the negative dark side of the meme. Viewers should do this for all memes though, just because the meme has a negative connotation attached to it doesn't make it a hate symbol. Instead of criticizing the meme, criticize the creator who gave it the negative traits. What do you guys think of this? Can memes really be hate symbols?

-Sonny Montalvo

Should the President Be Allowed to Block Us on Social Media?

Donald Trump loves to use twitter. He uses it to denounce the media, criticize individuals, and spread campaign messages. Even though he is the president should he be allowed to to block us on his social media? There are two different views that can be made. One is that since he is the leader of  the world, how should he be free to tweet? Out of all the presidents he is the one who has had the most power on social media. So, should he really be able to block someone? Another view that can be made is that he is also human just like everyone else. He should be able to talk to and block others as he pleases. He is free to listen whether online or offline as he pleases. The choice is no different than anyone else.  He is the president and we should be able to see and know what's going on with his life if we would like, but then again it is also his privacy right also. He shouldn't even really have a social media account in my opinion.

-Deja McClanahan

Doing a better job on recruiting police officers

All the time we hear about police officers making really bad decisions when it comes to applying force. Especially when using weapons. In one of the debates I read about "How Can Police Do a Better Job of Recruiting Officers?" Changes in the recruitment of officers in departments are taking place. Police agencies have had trouble finding well-qualified and racially diverse applicants. Some ways  they were talking about is we should hire more females. Females in law enforcement receive fewer complaints than the males. All we usually hear about is white males causing most of the problems. It seems that females will use less force rather than the men who uses their authority. Another way we could help is recruiting more military veterans. Even though many departments do this already, it can be helpful for them to take a sensitivity training course before. Veterans are also already used to protecting and serving others.  No matter what way the departments recruit, they need to start doing a better job for our community.

-Deja McClanahan

Participation Trophies Don't Benefit Young Athletes

After reading the room for debate article, "Should Every Young Athlete Get a Trophy?" it made me realize that giving out participation trophies to every young athlete on the team doesn't really benefit them in the long run. Sure it may feel good to get a trophy in the moment, but after receiving them for every game it may feel pointless. Receiving these trophies at a younger age seems reasonable, but as you get older you shouldn't have these anymore. Instead, coaches should come up with a different way of recognizing players participation.

Children who receive these trophies may think that if all they do is the bare minimum and participate they will be rewarded, which is not true. These young athletes can't expect things to be handed to them in the future, especially when they go into the workforce and college. One of the debaters in this article, Betty Berdan, said that participation should be acknowledged, but instead of  a trophy it should be just a couple of encouraging words or a pat on the back. I believe that this is a much more effective way at recognizing participation. I'm curious to see what you guys think of this, so go ahead and leave a comment.

-Sonny Montalvo

Concealed Carry on College Campuses

When I began reading the debate entitled “Should Guns Be Permitted on College Campuses?” I initially sided with Amanda Collins. Collins owned a concealed carry permit, but was unable to use it at her college. She is a supporter for campus-carry because she believes it may have prevented her from being raped. While there’s a chance that it would have helped in that case, I think in general it would lead to more violence than prevented crimes. 

Having an abundance of students with weapons increases the risk for more violence. I would imagine that there would be numerous cases where fist fights would turn into murders with the excuse of self defence if everyone was able to carry a weapon. There is the argument that someone with premeditated intent to harm would just carry a weapon into school no matter what the gun rules are, and in that case a concealed weapon from other students would be helpful for stopping the threat. However, in many spontaneous events, such as a fight between multiple intoxicated students, I think banning weapons would result in the least amount of casualties.

-Hunter Wood

Is declawing cats a necessity or just pure evil?

Another controversial topic in New York is whether or not declawing cats should be illegal. Debater Alan Berk believes that declawing cats should not be illegal. Yes, he agrees that it can be bad, but declawing a cat should only be seen as a last resort. He also points out the fact there is tons of other animal abuse going on and no one is taking action about that. He explains that declawing cats can be necessary, because cats can be aggressive towards furniture and if the owner gets extremely upset they may send the cat to a pound where it will be euthanized. He states that a cat has a higher chance to get adopted if it is declawed opposed to a regular cat.

However debater Dennis Turner believes that animals are sentient beings and not just simple  property. He believes that if we declaw cats they may lose part of the predatory behavior that they are born with. Cats use their claws for various things. For example when they are getting chased they climb onto a tree, they also defend themselves with their claws, or even just scratching themselves.

