Stephanie A. & Amanda S. Post

Texting and Driving

A recent issue that has been a big argument in most states is banning texting and driving. There are mostly two sides to this argument. One side is for banning texting and driving. These people see texting and driving as dangerous and life threatening and even worse than drinking and driving. The other side is leaving texting and driving legal. These people feel our society is now computer savvy and knows how to properly text and drive in a safe manner.

Texting and driving is a normality to todays society. Mostly everyone is guilty of it. Banning texting and driving will inconvenience many Americans. Instead of being for the texting and driving ban or against it, lets try and find a middle ground. Would it be a possibility just to ban texting and driving while the car is in motion? Lets maybe keep it legal to have a phone in a car and be able to use it, but only when the car is at a complete stop. By doing this, it will make our roads safer but will also keep people be in touch with their personal life.

Instead of looking at a side lets look at the major problem in this picture. Our society is addicted to technology. This argument would not have to be debated if Americans would just be able to use technology in a safe manner and not put people’s lives in danger. Technology is taking over peoples lives and this argument shows it very well. People should just be smart enough to realize that anything that distracts you, and takes your eyes off the road is a hazard and can put lives in danger.

How do you feel about this issue? Do you think our society’s obsession with technology is the real issue to this argument and could be prevented? How do you feel when you or others text and drive and how do you think it will help this argument?

Euthanasia: David & marcus
Euthanasia is a problem that has prospered since being legalized in the United States. Euthanasia is the intentional killing by act or omission of a dependent human being for his or her alleged benefit; Therefore, if it isn’t a planned death than it isn’t an act of euthanasia. There are typically two sides to this debate and that is whether or whether not it should be legalized. The people that are on the side for it being legalized usually argue that it is a way to relieve extreme pain especially when a person’s quality of life is low, frees up medical funds to help other people, and that it is another case of freedom of choice. The side that debates otherwise usually argues that it devalues human life, causes people to be directly involved in causing death, and that it can become a means of health care cost suppression. Well these are two more stances that I take in euthanasia which is suicidal, and the death penalty. If euthanasia is okay then what is wrong with someone committing suicide? A suicidal person has the freedom of choice to do what he/she believes, but does it devalue human life to commit to your own death intentionally? At least in this aspect no one has to contribute to your death. Why suicide is looked so down upon when it is the same thing as euthanasia. How about the death penalty? People argue so much about it being right or as justice, but is this really right? What gives mankind the right to choose who dies or lives because of their wrong doing? Well this is an act of euthanasia, but the more brutal side that no one likes to argue. Any person that is religious should probably be against euthanasia right? Well put yourself in the position that forces you to either kill someone close to you that wants to be killed or not. What would you do? If you would commit to doing it why is that reason? If you have strong religious beliefs isn’t this going against it?

"High School Dropouts" By: Jacob Rubinton & Abby Miller

Every 29 seconds another student gives up on school, resulting in more than one million American high school students who drop out every year. Teens dropping out of school has been an issue talked over for decades. Teens drop out for many reasons, and the decision to drop out is rarely spur of the moment. Kids usually drop out of school following a long process of disengagement and academic struggle. While national leaders have demanded that schools, communities, and families make a major effort to retain students, the dropout rate remains high. Almost 1/3 of students do not graduate from highschool and in urban areas the percentage of students can grow to 50%. Although these statistics are shocking the current rate of dropouts show that is is not increasing. Research shows that students who do not drop out of highschool make over 1 million dollars more in their lifetime.Statistics show

High school dropouts are more likely to be:

• unemployed
• in prison
• recieving government assistance
• less healthy
• divorced
• living in poverty
  

While most people agree that young people who don't complete high school face many more problems in later life than do people who graduate, some teens find that the benefits might outweigh the disadvantages. Teens that have kids might drop out so they can get mulitple jobs to support their children. Sometimes students feel that school just isn't right for them and that they could be getting an education somewhere else.

Some benefits of dropping out:

• Jumpstart your education
• Get a jump on the workforce
• Not wasting time
• Popularity doesn't interest you
• More time on your hands

There are many ways to look at the problem of dropping out of high school. While some choose to look at ethnicity and socio-economic status as an indicator for dropping out, others focus on peers, the overall drop out rates and how they have gotten worse or improved. Many intervention programs have been successful at reducing the overall high school drop out rate. Yet more is needed to be done until the concept of dropping out is foreign.

