Rebuttal Argument Rewrite- Starfire.04

Posted on November 24, 2024 by Starfire04.blog

Does Racism Have an Effect on the  Education system? 

There is an ongoing debate about racism here in America. Racism in the American education system results in the unequal treatment of minority students compared to white students. Many disparities are often manifested and have an effect on the academic achievements of minority students, the disciplinary actions taken upon minority students, and even the graduation rate of minority students in high school. The root of this issue dates back to the dark age of slavery that lasted over four hundred years in America and only had been abolished not even two hundred years ago. Despite the facts and statistics of the issues racism in the American education system causes, there is still a large argument that racism is not an issue in the American education system. Many feel that racism is used as an “excuse” for minority students, and that it doesn’t negatively affect them in any aspect. Many people will argue that we should just “move on” from slavery, essentially leaving it in the past. However, if the effects of slavery still remain to this day, can we really just leave slavery in the past? It is a fact racism is still very much alive today, can we just leave racism in the past if it is still here? 

I would like for us to sit down and take a minute to look at the socioeconomic status many minority children are raised in. Taking a dive into socioeconomic status and the part it plays in institutional racism can help us further examine that racism is in fact alive and well and a huge problem within our education system in the United States. Often low income families (alot of the time consisting of single parent households), poor/ dangerous communities, lack of resources, goods and opportunities for success. Even trying to get a decent paying job is hard. Many parents will work multiple jobs at a time just to ensure everyday necessities for them and their children to survive. Due to all of the negative impacts of living in a lower socioeconomic status, many children lack the quality schools that they need in order to receive a good education. The schools low income students attend are run down/old buildings. As a result of these factors, low income students do not perform very well in school. They have no motivation to want to do better in school, and often see attending school as nothing more than law. We must acknowledge that this still causes a sense of segregation within the school system. 

To further argue against the fact that racism is not an issue in the American education system, let us now look at the funds for schools in urban areas with a large minority population compared to schools in suburban areas with a large white population. High income students are often white children whereas low income students are often minority children like Black, LatinX, Native American, etc. High income students have much greater access to excellent schools that provide a multitude of opportunities and extracurricular activities while low income students obviously do not. Underfunded schools in urban areas lack quality resources for good classroom experiences such as new textbooks that are up to date, computers/ tablets, extracurricular activities, and even the teachers. Well funded schools in suburban areas have up-to -date textbooks, high technology like computers and tablets, and quality teachers. All of these factors cause a separation of races in the education system in this country. This is still a form of segregation. 

Now that we have looked at the statistics on urban and suburban school funding, we can now understand the wide achievement gap in American education. Black and Latino students are more likely to receive harsher punishments than their white counterparts. Black students are also more likely to be placed in lower academic classes and are also retained in grade 2.2 times more than white students. There is an increased educational disadvantage for minority students and this causes a bigger dropout rate for low income students. If not the dropout rate, then the percentage of low income students attending higher education. 

There are many ways that we can correct these disparities in the education system. Acknowledging the disparities is a step all in itself, and this would make a great first step. Seeing the issue, addressing the issue, and taking action to correct the issue. Urban schools receiving better funding from the government would help low income students to have a much better school experience. Attending a school with the proper resources can give a boost of motivation in wanting to do better in school. Correcting the inequality of disciplinary actions against minority students would help lower the dropout rate. Finding a better way to help the students instead of handing out harsh punishments would give them the feeling that they are cared for and have a system of support in school. Providing access for more extracurricular activities for students to participate in such as sports, advanced classes, and different programs to showcase talents. The point remains that no matter what race or ethnicity we are, we all deserve to have equal opportunities and access to good quality education. We all deserve the chance to do well in school and achieve big careers in life. Socioeconomic status, race, religion, ethnicity, etc. should not be determining factors on whether or not we all get to have good experiences in schooling. Acknowledging and addressing the issues are the only ways we can start rectifying the racism in the education system.  

Resources: 

https://www.aft.org/press-release/new-report-finds-most-states-have-deprived-schools-hundreds-billions-dollars-2016
https://www.jstor.org/stable/26350078?seq=5
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1876285921002783?casa_token=D-gFxZYT4UUAAAAA:gKIkxVff-3l9BWMzXDObOHLD8w_fBE5Y3qUy_8b4e60tre2JgaFzBmxTGcTZ-YqpQRQlEGbqyUc
Posted in Portfolio Starfire, Rebuttal Rewrite, Starfire | 1 Comment

Rebuttal Argument- Starfire.04

Posted on November 24, 2024 by Starfire04.blog

Does Racism Have an Effect on the  Education system? 

There is an ongoing debate about racism here in America. Racism in the American education system results in the unequal treatment of minority students compared to white students. Many disparities are often manifested and have an effect on the academic achievements of minority students, the disciplinary actions taken upon minority students, and even the graduation rate of minority students in high school. The root of this issue dates back to the dark age of slavery that lasted over four hundred years in America and only had been abolished not even two hundred years ago. Despite the facts and statistics of the issues racism in the American education system causes, there is still a large argument that racism is not an issue in the American education system. Many feel that racism is used as an “excuse” for minority students, and that it doesn’t negatively affect them in any aspect. Many people will argue that we should just “move on” from slavery, essentially leaving it in the past. However, if the effects of slavery still remain to this day, can we really just leave slavery in the past? It is a fact racism is still very much alive today, can we just leave racism in the past if it is still here? 

I would like for us to sit down and take a minute to look at the socioeconomic status many minority children are raised in. Taking a dive into socioeconomic status and the part it plays in institutional racism can help us further examine that racism is in fact alive and well and a huge problem within our education system in the United States. Often low income families (alot of the time consisting of single parent households), poor/ dangerous communities, lack of resources, goods and opportunities for success. Even trying to get a decent paying job is hard. Many parents will work multiple jobs at a time just to ensure everyday necessities for them and their children to survive. Due to all of the negative impacts of living in a lower socioeconomic status, many children lack the quality schools that they need in order to receive a good education. The schools low income students attend are run down/old buildings. As a result of these factors, low income students do not perform very well in school. They have no motivation to want to do better in school, and often see attending school as nothing more than law. We must acknowledge that this still causes a sense of segregation within the school system. 

