Rebuttal Argument

The debate of defunding Planned Parenthood has become a very controversial issue in the United States, recently. Although there are a plentitude of individuals who believe that taking away government funding for this institution would be a grave mistake, there are those with a different viewpoint. The strongest and most debated opinion regarding the defunding of Planned Parenthood is currently that the organization provides abortions. Period, end of story. This is really the only credible argument that anti- Planned Parenthood supporters have to justify their cause.

Anti-abortion activists want to obliterate Planned Parenthood because they provide abortions. While yes, this is a very true fact, Planned Parenthood only performs abortions while following the guidelines of the Hyde Amendment. The Hyde Amendment states that government funded abortions are only allowed to be performed in cases of rape, incest, or if the pregnancy is causing harm to the mother. While these all seem like rational and justifiable reasons, there are those who still believe that abortions should be illegal under any circumstance. After having abortions be legal in the United States for so long, it would be extremely unfair to suddenly get rid of them.

Abortions are a necessary part of life. Unfortunately, ugly things like abortions are sometimes necessary and this is an issue that everyone needs to accept. A woman has the right to do what she wants with her body. If planned parenthood is defunded because of the anti-abortion activists, women are going to just end up going to much more drastic members to obtain abortions if they truly feel that they need one. This could become a real danger to women who can only afford abortions through Planned Parenthood. An abortion is a very serious procedure, which could cause harm to the mother if not performed properly. It makes much more sense to have abortions performed by a government trusted institution than other untrustworthy manners.

Not everything in life is always going to be sunshine and raindrops, that is not what life is about. Life is about dealing with problems in the best ways that we can. Unwanted pregnancies are a large problem in the United States, and Planned Parenthood does an amazing job in preventing over 500,000 unwanted pregnancies per year. Without Planned Parenthood, think about how many unplanned pregnancies would occur. This would cause the need for more abortions. Combining all of these pregnancies with the defunding of Planned Parenthood would truly create chaos in this country. Truly, it does not make sense to defund this institution, considering all of the good that it does for the people of the United States.

Works Cited

Kurtzleben, Danielle. “Fact Check: How Does Planned Parenthood Spend That Government Money?” NPR. NPR, 05 Aug. 2015. Web. 27 Mar. 2017.

Lussenhop, Jessica. “What Is Planned Parenthood?” BBC News. BBC, 25 Sept. 2015. Web. 27 Mar. 2017.

Needs a Title

Although I admit that the murder of Kitty Genovese is a poor real life example of the bystander effect, I still believe that the bystander effect is a real phenomenon. People with a more radical view reject the bystander effect completely and believe that it has been created by psychologists. They believe that people are selfish and only help others if they think it will benefit themselves. They find flaws in experiments that attempt to show the bystander effect in isolation.

The origin of the bystander effect is rooted in myths and lies. The bystander effect was first used to explain the inaction and apathy of the witnesses of the Kitty Genovese murder. The story says that 38 witnesses watched a woman get murdered. They could have easily called the police and saved Kitty’s life but chose to let her die. Psychologist explained their choice to be a result of the bystander effect. This explanation is flawed since it is based on a severely warped version of the Kitty Genovese murder. The bystander effect was created to explain a fictional story. I agree with this objection. The bystander effect is not a reasonable explanation of the true story of the murder of Kitty Genovese. However, just because the bystander effect doesn’t apply to the true story of the murder doesn’t mean it can’t explain other events. The murder was the start of research that eventually showed that the bystander effect.

The murder inspired experiments that attempted to quantify the bystander effect. One study is the smoke filled room experiment. Subjects were put in a room alone, with other subjects, or with confederates that were told to ignore the smoke. While filling out a survey, smoke filled the room, suggesting a fire. 75 percent of lone subjects reported the smoke while only 38 percent of the subjects in a group reported it and only 10 percent reported it when they were with confederates. These results seem to support the idea that people in groups are less likely to act. Others aren’t convinced. It can be difficult to draw conclusions from studies when humans are the research subject. When asked why they didn’t react to the smoke, the subjects said they assumed it was part of the experiment. They didn’t believe that they were in any danger. If they the subjects didn’t know that they were in an experiment, it is reasonable to conclude that they would have acted differently. Although this sounds reasonable, it doesn’t explain why the subjects that were alone were so much more likely to report the smoke than the subjects in a group. The disparity between the groups shows that there is a group dynamic at work and that the subjects were under social pressure.