Should the Drinking Age Be Lowered from 21 to 18?

The United States has the highest minimum legal drinking age in the world and is one of the countries most scrutinized laws. I'm sure that many students would argue that the current drinking age being 21 is unfair and should be reduced back to 18. However there are certainly people that think that this is absurd. The consumption of alcohol has been a heated debate ever since it was originally banned in the 1920's with the establishment of the eighteenth amendment. This didn't stop people from drinking however. Home brewing become more popular and drinking still went on in secret. Todays problem is that the current drinking age of 21 isn't working. The number of students drinking under age is rising and studies show that the number of students ages 18 to 20 who binge drink and drive under the influence is on the rise. We become adults at 18 and assume all the rights of an adult other than the right to enjoy a drink. The enemy of a lowered drinking age is in the facts and the facts show that the number of traffic fatalities involving 18 to 20 year olds has dropped by 13 percent since the minimum drinking age was increased to 21. I believe that because of the fact that American teens tend to start driving at an earlier age we are prevented from joining the majority of all other countries with a minimum drinking age of 18.

Pros

• Turning 18 opens the doors to adulthood, it gives us the right to vote, get married, join the military, serve on a jury, and even be tried as an adult in a crime. It should also include the freedom to drink.
• The national alcohol prohibition from 1920 to 1933 failed, this shows that strict regulation of drinking is counterproductive, unenforceable, and lead to an increase in illegal, underground drinking.
• Enforcing the minimum legal drinking age of 21 is expensive and inefficient. Drinking is still a major problem among teens.
• Drinking in moderation has proven to be good for ones health, this means 18 to 20 year old adults as well.
• Reducing the minimum legal drinking age to 18 would help boost our economy just like repealing the prohibition in 1933 did.

Cons

• The earlier a person starts using alcohol the more likely they are to become an alcoholic later in life
• Lowered drinking ages in European countries is inappropriate for our standards because of the fact that American teens generally start driving at an earlier age.
• Alcohol related traffic accidents have declined since 1984 when the minimum drinking age was raised to 21.
• Countries with a minimum drinking age of 18 or lower have had serious problems with binge drinking.
• Lowering the drinking age to 18 increased traffic related fatalities by 10 percent.

Should Smoking be Allowed on Campus? By Dan and Tim

Smoking cigarettes can be a polarizing issue. The simple views on smoking cigarettes is simple to or not to. However there are many different ways of looking at the issue. This post will deal with smoking cigarettes on campus at FGCU. The first stance is that people should be allowed to smoke anywhere they want. These people feel this is America and this is a freedom that should be given to them. If they need a smoke so that they can relax in class why not. The problem with this is that many people would want to avoid second hand smoke. This option would not allow them to do that. Plus there is the problem of smelling like you smoke even if you don’t want to.

The other side of this polarized issue can be that people just shouldn’t be allowed to smoke period. I mean smoking is one of the leading causes of death amongst people, why allow something that is so dangerous to our bodies. Besides that, people around them have to deal with second hand smoke which can in turn cause harm to their bodies too. Also, who wants to be around the smell of it anyways, not to appetizing. This option would be many people’s favorite, but since smoking isn’t illegal and many people love smoking, it just wouldn’t work out and would cause massive debates from smokers and the tobacco companies.

Another way to look at people smoking on campus is to allow them to smoke in designated areas on campus. This seems to be the current method that is used now on campus. This allows people to smoke, but other people can know where they are to avoid them. If you don’t want to be around smokers just don’t go to the designated areas. The problem with this is that smokers might begin to feel as if they segregated against. This might create a feeling of separation from the rest of the faculty and students by the smokers.

An alternative to designated smoking areas can also be a law that smokers are allowed to smoke as long as they are a certain distance from the buildings. This plan is in action too, mostly with office buildings and hospitals. This allows people who don’t want to be around smoking as they walk around their office buildings to not have to deal with it. Also it keeps smokers from throwing cigarettes on the ground around the office buildings.

As you can see, there are many different ways the issue of smoking on campus and around society can be taken care of. Whether they allow smoking or just outlaw it, or they come up with alternative plans, this is always going to be a big issue that should be taken care of by the office building or school.