To further argue against the fact that racism is not an issue in the American education system, let us now look at the funds for schools in urban areas with a large minority population compared to schools in suburban areas with a large white population. High income students are often white children whereas low income students are often minority children like Black, LatinX, Native American, etc. High income students have much greater access to excellent schools that provide a multitude of opportunities and extracurricular activities while low income students obviously do not. Underfunded schools in urban areas lack quality resources for good classroom experiences such as new textbooks that are up to date, computers/ tablets, extracurricular activities, and even the teachers. Well funded schools in suburban areas have up-to -date textbooks, high technology like computers and tablets, and quality teachers. All of these factors cause a separation of races in the education system in this country. This is still a form of segregation. 

Now that we have looked at the statistics on urban and suburban school funding, we can now understand the wide achievement gap in American education. Black and Latino students are more likely to receive harsher punishments than their white counterparts. Black students are also more likely to be placed in lower academic classes and are also retained in grade 2.2 times more than white students. There is an increased educational disadvantage for minority students and this causes a bigger dropout rate for low income students. If not the dropout rate, then the percentage of low income students attending higher education. 

There are many ways that we can correct these disparities in the education system. Acknowledging the disparities is a step all in itself, and this would make a great first step. Seeing the issue, addressing the issue, and taking action to correct the issue. Urban schools receiving better funding from the government would help low income students to have a much better school experience. Attending a school with the proper resources can give a boost of motivation in wanting to do better in school. Correcting the inequality of disciplinary actions against minority students would help lower the dropout rate. Finding a better way to help the students instead of handing out harsh punishments would give them the feeling that they are cared for and have a system of support in school. Providing access for more extracurricular activities for students to participate in such as sports, advanced classes, and different programs to showcase talents. The point remains that no matter what race or ethnicity we are, we all deserve to have equal opportunities and access to good quality education. We all deserve the chance to do well in school and achieve big careers in life. Socioeconomic status, race, religion, ethnicity, etc. should not be determining factors on whether or not we all get to have good experiences in schooling. Acknowledging and addressing the issues are the only ways we can start rectifying the racism in the education system.  

Resources: 

https://www.aft.org/press-release/new-report-finds-most-states-have-deprived-schools-hundreds-billions-dollars-2016
https://www.jstor.org/stable/26350078?seq=5
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1876285921002783?casa_token=D-gFxZYT4UUAAAAA:gKIkxVff-3l9BWMzXDObOHLD8w_fBE5Y3qUy_8b4e60tre2JgaFzBmxTGcTZ-YqpQRQlEGbqyUc
Posted in Portfolio Starfire, Rebuttal Draft, Starfire | Leave a comment

Rebuttal Rewrite – Unicorn

Posted on November 24, 2024 by unicorn45678

Pit Bulls Are Not Intentionally Aggressive

Many people think that pit bulls are naturally aggressive, however this isn’t the case. This thought comes from thinks like myths, fear and lack of acknowledgement from these breeds. It’s often sad to see what these breeds have to go through all because of what people think about them. If individuals did more research and look at the important factors about this breed, it’s very clear that pit bulls are not born aggressive. It all depends on how they are trained, raised, and treated. Indvidual’s often forget that they’re the main cause of their dog’s aggression, however just by taking your time to truly understand what these pit bulls have to go through, will give you a better understanding that this breed is not the main issue in this case.

People often say that pit bulls are dangerous because of their breed, however, there has been no proof found that pit bulls are aggressive because of this. If the dog is being abused and neglect at home by their owners, it’s pretty obvious that they’re going to have a sense of reaction to it. The way they reaction to these types of situations may be attacking other dogs and human being. As Rain mentioned in an article:

There hasn’t been any evidence to show that Pit Bull breeds are more aggressive than other dogs, and in fact, studies actually show the opposite. Temperament tests by the American Temperament Test Society measure each breeds ability to positively interact with humans in different situations, and Pit Bull breeds each scored at 85% or higher, which is better than the general dog population

Dogs acts the way they were raised, If the owner isn’t training their dog well enough it may become aggressive no matter what breed the dog is. Some people raise their pit bulls to become street fighting dogs or to scare other people and dogs away, which tends to make it seem like pit bulls are the real problem. The real problem in this situation is the owners of these poor dogs. However, if pit bulls are raised in a caring and loving home none of these allegations would be put on them because they wouldn’t be seen as aggressive dogs, they would be seen as loving and playful dogs instead. Many pit bulls are sweet, calm and good with children as well. Most people probably didn’t know this, but pit bulls also work as therapy dogs, service dogs and even recuse dogs. How a dog of any bred is treated has an impact on how they behave. As Rain explained this factor in an article:

Another study published in the Journal of Veterinary Behavior compared canine aggression in Golden Retrievers, known for being sweet, docile and loving, with Pit Bull breeds and found no differences whatsoever.

Being strong and looking muscular has nothing to do with dogs being dangerous and harmful. Studies show that smaller dogs are actually more likely to bite others than pit bulls. The media also plays apart on how we see these dogs as a bred, if a dog attack happens the media is so quick to make it big news. However, if it were another bred that took part in a dog attack the media wouldn’t give it as much attention as they would with pit bulls. It’s really sad that this bred has to go through this, this tends to create fear, and it starts to spread the idea that pit bulls are dangerous dogs and worse than others. As Eastman stated in an article:

 One common misconception is that all pit bulls are aggressive or dangerous; however, this could not be further from the truth. In reality, most pit bulls are gentle companions who can make wonderful additions to any family if given proper training and socialization.

Many cities and town like to ban pit bulls so that they can decrease dog attacks. However, research shows that banning pit bulls doesn’t help make communities a safer environment. Instead of banning these breeds for a safer environment Individuals should focus on how to care for their dogs. If anything, the law should hold careless owners accountable for their dogs’ actions. As Kennedy mentioned in an article related to this topic:

critics argue that BSL is ineffective and unfairly targets specific breeds rather than addressing the root causes of aggressive behavior, which often stem from factors such as poor training, neglect, or abuse by irresponsible owners. This is why pit bulls should not be banned, instead, efforts should focus on promoting responsible pet ownership and proper training.

There are many events where pit bulls were seen as great dogs. For example, A pit bull name Sergeant Stubby helped soldiers in the battle and also saved some of their lives. And now pits bulls work as service dogs, therapy dogs, emotional support animals, and in search and rescue teams. Pit bulls also save lives in their homes as well, there has been several cases on the media on how pit bulls would protect children, warn their owners about any fires or danger that take place in the home. Majority of these stories prove that Pitbull’s are loving and caring animals.