SeaWorld Provides False Information

P.1 SeaWorld claims that their main mission is to educate their audience about marine life in a way they could never experience. One of their main target audiences is children. Many people think SeaWorld is a learning environment that allows schools to take educational tours of the park to learn all about marine life. Schools all across the country visit SeaWorld to provide their students with an interactive way of learning about different sea animals and the way that they live and interact. But is that really what they are being taught? Schools are not seeing the problem with going to these parks and they continue to give their money for what they think is an educational experience. SeaWorld has been spreading misinformation about what they are teaching these children and even telling them lies. SeaWorld is not an educational experience, it is clearly a place of entertainment.

P.2. SeaWorld is a place to watch animals interact up close and see them perform tricks for the audiences. They claim that “the parks and products of SeaWorld Parks & Entertainment™ deliver educational experiences intended to create a deeper understanding, respect, and desire to protect all wildlife.” This is false because they do not provide you with a deeper understanding about the animals, they simply talk about the basic facts of certain animals and then have you watch a show to be more entertained. By watching them perform flips in the air you are not getting the urge to protect the wildlife because your so focused on what trick the animal might do next. Also, by watching the shows you feel anything but respect for these animals. Most people wonder how the trainers even got these animals to do these unnatural tricks. The first thought that comes to mind for most would be that the animals were probably forced, tortured, and starved until they did these tricks.

P.3. Another major claim that SeaWorld makes is that they object the film Blackfish because the two major premises are wrong. The first premise is that life at SeaWorld is harmful for killer whales and for trainers working with these animals. SeaWorld claims that the animals are living in a safe, state-of-the-art habitat. On their “Health and Daily Care” page on their website they say that “our SeaWorld trainers interact with each killer whale, every day. Their contact and the personal relationship it nourishes enable the training staff to become intimately familiar with each animal’s unique behavioral profile and to notice even the slightest differences in behavior that might indicate anything unusual.” They do not mention the dangers of working with these whales and that many times trainers miss these differences in behavior and that could be very dangerous for them. Being confined in these tiny pools causes the killer whales to lash out and sometimes severely hurt other whales. They are living artificial lives which results in them being aggressive, bored, stressed, and ill. Especially since their freedom of movement is limited because that destroys their mental health. SeaWorld refuses to say that these are true because when people know the truth about the damages these animals have they refuse to come to the parks, which results in a loss of money for SeaWorld which they do not want.

P.4. The other premise is that SeaWorld attempted to cover up the facts surrounding the tragic death of Dawn Brancheau in 2010, and the story of Tilikum, which was the killer whale involved in the incident. There is no way to cover up something as major as a death of a trainer by a killer whale. This tragedy happened during a live show and was broad-casted on news stations across the world. Everyone knows the truth about this story, which was that Tilikum had become aggressive and irritated and took his anger out on Dawn, which resulted in her violent death. Footage of the event shows that she was dragged into the pool and you can clearly see that this was no accident because the killer whale continued to violently injure her for a long time. Also, the autopsy shows that she had multiple injuries such as a severed spinal cord, broken jaw, broken ribs, she was scalped and her arm was torn off, to name some of the major and more shocking ones. Her body had to be pried from his mouth because he would not stop long after she was dead and her scalp and hair was found at the bottom of the pool. These disturbing images show that this indeed was no accident and that he really wanted to hurt her. Tilikum had clear intentions on injuring or even killing her because these behaviors have not been seen around Dawn prior to this event. Not many people know that her death was this violent and that is because SeaWorld denied her death as being aggressive and they did not blame Tilikum. In the article “Former Trainer Slams SeaWorld for Cruel Treatment of Orcas” by Simon Worrall, he talks about former trainer John Hargrove’s book which was all about SeaWorld and what really went on in these parks. Hargrove explains in his book that “a SeaWorld spokesman has denied that Tilikum’s killing of three trainers showed aggressive intent and has defended the star orca’s reentry into the performing world 13 months after Brancheau’s death, saying it “is an important component of his physical, social, and mental enrichment.”” This shows that SeaWorld was trying to cover up the facts surrounding her tragic death to make it look more like an accident than a purposeful aggressive killing. Shortly after this incident a new rule was put into place that said the trainers were no longer allowed in the pools with these killer whales to make sure another tragic event did not occur. By putting this rule into place it shows that SeaWorld was nervous that another whale would act out about its poor living conditions on one of the trainers. Tilikum has now killed three trainers and SeaWorld knows that these whales are dangerous and not safe to be swimming with so they put this rule in order to stay in business.

