Rebuttal to Adralyn

In her debate post, Adralyn says that teens should not be allowed to vote. She made many good points in her post. For example, she said that teens aren't responsible. She also said that they don't know politics as well as adults, and usually the only politics teens know are things their parents tell them. She also said that teens might just vote to look cool. I agree with these points but I think they could have been improved.
For example, she said that

In my opinion, I would say no teens should not have the right to vote..Because we are young and not mature enough to take upon a big responsibility.
Teen should not be able to vote because they might not be interested in politics but since they have to vote they will just chose anybody.
Teen should not be allowed to vote because they might do to just look cool. when you are given the right o vote that means you are responsible enough. But when you are doing it just to be cool then that not responsible.

She states her points here, and though they are good ones, they do not provide much detail. They just say her point. Throughout the post, their is not much to back up her points, just people saying that they felt that way as a teen.  I agree with her point that most teens do not know much about politics, but if she maybe included an article about how teens are not responsible or how they are more ignorant than adults, her point would have been stronger. It is true we do not want ignorant, stupid, or kids who think they know everything voting for the leader of our country.
The main thing that she needs to improve on is detail. If she added more to backup her point, or she gave places to read more, her argument would have been better. I think it was a good argument though and I agree with it. she makes strong points throughout that help back up her position. I think that if I originally thought teens should be able to vote, I would be persuaded otherwise.

Celie's relationship with God

After reading about 40 pages of "The Color Purple", Celie's letters to God explain her traits and her relationship with God. First of all, I think that Celie is very faithful. She confides in God in every letter and hopes that he will get her through her bad times. On page 3, she says, "I'm hoping he fine someone to marry. I see him looking at my little sister. She scared. But I say I'll take care of you. With God help." Here, she is saying that she wants her father to marry someone so he can stop abusing her. She also wants to protect her little sister from their abusive father. She puts her faith in God and thinks that he will help her every step of the way.  She wants to be protected from her abusive husband and therefore puts her faith in God that eventually, if she deals with it, she will end up in heaven and have a good after life.
I think that Celie  is also a very strong willed person. She knows what she stands for and she knows what is right and what is wrong. I think that Celie was unfairly treated and could have gone farther in life. Nettie knows that Celie is smart and should have been able to go to school. If she had not been married off at such a young age and did not have the responsibilities she did as a child, she could have gone far in life. I think that because of all the tragedies in her life is why she has so much faith in God. God is a way for her to have hope and for her to vent out everything she is angry about. God is also a way for her to feel like someone is watching over her, helping her every step of the way.
On page 7, she says, "Dear God, I ast him to take me instead of Nettie." She cares so much about her little sister that she would let her father give her off to an abusive man. This is admirable how much she cares for her sister. She is also very faithful which helps her a lot. She gets through everyday knowing that God will always be with her.

Wikileaks argument

I have chosen to debate that wikileaks is bad for our country. Every now and then, new secret documents are released to the public that could cause people to lose trust in their government. As a country, we have to stay united and all trust our government. The last time we distrusted the government and it led to war was the American revolution. We would not want that to happen again over some released documents. Also, these documents create tension between countries. If documents are released that say that bad things are happening in other countries, they would want to take action against the people who are commiting these crimes or doing bad things. Also, if the government wants to keep some things that they know the public will not like, they should have the right to keep it a secret. If they think that it could cause revolt in the United States, it is probably better kept a secret. The human public does not need to know what is happening in the war. That is for the people who work for the military and the Secretary of Defense to know.
I think that wikileaks should be taken off the internet quickly. Julian Assange should be put in prison for the documents he has released and the trouble he has caused. Some people may say that this is freedom of speech, but this is going to far. This is taking advantage of our unalienable rights and using it against the country. Here, the Iowa state daily explains why wikileaks is bad. http://www.iowastatedaily.com/opinion/article_af110864-ffec-11df-aca3-001cc4c03286.html

However, in the conduct of diplomacy and war, confidentiality is often vitally important because diplomacy is a lot like making chorizo sausages — it is not something you really want to see because it is messy and smelly. If WikiLeaks causes death or destroys the lives of people who are engaged in espionage, war or diplomacy and compromises security and aids rogue governments or terrorists, then that would clearly be bad.

 Here, they say that wikileaks is bad during a war, which we clearly are in. It can compromise security and puts people's lives in danger, all over the world. Even in the most secure countries. I believe that wikileaks is bad for the country and foreign relations.
To read more: http://chronicle.com/article/Why-WikiLeaks-Is-Bad-for/125628

Response to billy

I chose to respond to Billy's blog on global warming. In his post, Billy says that he believes that global warming was man made.  