In conclusion, Pit bills are not intentionally aggressive by nature. How they act all depends on how they’re treated, just like any other dog. If they’re raised in a caring and loving they can be sweet, loyal, and friendly animals. Instead of blaming pit bulls as a bred, individuals should start focusing on how to take care of their dogs. Pit bulls deserve a chance to show their owners that they are great pets. It’s time to stop judging them unfairly

References

Kim Rain (2021). The Truth About Pit Bulls: Dispelling Myths About This Misunderstood Breed. The Daily Wag

https://wagwalking.com/daily/the-truth-about-pit-bulls-dispelling-myths-about-this-misunderstood-breed

Alexis Kennedy (2024) Why Pit Bulls Should Not Be Banned.

https://woundedpawproject.org/bsl/pit-bulls-should-not-be-banned/

Amanda Eastman (2023) Should Pit Bulls Be Banned? Examining the Pros and Cons.

Posted in Portfolio Unicorn, Rebuttal Draft, Unicorn | Leave a comment

Rebuttal – Unicorn

Posted on November 24, 2024 by unicorn45678

Pit Bulls Are Not Intentionally Aggressive

Many people think that pit bulls are naturally aggressive, however this isn’t the case. This thought comes from thinks like myths, fear and lack of acknowledgement from these breeds. It’s often sad to see what these breeds have to go through all because of what people think about them. If individuals did their research and look at the important facts about this breed its very clear that pit bulls are not born aggressive. It all depends on how they are trained, raised, and treated. Indvidual’s often forget that they’re the main cause of their dog’s aggression, however just by taking your time to truly understand what these pit bulls have to go through will give you a better understanding that this breed is not the main issue in this case.

People often say that pit bulls are dangerous because of their breed in general, however there has been no proof found that pit bulls are aggressive because of their breed. It mainly depends on how the dog is brought up and trained. If the dog is being abused and neglect at home by their owners, it’s pretty obvious that they’re going to have a sense of reaction to it. The way they reaction to these types of situations may be attacking other dogs and human being. As Rain mentioned in an article:

There hasn’t been any evidence to show that Pit Bull breeds are more aggressive than other dogs, and in fact, studies actually show the opposite. Temperament tests by the American Temperament Test Society measure each breeds ability to positively interact with humans in different situations, and Pit Bull breeds each scored at 85% or higher, which is better than the general dog population

Many people tend to forget that pit bulls were originally bred to be loyal and hardworking, they’re not meant to be harmful animals. Dogs acts the way they were raised, If the owner isn’t training their dog well enough it may become aggressive no matter what breed the dog is. Some people raise their pit bulls to become street fighting dogs or to scare other people and dogs away, which tends to make it seem like pit bulls are the real problem. The real problem in this situation is the owners of these poor dogs. However, if pit bulls are raised in a caring and loving home none of these allegations would be put on them because they wouldn’t be seen as aggressive dogs, they would be seen as loving and playful dogs instead. Many pit bulls are sweet, calm and good with children as well. Most people probably didn’t know this, but pit bulls also work as therapy dogs, service dogs and even recuse dogs. How a dog of any bred is treated has an impact on how they behave. As Rain explained this factor in an article:

Another study published in the Journal of Veterinary Behavior compared canine aggression in Golden Retrievers, known for being sweet, docile and loving, with Pit Bull breeds and found no differences whatsoever.

Pit bulls are often seen as strong and muscular dogs, so most likely people are going to assume that these dogs are dangerous and harmful. However, being strong and looking muscular has nothing to do with dogs being dangerous and harmful. Studies show that smaller dogs are actually more likely to bite others than pit bulls. The media also plays apart on how we see these dogs as a bred, if a dog attack happens the media is so quick to make it big news. However, if it were another bred that took part in a dog attack the media wouldn’t give it as much attention as they would with pit bulls. It’s really sad that this bred has to go through this, this tends to create fear, and it starts to spread the idea that pit bulls are dangerous dogs and worse than others. As Eastman stated in an article

 One common misconception is that all pit bulls are aggressive or dangerous; however, this could not be further from the truth. In reality, most pit bulls are gentle companions who can make wonderful additions to any family if given proper training and socialization.

Many cities and town like to ban pit bulls so that they can decrease dog attacks. However, research shows that banning pit bulls doesn’t help make communities a safer environment. Instead of banning these breeds for a safer environment Individuals should focus on how to care for their dogs. If anything, the law should hold careless owners accountable for their dogs’ actions. As Kennedy mentioned in an article related to this topic:

critics argue that BSL is ineffective and unfairly targets specific breeds rather than addressing the root causes of aggressive behavior, which often stem from factors such as poor training, neglect, or abuse by irresponsible owners. This is why pit bulls should not be banned, instead, efforts should focus on promoting responsible pet ownership and proper training.

There are many events where pit bulls were seen as great dogs. For example, A pit bull name Sergeant Stubby helped soldiers in the battle and also saved some of their lives. And now pits bulls work as service dogs, therapy dogs, emotional support animals, and in search and rescue teams. Pit bulls also save lives in their homes as well, there has been several cases on the media on how pit bulls would protect children, warn their owners about any fires or danger that take place in the home. Majority of these stories prove that Pitbull’s are loving and caring animals.

In conclusion, Pit bills are not intentionally aggressive by nature. How they act all depends on how they’re treated, just like any other dog. If they’re raised in a caring and loving they can be sweet, loyal, and friendly animals. Instead of blaming pit bulls as a bred, individuals should start focusing on how to take care of their dogs. Pit bulls deserve a chance to show their owners that they are great pets. It’s time to stop judging them unfairly

References

Kim Rain (2021). The Truth About Pit Bulls: Dispelling Myths About This Misunderstood Breed. The Daily Wag

https://wagwalking.com/daily/the-truth-about-pit-bulls-dispelling-myths-about-this-misunderstood-breed

Alexis Kennedy (2024) Why Pit Bulls Should Not Be Banned.

https://woundedpawproject.org/bsl/pit-bulls-should-not-be-banned/

Amanda Eastman (2023) Should Pit Bulls Be Banned? Examining the Pros and Cons.

https://spbr.org/should-pitbulls-be-banned/

Posted in Portfolio Unicorn, Rebuttal Rewrite, Unicorn | Leave a comment

Rebuttal Argument- iloveme5

Posted on November 24, 2024 by iloveme5

Rethinking Human Emotions

In the debate on the nature of emotions, arguments that separate emotions as an internal and personal phenomenon to make them entirely biologically driven ignore the contribution of social, cultural, and physical environments in determining our feelings and emotions. For example, the norms of a culture explain how emotions are to be enacted and interpreted. Although in all cultures it varies, In some cultures, individuals are socialized to suppress their emotions-for example, anger or sadness whereas in others, most forms of emotional expression are more tolerated. This proves that emotions are biologically and socially influenced by the surrounding culture in which the individual lives.