P.4. SeaWorld claims that the collapsed dorsal fin on their orcas is normal and is often seen in orcas in the wild. On their website they do say it could be from “spending a lot of time at the surface with trainers” but that is not the entire reason. They try to cover up the fact that dorsal fin collapse is rare out in the wild and almost always occurs when they are kept in captivity. The collapse is due to these shallow pools they are forced to live in and having the sun beat on their fin all day long. They tell their audiences that the drooping dorsal fin is normal and is completely healthy, but really it is a sign of the tissue being unhealthy and not strong. Another reason for the dorsal fin collapse is from swimming at low speeds in circles all day long. Meanwhile orcas out in the wild are able to swim at high speeds and go in straight lines, making the dorsal fin stay straight. Other causes would be stress due to confinement and dehydration, but SeaWorld refuses to say this is the cause. They are lying to the public about the reasons for this abnormality and are persuading children into thinking a collapsed dorsal fin is common, when they would rarely see one out in the wild.

P.5. Overall, SeaWorld is claiming false information and spreading lies to cover up for their own misdoings. They are tricking the public into thinking going to SeaWorld is an educational experience and that the animals are being treated well. When really they are a place for entertainment and only care about the money they are making. They make these lies in order to protect the company and to keep people coming back to their parks. Children are believing these lies and not seeing the problem with SeaWorld keeping these animals in captivity. SeaWorld is not an educational experience and it is clearly not a healthy environment for these animals.

Works Cited

Entertainment, SeaWorld Parks &. “Education.” Where Imagination Meets Nature. N.p., n.d. Web. 11 Apr. 2017.

Entertainment, SeaWorld Parks &. “Physical Characteristics.” Animals: Explore. Discover. Connect. N.p., n.d. Web. 14 Apr. 2017.

Entertainment, SeaWorld Parks &. “SeaWorld Cares.” SeaWorld Cares. N.p., n.d. Web. 05 Apr. 2017.

“Health and Daily Care.” SeaWorld Cares. N.p., n.d. Web. 29 Apr. 2017.

Worrall, Simon. “Former Trainer Slams SeaWorld for Cruel Treatment of Orcas.” National Geographic. National Geographic Society, 14 Apr. 2017. Web. 20 Apr. 2017.

America is Not Free, Despite any Argument

Many claim that America is still the land of the free; however, evidence shows otherwise. Since the Declaration of Independence was signed, Americas still  has been a country of slavery. African Americans were forced into bondage for the first 90 years after the Declaration was signed. Bondage is not present in today’s America; however, a new type of slavery has emerged. The new modern American slavery come in the form of the poverty are being ruled and misrepresented by the American government. Arguers say that America is still the land of the free, where all men have an opportunity to prosper. David Azzerad writes in his article for heritage.org, “America is the land of the free. That all men and women possess an equal right to liberty is one of the great self-evident truths proclaimed by the Declaration of Independence.” Azzerad gives the argument that America is in fact the land of the free, where everyone can become a success.

Azzerad claims that income inequality is a poor measure in determining the freedom of all Americans. “A rise in income inequality does not lead to a decline in economic mobility or to an economic slowdown and therefore does not threaten the American Dream.” This claim may seem to make sense; however,  it is wrong. Income inequality does indeed lead to a decline in economic mobility. It is rather simple, as the economy gets shifted more in favor of the wealthy the poor get forgotten. The poor do not have the same economic mobility or economic tools to prosper. Many are stuck in poverty with no way out. Jeremy Ashkenas of the New York Times reports, “The average pretax earnings of an American in the bottom 50 percent by income was $16,197 in 2014, a nearly invisible 2.6 percent gain over 40 years. Over the same period, the top 10 percent of Americans saw their pretax incomes grow by 231 percent.” As American economic mobility declines, so does the overall American dream.