Personally I believe that it should be illegal, because if we are going to adopt a pet we need to dedicate time, and compassion towards it. We need to be responsible and be fully ready for any bad things to follow. We must provide our pets with the necessary equipment so that they don't damage our beloved furniture. Stripping a cat from something it is born and utilizes on daily base is evil to say the least.
-Bryan Mijangos

Thoughtless Society

     In Brave New World Aldous Huxley introduces a disconnected society where advanced technologies have effected their way of life and show the consequences of these changes over time. For example, in the novel, the author uses censorship as form of keeping the community invariable by restricting their freedom of speech and thought. The government limits everything they do, from revealing the truth about their classes, to their ability of going outside. The society sees the difference in each classes way of living, but what they don't realize is that they're all chemically the same. They never question the way society works because the government masks their world with perfectionism. They constantly take away their freedom of thinking for oneself, leaving them clueless about their lifestyle. At a young age they condition them to hate books so they don't have any desire for them. This book depicts what life would be like in complete order, where you're controlled in everything you do. No thoughts, no imagination, no belief system and all uniformed personalities. How would you feel being controlled all your life? Would you act out to try to change things?

     Personally, I hate being controlled, I love having structure and directions, but being free is what our world is about. Social media platforms are made for our opinions, "Room for Debates" lets have a choice in what we believe! So other than having a perfect and happy community, why do you think the government in BNW won't let the people be themselves?

- Emma Pedroza

What Do We Do When Robots Take Over?

As I was reading an article titled "As Robots Replace Old Jobs, New Jobs Should Be Invented" by Gary Kasparov, he brought up the issues of robots taking over and machines replacing humans. He was not opposed to the fact that robots could potentially take over our jobs and occupations; he thinks that will always be something new that humans need help with that robots can do. 

Kasparov said that intelligent machines will liberate humans from tedious labor, allowing us to be more initiative and ambitious. He also brought up the topic of "liberated" meaning unemployed. So if machines are taking over human occupations, what will be humans source of income? Everyone will be unemployed and robots will be doing our jobs so how will humans make money? 

-Kayla Abdur-Rahim 

Societal Differences and Similarities

After reading and analyzing a handful of books which all stem around society, I have noticed some interesting similarities and differences. In the novels, Brave New World, Fahrenheit 451, and 1984, they revolved around the lives of one or more people in their society. These people have changed their view of the world through the course of the novel and begin to rebel against their world. They also have some kind of leader in charge of the society. In 1984, the leader of the totalitarian government is someone called "Big Brother" while the leader in Fahrenheit 451 is the American government and the leader in Brave New World is "The Controller". These books all send a similar message of what if the reader's society is like this? The authors thought such thing could be possible and are expressing their concern like Orwell who expressed his concern about the growing totalitarian governments like Nazi Germany and the USSR.

Even with the abundance of similarities between the books, there are many differences as well. Brave New World is about a utopian society while both Fahrenheit 451 and 1984 are dystopian. The societies between the books are very distinct. Fahrenheit 451 involved a society of people unable to use their heads while 1984 involved total government control and Brave New World had a near perfect society with no suffering. 

As I was reading Brave New World and Amusing Ourselves To Death, I began to draw connections between the three books. I found it very interesting as they had more similarities than differences. It's quite fascinating that books about different societies have a lot more in common than one would think.

-Nawoda W.

Sanctuary Cities

When reading the debate “Do Sanctuary Cities Have a Right to Defy Trump?” it really made me think about what sanctuary cities do. By definition sanctuary cities limit their interaction with federal government and offer protection to their residents. So what is the problem?

Trump's new immigration policies have really hurt many people. I am constantly seeing reports of families being separated and being kept in detainment facilities that are in horrible conditions. If a city wants to protect their people from this then why shouldn’t they. These sanctuary cities are not hiding hardened criminals, they are helping those who came to this country out of desperation. Yes, there are much better and legally correct ways to get into the country but these people had no other choice but to come when they did. 

Many people view sanctuary cities as going against the government because that is what Trump says but if they go against the government for the greater good then why should they be punished. Trump has threatened to take away government funding for sanctuary cities but these cities continue to claim their status. Maybe I am too close to this issue but I feel that these cities are doing nothing wrong. What are your thoughts?