Moreover, it’s basic to suggest that emotions can be divided into clear categories and neatly packaged as distinct, universal states such as “anger” or “happiness.”. Research in psychology and neuroscience suggests that emotions are much more complex and fluid than this approach would imply. For example, emotions such as sadness and fear might share some overlapping underlying neuroanatomy, making diagnostic boundaries challenging to cut clearly. Further, people frequently report experiencing multiple emotions simultaneously, challenging the discrete, definite conception of emotions. One may feel happy and sad when thinking over a bittersweet memory, such as leaving a familiar home for a new life. This complexity points to the need for more theories attempting to reduce emotions to a fixed set of types or reactions.

On the contrary, focusing only on the biological side of emotions ignores how much our thoughts influence how we feel. Cognitive appraisal theories are based on the idea that emotions result not directly from automatic biological responses to an event but from a person’s interpretation and evaluation. One might consider a neutral experience, such as receiving critical feedback at work, as threatening and feeling anxious or defensive. Instead, one might appraise this experience as an opportunity for growth and feel motivated or determined. In this example, emotions are occasioned by biological responses and mental frameworks through which we understand the world and make sense of what happens to us. By leaving out the cognitive aspect, we only see emotions as biological reactions, without understanding how people think about and react to situations.

In conclusion, the view of emotions as internal processes must also recognize the key role that social interactions play in emotional development and regulation. Emotions are not experienced in isolation but are deeply connected to relationships with others. From early childhood, humans rely on their parents/caregivers and social environments to learn how to regulate and express their emotions. Emotional intelligence demonstrates that understanding, managing, and responding to emotions in social situations is crucial for mental health and healthy relationships. People often reflect and imitate the emotional states of those around them, a phenomenon known as emotional contagion. This social side of emotion shows that emotions are not just internal feelings, but deeply influenced by social interactions. To truly understand them, we need to consider both their biological basis and the social contexts in which they arise.

Posted in ILoveMe5, Portfolio ILoveMe5, Rebuttal Draft | Leave a comment

Rebuttal Rewrite – SkibidySigma

Posted on November 24, 2024 by SkibidySigma

The Limitations of AI in Combating Misleading Content

Ubillús et al. (2023) suggest that AI techniques, including neural networks and sentiment analysis, can be considered for the identification or mitigation of misleading ads on social networks. These technologies offer powerful tools for data analysis and pattern recognition, yet they are not flawless. Algorithms are only as good as the data they have been trained with. If that training data is biased or incomplete, the AI system could yield incorrect results, classifying legitimate content as misleading, or vice versa.

While AI can generate complex and varied content, its ability to detect such complications in misleading content remains limited. Gupta et al. (2022) have indicated that, in many cases, the language used in fake news is nuanced, culturally referenced, and contextual, which an AI system may not completely understand. While AI can adapt to different reading levels and formalities, distinguishing the origin and intent behind nuanced content requires a deeper level of understanding that is not present in current AI. Additionally, advanced disinformation groups may use AI-generated deepfakes or other synthetic media forms that can effectively evade detection by existing AI systems.. While AI may be flexible in generating content, translating that capability into accurately identifying subtle hints associated with misinformation is far from being mastered in the realm of AI.

One of the most significant limitations to using AI in fighting misleading content is access to high-quality labeled datasets. As Gupta et al. (2022) note, any AI model requires comprehensive datasets to learn from and generalize effectively, but these datasets are remarkably limited. AI needs certain datasets in which at least a portion of information is explicitly labeled as “faked” to successfully teach it to identify AI-generated misleading content. This labeling is generally done by human annotators or through an established fact-checking process, introducing subjectivity and potential bias. If these data are not labeled precisely, an AI model may treat them as equally true, reducing its ability to discern what’s genuine and what’s fabricated. As more unclassified lies would enter the dataset, the overall reliability of AI-generated detections would decrease, making it increasingly difficult to maintain accuracy in identifying genuine versus misleading content. Additionally, If AI models are trained on data where deceptive content is not correctly identified, they might inadvertently propagate or even amplify disinformation, thus affecting the integrity of their detection capabilities.

These highly advanced AI systems are very cost- and technologically intensive, making them hardly affordable for developing regions or smaller platforms. This could lead to the playing field becoming uneven, with larger platforms like Facebook and Twitter, which have substantially larger resources, implementing more robust AI defenses against misleading content than smaller or less-well-funded platforms. Consequently, this disparity could lead to bad actors exploiting platforms with weaker AI defenses to more easily spread misleading content. Additionally, while the evolving nuances of language—including slang, idioms, and changing terminology—pose challenges, they also offer opportunities. Such linguistic variations might act as indicators for identifying common perpetrators of fake content, as particular patterns or recurring phrases may signal automated or malicious content generation. However, effectively leveraging these linguistic cues requires continuous investment in AI development and monitoring, further highlighting the resource limitations faced by smaller platforms. Overcoming these economic and resource constraints is essential to ensure that AI-based solutions can be uniformly implemented across all platforms for effectively handling misleading content.

AI social network monitoring systems struggle with the enormous scale of surveillance, which raises various privacy and ethical issues. To function appropriately, AI algorithms often require enormous amounts of user data, private messages, and personal information. Gupta et al. (2022) discuss the tension between fighting fake news and maintaining user privacy. An overly surveillance-based approach leads to a breach of trust between users and platforms, potentially encroaching on the privacy and free expression rights of individuals.

Moreover, AI-driven content moderation may unwittingly hinder proper discourse. There is a great risk of over-censorship when AI algorithms incorrectly flag and remove content that does not violate any guidelines. This could hamper open communication and restrict the diversity of viewpoints that are important in a healthy democratic society.

