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

Your Devices Are Listening to You

As I was reading the long article "Smart talking: are our devices threatening our privacy?" it became obvious to me that devices listening and recording everything you say was not very well known to most people.  Maybe because everyone does not understand exactly how their products work, but it makes sense they are always listening because the amazon echo would always have to listen for voice commands to work.  As people are concerned about their privacy so much, would it really be that hard to give up a voice command speaker for the sake of their privacy?

People seemingly are now just realizing that everything that they are doing is being recorded, but this has been done for a long time.  Websites use cookies to track down all your activity, which is mainly used to target ads in which you would be interested in.  Many apps on your phone will say that they take records of many things which is said in the terms of service agreement that no one reads.  Its not really all that surprising that almost everything we do on our electronics are recorded, and possibly seen by the government, but what are your thoughts on the privacy issue?

-Josh Fernandez

Are Naps Beneficial or Harmful to Our Health?

     An interesting debate that came up as I was scrolling through Room For Debate was "To Nap or Not to Nap" and discussed whether or not napping is beneficial to our health. Debater Jerome Siegel argues that a nap isn't always the best choice and when people oversleep they tend to have less of a lifespan than people who lose sleep. He also explains that you may nap when you want, but take into consideration of the possibility of getting too much sleep.
     Jerome Siegel makes a good point, yet I still agree with Sarah C. Mednick and her argument that naps are great for us. She states that naps enhance visual, motor, and verbal skills while caffeine decreases two out of three of those: verbal and motor skills. That goes to show that naps work better than coffee does!
     Personally, I love taking naps every now and then because they can leave you feeling more refreshed and awake once you wake up. The things we do throughout the day can sometimes just be so draining, and naps allow you to cool down, relax, and wake up feeling much more alive.
                                                                                                          -Brooke Wiersema

Is Marijuana a Gateway Drug?

     One of the debates that I read on Room for Debate was "Is Marijuana a Gateway Drug" and many people have different opinions on the topic. One of the debaters, Ethan Nadelmann argues that marijuana isn't actually a gateway drug because the vast majority of people who used marijuana don't ever try any other hardcore drugs. On the other hand, Robert L. Dupont argues that marijuana is proven to be a gateway drug. He explains that nearly all heroin users used to and are still doing marijuana and that someone who uses marijuana is three times more likely to use heroin.
    Personally, I don't view marijuana as a gateway drug because of the fact that many people who do use it don't ever start using harder drugs and that many marijuana users only ever use it on occasion. However, I do believe that people who are easily susceptible to addiction can easily become heavy marijuana users and eventually move on to harder things, so for certain people it may pose a threat and they should definitely avoid the drug. What are your ideas on the topic? Do you believe that marijuana is or isn't a gateway drug?
                                                         -Brooke Wiersema

Should hackers help the FBI?

A very controversial topic I spotted on room for debate was one titled "Should Hackers Help the FBI". This debate was sparked due to the tragic San Bernardino shooting that occurred in 2016. When the FBI obtained one of the shooters phone it turned out to be an iPhone. As we all know iPhones are notoriously reputable for having a strong security system, thus the FBI struggled to unlock the iPhone. They pleaded Apple for help, but when they refused to assist them, the FBI turned their attention to hackers.

When the hackers were successfully able to open the iPhone this posed a new threat to apple, but a new light was shun to hackers. A vast amount of people mask all hackers to be some sort of evil figure, however many of them aren't. Under the public's façade for hackers, most want to utilize their special talent for good.

According to debater, Katie Moussouris, a hacker uncovered security holes in a hospitals medical pumps alluding to an unprecedented recall of the device by the  USA's FDA. In fact a program has been implemented for hacker's called "Hack the Pentagon". Essentially the program incentivizes hackers to find any flaws in their systems and they are rewarded with cash.

Overall I believe it is a great idea for hackers to help the FBI. Hackers will be able to demonstrate their talent while doing it for a good cause. In addition it can possibly create more jobs for tech savvy people.
-Bryan Mijangos

Using Migrants for Interest

While reading one of the long reads about how the media framed the way we see the migrant crisis, the article mentioned an interesting point about journalists that get migrant stories. The refugees' words are left up to the interpretation of the reporter. The reporter can make it as dramatic or falsified as he/she wants and no one would ever know. There is a higher risk of this happening because of the interest in depressing stories of hardship and despair. It's almost like these migrant's stories are being glamorized in a way for the audience to empathize and make steps towards taking action. I suppose the end result is beneficial for the betterment of the migrant situation but this begs the question of whether or not this is ethical. It is also worth noting that this article focuses on the migrant situation of Europe but does this apply in the United States?