-Victoria Garcia

Phone App as a cure for Depression

     I just was reading an article from the room for Debate that presented the idea of using a phone app as a cure for depression. The debaters who are in favor of apps like these present ideas that it now allows victims of depression and anxiety to get a little help or relief outside of brick and mortar establishments. While I agree the intent is good to find a way to help people with conditions like this outside in public life I disagree with the way they intend on going about doing it. I think that by placing the source to help with the depression of a device that's proven to get you addicted and perhaps even more depressed. A more reasonable way I think to handle depression is to give people increased access to therapists and specialists who can help treat their conditions instead of providing them with another tool that could possibly enhance their depression.

-Thomas Luong

Unpopular Opinion on Participation Trophies

After reading many of my peers’ blogs, I agreed with the majority’s opinion that participation medals are bad because they lower the value of accomplishment trophies. However, after reading specifically Eric Priceman’s input of the “Should Every Young Athlete Get a Trophy?” I had a change of thought.

Priceman has three children who have received participation awards and were told that they should be treated the same as a winning trophy. Nonetheless, he was able to tell that they knew the difference between participation awards and accomplishment rewards. Participation awards are by no means a substitute for accomplishment awards, but they are a nice way to reward the effort that everyone put in. I think most people, if not everyone, realizes that a trophy given to a winning team means more than a participation trophy, but I'm sure it would still encourage more people to join a sport, or stay in a sport after losing than if solely winners were awarded.

In conclusion, I think awarding everyone is a nice way to encourage participation given that most competitive people still recognize that an accomplishment trophy is more valuable than one given to the masses.

-Hunter Wood

Our Devices are Listening to Us

In the long read titled Smart talking: are our devices threatening our privacy? informs us on ways companies use the information they obtain from our devices. In today's world, we have virtual assistants that we can depend on to do simple tasks we tell them to do. Toys can now listen to what a child has to say and respond depending on what the child's response was. The problem is that we don't know where the voice data may be transferred to and what it might be used for. The government may be listening to what you're saying and watching what you're doing without your consent.

 The chat logs that companies see may be anonymised so the reviewer doesn't see the names of the users. When we speak to a virtual assistant on a phone or another device, we only think that it's only a computer on the other end, but people on the other side taking notes and learning off of the voice data. Hackers could hack into your devices to hear all the requests you made in the privacy of your home. These plushies also known as CloudPets could have a message sent from the plush to a distant relative. These plushies were hacked in which the hackers demanded a ransom from the company. What are some actions we can take to prevent getting hacked? Is hacking going to happen more often because of the rapid production of new technology? 

-Ahliyah Curry 

Do you feel violated by your device?

While reading the long read Smart talking: are our devices threatening our privacy? It really made me think more than I already did. For example how many times have you talked about a store with someone or searched an item online then next thing you know you see ads on your Instagram about the item. I know this has happened to me way to many times then I start to really freak out.
The companies admit that the devices have microphones built in so yes they listen to us, but only when they hear keywords. They think that if we aren't doing anything wrong then we shouldn't worry. Although a lot of us do because it is an invasion of privacy. We shouldn't have to worry about those things because then we just worry about our personal information getting leaked or our devices being hacked.
Personally I feel that this feature is just bad for the companies because we are the ones that keep them in business so if we don't trust them then we won't really want to buy their products. Have you experienced you device listening to you? If so what was the situation and were you freaked out?
-Nadia Delgado

Empathy Doesn't Hinder Moral Action

Another debate that had me thinking and intrigued me greatly was "Does Empathy Guide or Hinder Moral Action?". Empathy allows humans the ability to share and connect their experiences and become closer. Does empathy guide or hinder moral action? What are your thoughts?

Debater Paul Bloom believes that empathy can lead to short-sights and unfair moral action. Bloom claims that empathy is a curse and can turn people against vulnerable groups. An alternative that Bloom suggests to replace empathy is compassion, since compassion is more so a feeling of pity. While debater Jamil Zaki believes that empathy can improve and make a difference in society. He claims that empathy causes people to grow up happier and healthier.

As for me, I believe that empathy doesn't hinder moral action. When people connect with one another thanks to empathy, they get a general sense of moral action. After hearing others' stories and experiences, society can pick out and see what's appropriate and what is not. Empathy can open people's eyes to the unknown and make society more aware of things. If you empathize with somebody, then you understand and feel what they're going through. When or if you face that dilemma yourself, then you can guide yourself based off of that person's experience.

Maybe yes occasionally, empathy may hinder moral action when the feeling is too strong. However, I stand by my point that empathy aids in moral action. Is empathy really a bad thing or is it a good thing? If so why? I'd like to hear your opinions on this issue.                    - Emily Chang

Are people trying to get big on social media for the wrong reasons now?