So is global warming caused by humans or is it natural? I think that global warming is caused by humans. In the past there have been cold and warm weather periods and some scientists believe that it’s natural, but most scientists say that humans are the main cause. In recent graphs and scales CO2 levels seem to be rising up off the charts and the temperature seems to follow along meaning the more Co2 in the air the higher the temperature. We Americans live in a place were industries and companies are big in money and in pollution. 

I agree with Billy that global warming is caused by humans. I saw the movie "An Inconvenient Truth" last year and Billy is right about the Co2 levels. Also, temperatures in places that have humans are rising faster than in places such as Argentina. Yes, there are weather patterns but those usually can be proven by most scientists, not just 20%. I also think America should do more to help the environment since we contribute 25% of the world's pollution. We need to raise our standards and lead the way to a better environment. The problem is, it will be hard to transfer to alternative energy so quickly because we are so reliant on fossil fuels and natural gas. I think that while we should drive eco friendly cars that we should also reduce our carbon footprint at home. For example, instead of throwing things away that can be recycled, recycle them. People do not have to go all out to be super eco-friendly but that is their choice if they do. I also think that even though humans are a big cause of global warming, the Earth may be be in a slight warming period. (I have no evidence to back that up I am just saying that could be true.) In conclusion, I think everyone should at least do small things to reduce their carbon footprint and reduce the amount of pollution being put in to the air that we breathe.

Response to sam 1/14/10

I chose to respond to Sam's post on gay marriage and if a Church has the right to refuse service to people.
In his post he wrote that a church has the right to refuse to give a service to anyone. I agree with his point because I do not think that a church has to do something just because they were pressured into doing it. However, what they chose to do may make them less popular. I am all for gay marriage and I believe that they should have the same rights anyone else has in the country.

 I think that it should be possible for a gay couple to become legally married, but if a religion is against homosexuality, they should be allowed to deny the couple a religious ceremony under their church.  The couple is allowed to have a religious wedding ceremony; the church they use has to allow it though.  I don’t see how this would be a problem though because I have a strong feeling that a homosexual couple wouldn’t want to be married by an anti gay church.  Also even if they can’t be married by that church, they can choose another one.  The reason that I think people don’t think that same sex marriage should be allowed is that it started out as a religious based process.  They may feel that the government is interfering in there religion by allowing.

Here, he makes some good points on why churches should be allowed to deny service to anyone. The one I agree with them most is where he says that he does not think that denial of a ceremony would be such a bad thing because a gay couple would not probably want to be married be an anti-gay church anyway. The problem with this is is that some churches take it too far. For example, the Westboro Baptist Church protests funerals of straight and gay people saying that they deserve it. I find this appalling and horrible. For someone to go out of their way to protest something that barely affects them at all is just stupid and wrong. In conclusion, I agree with Sam's point that a church should be able to deny a ceremony but they should not be able to actively take action against homosexuals.

Elite Colleges

In my opinion, the most persuasive person in this debate was Richard D. Kahlenberg. He used numbers and studies to back up his evidence and he gave reasonable arguments. In his article, Kahlenberg said that the wages someone makes can be influenced from 5 to 20 percent just by attending a prestigious university. He also said the wage gap between public school graduates and private school graduates can grow over time.

Entry level earnings are 45 percent higher for graduates of the most selective institutions compared with the least selective, and the wage gap may grow over time. One study suggests almost all of the higher earnings can be attributed to the talent of incoming students (as opposed to the value added by the college) but most studies find the wage boost provided by selective institutions themselves to be between 5 percent and 20 percent. http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2010/11/29/does-it-matter-where-you-go-to-college/yes-college-choice-makes-a-difference

In his article, he uses studies and numbers to back up his viewpoints. He also writes professionally and does not try to say "you're wrong" to people who disagree with him. I also think this is the most persuasive because he provides reasonable arguments. For example, he said at a selective institution, a student is surrounded by talented and high achieving peers. I like the point he makes here because he is saying that if you go to a selective institution, you will be immersed in talent.
The article I found to be the least persuasive in my opinion was "Skip the Admissions Game" by Kevin Carey. I did not find this persuasive because he wrote unprofessionally and used sarcasm in his article.

They're nice places to hang out for four years and you'll probably learn a few things. Even if you don't, you'll still get a piece of paper signifying that you were smart enough to get in and rich enough to pay for it. People care about stuff like that. http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2010/11/29/does-it-matter-where-you-go-to-college/skip-the-admissions-game

In this excerpt, I found that he is just saying the rich can go to elite schools and they are a breeze to get through. First of all, colleges provide financial aid for those who qualify. Secondly, college is not a breeze for all people and you can not get through without learning something.