Arguers like to put forth the claim that those in poverty in America would be considered rich in many countries around the world. They claim all Americans are fortunate to be able to live in this great country and no matter the situation be it poor or rich, Americans should be entirely grateful, as Azzerad claims, “Even those who fail to take advantage of the opportunities afforded by this country or who do not succeed in their ventures will still benefit from the general prosperity generated by the American commercial republic.” Unfortunately the commercial republic that once helped all Americans (even the poor) has been exterminated. In present day America those in poverty are having difficulty attaining simple necessities, such as housing and healthcare. Not having housing is not benefiting from general prosperity of America. That is a definition of poverty in any county, and explains why America is falling on the world economy scale as well.

Americans are claimed to be free in all aspects of life by Azzerad, “Though the term economic freedom does not appear in the Founders’ writings, it underpins their vision of a commercial republic and perfectly captures their overarching commitment to property rights, the rule of law, and free markets.” For many years, America had been the most economic free country in the world. Giving advantages for all people to prosper no matter where they start. Unfortunately in the 2016 Fraser Institute Economic Freedom list, America has fallen down to number 16. This is largely due to entrepreneurs not investing in companies anymore. The government has created a more complex tax code, more regulations, and the complexity of healthcare in the country. Citizens are becoming more and more stricken by the big government. We are becoming slaves to them. Only a few Americans have economic freedom, counter to Azzerad’s claim.

Arguers claim that America is the land of the free even as more liberties are being stripped away from the people. The wealthy government aids the rich while the poor get forgotten. In a country that is supposed to be equal, not everyone is equal. Through bondage, a corrupt government, and unequal rights, America has shown that it is not the land of the free.

Works Cited

“Economic Freedom of the World.” Fraser Institute. N.p., 28 Dec. 2016.

Hederman, Rea. “Defending the Dream: Why Income Inequality Doesn’t Threaten Opportunity.” The Heritage Foundation. N.p., n.d. Web. 18 Apr. 2017.

Ashkenas, Jeremy. “Nine New Findings About Inequality in the United States.” The New York Times. The New York Times, 16 Dec. 2016

Where’s the Effort?

P1. Even though the idea of completely getting rid of a traditional grading system may sound good, it leaves a very valid concern for us to consider. Any new system must encourage effort without grading for effort. As noted in “An Examination of the Impact of Grading Policies on Students’ Achievement,” the original purpose of the traditional grading system was to “motivate students to work harder” by grading them on the amount of effort they give. That model inappropriately rewards work alone instead of measuring results. In the real world, it’s important to many employers to hire someone who is hard-working, motivated, and can work well with co-workers, compared to someone who is very intelligent but is lazy and doesn’t know how to work well with people. The solution is to keep grades for k-12 that encourage effort and good behavior instead of grading it. In other words, a system that gives the best grades to students who act like good employees: standards-based grading.

P2. The main goal of standards-based grading is measure a student’s level of “mastery” in a subject.  It’s based on a set of standards, which doesn’t include teachers’ own preferences for what they want to include in their grades. Factors like effort, homework, attendance, participation, and behavior are not included in these standards, which makes grades focused on academic achievement only. Instead of clumping in several different factors that don’t pertain to academics, it breaks down every subject into sections that students receive a grade in. For example, in “Standards-Based Grading” Kyle Spencer shows a sample report card for a science class. The science class is broken down into sections that include, ” the basis of scientific inquiry, continuity of life and the changes of organisms over time, unity and diversity of life, and ecological relationships among organisms.” Students are graded on each individual topic to see how of each subject they grasp. Standards-based grading is much more predictable, since students’ GPAs are not altered by any other factors besides how well they understand concepts. Although standards-based grading is more predictable is in measurement, it is still easy to wonder how effort is incorporated into this system.

P3. Although there are some exceptions, most people are not born geniuses. The majority of students will have to work hard to fully understand subjects. With standards-based grading, it’s very hard for students to “cheat the system.” With the traditional system, students know that by showing they put in effort, it can cause a teacher to boost their grade. They aren’t actually putting in effort to learn, but rather to please their teacher and earn a high grade. On the other hand, the standards based system puts more emphasis on students to be more interested in what they learn. For example, if a student is being graded on the topic of “physical, chemical, and cellular basis of life,” then that student has to have done plenty of research on that specific topic before receiving mastery. Students have to put in effort with the standards-based system to learn complicated concepts if they want to be successful. But what motivates students to want be successful?