While AI helps identify potentially misleading content, it cannot replace human judgment. Ubillús et al. (2023) point out that current AI methods have not been able to discover deeply embedded misleading news and are not real-time applications. AI systems lack certain notions of context, sarcasm, humor, or cultural nuances. Human moderators can provide the needed discernment in evaluating content, taking into consideration delicacy that AI may overlook.

In this respect, perhaps a more efficient outcome could be derived from a hybrid of both AI and human expertise, as Gupta et al. (2022) suggest. AI can do an initial pass on large volumes of data and flag suspicious content for human review. This approach allows the strengths of both AI’s efficiency and human critical thinking to come into play.

Tactics of disinformation keep evolving, and malicious actors search for ways to get around detection mechanisms. Gupta et al. (2022) discuss how recent advancements in AI have likewise enabled the development of highly evolved fake content, such as deepfakes. The more accessible this AI technology becomes, the more impossible it gets to tell the real from the fabricated. If not updated, AI systems lag in identifying new forms of deceptive content. This is a backward process in which AI is always behind, fixing a problem that has already happened. Proactive steps like teaching media literacy among users and providing incentives to encourage critical thinking are part of the strategy to tackle disinformation.

As valuable as AI may be as a tool in the identification and reduction of misleading publications on social networks, it is no panacea. The limitations of AI—technical challenges, data constraints, privacy concerns, and inability to fully understand context—mean we cannot rely on technology alone to solve this multifaceted problem. What we need is a multitrack approach: an assemblage of AI combined with human oversight, regulatory policies, user education, and collaboration among countries. The works of Ubillús et al. (2023) and Gupta et al. (2022). contribute valuable insights into the fight against misleading content. AI’s possibilities sound promising in conjunction with human-oversight. Such integration allows for us to develop effective strategies that address the root causes of disinformation rather than mere symptoms.

Sources

Gupta, A., Kumar, N., Prabhat, P., Gupta, R., Tanwar, S., & Sharma, G. (2022). Combating Fake News: Stakeholder Interventions and Potential Solutions. IEEE Access, vol. 10, pp. 78268-78289, 2022 

Ubillús, J. A. T., Ladera-Castañeda, M., Pacherres, C. A. A., Pacherres, M. Á. A., & Saavedra, C. L. I. (2023). Artificial Intelligence to Reduce Misleading Publications on Social Networks. EAI Endorsed Transactions on Scalable Information Systems, 10(6). 

Posted in Portfolio Skibidy Sigma, Rebuttal Rewrite, Skibidy Sigma | 6 Comments

Rebuttal Argument – SkibidySigma

Posted on November 24, 2024 by SkibidySigma

The Limitations of AI in Combating Misleading Content

Ubillús et al. (2023) suggest that AI techniques, including neural networks and sentiment analysis, can be considered for the identification or mitigation of misleading ads on social networks. These technologies offer powerful tools for data analysis and pattern recognition, yet they are not flawless. Algorithms are only as good as the data they have been trained with. If that training data is biased or incomplete, the AI system could yield incorrect results, classifying legitimate content as misleading, or vice versa.

The fact that fake news is complex and varied in nature makes the detection of misleading content by AI quite hard, Gupta et al. (2022) add that many aspects of fake news involve nuanced language, cultural references, and context-specific information. Sophisticated disinformation campaigns may also involve AI-generated deepfakes or other forms of synthetic media that might evade detection by existing AI systems.

One of the most important limitations associated with using AI to fight misleading content is the availability of high-quality labeled datasets. As Gupta et al. (2022) note, comprehensive datasets, which are commonly acknowledged as a prerequisite for any AI model to learn and generalize well, are remarkably limited. With inadequate data representing an extensive array of misleading content, AI systems will struggle in detecting new or evolving forms of disinformation.

Moreover, AI models should be continuously updated and retrained in the rapidly changing landscape of social media content. This is a resource-heavy process and may not be possible for all platforms, especially those with limited budgets. The evolving nuances of language, including slang, idioms, and changing terminology, create even greater difficulty in accurately interpreting content through AI algorithms.

AI social network monitoring systems struggle with the enormous scale of surveillance, which raises various privacy and ethical issues. To function appropriately, AI algorithms often require enormous amounts of user data, private messages, and personal information. Gupta et al. (2022) discuss the tension between fighting fake news and maintaining user privacy. An overly surveillance-based approach leads to a breach of trust between users and platforms, potentially encroaching on the privacy and free expression rights of individuals.

Moreover, AI-driven content moderation may unwittingly hinder proper discourse. There is a great risk of over-censorship when AI algorithms incorrectly flag and remove content that does not violate any guidelines. This could hamper open communication and restrict the diversity of viewpoints that are important in a healthy democratic society.

While AI helps identify potentially misleading content, it cannot replace human judgment. Ubillús et al. (2023) point out that current AI methods have not been able to discover deeply embedded misleading news and are not real-time applications. AI systems lack any notion of context, sarcasm, humor, or cultural nuances. Human moderators can provide the needed discernment in evaluating content, taking into consideration delicacy that AI may overlook.

In this respect, perhaps a more efficient outcome could be derived from a hybrid of both AI and human expertise, as Gupta et al. (2022) suggest. AI can do an initial pass on large volumes of data and flag suspicious content for human review. This approach allows the strengths of both AI’s efficiency and human critical thinking to come into play.

Advanced AI systems on social networks are very cost-intensive and technically demanding, hence less affordable in developing regions or by smaller platforms. That could lead to an uneven playing field when bigger platforms are more robust in filtering out misleading content than others.

Bad actors can take advantage of this discrepancy to spread disinformation on platforms where AI defenses are weaker. This calls for a more holistic approach, not depending solely on AI, but involving regulatory frameworks, user education, and international cooperation.

Tactics of disinformation keep evolving, and malicious actors search for ways to get around detection mechanisms. Gupta et al. (2022) discuss how recent advancements in AI have likewise enabled the development of highly evolved fake content, such as deepfakes. The more accessible this AI technology becomes, the more impossible it gets to tell the real from the fabricated. If not updated, AI systems lag in identifying new forms of deceptive content. This is a backward process in which AI is always behind, fixing a problem that has already happened. Proactive steps like teaching media literacy among users and providing incentives to encourage critical thinking are part of the strategy to tackle disinformation.