Liz and Jesse's Blog

Pros and Cons of Living on and Off Campus
Many FGCU students may frequently wonder whether it is better for them to live in campus housing or to live off campus. Both sides have their pros and cons but a student arguing to live on campus may say that it is more convenient. Campus housing is just steps away from classes, food, and many other services offered on campus. Also, by not having to drive to class everyday it is a good way to save money on gas. Even though the school offers shuttle services, students who walk to class get an opportunity for some exercise, instead of just driving a car. Now a student arguing to live off campus may say they can have a lot more fun living away from school which is a very good point that I think most students would agree on. Also in many cases it is cheaper to live off campus instead of in housing, another way to save money. Responsibility is a big part of growing up. Living off campus is a good way to start being responsible by paying bills and taking care of the house.
While most students think of their living situation having to choose from either on campus or off, parents and teachers may come up with a third point of view that compromises both of these options. Parents may encourage the idea of their child living on campus because it will keep them from partying as often and they will be closer to the campus library to help improve their grades. However, parents might also consider the idea of having their child live off campus because it would save them hundreds of dollars each year from the high price of on campus housing. Teachers also have reasons that may lead them to think a student might succeed better from living on or off campus. When a student lives on campus they will most likely make it to class more often than someone who has to drive from a few miles away because living on campus is more convenient. But on the other hand, a student who owns their own house in most cases should know their responsibilities which includes getting their work done and always showing up to class, which a teacher would respect. Whether a student decides to live on campus or off, the price they pay and the decisions they make will determine if they have made the right choice of their living situation.

Legalization of Marijuana.
Since the 1960’s, there has been much debate about the legalization of cannabis. Legal in many progressive European countries including Holland and Finland, it is still a heated debated topic in the United States . States like Colorado and California have made it legally for medicinal purposes, yet many want the complete legalization of the drug. Others worry that making this dangerous drug legal will facilitate young adults and teens to abuse it, making it a more serious problem than it is.
The Pros
• Limiting the use of the drug intrudes on personal freedoms. Like with the prohibition of alcohol during the 1920’s, many argue that this drug should be regulated to control crime and leave the use of this substance which is equally as harmful to the user.
• There are medical benefits such as those for cancer patients. Instead of using harmful chemical drugs that have adverse secondary effects, marijuana is a plant with organic benefits and little to no side effects.
• If marijuana becomes legal, agencies like the FDA can control the substance making sure is less harmful for the user. When marijuana is illegal, the consumer is left on the hands of untrustworthy drug dealers who could mix it with harmful chemicals.
• If marijuana becomes legal, the government will be able to tax it just like they tax alcohol and tobacco. During this time of recession, any additional income is greatly welcomed.

The Cons.
• Marijuana is a gateway drug. Many users of hardcore drugs started by using marijuana. Legalizing it will make the use of other drugs seem less harmful.
• Because the use of marijuana would increase dramatically if it became legal, the instances of driving under the influence of cannabis would increase.
• Legalization will also increase the chances of the drug falling into the hands of kids. Seeing marijuana at the same level as alcohol, many children will be tempted to try it. The fact that the government endorses its use by making it legal will facilitate children from obtaining it.
• Since more people are using marijuana, the health risk from the consumption will cause the same effects as those of people who consume tobacco or alcohol. Health risk such as pulmonary cancer and clogged arteries are prevalent on frequent cannabis users.
The Borderline
In deciding whether to make a drug legal or not, all aspects of the outcome should be examined. Making a drug completely legal causes negative externalities in a community, which is the reason why there is a drinking age and an age limit on the sale of cigarettes. Both parties can find a middle ground by allowing and making restrictions on the use of a drug and thus preventing it from falling in the wrong hands yet allowing responsible users and the government to have regulation over it.

By Maria Lopardo and Patrick Potts

Yes or No To The Death Penalty

The death penalty has been a relevant argument ranging back from the eighteenth century. Practicing crucifixion, beating to death, burning alive, and impalement were all means of punishing crimes. In recent generations the execution is now being done by lethal injection, hanging, electrocution, firing squad, and gas chambers. Even though the ways of execution have changed, is the death penalty still humane? This has caused many problems in our country and is an extremely controversial issue.