P4. One of the biggest motivational factors for students when a standards-based system is in place is getting into college. Students can strive to earn high GPAs that only include mastery in several subjects. Standards-based grading makes students more prepared for college and the real world. Not only does it make sure students fully understand topics, but it provides a sense of more self-motivation. Students are more focused on putting in effort for themselves so they can get into college and eventually land a good job. With the traditional system, students will often only show effort to please their parents and teachers, since they are graded on it. In the real world, people don’t have someone to watch over them to make sure they put in effort.

P5. More predictable grades not only help students out, but also help out colleges. For example, colleges can be sure they are accepting a student who fully understands subjects. With a traditional system, they wouldn’t be able to tell if the student they accepted earned straight A’s, but 50% of those A’s came from factors that had nothing to do with learning. Standards-based grading is also beneficial when working towards a college system with no grades at all.

P6. Currently, employers don’t necessarily look at GPAs from college when looking for potential people to hire, so why have grades at all? Employers want someone who is knowledgable, hardworking, and knows how to deal with people. With a traditional system, its’ impossible to tell how hard-working or knowledgeable a person is, since everything is clumped together. With the standards-based system, at least we can be 100% certain that a person is knowledgeable and understands important concepts, and most of the time, the person had to put in hard work to achieve these things. This is why it makes more sense to not have grades in college when schools use a standards-based system. We know that students who get into college already have the skills to obtain knowledge in given areas. Professors can provide written feedback on assignments, but not necessarily give students letter or number grades. This leaves college students to only focus on what they’re learning so they an be successful in their career paths.

Works Cited

Elikai, Fara, and Peter W. Schuhmann. “An Examination of the Impact of Grading Policies on Students’ Achievement.” Issues in Accounting Education 25.4 (2010): 677-93. ProQuest. Web. 20 Apr. 2017.

Spencer, Kyle. “Standards-Based Grading.” Education Digest 78.3 (2012): 4-10. Education Full Text (H.W. Wilson). Web. 20 Feb. 2017.

Rebuttal: Garbage Patch

The thesis of my paper revolves around the idea that the world needs to come together and fix the problem that is the Great Pacific Garbage Patch. The reason that this idea is controversial is that the world has never united to solve a problem like this. The patch has yet to be cleaned up because no country is willing to take responsibility for it.

The obvious rebuttal for this argument, is that it is simply too expensive. The garbage patch is a problem, but it is something that has existed for a long time, and has yet to do serious damage to the ocean. Fixing the patch is just not worth the cost or the effort.

The facts are both true. The Great Pacific Garbage Patch is something that has existed for a long time, and has yet to truly show the damage that it is doing. The fact is that the Patch is killing lots of fish and other wildlife, but that has not truly affected human beings in a dramatically noticeable way. Eventually, if the patch continues to grow, it could wipe out millions of plankton, which will leave the oceans ecosystem in ruins.

The great pacific Garbage patch was not even discovered until 1997. This means that for decades, garbage has drifted into the ocean from countries around the world and collected up. What it also means is the patch did not do enough damage to be noticeable. The detriment that the patch causes is slow. The scary thing is that it will continue to cause problems until they become irreversible. If fish species die out due to the lack of plankton, that could mean the mass extinction of fish throughout the world.

The other half of the argument is that it is too expensive, and this is also an issue. The constant waves and sunlight break down the plastic in the patch, and essentially turn it into plastic sawdust. Known as “microplastics” these small pieces are not biodegradable, and are commonly ingested by all kinds of animals. The plastic bits are nearly impossible to clean up, due to their size and number. This means that the patch would be extremely expensive to clean up. In an article published by Howstuffworks.com, it is said that most experts believe that cleaning up the patch is impossible. They say this is because there is too much trash and not enough fuel.

According to an article published by the New York Times, plastic is a problem because it is lightweight, durable and an omnipresent, disposable product in both advanced and developing societies. Basically plastic is cheap and constantly being manufactured, so it is the most common type of pollution. Billions and billions of plastic microfibers would cause this cleanup to be too expensive and too big of a job.

This is actually not something that can be argued. There is no way to make cleaning the patch cheap. This is why I believe that it should be a combined effort from countries around the world. There is, however a way to make the problem cheaper in the future. IF the manufacturing costs of plastics are raised, then manufacturers would be forced to use cheaper, cleaner alternatives.