As valuable as AI may be as a tool in the identification and reduction of misleading publications on social networks, it is no panacea. The limitations of AI—technical challenges, data constraints, privacy concerns, and inability to fully understand context—mean we cannot rely on technology alone to solve this multifaceted problem. What we need is a multitrack approach: an assemblage of AI combined with human oversight, regulatory policies, user education, and collaboration among countries. The works of Ubillús et al. (2023) and Gupta et al. (2022). contribute valuable insights into the fight against misleading content. AI’s possibilities sound promising in conjunction with human-oversight. Such integration allows for us to develop effective strategies that address the root causes of disinformation rather than mere symptoms.

Sources

Gupta, A., Kumar, N., Prabhat, P., Gupta, R., Tanwar, S., & Sharma, G. (2022). Combating Fake News: Stakeholder Interventions and Potential Solutions. IEEE Access, vol. 10, pp. 78268-78289, 2022 

Ubillús, J. A. T., Ladera-Castañeda, M., Pacherres, C. A. A., Pacherres, M. Á. A., & Saavedra, C. L. I. (2023). Artificial Intelligence to Reduce Misleading Publications on Social Networks. EAI Endorsed Transactions on Scalable Information Systems, 10(6). 

Posted in Portfolio Skibidy Sigma, Rebuttal Draft, Skibidy Sigma | Leave a comment

Rebuttal Rewrite – LoverofCatsandMatcha

Posted on November 24, 2024 by loverofcatsandmatcha

The Impacts of Surroundings on Our Mental Wellbeing

What shapes us into the people we become? Childhood and early adolescence are the most formative periods of our lives– and they are responsible for forming the people that we become. They primarily boil down to two things: the people that raise us, the people we choose to surround ourselves with. Our parents form our earliest beliefs, and as we enter adolescence, our peers will shape who we grow up to be. School shooters, for example, often have their surroundings questioned in the aftermath of their crimes. Their family lives and the people they were surrounded by are called into question, and results often indicate that their surroundings contributed in at least one way. However, the argument is made that regardless of how they grew up has no impact, and they were always going to turn out the way that they did. In contrast, the suggestion is made that mental illnesses are the root, not their surroundings.  

In research conducted by the Lee Salk Center, they indicate that there are three main types of school shooters: traumatized, psychotic, and psychopathic. Out of the three categories, only one of them indicated any impact from their surrounding environment; traumatized. The other two are based solely on the shooter themself, and the psychological abnormalities that they presented. For example, the psychotic shooters “exhibited symptoms of either schizophrenia or schizotypal personality disorder, including paranoid delusions, delusions of grandeur, and auditory hallucinations,” and the psychopathic shooters “demonstrated narcissism, a lack of empathy, a lack of conscience, and sadistic behavior.” In the literature presented by the Lee Salk Center, the research identified only three out of the ten shooters that were studied as having come from troubled home environments; the majority were either psychotic or psychopathic. Therefore, based on this research, home life has little impact on how an individual is shaped.  

While there is substance to the provided categories, I believe they fail to consider social inadequacy and loneliness as factors for school shooters to act on violent crimes. Two out of the three categories revolve around neurodivergence, and the idea that their mental illnesses caused them to act out. The idea that the majority of school shooters were dealing with mental illnesses is not outlandish to consider; most mentally stable individuals would not commit such a heinous crime against their peers. However, most mentally ill people do not commit school shootings, either; but the ones that do, often lacked friends and peers, and felt lonely. 

For example, of the ten school shooters that were observed for the study, one of them was seventeen year old Dylan Klebold. Of the three categories, he was identified as being psychotic, and having exhibited odd behaviors. In published pages of Klebold’s personal journal from prior to his shooting, “He wrote about his social difficulties: ‘nobody accepting me even though I want to be accepted, me doing badly and being intimidated in any and all sports, me looking weird and acting shy—BIG problem’.” The research presented does not indicate potential loneliness or lack of social integration to be a cause for the school shooting, but rather, himself. Despite him clearly displaying signs of lacking traditional socialization, and yearning for acceptance from his peers, his mental illness is cited as the primary reason for his actions. 

In contrast, in a Case Study of Ethan Crumbley’s shooting published by the Journal of Education, Health, and Social Sciences, the primary factors that caused him to commit his shooting are his home life and socialization. The research revealed that Crumbley had a tragic home life, which had likely shaped his personality. In the weeks immediately preceding the shooting, “Ethan’s best friend moved away and his family dog died, which caused him to become depressed.” It is no mere coincidence that the simultaneous occurrence of these events had no impact on Ethan’s decision and actions. He lost his closest friend, which lessened his social interactions, and led to depression. This factor, coupled with his rough home life, influenced his mood, feelings, and, inevitably, actions. Typically, one’s socialization with their peers will also impact how one grows up– but inadequate socialization can cause mental disturbances on a person’s psyche. In losing his best friend, Crumbley had lost his primary social outlet. Though he had already shown signs of mental instability and potential violence, those actions were only acted on following the loss of his peer. Evidently, his loneliness was the catalyst for his violent actions. 

It is unreasonable to make a one to one comparison of school shooters, as no two people are exactly alike, and will have their own unique reasons for committing the crimes that they did. However, it is also unreasonable to cite mental illnesses as the major reason. There is an abundant social ostracization that follows mental illnesses and neurodivergence. Michael Cerneal, for example, “was socially awkward and struggled to find a peer group. He engaged in odd behavior, perhaps in an effort to be funny or to impress his peers, or perhaps because of an early onset of schizophrenia.” The odd behaviors he exhibited are potentially attributed to his schizophrenia, and are also a reason that he struggled to find a peer group. As teenagers, we often, even intentionally, exclude people that do not fit with the preconceived idea of normal. Neurodivergent teens will often have a harder time finding a social group, because of judgment from teenage peers. As a result, they are lonelier than their neurotypical counterparts. 

References

Langman, P. (2008). Rampage school shooters: A typology. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 14(1), 79–86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2008.10.003

Contributors to Antisocial Behavior in Adolescence from the Perspective of Developmental Psychology: A Case Study on a School Mass Shooting Leng & Song

https://drpress.org/ojs/index.php/EHSS/article/view/6442

Posted in GRADED, LoverOfCatsAndMatcha, Portfolio LoverOfCatsAndMatcha, Rebuttal Rewrite | 5 Comments

Rebuttal Draft – LoverofCatsandMatcha

Posted on November 24, 2024 by loverofcatsandmatcha

Surroundings Have no Impact– it’s All in Your Head

What shapes us into the people we become? Childhood and early adolescence are the most formative periods of our lives– and they are responsible for forming the people that we become. They primarily boil down to two things: the people that raise us, the people we choose to surround ourselves with. Our parents form our earliest beliefs, and as we enter adolescence, our peers will shape who we grow up to be. School shooters, for example, often have their surroundings questioned in the aftermath of their crimes. Their family lives and the people they were surrounded by are called into question, and results often indicate that their surroundings contributed in at least one way. However, the argument is made that regardless of how they grew up has no impact, and they were always going to turn out the way that they did. In contrast, the suggestion is made that mental illnesses are the root, not their surroundings.  