While reading my long read "It's genuine, you know" it brought up many good and valid thoughts. The beginning of the article talks about how influencers started out in the first place. In the beginning people would just post videos to inspire others and share their ideas. They didn't make a profit off of it nor did they care to.
Once youtube started to actually pay the big name youtubers everyone wanted in on the action. Although they were doing it for the wrong reasons they would post just to make money. As more and more people started to do it though it became harder to actually become known. You had to create either very unique videos or videos that made people laugh.
Personally I feel that with so many people creating videos it lowered the value of youtube. I'm not saying that youtube is something bad I'm just saying that its really isn't for everybody. People should do it for the right reasons, not for the money. It should be used to spread meaningful ideas not just non sense. Although it is the non sense that we enjoy watching. How do you guys feel about this ? Is youtube losing it's value?
-Nadia Delgado

My Critical Thoughts on the President

When we were kids, we used to think everything was perfect and innocent, never put much thought into our child minds. When we were kids, we used to think that those with jobs, had good intelligence. When we were kids, we used to think the President was the smartest person in the world, always having such high hopes for him. Though, is that still the way we think in this case? In the article, “The Media of Trump” it is discussed on the matter of how journalists should respond and manage our president’s inappropriate behavior. An abundant of journalists are being mutilated mentally for interrogating the chief of state with questions to fulfill their compositions. 

It’s truly disrespectful to be treating your people with such low standards especially when millions of citizens rely on you for safety, honor, and responsibilities. No matter what gender, race, or religion that individual may be, it shouldn’t be a complication. It’s a common occurrence for a journalist to bombard the president with such distressful questions. This is because society is exceedingly insecure about the leader’s role and conduction to their nation. They want him to reach all of their requirements and make their environment sustainable to live in. 

Although, it’s understandable for Trump to be behaving this way. No one respects nor values the behavior of being repeatedly bombarded with questions cause we’re all human. It bothers the mind and we disapprove of the action, which results in being irritated. We result in being in a grumpy mood which is relatable. Therefore, when your being relied on from your citizens, you must be appropriate, mature, and calm. Trump cannot be immature and inappropriate when people are relying on him to represent the nation. If he lets anything oppose him, it’ll be a distraction and may cause such irresponsible and inappropriate actions. 

Overall, I believe Trump’s Media towards journalists is extremely unacceptable. He must manage his emotions as a president because he’s not only representing America but the people within it. It’s best to look portraying and sustainable to other countries and presidents. With the proper environment, reliable president, and well-mannered citizens, we can easily create further alliances with many nations. Personally, I’d like a president with great qualities to be a role model, commutative, quick thinker, knowledgeable, and an exceptionally good listener. What about you? What are your expectations to a marvelous president? 

-Natalie Alyssa Pantoja

Our Environment

Recently, I read that a post on Instagram that using reusable straws only help the environment pollution by 0.003% and that fast fashion and food industry are some of the most polluting industries. Although I don't think the world is end in twelve years I do think that Earth is dying and if we don't start doing something about it Earth will be destroyed. 

Some tips I read about to help lessen pollution is to stop shopping at fast fashion places such as Forever 21 and Shein. You can also start using reusable water bottles and cups instead of plastic ones. Although becoming vegetarian is hard eating less meat will also help because the meat industry causes a lot of pollution. Overall, we should all be taking steps to help the environment, the Earth can't take care of itself. We have to take responsible and take care of our planet.

Memes Are Not Hate Symbols

While reading the debates, I came across the debate "Can a Meme Be a Hate Symbol" and could not believe that people actually think that it can be considered a hate symbol.  Obviously, memes can be used in hateful and distasteful manners, but that does not make the original meme, in this case Pepe, a hate symbol.  The meme was not made with the attachment to these hateful messages and the meme can still be used in a innocent and funny way.  Memes are meant to be spun into the taste that people wish them to be so they should be considered relatively neutral.

While they are not really hate symbols, they can be turned into something that sends a horrible message.  Memes can be used almost like propaganda by extremist, who use them to try and make people believe their ideas.  It is not always obvious because they may start on something not very extreme, but they can gradually make it more radical.  This makes it easier for people to believe and accept the ideas in memes as true and right.  It is best to be weary about memes, but also to remember that it is mainly not used this way.