The Pros:

• If a criminal is jailed, he may again commit the same crime after being released from prison. Giving him capital punishment would make sure that the society is safe from being attacked by criminals.
• It is also important for the safety of fellow prison inmates and guards, as people who commit horrifying crimes like murder are believed to have a violent personality and may, in future, attack someone during imprisonment.
• The death of a criminal gives closure to the victim and their family.
• Each execution deters an average of 18 murders according to 2003 nation wide study(concluding that giving the death penalty is actually saving lives in the long run)
• Putting a criminal to death would scare other people and prevent them from committing the same crime.

The Cons:

• The financial cost of putting people to death, once you consider extra appeals, additional procedures etc, can often be more than the cost of putting a criminal in prison for life.
• The death penalty violates the "cruel and unusual" clause of the Bill of Rights.
• It can be viewed that, life in prison with little freedom and poor quality of life is a better punishment and deterrent to criminals than death row.
• There is always the possibility that innocent men and women are put to death without ever having committed a crime. There will always be failings in the judicial and conviction system.
• People without social and financial advantages are more likely to be put to death roe or found guilty for a crime apposed to those with higher statuses.

The Borderline

When deciding what the death penalty may be we have always chosen one side, lets say we don't have to. Instead of letting a judge decide whether or not the person deserves the death penalty why doesn't the government create a set punishment for each crime giving criminals the advantage of know the repercussions of there actions. This would result in the controversy of the death penalty because the criminals will know if they get caught they will be executed.

www.deathpenaltyinfo.org

By: Alexis Jackson and Evan Newman

-Should healthcare be provided by the government?

This is a major issue facing the country right now. It has been part of President Obama’s agenda since before he took office. Currently it is caught up in congress where there is a strong partisan divide between Republicans and Democrats. The Democrats’ view is that they should support Obama’s idea for accessible healthcare for everyone ensured by the government. The Republicans are strongly against this and are doing everything within their powers to make sure that it does not become a reality.

The Democrats:

• The Democrats’ want to make insurance more affordable by providing huge tax cuts for the middle class for health care, the biggest in history. This will allow over 31 million Americans afford healthcare who cannot get it today, and makes it more affordable for many more.
• They also want to set up a new competitive market for health insurance, which will give tens of millions of Americans the same choices when it comes to insurance that members of Congress will have.
  
• Their view will also make the insurance industry more accountable by laying out rules to keep premiums down and prevent the industry from abuses and denial of care, and from discriminating against Americans with pre-existing conditions.
  
• Their way will also apparently make the economy more stable by reducing the budget deficit by $100 billion over the next ten years, and even more in the following decade because it will cut government overspending, and control waste, fraud and abuse.
  

The Republicans:

• The Republicans are against the Democrats’ proposed idea because it will give the federal government too much control over the insurance industry and force insurers to insure everyone or face reprimanding from the government.
• The Democrats’ system will lead to private insurers being driven out of the business and to an eventual government takeover.
• The Republicans also believe that this plan of the Democrats will end up increasing the federal budget deficit, not help it.
• The Democrats’ plan also forces new taxes on to Americans in order to pay for everything.
  

The middle ground:

As with most arguments, there are not just two sides. There is a middle ground which can be reached which will help out many of the uninsured and help out those who are struggling to stay insured. A good way to do this would be for congress to set up rules and regulations that would make health insurers to improve coverage and affordability, increase quality and decrease costs. This would accomplish what the Democrats want, healthcare reform which would help many Americans, and would prevent the government from having too much control, which is what the Republicans want.

The Prevention:

This entire drawn out argument over healthcare reform could have been prevented entirely if Republicans and Democrats could compromise and work toward a solution, instead of only pushing one idea and trying to stop anything from happening.


(http://www.whitehouse.gov/health-care-meeting/proposal)
(http://healthcarereform.nejm.org/?p=2366)


By Anna DeAngelis and Geoff Masters

Go Organic or Not?

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

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

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

Welcome

Welcome to our collaborative blog!

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

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

--Try to use proper spelling and grammar.
--No excessive profanity (like random "f-bombs").
--No slander or insults. Be positive, even when you disagree.
--No text talk or emoticons.
--No comments should be longer than two paragraphs.
--Try to speak your mind.
--No clustering (unless you cluster three times).

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

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