In research conducted by the Lee Salk Center, they indicate that there are three main types of school shooters: traumatized, psychotic, and psychopathic. Out of the three categories, only one of them indicated any impact from their surrounding environment; traumatized. The other two are based solely on the shooter themself, and the psychological abnormalities that they presented. For example, the psychotic shooters “exhibited symptoms of either schizophrenia or schizotypal personality disorder, including paranoid delusions, delusions of grandeur, and auditory hallucinations,” and the psychopathic shooters “demonstrated narcissism, a lack of empathy, a lack of conscience, and sadistic behavior.” In the literature presented by the Lee Salk Center, the research identified only three out of the ten shooters that were studied as having come from troubled home environments; the majority were either psychotic or psychopathic. Therefore, based on this research, home life has little impact on how an individual is shaped.  

While there is substance to the provided categories, I believe they fail to consider social inadequacy and loneliness as factors for school shooters to act on violent crimes. Two out of the three categories revolve around neurodivergence, and the idea that their mental illnesses caused them to act out. The idea that the majority of school shooters were dealing with mental illnesses is not outlandish to consider; most mentally stable individuals would not commit such a heinous crime against their peers. However, most mentally ill people do not commit school shootings, either; but the ones that do, often lacked friends and peers, and felt lonely. 

For example, of the ten school shooters that were observed for the study, one of them was seventeen year old Dylan Klebold. Of the three categories, he was identified as being psychotic, and having exhibited odd behaviors. In published pages of Klebold’s personal journal from prior to his shooting, “He wrote about his social difficulties: ‘nobody accepting me even though I want to be accepted, me doing badly and being intimidated in any and all sports, me looking weird and acting shy—BIG problem’.” The research presented does not indicate potential loneliness or lack of social integration to be a cause for the school shooting, but rather, himself. Despite him clearly displaying signs of lacking traditional socialization, and yearning for acceptance from his peers, his mental illness is cited as the primary reason for his actions. 

In contrast, in a Case Study of Ethan Crumbley’s shooting published by the Journal of Education, Health, and Social Sciences, the primary factors that caused him to commit his shooting are his home life and socialization. The research revealed that Crumbley had a tragic home life, which had likely shaped his personality. In the weeks immediately preceding the shooting, “Ethan’s best friend moved away and his family dog died, which caused him to become depressed.” It is no mere coincidence that the simultaneous occurrence of these events had no impact on Ethan’s decision and actions. He lost his closest friend, which lessened his social interactions, and led to depression. This factor, coupled with his rough home life, influenced his mood, feelings, and, inevitably, actions. Typically, one’s socialization with their peers will also impact how one grows up– but inadequate socialization can cause mental disturbances on a person’s psyche. In losing his best friend, Crumbley had lost his primary social outlet. Though he had already shown signs of mental instability and potential violence, those actions were only acted on following the loss of his peer. Evidently, his loneliness was the catalyst for his violent actions. 

It is unreasonable to make a one to one comparison of school shooters, as no two people are exactly alike, and will have their own unique reasons for committing the crimes that they did. However, it is also unreasonable to cite mental illnesses as the major reason. There is an abundant social ostracization that follows mental illnesses and neurodivergence. Michael Cerneal, for example, “was socially awkward and struggled to find a peer group. He engaged in odd behavior, perhaps in an effort to be funny or to impress his peers, or perhaps because of an early onset of schizophrenia.” The odd behaviors he exhibited are potentially attributed to his schizophrenia, and are also a reason that he struggled to find a peer group. As teenagers, we often, even intentionally, exclude people that do not fit with the preconceived idea of normal. Neurodivergent teens will often have a harder time finding a social group, because of judgment from teenage peers. As a result, they are lonelier than their neurotypical counterparts. 

References

Langman, P. (2008). Rampage school shooters: A typology. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 14(1), 79–86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2008.10.003

Contributors to Antisocial Behavior in Adolescence from the Perspective of Developmental Psychology: A Case Study on a School Mass Shooting Leng & Song

https://drpress.org/ojs/index.php/EHSS/article/view/6442
Posted in LoverOfCatsAndMatcha, Portfolio LoverOfCatsAndMatcha, Rebuttal Draft | Leave a comment

Rebuttal Rewrite – imaginary.persona

Posted on November 24, 2024 by imaginary.persona

What About Genetics?

While it’s known that genetics can play a role in the development of anxiety in dogs, it is important to recognize that anxiety is complex and genetics is just one piece of the puzzle. Things such as environmental/social factors and traumatic experiences play a big role in anxiety separation development for dogs. When COVID dogs (dogs that were gotten during the COVID pandemic lockdown) were adopted during the pandemic lockdown they became used to having their owner around all the time as the owner most likely did their work or school or both from home, remotely. The dogs being so used to their owners being home got attached to the point of any separation between the two would cause distress in the dog. Stefanie Schwartz wrote in an article titled Separation anxiety syndrome in dogs and cats, “In dogs, the degree of distress is likely dependent, in part, on the degree of attachment to an absent figure.”

Separation anxiety symptoms that are common do not include genetics, “Common risk factors associated with SAS in dogs include a history of traumatic separation, inexperience with being left alone, excessive greetings and pro- longed departures by owners, changes in the owner’s routine (dogs susceptible to SAS may develop clinical signs in response to even slight changes in routine), relocation to a new home, addition of a new pet sitter, and a death in the family (conspecific or other family member).” (Schwartz). While genetics can play a part in anxiety, “Dogs may also have a genetic predisposition to develop anxiety,” it is not the most common reason behind separation anxiety in dogs. According to the authors of a ScienceDirect article, “[…] previous studies reported that the development of anxiety disorders could be associated with many factors including breed, sex, age, the dog’s age when owners obtained it, and the source from which the owner obtained the dog.”