-Josh Fernandez

Analyzing the Past through a Modern Lense

     So recently I was just scrolling through my newsfeed in my spare time and I saw that a videotape of Ronald Reagan had been unearthed of him calling the African delegates in the U.N monkeys after they had chosen to allow what is now modern Communist China to join the U.N. Now I'm just gonna say ahead of time that I in no way condone or support the idea of calling anyone a racial slur but my main talking point is the idea of unearthing archived footage like this and analyzing it with a modern view. We have to recognize that Reagan lived in the 1980s and even then he was in his mid 60's to late '70s but the point is that in that era movements like the modern liberal movements of today didn't exist so it wasn't as necessarily taboo to say slurs like monkey. More importantly, however we have to live in the present and not focus on nonsense like a now-deceased former president saying one racial slur because deciding how and what political changes we intend to make for the betterment of our nation in the future is far more worthy of news coverage and discussion.

-Thomas Luong

The Untrustworthy Research Center

As I was looking through my social media recently I came across an article from the Daily Mail that was about a son who had just found out his late mother’s body was sold to the military to be used in a blast experiment. The article described how shocked and upset Jim Stauffer (the son) was because he had no idea about this happening because he said no to this option in the paperwork. As I continued reading I discovered that at least twenty other bodies had been sold to the military while the families were unaware and also chose no to this option in the paperwork. 

The most shocking part of this issue is that the families had specifically requested not to have the bodies sold to the military for experiments. The only reason the families wanted to donate the bodies was to help further scientific research but instead their loved ones were sold off and blown up. The military officials on this project said that they were never showed information that the families did not want their loved ones to be sold to them, they trusted the company that sold the bodies. Jim Stauffer said that he feels foolish because he trusted the company with his mother’s remains and he believes they took advantage of that. The company sent back ashes of his mothers hand a few days after they took her body and never explained what happened to the rest of her remains, they were only supposed to take her brain. It took three years for him to find out what had actually happened to her body. 

When investigators raided the building they found body parts without identification and other gross uses of the remains. A lawsuit was launched in 2015 with Stauffer and thirty-three other plaintiffs suing the research center and its owner Stephen Gore who pleaded guilty and was sentenced to one year of deferred jail time and four years of probation. He also paid 121,000 in restitution. I honestly believe that this was a slap on the wrist for such a violent misuse of body parts. 

-Victoria Garcia

How much would we sacrifice for happiness?

       While I was reading Brave New World by Aldous Huxley it shocked me when I came across the part in the story which Mustapha reveals everything they do not have compared to someone in the 21st century. Mustapha explains that "the world's stable now. People are happy.; they get what they want...they're not afraid of death; they're blissfully ignorant of passion and old age: they're plagued with no mothers or fathers: they've got no wives, or children, or lovers to feel strongly about"(Huxley 220). After reading this it really opened my eyes to see that the people of the World State were truly stripped of things that people in our time could not live without.
       I find it insane that in order to reach happiness they have to cut out all these things from the society which are normal to us. Many of us would not be able to function without our parents. Not only that but if all these factors of life are taken away from us it will likely cause life to have no purpose. This all brings me to the question, would you give up all these things for so called "happiness"? Are you willing to lose all knowledge about love, books, and sensations? I would like to know what your thought on this is.

-Juliana Cervantes

Do we need more advice about eating well?

I saw this debate as I was scrolling, and I thought it was pretty interesting because obesity is a problem in America.
First of all, one debater, Marion Nestle, believes that people definitely need more information or nutrition facts on what foods to eat. It is true that food businesses make larger portions and sell them at lower prices to make more money. Nestle argues that eating healthy requires a food system that will sell fruits and vegetables for a cheaper price, so that people will choose the right things to eat.

On the other hand, Jane Black, another debater, believes that most Americans eat fast-food for the convenience and the taste. Her argument is that Americans know what to eat, and that most of us have access to healthy foods that we can afford. The problem is that Americans need to understand and learn how to incorporate a healthy diet into their lives.

I agree more with Jane Black because most people prefer to eat fast-food. The convenience and taste play a part in this, but I also believe that most people do not want to shop, prepare, and cook their own healthy meal. I have family members who will want to go to a fast-food place to eat because they do not have the time to make their own meal.
This is my opinion, but what do you think?

-Alexis Pendleton

Should Guns Be Permitted on College Campuses?

Guns have long been a topic of heated online discussions. Should guns be allowed on school campuses? Who should be allowed to carry a concealed weapon? Does carrying a gun make a place less safe or safer depending on where? All of these questions are constantly asked over and over again. My focus point is on the debate "Should Guns Be Permitted on College Campuses?" where writers argued over this issue. My view is that guns should be forbidden on college campuses unless they have a concealed carry permit.