Another argument against this idea is that countries would never agree to it. Due to the cost and effort, getting a worldwide interest in cleaning up the patch would be near impossible. This is another good argument, because it is true, countries would not like the idea of spending millions of dollars to clean up a problem that seems so far away and unimportant. While the notion of cleaning up the patch is a good one, world leaders have other tasks on their minds that seem more pressing.

Cleaning up The Great Pacific Garbage Patch should be a worldwide effort. While it is true that countries may not be willing to take responsibility, the fact is that it is the fault of every county. No one country is responsible for the trash in the patch. The Great Pacific Garbage Patch is the result of worldwide neglect and apathy, and thus should be treated as everybody’s problem.

Works Cited

Hoshaw, Lindsay. “Afloat in the Ocean, Expanding Islands of Trash.” New York Times. 10   Nov. 2009. Web. 06 Feb. 2017

Kaiser, Jocelyn, Jocelyn Kaiser, and Science18 Jun 2010 : 1506. “The Dirt on Ocean            Garbage Patches.” The Dirt on Ocean Garbage Patches | Science. N.p., n.d. Web. 06 Feb. 2017.

Marks, Kathy, and Daniel Howden. “The world’s rubbish dump: a garbage tip that stretches from Hawaii to Japan.” Http://agriculturedefensecoalition.org/. N.p., 5 Feb. 2008. Web. 19 Feb. 2016.

Layton, Julia. “Could we clean up the Great Pacific Garbage Patch?” HowStuffWorks Science. HowStuffWorks, 04 Feb. 2010. Web. 11 Apr. 2017.

All in Your Head

“It’s all in your head,” isn’t as false a statement as some people make it out to be. Mental illness is made out to be an actual sickness in this world and is taking away real medical help from people who actually need it. Anyone in the world can say they are depressed, anxious, or moody without a prognosis thus denying it the label of “illness.” In Thomas Szasz’ writing, “The Myth of Mental Illness 101” he says that “illness refers to a bodily lesion, that is, to a material – structural or functional – abnormality of the body, as a machine,” which contributes to a mental illness, not being a real “illness.” The brain is an organ sure, but since it is not in the body it cannot be medically diseased, therefore confirming that mental illness is all in one’s head.

Mentalism. Otherwise known as sanism, is a form of discrimination because of a mental condition a person has. How can there be something to discriminate if mental illness is all in one’s head? Discrimination is not even applicable when it comes to a mental “illness” because the definition of discrimination is “the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people or things, especially on the grounds of race, age, or sex.” Mental disorders have nothing to do with race, age, or sex, so why would the word “discrimination” need to be used in proximity to it?

Mental Illness is merely just madness. In an article named, “I Don’t Believe in Mental Illness, Do You?” Michael Cornwall argues that mental illness is not an illness, but it is madness. Cornwall says he sees people with “mental illness” as “a person who may have various experiences of human emotional suffering which sometimes takes the form of madness.” He makes a strong argument about how “our culture and world is rife with polarizing beliefs,” and goes into detail about how a leader of a peer recovery group had said that full recovery was achievable, so another peer called him a Nazi. He then feared that if a mad person were to hear this, they would believe another holocaust is in the works, and that they would contribute to that. He’s basically saying that a mad person would be triggered by a small event such as that above, and their madness would spiral. This is true. A mad person can spiral to a deep, dark space all because of something said as a joke. We are simply humans suffering from madness and intense feelings. There’s nothing ill about that, considering everyone has dealt with it.

Society has created this so-called stigma against mental illness. There cannot be a stigma for something that merely does not exist. Even for those who do believe mental illness is a real thing and/or issue, they have no room to argue there is any stigma towards it. People who claim to have depression or bipolar disorder or anything else have jobs, they live lives, they are not deprived of anything more than any other abled person would be. Their madness is even medicated. This medication is costing the country millions of dollars to “treat” something that has no proof of existence other than someone opening up their mouth to say, “I’m sad.” And bipolar disorder? Mood swings. Obsessive Compulsive Disorder? Neat freaks. Schizophrenics? Wild imagination. All of these symptoms exist in every human being, so calling those who have it a little tougher sounds like a stigma against the people who don’t, doesn’t it?

At the end of the day everyone has their problems and everyone has their different ways to cope with them. Calling the entire population mentally ill would be absurd. There’s no need to give a label to the weaker amount of the human population with a term that should not have to exist, because the reasoning behind the term does not exist. There is no proof to back up the “stigma” on mental “illness” because there is no such thing as mental illness. Just some people who don’t want to deal with what’s in front of them and call it a name to get out of life. It’s that simple. And the world needs to stop giving into it.