One argument in the idea that separation anxiety in dogs is genetic, is that certain breeds are more prone to anxiety. While it’s true that mixed breed dogs may have higher chances of anxiety, that does not mean that every mixed breed will have anxiety. Anxiety, as a disorder, is seen as an interaction between environmental and developmental factors. According to the Genetic and environmental factors interact to influence anxiety journal, “Both genetic and environmental factors influence normal anxiety traits as well as anxiety disorders.” It is important to know that while genetics can play a role in behaviors of dogs, these traits are not set.

One of the biggest factors in the development of anxiety for dogs is their environment. Dogs who are raised in environments where they experience neglect or trauma are more likely to develop an anxiety disorder. According to Peter L. Berstein, “[…] neglect if it was forgotten or if […] dogs have a significantly higher risk for separation anxiety.” Early experiences with situations, people, and other animals are important to how dogs handle stress. Puppies who do not receive correct socialization during the age window of five to fourteen weeks, may develop fears that later turn into anxiety. According to the authors of the article, Critical Period in the Social Development of Dogs,  dogs’ critical period of development is between five to fourteen weeks. “The socialization period is also the period when puppies learn how to handle stressful situations, such as meeting new dogs, going to novel environments and thunderstorms.” (Kimberly Brown).

It’s also important to know the role of training and socialization in preventing anxiety in dogs. Well-trained or well-socialized dogs are usually more confident, which can reduce their  anxiety. A lack of training or socialization can contribute to behavior problems, including separation anxiety. Inadequate training can occur when a dog is not taught how to be independent thus causing them to develop separation anxiety. According to HPM,  “In some cases, dogs may follow their owners due to separation anxiety. This can manifest as distress when separated from their owners, leading to constant following as a means to alleviate their anxiety.” Many dogs that are initially fine with being alone may develop anxiety when their owners return from a long absence, like if an owner who was at home for a long period of time left to go back to work. This development is not due to genetic factors, but instead due to a lack of training and desensitization.  According to the authors of a ScienceDirect article titled The efficacy of systematic desensitization for treating the separation-related problem behaviour of domestic dogs, “Systematic desensitization is a technique widely used in human behaviour modification for the treatment of phobias or fear/anxiety responses to a particular stimulus (Cooper et al., 1987, Wolpe, 1962). It involves the gradual and progressive introduction of the stimulus eliciting the phobia (in this case, the absence of the dog’s owner).” 

Additionally, the way a dog’s owner interacts with them can also have an impact on its emotional state. Dogs who are constantly coddled may develop anxiety due to a lack of exposure to the outside world. According to the K9 coach, “Giving too much attention to an animal creates a need in the animal for constant attention and they are less likely to become independent thinking dogs, explore on their own, or make judgments”

In conclusion, while certain breeds may have temperaments that make them more prone to nervousness or reactivity, the claim that anxiety in dogs is primarily due to genetic factors is not true. Anxiety in dogs is likely to be from environmental stressors, poor socialization, and past traumatic experiences than from genetics. By focusing on the environmental, social, and experiential causes of anxiety, rather than genetic determinism, we can ensure that dogs receive the care and support they need to thrive.

References

Arhant, C., King, J. N., Lund, J. D., McCrave, E. A., Palestrini, C., Takeuchi, Y., Turner, D. C., Azrin, N. H., Borchelt, P. L., Bradshaw, J. W. S., Cooper, J. O., Cottman, N., Davison, G. C., & Diesel, G. (2010, December 18). The efficacy of systematic desensitization for treating the separation-related problem behaviour of domestic dogs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0168159110002923?casa_token=6Ym0GrfeV3cAAAAA%3A5lbpEuIheE6LPGof2sOPyhaP-Y2pehO9X8TcS4L-JGQuoQ9YndZfs0UsWDflujDg22HmKhIUnXg 

Berstein, P. L. (2005). Mental health and well-being in animals. Google Books. https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=_SpBX5jqxyEC&oi=fnd&pg=PA167&dq=anxiety%2Bin%2Bdogs%2Bdue%2Bto%2Bneglect&ots=lmIUbGDgQA&sig=IzfWQLNj-RSI6obFkka_OTS5zxU#v=onepage&q=anxiety%20in%20dogs%20due%20to%20neglect&f=false 

Brigman, D. (2024, January 29). Don’t coddle the dog. The K9 Coach Carolinas. https://www.k9coach.dog/blog/coddling 

Dreschel, N. A., Konok, V., McGreevy, P. D., Siniscalchi, M., Takeuchi, Y., Temesi, A., & Vas, J. (2017, July 3). Dogs predisposed to anxiety disorders and related factors in Japan. Applied Animal Behaviour Science. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0168159117301958?casa_token=tjE-0u_CPc4AAAAA%3AQas6zx8YtClXYM5vxVAZwee42KXK3tf7_nxKhvC5RrVqcmoDcHgiIG2SfapAIeEkyjIo-_yFL_c 

Gross, C., & Hen, R. (2019, November 20). Genetic and environmental factors interact to influence anxiety – neurotoxicity research. SpringerLink. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF03033286 

M, H. P. (n.d.). Happy Pup Manor. Google. https://www.google.com/url?q=https%3A%2F%2Fhappypupmanor.com%2Fwhy-does-my-dog-follow-me-everywhere%2F%23%3A~%3Atext%3DSeparation%2520Anxiety%3A%2520A%2520Deeper%2520Issue.%2520In%2520some%2Cas%2520a%2520means%2520to%2520alleviate%2520their%2520anxiety&sa=D&source=docs&ust=1732399952692587&usg=AOvVaw1GAvP7S2II7C0nki3chvwF 

Meneses, T., Robinson, J., Rose, J., Vernick, J., & Overall, K. L. (2021, November 15). Review of epidemiological, pathological, genetic, and epigenetic factors that may contribute to the development of separation anxiety in dogs. AVMA. https://avmajournals.avma.org/view/journals/javma/259/10/javma.20.08.0462.xml 

Petroff, Dr. M. (2021, November 18). Anxious dog breeds: Dogs that are more prone to anxiety. Dutch. https://www.dutch.com/blogs/dogs/anxious-dog-breeds#:~:text=Key%20takeaway,heightened%20chances%20of%20anxious%20responses

Posted in imaginary.persona, Portfolio imaginary.persona, Rebuttal Rewrite | 3 Comments