There is the occasional time where university security fails to keep students safe from attackers, and that can make students feel unsafe after the incident. However, having more guns on campus increases the chances of danger, and only students or faculty that have a concealed carry permit should be allowed to carry a weapon on campus. Anyone who sees a gun, concealed or not, think the worst, that they are going to be killed. If guns were allowed on college campuses, it would increase student's anxiety and stress.

Even if guns were permitted in the future, would students really feel safer? There's always a chance that someone could have a gun and aim at you quicker than you can aim your own gun at them. Would a campus really be safer by allowing all students and faculty to carry a weapon? What about strong emotions that can hinder a person's rationality in a tight situation? In a life or death situation, can a student with a gun really make the best decision? Even if you have a weapon on you to protect yourself, you are never fully safe from others around you.                        - Emily Chang

Smart Devices Are Always Listening

After reading the article "Smart talking: are our devices threatening our privacy?" I came to the realization that our smartphones and devices such as the Amazon Alexa are always listening. Smart devices such as these are always looking for keywords to render when someone is making a command, so it shouldn't come as a surprise that these devices are constantly recording us. Companies who produce these devices have been listening in for awhile, such as Apple when they added in the "Hey Siri" feature into the iPhones so all you say are those key words and Siri responds back. Now that people know this information, will they do anything to act on it?

Our smartphones even tell us that certain apps may record what we are doing, or have access to the camera such as social media apps do. Although, we shouldn't be concerned with the companies being able to access this information, it's the hackers we should worry about. If hackers get a hold of this information they can do some pretty scary things, possibly identity theft. That's why I believe that we shouldn't have too many of these devices like the Amazon Alexa monitoring our home life 24/7. What do you guys think about this? Should we get rid of all these smart devices?

-Sonny Montalvo

Perfectionism

    I came across a TedTalk by Thomas Curran titles "Our dangerous obsession with perfectionism is getting worse" which reminded me of the society in Brave New World by Aldous Huxley. The speaker mentioned how perfectionism has risen more a lot since the internet and social media. He states that young people are focused too much on looking perfect on the internet. This causes young people to want to look, act, or have as many followers as an internet influencer. He continues the video by talking about how the youth are forced to judge themselves based on their grades. Students are required to take multiple standardized test throughout their years of schooling and are constantly being grades on their assignments and work. He believes that this make young people feel unhappy and discourages since they feel they are not good enough.

  He suggest that we need a world that is less obsessed with perfectionism. He wants to help young people understand that no one is flawless and failure is not a sign of weakness. Since this idea of perfectionism has doubled since the 20th century, anxiety and other mental health illnesses have increased. Do you think in a world that revolves too much around perfectionism? Is the idea of perfection something good for the youth in order for them to push themselves to do better? When do you think the idea of being perfect is too much?

Racist symbols to reconsider

As I was scrolling through the debates I couldn't help, but to notice the title of this debate called "Racist symbols to reconsider".  The debate basically addresses the controversy that is occurring in Charleston, South Carolina, where many people feel that it is wrong to have confederate flags hanging and statues of confederate leaders such as Robert E Lee. Not only is there statues of confederates, but there is schools and forts named after confederate generals. 

Debater, Michael Daryl Scott believes that we should just change the name of schools praising confederate leaders, but to keep the statues and flags. Scott not only suggest that the statues should remain there, but he also suggest that we install more statues similar to the ones already installed. Scott's reasoning behind this is that we as a population must endure this challenge together, because if we feel solely hate from the statue's then we are letting the "underground white nationalist" win. Scott also mentions that we should create monuments for black freedom fighters as well. Scott's end goal is for each side to comprehend each others reasoning, without necessarily honoring it. 

However one debater by the name of Jamie Malanowski completely disagrees and exemplifies her case by saying that if those statues remain we are disrespecting the US army. Malanowski believes that by naming US army forts after confederate generals, is a complete diss to the US army, because those generals fought and killed US army soldiers. 

Personally I can see both sides arguments as they are infused by logic and reasoning, however I would slightly side more with renaming forts. I can see why it is a major disrespect to the 360,000 union soldiers that died, just so the confederate generals could be praised with having a fort named after them. But at the same time these confederate monuments are apart of American history that we can't just hide. As ugly as the truth is, it must be revealed. So I have mixed feelings towards this debate.
-Bryan Mijangos