Works Cited

Cornwall, PhD Michael. “I Don’t Believe in Mental Illness, Do You?” Mad In America. N.p., 30 Sept. 2015. Web. 05 Apr. 2017.

“Mentalism (discrimination).” Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, 25 Feb. 2017. Web. 05 Apr. 2017.

Wyatt, Randall C. “Thomas Szasz on Freedom and Psychotherapy.” Thomas Szasz Interview. N.p., 2001. Web. 04 Apr. 2017.

Animal Testing is Necessary

P1: What is a better way to find a cure to prevent diseases for humans, without harming any in the process? Animals have been used most commonly by researchers in order to find the right medicine to help. According to the organization Understanding Animal Research, animals are known to “suffer from similar diseases to humans including cancers, TB, flu and asthma.” This helps compare the reaction animals have with the reaction of humans. Since particular animal bodies are very similar to humans, about 95%, it only seems right to test it on them first.

P2: This method kills two birds with one stone. First off, humans will not be harmed throughout this process and if everything goes well, there will also be a solution in the end. For example, cancer survivors have “doubled in the past 40 years.” This would not have been possible if it was not for animal research. Thanks to these animal methods the pre-clinical contract research organization Pharma Models states,  “oncologists have achieved a great amount of knowledge in their field and extended the lifespan of countless patients.” World-wide, numerous of human’s lives have been saved due to animal testing.

P3: When it comes to finding another method of finding cures, there is nothing that would be able to replace all the animals in research. Yes, even though there are other procedures available to not harm animals, there is nothing as great as using them. The bodies of mice, rats, fish and birds have all been found with a similar body system as humans. Because of that, animals are just as susceptible to diseases as humans are, allowing researchers to find the cure on them just as easy. From the result of this type of research, there have been medicines created starting from asthma and insulin to cancer and kidney transplants. The medicine just keeps growing and only will continue with the help from animals.

P4: If humans were to be tested more often than animals, it would just lead to an “extremely complex” method. Researchers would only be able to retrieve helpful information in small intervals which would not allow them to study more of what is going on inside the rest of the body. Also, some tests are straight up unethical to use on humans. The lives of some could be put in danger, exposing them to chemicals that should have been experimented on animals beforehand. Animals do not have the same rights as humans do. Since they do not have the same “cognitive ability or moral judgment” as humans, it gives researchers a go ahead to continue using them. When it comes to certain products, “the US Food and Drug Administration endorses the use of animal tests”, like makeup. They do this to ensure the safety of the human consumers. When it comes to an extent, this is the least harmful thing animals go through. Minimal animals are used for testing meanwhile, billions of cattle, chickens and pigs are being eaten everyday which is not compared to the number that is being tested on.

P5. Animal testing is not about purposefully harming the animals, its about the outcome that comes from it. If there was no benefit in the end from these experiments, it would not be worth it. There is a whole lot of information out in the world about medicine that no one knows about. Since there are so many unanswered questions, we can not just guess this type of knowledge. Having animals available allows researchers to test and see what else is out there. If they stop using animals and rely on technology for alternative methods, there is no guarantee it will relate to a real living thing. So, using animals for testing gives researchers the ability to observe and experiment without taking away the actuality of it.

P6: Not only has “animal research been regulated by the federal Animal Welfare Act”, but animals receive a benefit out of these tests as well. If it were not for some being tested on to find a cure, there would be “millions of animals who would have died.” Also, it would not have resulted in “saving endangered species from extinction.” Animal testing may have its downsides but there are also lots of upsides to it all. Humans are getting a benefit out of these test and are able to live a better, healthier life. If it were not for these few animal groups used for experimentation, there would be a higher rate of deaths per year. Animals and humans having a very similar body system creates an easy task for researchers. Even though animal testing may have negative sides to it, the positives help overlook that.

Works Cited

“Animal Testing – ProCon.org.” Should Animals Be Used for Scientific or Commercial Testing? N.p., 24 May 2016. Web. 03 Apr. 2017.

Chu-Carroll on April 2, 2009, Mark C. “Can Simulations Replace Animal Testing? Alas, No.” Good Math, Bad Math. Seed Media Group, n.d. Web. 01 May 2017.

“Medical Benefits.” Speaking of Research. N.p., 06 Apr. 2016. Web. 05 Apr. 2017.

Pharma Models. “Animal Testing Significantly Advances Cancer Research.” Animal Testing Significantly Advances Cancer Research. N.p., 13 May 2014. Web. 05 Apr. 2017.

How Much Is Too Much Information

P1. Some might say that parents can not control and monitor every move their child makes in their lives. And those parents that do, are labeled as the “controlling” and “overbearing” parents that tend to push their kids into wondering off and rebelling during their teenage years. Being that these teens were never able to make decisions for themselves do to their overbearing parents they start to experiment and follow those they tend to see as the “cool kids”. Middle and High School are were young teenagers tend to experiment now that they have built their mindsets and their personalities are starting to form. Social Media users are majority of the time young teenagers talking about their likes/dislikes, activities going on in school or after, or where everyone is hanging out this weekend. It is also where drama tends to start the most.

P2. When teenagers are on social media they feel a sense of freedom and the ability to express themselves that they might not feel due to stress of fitting in and being “normal”. The ability to fit-in during teenage years can be stressful to some that they find outlets through social media. Facebook is where these vulnerable teens open up to others they might have never talked to before or even just some random stranger. Looking for someone that can relate to their issues teens attract to anyone that gives them the attention they are seeking for. This can lead the teenager to be in potential dangers due to being unaware of who they are talking to and who the stranger really is and what their intentions are. Last year 15% of all teens reported unwanted sexual solicitations online in the last year.

P3. It is extremely important for teenagers to know the signs when a strangers intention might not be great. Some of the most obvious signs are when the stranger asks for your town, high school, or your favorites places to hang out during the weekend. They also might ask you for your schedule, what are your events on a day to day basis. This could be a trap for the predator to come and kidnap or do worser harm. Being female, using chat rooms, talking with people met online, and talking about sex with someone met online are all associated with risks for both aggressive and online solicitations states “Youth Internet Users at Risk for Most Serious Online Sexual Solicitations“.

P4. Parents can only control their children so much because they have to let them make their own mistakes and learn from their consequences. Although parents can prevent horrific events from happening to their children by informing them and constantly reminding them of the dangers that can occur in this world. Parents can speak to their children about “how much information is too much” by warning them to not talk or befriend strangers, not sharing their location, or posting where you are going to be at a certain time. Parents also have the right to look through their teens profile page and make sure they are not posting anything that can potentially put them-self in harms way. It is essential to have an open and trusting relationship with your child where they can open up about their feelings and understand the do’s and don’ts of Facebook.

P5. Parents can only warn and protect their child to a certain extent. It is the teens responsible to understand and be aware that they are not invincible just because they are behind a screen. Teens have this belief that horrific events will not happen to them but what most do not understand is every teen believes the same yet social media accidents happen more often than anyone thinks. According to Pure Sight Statistics one in five U.S teenagers who regularly visit Facebook say they have received an unwanted sexual solicitation. Solicitations were defined as requests to engage in sexual activities or sexual talk, or give out personal sexual information. 75% of children are willing to share personal information online about themselves and their family in exchange for goods and services. It is extremely important to apply privacy settings to your Facebook account. It does not fully protect you from all social media predators but it does help and make you less of a target.

P6. As a parent it is very important to notice the warning signs when your child is suffering from a social media dilemma. One of the most important signs are changes in school work, grades slipping. Another sign is losing sleep, your child might be constantly tired or complaining to get up in the morning. If you notice that your child is distracted most of the times and always has their mind else where, these signs are crucial for parents to talk to their teens and find out what is going on and try to resolve the situation. Parents talking to their teens and warning them of Facebook dangers can be the make or break decision weather your child is a victim of social media predators. Prevention efforts may have a greater impact if they focus on the psychological problems of teens instead of specific social media application states “How Risky Are Social Networking Sites”. 

Work Citied

O’Donnell, Andy. “Know the Dangers of Oversharing on Facebook.” Lifewire. N.p., n.d.   Web. 27 Feb. 2017.

Manning, Allee. “Is Using Facebook A Free Speech Right? Supreme Court Weighs Case.” Vocativ. Vocativ, 01 Mar. 2017. Web. 06 Mar. 2017.